Bringing the game into disrepute

[Lyyynnnchy]

Essendon were removed from finals and Hird given a year (should have been life) so they copped some fair punishment.

The whole Essendon thing is a mess and to be honest I don't even read anything about it anymore, I don't understand why they aren't playing in NAB, but all I care about is Hird getting the arse, which looks unlikely.

The players implicated aren't playing in the NAB cup...

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I dont think you understand what I am saying.....

I dont agree with the AFL taking points. I didnt agree with it when they threatened it to the Eagles.

HOWEVER, Given that the AFL DID THREATEN the Eagles, they should do the same to the GCS considering it is pretty similar.

But you said "the club should be held responsible for the conduct of its players".

Now you're saying you don't actually think the clubs should be punished?

I never mentioned anything about assaulting people, so dont know why you would even compare the two situations.

You said "the club should be held responsible for the conduct of its players".

Is there a special exemption if a player assaults someone and goes to jail?

 

[javaguice]

But you said "the club should be held responsible for the conduct of its players".

Now you're saying you don't actually think the clubs should be punished?

You said "the club should be held responsible for the conduct of its players".

Is there a special exemption if a player assaults someone and goes to jail?

OK, its obvious you dont get it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

OK, its obvious you dont get it.

You're right. I don't.

On one hand, you say "clubs should be held responsible for the conduct of its players". Right?

But then you say you don't think clubs should be punished when their players get busted for drugs, despite starting the thread by calling for the Suns to be punished for their players doing drugs; you use WC as the example, even though they weren't punished for their players doing drugs.

And it all goes out the window if a player actually goes to jail for assaulting someone. In that case, the club shouldn't be held responsible.

You're absolutely right – I don't get it.

 

[javaguice]

You're right. I don't.

You're absolutely right – I don't get it.

LOL - my legally binding OP.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

LOL - my legally binding OP.

Is it legally binding?

 

[javaguice]

On one hand, you say "clubs should be held responsible for the conduct of its players". Right? (No, as you said, the club should never be held to account for its players behaviour)

But then you say you don't think clubs should be punished when their players get busted for drugs, despite starting the thread by calling for the Suns to be punished for their players doing drugs; you use WC as the example, even though they weren't punished for their players doing drugs. (Are you not aware that the AFL threatened us with sanctions and that Ben Cousins faced a year ban? that isnt punishment you say?)

And it all goes out the window if a player actually goes to jail for assaulting someone. In that case, the club shouldn't be held responsible. (Um, you are drawing a pretty long bow there mate)

You're absolutely right – I don't get it.

 

[javaguice]

Is it legally binding?

Struggle with sarcasm?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

(No, as you said, the club should never be held to account for its players behaviour)

I can't tell if this is actually your opinion or not. Previously, you said the exact opposite.

(Are you not aware that the AFL threatened us with sanctions and that Ben Cousins faced a year ban? that isnt punishment you say?)

Certainly I'm aware there was a hypothetical discussion of sanctions. I don't know how immediate or explicit that threat was. And no punishment ever materialised.

Cousins was banned by the AFL after we sacked him. So how does that count as the club being punished?

So no, WC were never punished by the AFL. How is that inaccurate?

(Um, you are drawing a pretty long bow there mate)

OK. So should we have been punished when Newman went to jail?

Struggle with sarcasm?

Yeah, in this case, I absolutely do. Because you've changed your mind so many times that I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or just contradicting yourself.

If you're being sarcastic, you're saying your OP is not legally binding? So what does that mean?

 

[WCE_phil]

Shit thread is shit. Proof first.

 

[javaguice]

Shit thread is shit. Proof first.

Thanks champ - asking opinions of people. Feel free not to return.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Thanks champ - asking opinions of people.

Indeed.

Should we have been punished when Newman went to jail?