Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion 2018 Non-Crows Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deaneus!
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
My fav was that the victim should have to go to counciling and not SPP
It's rather sad some (not all!) Port posters feel the need to defend/deflect poor behaviour by blaming the alleged victim, media, Crows supporters... anyone else but SPP... when the bottom line is that it was unprofessional for SPP to be out after midnight getting blind drunk.

SPP should never have put himself in this situation as a professional footballer & needs to take responsibility that his actions are the sole cause of this mess. I don't agree with media headline grabbing sensationalising as much as they can, but the bottom line is they would not have had this opportunity if SPP didn't put himself in this situation in the first place.

I would be furious if this was a Crows player & would be criticising them not defending them!
 
Release the CCTV footage that Caro says shows SPP did not so has the alleged victim claims.

If they don't do that any findings the AFL/Port come to will be dodgy.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
Release the CCTV footage that Caro says shows SPP did not so has the alleged victim claims.

If they don't do that any findings the AFL/Port come to will be dodgy.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Given the seriousness of what has been alleged, it makes absolutely no sense if you were wrongly accused to not release footage that would clear your name.

Many won't believe the PAFC if they clear him on the basis of footage they refuse to release, because it will appear to be a cover-up, regardless of what actually did happen.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Given the seriousness of what has been alleged, it makes absolutely no sense if you were wrongly accused to not release footage that would clear your name.

Many won't believe the PAFC if they clear him on the basis of footage they refuse to release, because it will appear to be a cover-up, regardless of what actually did happen.
Exactly. It also makes the alleged victim look a liar and I believe her identity has been uncovered on Facebook.


I fully expect the AFL and Port will clear him.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
This photo shows Sam Powell Pepper not sexually assaulting anyone. Comprehensive proof it didn't happen.



1521419627257_GLT1HAHM0.1-0.jpg
 
Last edited:
UFC-202-Diaz-vs-McGregor-2.jpg


This was UFC 202. Diaz fought McGregor (Diaz may be a bus manufacturer, i don't know). The terrible, terrible tag lines include "Any Weight"

202 Days to go until Wines is out of contract. is Ollie thinking of shifting to UFC so he can be Any Weight he wants?

Why Hasn't He Signed Yet?
 
This photo shows Sam Powell Pepper not sexually assaulting anyone. Comprehensive proof it didn't happen.
1521419627257_GLT1HAHM0.1-0.jpg

I swear to God, if i was at home i'd have photosh00ped this in such a way as to introduce a woman's skirt by now
 
Same. I spent 30 straight hours making this gif for Doc_ then it dissapeared!





Well, 10 minutes. But still.

Driving to work today I thought a video of SPP’s head imposed over Bill Clinton’s Lewinsky testimony would be good, or over Alan Bond’s “I have no recollection of those events”
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Same. I spent 30 straight hours making this gif for Doc_ then it dissapeared!





Well, 10 minutes. But still.

That’s exactly what I had done!
 
The Lost 12 hours.

For a moment I thought I had started drinking again but I woke up feeling fine
I have no recollection of what I did during those twelve hours, but like SPP I know I didn't do anything wrong.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.


Can we make this guy PM?

Of course they didn't offer up more money, and to the Port supporters who think you have two major sponsors, lose one, and still have one major sponsor... that's not really how it works, you had two halves of a major sponsor, lost one half, and now have half of one.

Port wasn't going to run around with a blank jumper, they wouldn't admit to the failure, why would Oak pay for something that was never going to cost them anything.

We'll know they lied if they ever add a second major sponsor while the current Oak deal exists, no one will question it though.
 

Notice the PAPs have gone to ground and are a little less chirpy when you start bringing in some facts....

Whatever the ratings were, it would be like when, no offense to anyone, but when the hockey or something is on free to air here. Yes, enough people will leave their TVs on for it to rate something, but who is really watching... who actually cares...

So with China's population, you could put, I don't know, a stamp-licking competition on tv and you would still have 10 million people not tune out.
 
Port are running with the "CCTV footage clears him but we don't want anyone to watch it because reasons" line? Seriously?
If they go the inconclusive line without airing it, then it's absolutely conclusive and damning
 
Last edited:
Of course they didn't offer up more money, and to the Port supporters who think you have two major sponsors, lose one, and still have one major sponsor... that's not really how it works, you had two halves of a major sponsor, lost one half, and now have half of one.
To be more precise Port had two halves of a SMALL major sponsor. Renault's contribution didn't amount to much more than one sixth of our major sponsor's own contribution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom