Roast Tyson Stengle sacked after ******* up again

[mistylake]

Has anyone ever put rubbish in the recycle bin?
Man what a rush!

I did once and it bounced off the rim and onto the ground. I just looked at it and walked off. Liberating.

 

[mistylake]

Putting it in your neighbour's recycling bin is even better.

I recommend prawn heads for this.

 

[morris086]

Has anyone ever put rubbish in the recycle bin?
Man what a rush!

Putting it in your neighbour's recycling bin is even better.

I didn't know I was sharing this forum with criminals, time for me to find another AFC forum to waste time on.

 

[hey shorty]

... And Brad Crouch was shown the door without being offered a contract. The club is still going through the motion of trying to sack Stengle, and getting push back from the AFLPA.

Worrell was a completely different case. He tried to do the right thing, but underestimated how long it would take for his body to process the alcohol he'd consumed.

On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app

You HOPE they're trying to sack him

 

[Thetrader15]

You HOPE they're trying to sack him

If they weren't, it would have been settled a loooong time ago.

 

[1970crow]

I didn't know I was sharing this forum with criminals, time for me to find another AFC forum to waste time on.

Let's say the law of the day allows you to grow up to 10 marijuana plants and the fine for being found with 10 plants is less than getting caught speeding by 15km over the limit. Which of these 2 criminals with on the spot fines has broken the law most in your eyes? Don't forget, the speeding fine is more costly than the marijuana growing fine.

 

[hey shorty]

If they weren't, it would have been settled a loooong time ago.

Not sure about that.

They'd have known a long time ago whether they could or not.

 

[Josh Jenkins #1Fan]

You HOPE they're trying to sack him

I Hope we are NOT trying to sack him!!!!

 

[hey shorty]

I Hope we are NOT trying to sack him!!!!

And this brings me to a point I've wanted to make.

How many people want to sack Tyson as a culture based thing, and how many DONT want to sack him and yet claim we have a poor culture.

I've seen it a number of times in this thread, people want to hang onto him and yet think our player culture is poor.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

And this brings me to a point I've wanted to make.

How many people want to sack Tyson as a culture based thing, and how many DONT want to sack him and yet claim we have a poor culture.

I've seen it a number of times in this thread, people want to hang onto him and yet think our player culture is poor.

Sacking him doesn't fix our culture

Unless you think the problem with our culture that has seen the club largely tread water for 20+ years is that young fringe players sometimes partake in recreational drugs.

 

[hey shorty]

Sacking him doesn't fix our culture

Unless you think the problem with our culture that has seen the club largely tread water for 20+ years is that young fringe players sometimes partake in recreational drugs.

It wasn't my opinion, merely one I've seen a fair bit in this thread. Sacking player who sometimes does recreational drugs isn't the point, it's about a guy who's made 3 very, very poor errors of judgement in 12 months and got caught doing it.

We all know players do it, how many get caught ??

And it's funny how you now mention him as a fringe player, because another prevailing opinion early on in the thread is that he's a vital cog in our future. I'm neither here nor there on that myself, we had one of the greatest small forwards of the modern era and we couldn't win a flag, but agree Tyson COULD be an important cog.

 

[1970crow]

It's hard to believe our culture has truly turned the corner when we've had three players get in trouble for off field incidents in the last three months.

I do believe we've started to trend upwards though. The players look in better physical shape just going by the photos.

Our culture was s**t when we had no off-field issues. Perhaps off-field issues and winning culture aren't mutually exclusive. Ever thought of that? How's Richmond going with Dusty and his chopsticks and the covid boys breaking curfew? Bet they're s**t.

 

[hey shorty]

Our culture was sh*t when we had no off-field issues. Perhaps off-field issues and winning culture aren't mutually exclusive. Ever thought of that? How's Richmond going with Fusty wnd his chopsticks and the covid boys breaking curfew? Bet they're sh*t.

What it means is most if not all clubs have similar things going on in them.

If you're at the top you'll get attention for them, and if you're down the bottom in a 2 team town you'll get it too.

 

[1970crow]

What it means is most if not all clubs have similar things going on in them.

If you're at the top you'll get attention for them, and if you're down the bottom in a 2 team town you'll get it too.

I can't understand people who equate our club cultural issues with the odd example of player 'misbehaviour'.

 

[1970crow]

... And Brad Crouch was shown the door without being offered a contract. The club is still going through the motion of trying to sack Stengle, and getting push back from the AFLPA.

Worrell was a completely different case. He tried to do the right thing, but underestimated how long it would take for his body to process the alcohol he'd consumed.

On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app

The drink driving isn't the cultural issue to me. It's that he was that s**t faced that he blew over the next morning 1 week into preseason. That said, he might just be one of the rare unlucky ones that get drunk once for a special event, then drive home with alcohol still in the system AND get pulled over while driving. The odds are slim, but it could be the case.

 

[1970crow]

If they weren't, it would have been settled a loooong time ago.

They can't sack him, they're trying to work out a way for there to be no functional difference without opening up to very costly legal action. I doubt this can be done. At worst, this is a 3rd strike, 12 weeks under the AFLs supposed health orientated illicit drug policy. I'd sack anyone pushing for the kid to be sacked, they're priorities don't align with running a successful football team.

 

[hey shorty]

They can't sack him, they're trying to work out a way for their to be no functional difference without opening up to very costly legal action. I doubt this can be done. At worst, this is a 3rd strike, 12 weeks under the AFLs supposed health orientated illicit drug policy. I'd sack anyone pushing for the kid to be sacked, they're priorities don't align with running a successful football team.

Just on that last point, why do you have that view ??

Whether Stengle is there or not will have little bearing on whether we are a successful football club or not.

Also, a 3rd strike should be a sackable offence. It's ridiculous it isn't.

 

[1970crow]

Just on that last point, why do you have that view ??

Whether Stengle is there or not will have little bearing on whether we are a successful football club or not.

Also, a 3rd strike should be a sackable offence. It's ridiculous it isn't.

Decisions should be made solely based upon what's best for the performance of the 22. The difference between Stengle and half our list and league is his use has been made public. Pushing for his sacking is a decision geared towards perceptions not footballing performance. We don't need people in influential positions with that leaning. We're a football club with the sole purpose of winning flags. Every other part of the club exists to put the best 22 on the park that we can. And the AFLs own public policy is that illicit drug use is a health and education issue and a 3rd strike has scripted outcomes. Arguing for more means you're either an idiot or your priorities are out of whack. And that's assuming it's even a 3rd strike, we only know of 2.

I think for far too long our admin culture has been that we're an entity that among other things, enters a team in the AFL competition. It should be that the entity exists only because it's required to be able to support the football team.

 

[hey shorty]

Decisions should be made solely based upon what's best for the performance of the 22. The difference between Stengle and half our list and league is his use has been made public. Pushing for his sacking is a decision geared towards perceptions not footballing performance. We don't need people in influential positions with that leaning. We're a football club with the sole purpose of winning flags. Every other part of the club exists to put the best 22 on the park that we can. And the AFLs own public policy is that illicit drug use is a health and education issue and a 3rd strike has scripted outcomes. Arguing for more means you're either an idiot or your priorities are out of whack. And that's assuming it's even a 3rd strike, we only know of 2.

I think for far too long our admin culture has been that we're an entity that among other things, enters a team in the AFL competition. It should be that the entity exists only because it's required to be able to support the football team.

If you're dumb enough to get 3 strikes with current testing procedures then it shows me you're not listening to any education you've been given.

His difference is he's too stupid to keep it private, which is what 95% of players do.... Not half as you suggest

And since when is AFL policy rolled gold ?? It's one of the more lopsided organisations in world sport.

 

[1970crow]

If you're dumb enough to get 3 strikes with current testing procedures then it shows me you're not listening to any education you've been given.

His difference is he's too stupid to keep it private, which is what 95% of players do.... Not half as you suggest

And since when is AFL policy rolled gold ?? It's one of the more lopsided organisations in world sport.

It doesn't matter how dumb you are, we don't exist to win debating titles or drive public agendas. The AFL has a public policy with mandated outcomes for infringement. You're effectively saying that if you're dumb enough to accrue enough demerit points then you deserve to be hit with a different penalty than what is mandated. "12 points for you HS, loss of license till a demerit drops off? Nah, how stupid to have lost those recent points, screw the system in place, how does a few weeks in jail sound."

The 50% was my guess at the % of players doing it, not the % of those that aren't getting caught. That number is closer to 99%. Tyson definitely needs to exit his group of friends. The sad thing is he's probably stumped up the $ for the party favours and some reject photographs it and it ends up in the hands of someone happy to be a part of trying to ruin his career. It shits me that the club is ultimately no better than the ******* that sent the picture to the media.

 

[hey shorty]

It doesn't matter how dumb you are, we don't exist to win debating titles or drive public agendas. The AFL has a public policy with mandated outcomes for infringement. You're effectively saying that if you're dumb enough to accrue enough demerit points then you deserve to be hit with a different penalty than what is mandated. "12 points for you HS, loss of license till a demerit drops off? Nah, how stupid to have lost those recent points, screw the system in place, how does a few weeks in jail sound."

The 50% was my guess at the % of players doing it, not the % of those that aren't getting caught. That number is closer to 99%. Tyson definitely needs to exit his group of friends. The sad thing is he's probably stumped up the $ for the party favours and some reject photographs it and it ends up in the hands of someone happy to be a part of trying to ruin his career. It shits me that the club is ultimately no better than the ******* that sent the picture to the media.

I'm not effectively saying that at all, what I, and a lot of poster here who out have time for are saying is that the kid clearly doesn't have the same drive that most of his teammate's do to be a professional sportsperson.

