Opinion Commentary & Media VIII

[Val Keating]

When everyone was ragging on us for picking up Darling, Dermi was positive about it, especially when (can’t remember exactly what game) Trembath was playing, he pointed out how Darling was sacrificing his game to make space for Trembath.

 

[Ichiro #51]

I had quite a few interactions with dermie back in the mid/late nineties. He was always a very cheerful and friendly bloke.

He also was one of those dudes who looked/seemed a lot taller than they actually are.

 

[muttley45]

Surely Gerard Healy has run out of time on the FoxFooty gravy train

 

[shintemaster]

Would we all agree this is more of a quality of content thing though? Not only the crappy streaming quality with the constant lagging, but currently as a club we are treated like sputum at the bottom of a men's urinal (I've seen a post match interview cut off mid sentence cos they needed to move onto the next much more important matchup of Freo vs GoldCoast) so would you be happy/happier to pay 35 quid if foxfooty did the kind of things you were describing(clubs having their own shows e.t.c)?

I mean it's 8 dollars and 75 cents a week, thats one less big mac a week.

I'm just a captive audience as if you don't pay you simply won't see North Melbourne for any away game. I think it is obscenely overpriced for me - yes, it's $8.75 a week, but I'm only seeing a game on average every 3rd week.

 

[gerry101101]

If the AFL had any brains at all they would have plans and partners in place and ready to go to deliver their own platform if an outside company won't pay up. They could easily sell their own streaming packages IMO and make decent money as unlike say a Kayo or whoever they don't need to pay for a millions sports rights. I mean I literally pay $35 a month (unhappily I might add) to just watch North Melbourne play football half the year. They could charge much, much less than that.

BTW have thought about this off and on for years. There is so much opportunity in this as well. Clubs could have their own shows (behind the scenes, drafting, training, development) all of which could create opportunities for their players and staff to make money from outside the traditional AFL streams, build branding, sponsorship dollars etc.

Yes, but you forgot about the fact that they need to keep the government happy given the government chips in bazillions for things like stadiums. And who are the governments best friends? The media tycoons. Thus the circle of trickle up economics is maintained.

 

[Ry009]

Surely Gerard Healy has run out of time on the FoxFooty gravy train

Not at the present time, sadly.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Yes, but you forgot about the fact that they need to keep the government happy given the government chips in bazillions for things like stadiums. And who are the governments best friends? The media tycoons. Thus the circle of trickle up economics is maintained.

It's amazing how there is so much evidence around the world of trickle up economics, despite it always being sold as trickle down (which basically never happens).

Well, it's not really amazing.

 

[gokangas]

I wonder when the suppression order will be lifted.

Man from high-profile Victorian family found guilty of rape after 10-day trial​

A man from a high-profile Victorian family — who still cannot be named — faces years behind bars after being found guilty of rape following a 10-day trial.

December 5, 2025 - 4:30PM


A man from a high-profile Victorian family has wiped tears from his eyes and his mother has sobbed after a jury declared him guilty of rape.
The man, who still cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted by a County Court jury on Friday of two counts of rape following a 10-day trial.
At the start of the week, the well-groomed man stepped from the dock to the witness boxin a last-ditch bid to convince the jury that he was not the man who r*ped the complainant inside a Melbourne home in January last year.
But by the week’s end, the 12 jurors unanimously agreed that he did rape the complainant, rejecting the story he had spun not only them and her, but his own loved ones.
The jury delivered its verdict after two days of deliberations.
Wearing a suit and tie, the man started to wipe away tears after the verdict was handed down.
He covered his face with his quivering hands and sunk into his seat.
His mother gasped and broke down, turning around to look at her son in the dock with tears in her eyes.
During a short break, the man was comforted by his loved ones as he continued to sob.

His girlfriend, who began to feel light-headed, lay down across several chairs as she was tended to by court staff.
Now a convicted rapist, the man faces years behind bars.
The man was remanded in custody by Judge Gregory Lyon, despite his defence barrister David Hallowes SC arguing that his bail should be extended.
Before he was led down to the cells, Judge Lyon asked for the courtroom to be cleared so the man could “say goodbye” to his loved ones.

