Alex Mckinnion Incident

Remove this Banner Ad

Slax said:
Good because him doing it with Channel 7 will piss them off more than him responding to false accusations made by McKinnon that Smith didn't try and contact him. It's also been interesting to see some of those defending Smith, which include Wayne Bennett (Knights coach on the day) and Rick Stone (Knight current coach and assistant coach then), along with a massive list of the whose who of Rugby League. Also willing to bet not a single NSW Origin player will mention it during the game tomorrow.

The only thing I've seen on McKinnon's side is sympathy for the emotions that his family must of been going through.

Channel 9 can look forward to a visit from Smith's lawyers in the coming weeks and payout that will cost more than what they paid McKinnon for the interview. Channel 9 knew what they put to air was provocative and the fact they didn't ask Smith or Melbourne Storm for a comment is going to hurt them in a defamation case.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Smith will go down that path, I think he'll say his peace and hope it goes away.
 
pantskyle said:
I'm not sure Smith will go down that path, I think he'll say his peace and hope it goes away.
Click to expand...
Might depend on what sort of follow up is done.

The one thing to come out of it is that 60 Minutes no longer has a single piece of journalistic credibility and might as well change it's name to ACA because that is the standard of reporting they are now doing.
 
Smith won't sue, gains him nothing. He has got the support of most of the Rugby League community because of the hatchet job, only two people that support it are Paul Kent and Andrew Ryan......sums it up really.

This isn't Smith vs Alex in my opinion but Smith vs Channel 9/60 Minutes and as Queensland Captain tomorrow night he will refuse to give Channel 9 any interviews before, during or after the game. Don't be surprise if others follow
 

Log in to remove this ad.

As predictable as ever turns out it was pure gutter journalism.

Is there a video of the full time period between the tackle and the next play? CH 9 have you believe he spent 8 mins arguing. MMM says he said nothing until Alex was off the field, and part of what he said was sympathetic to Alex. We obviously hear 'no one likes to see that and it's unfortunate' which was edited out and is disgraceful journalism.

IMO Alex is being stitched up by a few people exploiting his emotions for their own game. There is a bit of an undercurrent going around that alex is not handling this well and being bitter towards people who don't deserve it. A shame cause there should be nothing but support from him.
 
The Passenger said:
As predictable as ever turns out it was pure gutter journalism.

Is there a video of the full time period between the tackle and the next play? CH 9 have you believe he spent 8 mins arguing. MMM says he said nothing until Alex was off the field, and part of what he said was sympathetic to Alex. We obviously hear 'no one likes to see that and it's unfortunate' which was edited out and is disgraceful journalism.

IMO Alex is being stitched up by a few people exploiting his emotions for their own game. There is a bit of an undercurrent going around that alex is not handling this well and being bitter towards people who don't deserve it. A shame cause there should be nothing but support from him.
Click to expand...
 
Just shows how s**t that journalism is.

He has say in the first minute which is standard. That happens a dozen times each weekend. About 2 mins in trys to have a talk but gets sent away and doesnt come back till Alex is off the field.

The latter conversation is very calm and lasts about 30 seconds.

Anyone painting Smith as a villain here has been duped by nine or has rocks in their head.
 
60 minutes should be ashamed of themselves with that bullshit journalism. The way they portrayed Cameron Smith was disgusting.
I still can't believe what I was watching. Very poor journalism.
Smith had no idea of Alex's injuries at the time. All he did was question the penalty.
He was very concerned about Alex once he learnt the seriousness of it all. And he worked to raise money for Alex.
Anyone who has anything to do with Cam Smith know what a good bloke he is.
60 minutes have thrown a good man under a bus just to create a controversial angle for tv ratings.
 
I hate the Melbourne Storm, I hate Queensland - you won't hear me say many kind things about Cameron Smith.

But even if we ignore the fact that Channel 9 completely stitched up both Smith and McKinnon... are to we also ignore the fact that there is a fairly large degree of truth to what Smith said at the time?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

royboy2 said:
Anyone else see the #RiseForCameron sign in the crowd?
Click to expand...
No joke, this is the real thing.
633064-a7e1cbaa-25bc-11e5-b856-d650f72d3e25.jpg
 
nobbyiscool said:
I hate the Melbourne Storm, I hate Queensland - you won't hear me say many kind things about Cameron Smith.

But even if we ignore the fact that Channel 9 completely stitched up both Smith and McKinnon... are to we also ignore the fact that there is a fairly large degree of truth to what Smith said at the time?
Click to expand...

totally agree... some of the worst reporting Ive seen. I hope both come together and slam channel 9
 
nobbyiscool said:
I hate the Melbourne Storm, I hate Queensland - you won't hear me say many kind things about Cameron Smith.

