Sydney Stack Discussion

[bigpapagman]

scrapheap pls

 

[_RT_]

loner myself and it's completely fine, bliss actually.

but I would bloody stop at watched Christmas movies !!! Yikes !!! That's torture !!!

National Lampoon Christmas Vacation

&

Die Hard

2 best Christmas movies of all time.

 

[smurfin]

So, I'm the sort of person who has a blatant disrespect for roadwork speed limits when I can't see any road work actually occurring.
I'll tend to do a token 10 km/h reduction to my usual speed unless I can actually see a reason to slow further.

However, if I had only a couple of points left on my licence I would definitely be more careful.

When I was younger I also took my chances with driving while one of unlicensed, unregistered or over the limit.
Different times back then and I hate to think of the consequences if I was in an accident, but my point is - when I was breaking the law then I would carefully obey speed limits and other road laws to minimise my chances of being pulled over.

It's not rocket science to work that much out.
Stack probably didn't expect to end in jail for his indiscretion (still surprises me) but he had to have known it would strain his relationship with the club and put his career in jeopardy.
If he really can't avoid getting into punch-ons when he's out and about, then he shouldn't be out and about.

 

[Hank Heavenly]

I am not sure your logic is sound there Bazzar.

What you seem to be saying is:

There are rules purporting to protect the community.

Stack breaks the rules.

Therefore, Stack is selfish.


Whilst the situation doesn’t exclude the possibility he is being guided principally by selfish thoughts, it is not necessarily the case. He could for instance have just made a series of decisions that in isolation seemed harmless and sensible to him at the time, inadvertently overlooking the need to follow Covid rules.

I know someone very well who would do something just like that, never meaning to. At the end of it you ask what were you thinking, how did you end up in that situation, didn’t I tell you never to do X….he says I know, just one thing led to another and didn’t think of what you had told me at the time. Nevertheless, gentle guidance over time has seemed beneficial to him and he has learned to control himself better in certain situations.

Some people’s brains just don’t function in a way that allows them to act properly in all situations no matter how much they might wish it was otherwise. We shouldn’t automatically attribute them with unsavoury motives.

Are you serious.... It's this type of opinion that becomes the ENABLER ...

The rules with Quarantine are simple... AND EVERYONES KNOWS THEM...
14 days in Iso...

So the first question he would have had to ask himself is:

Am I allowed to leave home... NO - thats the answer.. not just for Stack, for everyone in ISO!!!

People have missed dying relatives and their funerals because hey followed the rules, kids have not got medical treatment because of strict rules... So whats Sydney's excuse... I wanted to get on the piss...

And lets be CLEAR, he wasn't just down at the Northam local either, he was 100km's away in Perth in their most volatile night scene...

So as soon as he answered YES to the first question, then everything from there became about him = SELFISH...

You can give me all the reasons you want why you think you can justify his actions, but reasons don't equate to excuses....

 

[Grrr]

So, I'm the sort of person who has a blatant disrespect for roadwork speed limits when I can't see any road work actually occurring.
I'll tend to do a token 10 km/h reduction to my usual speed unless I can actually see a reason to slow further.

However, if I had only a couple of points left on my licence I would definitely be more careful.

When I was younger I also took my chances with driving while one of unlicensed, unregistered or over the limit.
Different times back then and I hate to think of the consequences if I was in an accident, but my point is - when I was breaking the law then I would carefully obey speed limits and other road laws to minimise my chances of being pulled over.

It's not rocket science to work that much out.
Stack probably didn't expect to end in jail for his indiscretion (still surprises me) but he had to have known it would strain his relationship with the club and put his career in jeopardy.
If he really can't avoid getting into punch-ons when he's out and about, then he shouldn't be out and about.

And nobody is refuting any of your points, except the bit about ending up in jai. Tad harsh.
The divisive question is does he get cut.

 

[Grrr]

Are you serious.... It's this type of opinion that becomes the ENABLER ...

The rules with Quarantine are simple... AND EVERYONES KNOWS THEM...
14 days in Iso...

So the first question he would have had to ask himself is:

Am I allowed to leave home... NO - thats the answer.. not just for Stack, for everyone in ISO!!!

People have missed dying relatives and their funerals because hey followed the rules, kids have not got medical treatment because of strict rules... So whats Sydney's excuse... I wanted to get on the piss...

And lets be CLEAR, he wasn't just down at the Northam local either, he was 100km's away in Perth in their most volatile night scene...