The man cannot be named for legal reasons.
At the start of the trial, Crown prosecutor Jeremy McWilliams declared that the man committed the rapes “not through threats, not through force … but rather through deception” by pretending to be his mate to trick the complainant.
Then, to cover up his crime, Mr McWilliams said the man deployed “even more deception” by doctoring an Uber receipt, telling lies and recruiting others to adopt his lies in a desperate attempt to “shift the blame”.
The jury, who had to navigate the complex “he said, she said” case, heard the complainant attended the man’s home late on a summer night after she was invited over by his girlfriend.
A boozy gathering had been hosted at the home that day, but only the man, his girlfriend and his mate, Mr B*, remained when the complainant arrived at 12.23am.
Mr McWilliams said the complainant, who was in a “casual sexual relationship” with Mr B, had consensual sex with him in an upstairs bedroom.
At 1.58am, Mr B left in the Uber, arriving at his home at 2.09am.
After his departure, the man crept into the bedroom and lied to the complainant, telling her the Uber had been cancelled and Mr B would be back upstairs soon.
Mr McWilliams said the man left the room and then re-entered again but, because it was dark, she assumed it was Mr B.
The jury found the man then slid into the bed behind the woman and digitally penetrated her, prompting her to say “wait, stop” before wriggling away.
Mr McWilliams said she became “very concerned” that it was the man in bed with her, prompting her to ask if he was Mr B.
“Yeah, it’s me, why wouldn’t it be?” he fiendishly asked.
Not convinced, she asked him to turn on his phone torch.
“He then put his hands on the complainant, took hold of her and put his fingers inside her vagina again,” Mr McWilliams said.
The jury heard she repeatedly asked him to stop as he pinned her down.
“Don’t worry, it’s (Mr B), it’s fine,” he told her.
Mr McWilliams said she knew it was him because he had a different haircut to Mr B, which she both felt and later saw as he ran from the bedroom to the light-filled hallway.
But he re-entered again soon after, feigning compassion.
“You OK, what’s happened?” he asked.
She replied: “You were just in here. I know it was you. You’re the only guy in the house.”
At 2.15am, she messaged Mr B, who confirmed he had arrived home.

The man will return to court for a pre-sentencing hearing before Judge Lyon sentences him at a later date. Picture: Glenn Campbell
The next day, the man used his laptop to alter the Uber receipt, changing the departure time from 1.58am to 2.37am and the arrival time from 2.09am to 2.57am to, effectively, place Mr B at the scene of the crime.
He also continued to peddle the lie that there had been a cancelled Uber.
He texted Mr B: “Just say you came into her room when your Uber cancelled, I don’t know what’s going on, but I just want to make sure (her) lies don’t f--k us up.”
In his opening address, Mr Hallowes said one of the “key issues” of the trial would be whether or not Mr B returned to the bedroom before catching the Uber.
But Mr B testified that after having consensual sex with the complainant, he left the bedroom to move his car before catching the Uber.
He told the jury he only recalled leaving the bedroom once and did not recall returning.
But the man and his girlfriend testified that they remembered Mr B entering their room to ask for a condom at some point that night, putting the two stories at odds with each other.
Mr Hallowes suggested that Mr B, despite his denials, did return to the room and digitally penetrate the complainant, but she was “mistaken” as to his identity.
He added that it was “curious” that Mr B left the home considering the complainant had been invited over to spend time with him.
“Is it because something went wrong?” he suggested.
But Mr McWilliams said the jurors should accept the complainant’s account, given it had been “consistent, cogent and compelling” from the start, urging them to reject the man’s denials, along with his girlfriend’s “tailored evidence”.
And, ultimately, they did, siding with the complainant and Mr B.
Judge Lyon thanked the jurors – nine men and three women – for their service.
But it can now be revealed that one of the jurors wanted to throw in the towel on day three.
Last week, Judge Lyon told the court the juror, described as having an “odd demeanour”, told court staff his car had been broken into at the train station while he was at jury service.
“He said that it occurred because he was here for jury service and he said he did not want to continue attending,” Judge Lyon said.
He recounted how the juror asked court staff: “Who will pay for my window?”
However, the court heard the juror had a change of heart and decided to stick it out.
The man will return to court for a pre-sentencing hearing next Friday before Judge Lyon sentences him at a later date.
*Not his real name

 

[Devington]

Hard not to believe the perp is guilty when he was literally faking evidence of his innocence.

 

[DunderHead]

Is this football family related or football player related? I haven’t heard about this until your post.

 

[Rod Stroker]

I wonder when the suppression order will be lifted.

Man from high-profile Victorian family found guilty of rape after 10-day trial​

A man from a high-profile Victorian family — who still cannot be named — faces years behind bars after being found guilty of rape following a 10-day trial.