He needs to decide what is more important. Now there's probably a large part of him that would say "well these guys were my mates before I played AFL and probably will be there afterwards" which is true.

But then there should be a larger portion that says "this campaigner could cost me my career".

To say we are no better than that guy is just a stupid way of thinking. Tyson has already blown a chance of being a premiership player, he could be on the path to being an ex-AFL player.

Now would I sack him ?? On what we know it does present a compelling case. On the flipside, if the coaching staff plus Emma Bahr and Dan Jackson think he can be salvaged then I'm more than happy to go with that.

Admin, Adam Kelly aside, should have no say.

 

[1970crow]

If you're dumb enough to get 3 strikes with current testing procedures then it shows me you're not listening to any education you've been given.

His difference is he's too stupid to keep it private, which is what 95% of players do.... Not half as you suggest

And since when is AFL policy rolled gold ?? It's one of the more lopsided organisations in world sport.

Re the AFL, we know what they're about and how they operate when they can under the cover of darkness. But this is a public policy of their's. They're very strong on this mental health issue when forced to speak in public. Obviously their preference is to shelve that when they feel that their brand has been dented. And that's ok when it's dishing out a single strike and a couple of games for public drug use. I know they'd want him gone as well. And they'd be used to guys like Crouch, Stengle, Mummy, Bennell, Carlisle just copping a couple of games even though first strike is zero games.

Their problem arises at the point someone challenges the penalty. What they're wanting to do is enact the bringing the game into disrepute clause to inflict serious penalty. But it's clearly contradictory to their illicit drug policy and public stance thereof. They want their cake and they want to eat it too. And that's ok when it's a handful of games, no biggie. But you seriously expose yourself when you're trying to kill careers. And I expect the legal support of Tyson is telling them exactly that and that they can GAGF.

"2nd/3rd strike we accept, the public nature of the strike is irrelevant and you can stick the disrepute charge up your arse, we'll see you in court and we'll look forward to this playing out in public. Here's an example of the subpoenas that we'll be throwing around like ******* confetti."

 

[1970crow]

I'm not effectively saying that at all, what I, and a lot of poster here who out have time for are saying is that the kid clearly doesn't have the same drive that most of his teammate's do to be a professional sportsperson.

He needs to decide what is more important. Now there's probably a large part of him that would say "well these guys were my mates before I played AFL and probably will be there afterwards" which is true.

But then there should be a larger portion that says "this campaigner could cost me my career".

To say we are no better than that guy is just a stupid way of thinking. Tyson has already blown a chance of being a premiership player, he could be on the path to being an ex-AFL player.

Now would I sack him ?? On what we know it does present a compelling case. On the flipside, if the coaching staff plus Emma Bahr and Dan Jackson think he can be salvaged then I'm more than happy to go with that.

Admin, Adam Kelly aside, should have no say.

I couldn't disagree more with your first sentence. This is what lots of players do in their free time during their holidays. What's important is whether he keeps with his program, returns in good shape and then trains and plays hard. That he gets drunk and coked up in the off-season is meaningless. Difference between him and half the players on our list is that he's been caught doing it twice. Luckily, the AFL have a mandated penalty in place, so nobody needs to waste any time working out a penalty, it's already done. Read the below and explain to me how this is anyhthing more than being caught in possession.

In terms of what the moronic masses want, it's irrelevant, they, you, me, AFC, AFL have no say. He's been caught in possession of an illicit substance. The penalty is fixed. It's only not fixed by his good graces.

 

[hey shorty]

I couldn't disagree more with your first sentence. This is what lots of players do in their free time during their holidays. What's important is whether he keeps with his program, returns in good shape and then trains and plays hard. That he gets drunk and coked up in the off-season is meaningless. Difference between him and half the players on our list is that he's been caught doing it twice. Luckily, the AFL have a mandated penalty in place, so nobody needs to waste any time working out a penalty, it's already done. Read the below and explain to me how this is anyhthing more than being caught in possession.

In terms of what the moronic masses want, it's irrelevant, they, you, me, AFC, AFL have no say. He's been caught in possession of an illicit substance. The penalty is fixed. It's only not fixed by his good graces.

View attachment 1041402

Remember when he did his first TT after crossing from Richmond ?? He couldn't finish it.

Last year he was down the back too.

Pretty clear he doesn't have the drive, Richmond saw it before we did and now we've given him more chances than he's probably earned.

I also don't believe we are trying to sack him.

 

[1970crow]

Remember when he did his first TT after crossing from Richmond ?? He couldn't finish it.

Last year he was down the back too.

Pretty clear he doesn't have the drive, Richmond saw it before we did and now we've given him more chances than he's probably earned.

I also don't believe we are trying to sack him.

Of course we are. He's still not allowed at the club, we don't want him there. He should be training with his teammates and he would be if we had any intention of keeping him.