So as soon as he answered YES to the first question, then everything from there became about him = SELFISH...

You can give me all the reasons you want why you think you can justify his actions, but reasons don't equate to excuses....

You have to also ask why is there a nightclub scene in Perth, because there is no Covid. There are no masks, restrictions, it is pretty much life as normal. So in that situation you feel pretty much like the rules don't apply. As I said earlier the cops up here went back to the same house 3 times before they fined the blokes having a beer, because so many young people were doing it. Stack probably felt pretty safe, especially after a few beers.

Stupid and selfish and deceitful, no doubt. But wise heads on young shoulders don't always go together, especially in Stacks regard.

 

[Mr Magic]

And nobody is refuting any of your points, except the bit about ending up in jai. Tad harsh.
The divisive question is does he get cut.

I think for Stack it comes down to priorities.

What does he want in life? He has form, which path does he want to take?

He might be one that really has to stop drinking to avoid getting into fights. Don't know enough about it but their seems repeat conduct in certain surroundings.

Is Stack a drinker that cannot stop after one? Does Stack get too influenced by peer pressure and others around him. Does Stack have to manage his lifestyle choices better for the moment.

Are their substitute options that can entertain Stack sufficiently apart from footy which will sufficiently satisfy him and reduce any urges for other things that increase the risk of issues?

I think we can ascertain Stack is not a rocket scientist. He is lucky in the sense he appears to have a talent with the footy he can succeed at if he wants to apply himself. The question is, how valuable is footy and the success it can bring him to his goals and desires he wants to achieve?

What sort of personality is Stack? Can he trust others to look after him in social settings in certain situations if he cannot trust himself especially under the influence? Are there mentors Stack can bounce things off of that he acknowledges are in his favour?

Obviously Stack does not have all the right networks set up for him, can they be improved, can he get better improved support at value that help him find a path that improves his success and happiness in other ways through better decisions?

 

[Bazzar]

Stack probably didn't expect to end in jail for his indiscretion (still surprises me)

He's in quarantine, where else is he to go?

Bail was refused on the Sunday because he was 100km away from his covid quarantine address so the case could be heard the following day.
The magistrate had to make the ruling but Stacks legal aid had it adjourned because he didn't/couldnt appear.
Jail appears to be the only option.

 

[_RT_]

Aarts was very influential this season.

Chol wouldn't have played two finals if we had a number of alternative available

Neither we're irreplaceable though, just because Stack played 17 games in a premiership season doesn't make him hard to replace.

Whilst the situation doesn’t exclude the possibility he is being guided principally by selfish thoughts, it is not necessarily the case. He could for instance have just made a series of decisions that in isolation seemed harmless and sensible to him at the time, inadvertently overlooking the need to follow Covid rules.

He is in quarantine, the decision to leave his grandmother house because of a dispute is fine as that is allowed under quarantine rules if he is escaping potential harm, but the decision to go out partying when he is quarantining isn't harmless or sensible, especially when he knows that doing it breaches quarantine rules given his previous incident at the Gold Coast.

And how did Melbourne go when they got rid of him?

Similar to Carlton getting rid of Fev.

Offloading highly talented players is dangerous.

Difference with those teams is that they didn't have the depth of talent that we currently have/had. Ask yourself how we did after we let Connors go, especially in regards to how Martin went from being a very good player to best in the comp, once the distraction was removed.

 

[Bazzar]

You have to also ask why is there a nightclub scene in Perth, because there is no Covid. There are no masks, restrictions, it is pretty much life as normal. So in that situation you feel pretty much like the rules don't apply. As I said earlier the cops up here went back to the same house 3 times before they fined the blokes having a beer, because so many young people were doing it. Stack probably felt pretty safe, especially after a few beers.

Stupid and selfish and deceitful, no doubt. But wise heads on young shoulders don't always go together, especially in Stacks regard.

Seriously what part dont you get.

He was in "mandatory quarantine " he wasn't just a local enjoying a night out.

 

[Ceehook]

get Ben Cousins on the phone , he can mentor Sydney …. as an anti role model

 

[Ceehook]

trade him for Tyson Stengle

18

Tyson Stengle

Age

27

Ht

175cm

Wt

71kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.3

2star

K

5.8

2star

HB

3.5

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.1

4star

D

10.3

3star

K

5.3

2star

HB

5.0

3star

M

1.3

1star

T

2.0

3star

G

0.5

4star

D

8.8

3star

K

5.6

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.6

4star

G

1.6

5star

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Are you serious.... It's this type of opinion that becomes the ENABLER ...