But even if we ignore the fact that Channel 9 completely stitched up both Smith and McKinnon... are to we also ignore the fact that there is a fairly large degree of truth to what Smith said at the time?
Click to expand...

u know what ur spot on... there is a lot of truth but it's almost taboo to agree or discuss it because it can be deemed as a little disrespectful to Alex.
 
"McKinnon launches law suit against NRL"

Link

Alex McKinnon, who was left a quadriplegic by a dangerous tackle, has reportedly launched a massive lawsuit against the NRL and the Melbourne Storm player involved.

An NRL spokesman confirmed that correspondence had arrived from McKinnon's legal team, while the Melbourne Storm have also been informed of impending action against Jordan McLean, who made the tackle on McKinnon in 2014 that confined the Newcastle Knights player to a wheelchair.

McLean was given a seven-week ban at the time but continues to play in the NRL.

McKinnon was promised a job for life in the game by the then-NRL boss David Smith as he recovered from the spear tackle that resulted in the serious spinal injury.
Click to expand...
 
Think McKinnon should hang his head in shame for suing a fellow player.

The NRL should be paying him money and that should be his only target.

Bit of a campaigner.
 
pantskyle said:
Think McKinnon should hang his head in shame for suing a fellow player.

The NRL should be paying him money and that should be his only target.

Bit of a campaigner.
Click to expand...
That is likely to be unfair. In these sort of circumstances it is often largely out of the hands of the litigant. There are instances of family members suing family members, because one family member badly needs the money following injuries, and the process of getting money from the insurance company involves litigation. It isn't one family member having a go at another, its the process that has to be followed to get needed money out of the system. I suspect that is the case here.

It will be the lawyers for the various insurance companies deciding who gets sued for what, McKinnon probably has little to do with it.
 
pantskyle said:
Think McKinnon should hang his head in shame for suing a fellow player.

The NRL should be paying him money and that should be his only target.

Bit of a campaigner.
Click to expand...

McKinnon has every right to sue both parties. At the end of the day it will be harder to prove the NRL was negligent rather than the player who plead guilty and was found guilty. Now whether the court rules that playing the game where there are known risks mean that negligence is a lot higher, who knows.

I'd be doing exactly the same thing, and so would every single other person. His medical bills would be through the roof.
 
I'm so torn on it - on one hand I would never deny a workers right to receive compensation for a workplace injury that will likely render him unable to work again.

But on the other hand, the NRL community, including the NRL, the club (Newcastle), and the fans made some pretty significant contributions to him out of good faith. In that respect it seems like a bit of a betrayal that he would turn around and sue a fellow player.

The NRL? Sure. But to sue a fellow player appears a bit of a breach of the notion of "good faith" and professional respect among players, and at least publicly makes it seem like McKinnon thought it was a deliberate act. I have to believe that, while players go out to play hard and to make their opponents physically uncomfortable, they don't go out to maim and cripple each other.

If a court were to find that McLean deliberately crippled his opponent, where does that leave rugby league, and football across all codes?
 
nobbyiscool said:
I'm so torn on it - on one hand I would never deny a workers right to receive compensation for a workplace injury that will likely render him unable to work again.

But on the other hand, the NRL community, including the NRL, the club (Newcastle), and the fans made some pretty significant contributions to him out of good faith. In that respect it seems like a bit of a betrayal that he would turn around and sue a fellow player.

The NRL? Sure. But to sue a fellow player appears a bit of a breach of the notion of "good faith" and professional respect among players, and at least publicly makes it seem like McKinnon thought it was a deliberate act. I have to believe that, while players go out to play hard and to make their opponents physically uncomfortable, they don't go out to maim and cripple each other.

If a court were to find that McLean deliberately crippled his opponent, where does that leave rugby league, and football across all codes?
Click to expand...
What does he sue the NRL for? They didn't dump him on his neck, they even passed rules banning it. They even provided info to players about why it was banned and the risk it posed, and McLean did it anyway.

I do not think intent has much to do with it. He committed an act he shouldn't have, and it had live changing, career destroying implications for someone else. I actually think suing the NRL, and not McLean is unlikely to work, he has to sue both. How can you sue an employer for allowing an act, but not the person committing it?

ps. I think the act was entirely deliberate, not the consequences. However, players had been warned about consequences, and knew the act was outlawed. He doesn't really have a leg to stand on, at best it was negligence.
 
LukeParkerno1 said:
McKinnon has every right to sue both parties. At the end of the day it will be harder to prove the NRL was negligent rather than the player who plead guilty and was found guilty. Now whether the court rules that playing the game where there are known risks mean that negligence is a lot higher, who knows.

I'd be doing exactly the same thing, and so would every single other person. His medical bills would be through the roof.
Click to expand...
Except McClean plead not guilty and most experts at the time felt that he shouldn't have received a ban and it was more the result of McKinnon ducking his head.
 
Lost respect for McKinnion. First he has a sook about Cam Smith on national TV. In the same story he said 'I don't have a problem with Jordan we have spoken since' or something very similar. Now he is suing him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top