December 5, 2025 - 4:30PM


A man from a high-profile Victorian family has wiped tears from his eyes and his mother has sobbed after a jury declared him guilty of rape.
The man, who still cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted by a County Court jury on Friday of two counts of rape following a 10-day trial.
At the start of the week, the well-groomed man stepped from the dock to the witness boxin a last-ditch bid to convince the jury that he was not the man who r*ped the complainant inside a Melbourne home in January last year.
But by the week’s end, the 12 jurors unanimously agreed that he did rape the complainant, rejecting the story he had spun not only them and her, but his own loved ones.
The jury delivered its verdict after two days of deliberations.
Wearing a suit and tie, the man started to wipe away tears after the verdict was handed down.
He covered his face with his quivering hands and sunk into his seat.
His mother gasped and broke down, turning around to look at her son in the dock with tears in her eyes.
During a short break, the man was comforted by his loved ones as he continued to sob.

His girlfriend, who began to feel light-headed, lay down across several chairs as she was tended to by court staff.
Now a convicted rapist, the man faces years behind bars.
The man was remanded in custody by Judge Gregory Lyon, despite his defence barrister David Hallowes SC arguing that his bail should be extended.
Before he was led down to the cells, Judge Lyon asked for the courtroom to be cleared so the man could “say goodbye” to his loved ones.

The man cannot be named for legal reasons.
At the start of the trial, Crown prosecutor Jeremy McWilliams declared that the man committed the rapes “not through threats, not through force … but rather through deception” by pretending to be his mate to trick the complainant.
Then, to cover up his crime, Mr McWilliams said the man deployed “even more deception” by doctoring an Uber receipt, telling lies and recruiting others to adopt his lies in a desperate attempt to “shift the blame”.
The jury, who had to navigate the complex “he said, she said” case, heard the complainant attended the man’s home late on a summer night after she was invited over by his girlfriend.
A boozy gathering had been hosted at the home that day, but only the man, his girlfriend and his mate, Mr B*, remained when the complainant arrived at 12.23am.
Mr McWilliams said the complainant, who was in a “casual sexual relationship” with Mr B, had consensual sex with him in an upstairs bedroom.
At 1.58am, Mr B left in the Uber, arriving at his home at 2.09am.
After his departure, the man crept into the bedroom and lied to the complainant, telling her the Uber had been cancelled and Mr B would be back upstairs soon.
Mr McWilliams said the man left the room and then re-entered again but, because it was dark, she assumed it was Mr B.
The jury found the man then slid into the bed behind the woman and digitally penetrated her, prompting her to say “wait, stop” before wriggling away.
Mr McWilliams said she became “very concerned” that it was the man in bed with her, prompting her to ask if he was Mr B.
“Yeah, it’s me, why wouldn’t it be?” he fiendishly asked.
Not convinced, she asked him to turn on his phone torch.
“He then put his hands on the complainant, took hold of her and put his fingers inside her vagina again,” Mr McWilliams said.
The jury heard she repeatedly asked him to stop as he pinned her down.
“Don’t worry, it’s (Mr B), it’s fine,” he told her.
Mr McWilliams said she knew it was him because he had a different haircut to Mr B, which she both felt and later saw as he ran from the bedroom to the light-filled hallway.
But he re-entered again soon after, feigning compassion.
“You OK, what’s happened?” he asked.
She replied: “You were just in here. I know it was you. You’re the only guy in the house.”
At 2.15am, she messaged Mr B, who confirmed he had arrived home.

The man will return to court for a pre-sentencing hearing before Judge Lyon sentences him at a later date. Picture: Glenn Campbell
The next day, the man used his laptop to alter the Uber receipt, changing the departure time from 1.58am to 2.37am and the arrival time from 2.09am to 2.57am to, effectively, place Mr B at the scene of the crime.
He also continued to peddle the lie that there had been a cancelled Uber.
He texted Mr B: “Just say you came into her room when your Uber cancelled, I don’t know what’s going on, but I just want to make sure (her) lies don’t f--k us up.”
In his opening address, Mr Hallowes said one of the “key issues” of the trial would be whether or not Mr B returned to the bedroom before catching the Uber.
But Mr B testified that after having consensual sex with the complainant, he left the bedroom to move his car before catching the Uber.
He told the jury he only recalled leaving the bedroom once and did not recall returning.
But the man and his girlfriend testified that they remembered Mr B entering their room to ask for a condom at some point that night, putting the two stories at odds with each other.
Mr Hallowes suggested that Mr B, despite his denials, did return to the room and digitally penetrate the complainant, but she was “mistaken” as to his identity.
He added that it was “curious” that Mr B left the home considering the complainant had been invited over to spend time with him.
“Is it because something went wrong?” he suggested.
But Mr McWilliams said the jurors should accept the complainant’s account, given it had been “consistent, cogent and compelling” from the start, urging them to reject the man’s denials, along with his girlfriend’s “tailored evidence”.
And, ultimately, they did, siding with the complainant and Mr B.
Judge Lyon thanked the jurors – nine men and three women – for their service.
But it can now be revealed that one of the jurors wanted to throw in the towel on day three.
Last week, Judge Lyon told the court the juror, described as having an “odd demeanour”, told court staff his car had been broken into at the train station while he was at jury service.
“He said that it occurred because he was here for jury service and he said he did not want to continue attending,” Judge Lyon said.
He recounted how the juror asked court staff: “Who will pay for my window?”
However, the court heard the juror had a change of heart and decided to stick it out.
The man will return to court for a pre-sentencing hearing next Friday before Judge Lyon sentences him at a later date.
*Not his real name