The rules with Quarantine are simple... AND EVERYONES KNOWS THEM...
14 days in Iso...

So the first question he would have had to ask himself is:

Am I allowed to leave home... NO - thats the answer.. not just for Stack, for everyone in ISO!!!

People have missed dying relatives and their funerals because hey followed the rules, kids have not got medical treatment because of strict rules... So whats Sydney's excuse... I wanted to get on the piss...

And lets be CLEAR, he wasn't just down at the Northam local either, he was 100km's away in Perth in their most volatile night scene...

So as soon as he answered YES to the first question, then everything from there became about him = SELFISH...

You can give me all the reasons you want why you think you can justify his actions, but reasons don't equate to excuses....

You have it wrong if you think I am justifying his actions. I have written there are rules, he broke them, he ended up having the choice taken away from him and this seems right to me.

IMO you are repeating the earlier error by automatically attributing selfish motives to Stack when there are other possibilities, however remote they may seem to you right now. He may have acted based on selfish motives, but we are not in a position to automatically assume that…but I have already written that too.

If you think I am an enabler of poor behaviour, you have me wrong. I am for immediate appropriate and proportionate consequences and no wriggling out, that is how I live and when I have led sporting teams/clubs I have followed those principles.

But first, you must investigate, because what can look clear at first glance can be shown later to be a very misleading picture….if he has acted cynically then so be it, he should be judged and dealt with accordingly. If you think I am a bleeding heart who argue over a fair outcome from a fair hearing, you’ve got the wrong guy. If however, he has not acted cynically, but rather, for eg carelessly, then all relevant factors should be considered by both the law and the RFC.

You might get a right outcome from the wrong process, but overall you will have a much greater chance of achieving the right outcome from a good process. Assuming a person’s motives from a portion of the overall picture without that person having the chance to explain or defend themselves is never a good process.

 

[Mr Magic]

Promotion to leadership group IMHO

He would get some quick feedback out of that!!

 

[Hank Heavenly]

You have it wrong if you think I am justifying his actions. I have written there are rules, he broke them, he ended up having the choice taken away from him and this seems right to me.

IMO you are repeating the earlier error by automatically attributing selfish motives to Stack when there are other possibilities, however remote they may seem to you right now. He may have acted based on selfish motives, but we are not in a position to automatically assume that…but I have already written that too.

If you think I am an enabler of poor behaviour, you have me wrong. I am for immediate appropriate and proportionate consequences and no wriggling out, that is how I live and when I have led sporting teams/clubs I have followed those principles.

But first, you must investigate, because what can look clear at first glance can be shown later to be a very misleading picture….if he has acted cynically then so be it, he should be judged and dealt with accordingly. If you think I am a bleeding heart who argue over a fair outcome from a fair hearing, you’ve got the wrong guy. If however, he has not acted cynically, but rather, for eg carelessly, then all relevant factors should be considered by both the law and the RFC.

You might get a right outcome from the wrong process, but overall you will have a much greater chance of achieving the right outcome from a good process. Assuming a person’s motives from a portion of the overall picture without that person having the chance to explain or defend themselves is never a good process.

Happy to retract the enabler comment, no sweat...

So this is the part is question...:

IMO you are repeating the earlier error by automatically attributing selfish motives to Stack when there are other possibilities, however remote they may seem to you right now. He may have acted based on selfish motives, but we are not in a position to automatically assume that…but I have already written that too.

As per my first post, given people missed on farewelling dying loved ones, missed their funerals, missed healthcare etc... What was Sydney's reason...

I acknowledge the rules around moving quarantine locations if you are at risk of harm, but outside of that, there's no reason to leave his original location in Northam.

Now, devils advocate, lets say he had a legitimate reason in the first place... the follow up is this...

Now I've attended to Reason A - I need to get back to my quarantine location... OR I fled my quarantine for safety reasons, I need to alert the authorities...
Two responses that simply don't get him in this mess, (potentially) legitimate reasons and then sensible response.

I highly doubt you, he or anyone can provide a legitimate reason for Sydney to leave Northam and end up in Northbridge... So lets say for arguments sake, the first question/answer to leaving quarantine was not a selfish one... at one point HE HAS made a selfish decision... And he has to take that...

At the end of the day, he applied to go to WA, knowing full well they have always been the strictest state around COVID and he knew the penalties associated with breaches... He choose (whether he had a reason or not) to breach, he wears the consequence.

 

[Marcel Proust]

Neither we're irreplaceable though, just because Stack played 17 games in a premiership season doesn't make him hard to replace.

He is in quarantine, the decision to leave his grandmother house because of a dispute is fine as that is allowed under quarantine rules if he is escaping potential harm, but the decision to go out partying when he is quarantining isn't harmless or sensible, especially when he knows that doing it breaches quarantine rules given his previous incident at the Gold Coast.


Difference with those teams is that they didn't have the depth of talent that we currently have/had. Ask yourself how we did after we let Connors go, especially in regards to how Martin went from being a very good player to best in the comp, once the distraction was removed.

The depth is the like of Dow ans garthwaite I think you may be getting carried away

 

[Grrr]

Seriously what part dont you get.

He was in "mandatory quarantine " he wasn't just a local enjoying a night out.

And what part don't you get about peoples personality, their attitude to authority, you should have as a legal person (I'm guessing) some idea of mitigating circumstances. There was quarantine where I live, but young people didn't adhere to it in the end, and the cops and all us as parents all measured up the risks. We've not had a single case up here for 8 months yet we wear masks and obey the rules no matter how futile it seems at times. I had to go to SA right at the end of their breakout and they were shocked that we were asking about wearing masks. We have all towed the line, but for young bulletproof kids, that is bloody hard, as my 21 year old son has attested to. The young folk have been heroic in my eyes during this pandemic, because it has been so hard for them.

 

[Genghis Tron]

me.tonhave

Do you use a HTC phone?

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Happy to retract the enabler comment, no sweat...

So this is the part is question...:

IMO you are repeating the earlier error by automatically attributing selfish motives to Stack when there are other possibilities, however remote they may seem to you right now. He may have acted based on selfish motives, but we are not in a position to automatically assume that…but I have already written that too.

As per my first post, given people missed on farewelling dying loved ones, missed their funerals, missed healthcare etc... What was Sydney's reason...

I acknowledge the rules around moving quarantine locations if you are at risk of harm, but outside of that, there's no reason to leave his original location in Northam.

Now, devils advocate, lets say he had a legitimate reason in the first place... the follow up is this...

Now I've attended to Reason A - I need to get back to my quarantine location... OR I fled my quarantine for safety reasons, I need to alert the authorities...
Two responses that simply don't get him in this mess, (potentially) legitimate reasons and then sensible response.

I highly doubt you, he or anyone can provide a legitimate reason for Sydney to leave Northam and end up in Northbridge... So lets say for arguments sake, the first question/answer to leaving quarantine was not a selfish one... at one point HE HAS made a selfish decision... And he has to take that...

At the end of the day, he applied to go to WA, knowing full well they have always been the strictest state around COVID and he knew the penalties associated with breaches... He choose (whether he had a reason or not) to breach, he wears the consequence.

I guess this is it. If he is found to have acted cynically then he is entitled to be judged accordingly. One of the reasons I have some resistance to that judgement is that it would appear to be out of character for him to lie or act cynically according to earlier articles quoting opinions on him from previous coaches etc. They all seemed to say he breaks rules, and does things that seem dumb when looked at a certain way, but is honest.

I know from having to deal with someone close to me getting himself into trouble a number of times, some brains just cannot connect back to their starting position when given a series of dynamic events to deal with.

Just to try to explain what I mean in an easily understood context, take Stack here. I am not saying this is what happened or even close to it, I simply wouldn’t know, it is just to demonstrate the point.

Say Stack did actually start out intending to stay at his grandmother’s address in quarantine because he knows that is what he is supposed to do and it is the law, and it is important especially for him due to the possibility of football related consequences.

Say he arrives, is welcomed but soon gets into a situation about which he feels very uncomfortable. He is feeling upset, he thinks what can I do? He may already have lost his connection to his first thought and priority, to obey quarantine rules. You or I would not lose that connection, but some people do, and it is that easy, I have seen it many times.

Say he calls his friend in Belmont or wherever, he says this is shit I have got to get out of here. They say god Syd, come and stay with me/us. So he does. He has by now long forgotten his starting position to obey quarantine rules. He goes to Belmont.