"The man, who still cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted"

If he's a man (and not a minor), has been convicted, and found guilty, what legal reason would prevent him from being named?

 

[Flawed Genius]

A reminder that this is a public forum and you can be held liable for what you post here. There remains a suppression order in place around that particular case - think before you post

 

[Rod Stroker]

Is this football family related or football player related? I haven’t heard about this until your post.

not according to this

Not-a-cluey - Best FOOTBALL RELATED RUMOUR you have heard from someone you trust 2025 Part 3 - Many lies and bullshit in here. Please read OP before posting

The providers ("we", "us", "our") of the service provided by this web site ("Service") are not responsible for any user-generated content and accounts. Content submitted express the views of their author only. https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/help/terms/...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[gokangas]

The attachment to the 'well known family' was widely mentioned at the time he was charged. The reporting now is a little more cryptic.

 

[Devington]

"The man, who still cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted"

If he's a man (and not a minor), has been convicted, and found guilty, what legal reason would prevent him from being named?

My understanding is they wait until he's sentenced.

 

[Makeshift Park]

"The man, who still cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted"

If he's a man (and not a minor), has been convicted, and found guilty, what legal reason would prevent him from being named?

Could be one of a few reasons. They’ll do it if there’s another criminal case involving one of the parties that they want to avoid prejudicing.
Could be that they’re putting a blanket suppression on all identities in the case to protect the victim until such time as the guy is sentenced.

 

[Woolly Mammoth]

Could be one of a few reasons. They’ll do it if there’s another criminal case involving one of the parties that they want to avoid prejudicing.
Could be that they’re putting a blanket suppression on all identities in the case to protect the victim until such time as the guy is sentenced.

I keep seeing references to the ongoing identity suppression order being at the request of the victim, which makes sense as identifying the perpetrator could lead to identifying the victim, with it being 'high profile'.

 

[Dinkers]

Are Youse saying some club will have a list vacancy very shortly

 

[DuckYeah]

"The man, who still cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted"

If he's a man (and not a minor), has been convicted, and found guilty, what legal reason would prevent him from being named?

Especially when the Victim made a social media post about it, so suppressing the name to protect the victim doesn’t fly.

Is it to protect the rapist (Son Of A Famous Person) in gaol?

Im a little tired of the split in society. Everyone should have the same treatment

 

[gokangas]

Especially when the Victim made a social media post about it, so suppressing the name to protect the victim doesn’t fly.

Is it to protect the rapist (Son Of A Famous Person) in gaol?

Im a little tired of the split in society. Everyone should have the same treatment

Justice is given in direct proportion to your ability to pay.

 

[ToxicMegaPunts]

"The man, who still cannot be named for legal reasons, was convicted"

If he's a man (and not a minor), has been convicted, and found guilty, what legal reason would prevent him from being named?

 

[Rod Stroker]

Especially when the Victim made a social media post about it, so suppressing the name to protect the victim doesn’t fly.

Is it to protect the rapist (Son Of A Famous Person) in gaol?

Im a little tired of the split in society. Everyone should have the same treatment

if he goes to jail I doubt his name will still be suppressed

 

[DuckYeah]

if he goes to jail I doubt his name will still be suppressed

Is he yet to be sentenced?

 

[Rod Stroker]

Is he yet to be sentenced?

yes. found guilty but yet to be sentenced.

 

[DuckYeah]

yes. found guilty but yet to be sentenced.

They worried someone might try and knock him before sentencing? Or harass the rich family? Still weak as piss from the courts.

The courts are weak as piss. Especially magistrates. Judges are usually a little tougher (in my little knowledge)