Whilst there and in the company of his friend it is suggested to go out for a while. He thinks I feel bad right now and nothing would make me feel happier, so he goes….by now he is a million miles from his starting position, he is thinking first of solving these emotional issues that have arisen. It doesn’t enter his head to get back to where he started, quarantine first.

The rest is now history.
—————

I have no idea if anything remotely like that has occurred or whether Sydney has just thought f*ck the rules I am going out on the lash. But I know from observing others that is how some people’s brains malfunction. I would be interested to know if anything like that is the case here with Stack. It is not so much an excuse, just something to be taken into consideration.

Where that presents a danger to others then the law is compelled to act to protect people. Perhaps if it endangers the adherence to standards somewhere like a footy club then also the club needs to act also. But you don’t want to start from a position that because your brain and mine function a certain way that everyone else should be expected to be able to do the same.

You don’t want to miss out on a potentially great player because you haven’t made the effort to figure out what makes him tick. And you might not want him missing out on opportunities either due to mainly harmless actions he cannot control(not saying breaking quarantine is harmless by the way.)

 

[Grrr]

I guess this is it. If he is found to have acted cynically then he is entitled to be judged accordingly. One of the reasons I have some resistance to that judgement is that it would appear to be out of character for him to lie or act cynically according to earlier articles quoting opinions on him from previous coaches etc. They all seemed to say he breaks rules, and does things that seem dumb when looked at a certain way, but is honest.

I know from having to deal with someone close to me getting himself into trouble a number of times, some brains just cannot connect back to their starting position when given a series of dynamic events to deal with.

Just to try to explain what I mean in an easily understood context, take Stack here. I am not saying this is what happened or even close to it, I simply wouldn’t know, it is just to demonstrate the point.

Say Stack did actually start out intending to stay at his grandmother’s address in quarantine because he knows that is what he is supposed to do and it is the law, and it is important especially for him due to the possibility of football related consequences.

Say he arrives, is welcomed but soon gets into a situation about which he feels very uncomfortable. He is feeling upset, he thinks what can I do? He may already have lost his connection to his first thought and priority, to obey quarantine rules. You or I would not lose that connection, but some people do, and it is that easy, I have seen it many times.

Say he calls his friend in Belmont or wherever, he says this is sh*t I have got to get out of here. They say god Syd, come and stay with me/us. So he does. He has by now long forgotten his starting position to obey quarantine rules. He goes to Belmont.

Whilst there and in the company of his friend it is suggested to go out for a while. He thinks I feel bad right now and nothing would make me feel happier, so he goes….by now he is a million miles from his starting position, he is thinking first of solving these emotional issues that have arisen. It doesn’t enter his head to get back to where he started, quarantine first.

The rest is now history.
—————

I have no idea if anything remotely like that has occurred or whether Sydney has just thought f*ck the rules I am going out on the lash. But I know from observing others that is how some people’s brains malfunction. I would be interested to know if anything like that is the case here with Stack. It is not so much an excuse, just something to be taken into consideration.

Where that presents a danger to others then the law is compelled to act to protect people. Perhaps if it endangers the adherence to standards somewhere like a footy club then also the club needs to act also. But you don’t want to start from a position that because your brain and mine function a certain way that everyone else should be expected to be able to do the same.

You don’t want to miss out on a potentially great player because you haven’t made the effort to figure out what makes him tick. And you might not want him missing out on opportunities either due to mainly harmless actions he cannot control(not saying breaking quarantine is harmless by the way.)

And that is the reason he wasn't drafted. We all slapped ourselves on the back when the kid from the wrong side of the tracks is embraced by Richmond and produces feats way beyond 99% of first year players. Can anyone remember an 18 year old laying out a seasoned player like Viney in his first few games. His footy IQ is through the roof, his social IQ is not. Now in the weirdest year anyone much less a wild 20 year old can ever remember we want to hang him because he doesn't live up to our expectations. He has been out of the discipline of the football club for months, no wonder he is not the model AFL player. Plenty of other great players have also had similar beginnings.

 

[Oprah From Tigerland]

Very kind to ask and thank you.

Going ok. Battling Stage 4 Kidney Disease, but if I stay off VB_longneck diet tips I should be ok.

I have nothing to complain about.

Haere Ra

Good to hear, stay well (and off the VB_longneck diet tips - pingas and kidneys don’t mix FYI)

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Do you use a HTC phone?

No, typing while walking

 

[dusty1234!]

I dont like hypotheticals, but I do have a question for those who disagree with me that Stack shouldnt be sacked. What should we do with him and how mnay more chances does he get. Where do we draw the line?

 

[Hank Heavenly]

I guess this is it. If he is found to have acted cynically then he is entitled to be judged accordingly. One of the reasons I have some resistance to that judgement is that it would appear to be out of character for him to lie or act cynically according to earlier articles quoting opinions on him from previous coaches etc. They all seemed to say he breaks rules, and does things that seem dumb when looked at a certain way, but is honest.

I know from having to deal with someone close to me getting himself into trouble a number of times, some brains just cannot connect back to their starting position when given a series of dynamic events to deal with.

Just to try to explain what I mean in an easily understood context, take Stack here. I am not saying this is what happened or even close to it, I simply wouldn’t know, it is just to demonstrate the point.

Say Stack did actually start out intending to stay at his grandmother’s address in quarantine because he knows that is what he is supposed to do and it is the law, and it is important especially for him due to the possibility of football related consequences.

Say he arrives, is welcomed but soon gets into a situation about which he feels very uncomfortable. He is feeling upset, he thinks what can I do? He may already have lost his connection to his first thought and priority, to obey quarantine rules. You or I would not lose that connection, but some people do, and it is that easy, I have seen it many times.

Say he calls his friend in Belmont or wherever, he says this is sh*t I have got to get out of here. They say god Syd, come and stay with me/us. So he does. He has by now long forgotten his starting position to obey quarantine rules. He goes to Belmont.

Whilst there and in the company of his friend it is suggested to go out for a while. He thinks I feel bad right now and nothing would make me feel happier, so he goes….by now he is a million miles from his starting position, he is thinking first of solving these emotional issues that have arisen. It doesn’t enter his head to get back to where he started, quarantine first.

The rest is now history.
—————

I have no idea if anything remotely like that has occurred or whether Sydney has just thought f*ck the rules I am going out on the lash. But I know from observing others that is how some people’s brains malfunction. I would be interested to know if anything like that is the case here with Stack. It is not so much an excuse, just something to be taken into consideration.

Where that presents a danger to others then the law is compelled to act to protect people. Perhaps if it endangers the adherence to standards somewhere like a footy club then also the club needs to act also. But you don’t want to start from a position that because your brain and mine function a certain way that everyone else should be expected to be able to do the same.

You don’t want to miss out on a potentially great player because you haven’t made the effort to figure out what makes him tick. And you might not want him missing out on opportunities either due to mainly harmless actions he cannot control(not saying breaking quarantine is harmless by the way.)

Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate your position... But law is not governed on the differences of one brain to the next. Nor is ones intellect to the next (to a certain point).

To counter your position, look at another scenario...

In the eyes of most rational people, it is incomprehensible to go and murder another human being. Going by your theory, one could argue not to judge a murderer on the act of murder, due tot he fact that their brain could find a reasonable path to a point where the act of murder is nearly defined as acceptable... So therefore on the principal that you may be lenient on Stack, should all people found guilty of murder actually be let off under the definition of insanity because the normal brain would, not in any sane position, think murder is ok????

Now this is the extreme I get, and far worse than Stack, and no I'm not comparing breaking quarantine to murder, but my point is where do you draw the lines????

There are REASONS and there are EXCUSES but reasons don't mean they ARE excuses.

SS may have had a reason, he may not have been mentally able to comprehend his actions, he may not have been able to 'reset' to the original decision/point of quarantining, but that does not excuse his actions... as it shouldn't excuse either of you or I if we were to break them.

And (not directly aimed at you) this is what I believe is wrong with society to a point. We continually, look for excuses for people, "oh poor Johnny, it's not his fault...", parents look to blame teachers/coaches/etc for their kids behaviour or poor performance... and what's worse, not only are they enable bad behaviour/performance from their kids, they confront the teacher/coach/etc in front of the kid, reaffirming the bad behaviour is not the kids responsibility... hence starting the vicious cycle of bad behaviour, but blaming everyone else instead of taking responsibility.

IMO, as blunt as is stands...

SS at some stage had a n easy choice, he made the wrong one, irrelevant of his ability to comprehend the outcome, and no must face the circumstances.

 

[Bojangles17]

The club may already be doing this but I’d pull aside Marlion given his life experience and ask him is there a chance with this young bloke coz he’s this far from throwing his career down the gurgler
I’d value his opinion more than anyone’s in this case in forming a judgement on his immediate future