News Welcome to Hawthorn Tyrone Vickery's cats!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
I come in peace so please don't s**t all over me. I highly doubt that Ty has knowingly engaged in criminal activity, what King may or may not have done will play out later this year. Agree on the earlier posts that Ty isn't in the clear yet but I would be extremely surprised if he was charged with any wrong doing. Nothing illegal with getting debt collectors in especially when the sum is significant in this case.

I sincerely wish Ty all the best and hope he can find something to reinvigorate his career, some criticism of him is deserved but some of it is abhorrent.
 
You're not wrong - however my argument is not about what is morally right or wrong. I agree that the press and social media can be vengeful shitbags. My point is I don't think calling someone a s**t footballer is defamatory per se.
I would think most stuff out there is at the very least bullying type behavior
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I would think most stuff out there is at the very least bullying type behavior

Definitely. Again - I am not sure where bullying falls in terms of a criminal offence. I know it is definitely a legal issue in the workplace - but beyond that I am out of my depth.
 
While I think this bleeding heart discussion is completely baseless and not worthy of further debate, his father hasn't helped his future damages claim (against this thread) by quoting his son in today's paper..... "he takes no notice of it...and...I don't listen to it, I don't care". The defence rests your Honour.
Now can we get back to enjoying the place he frees up on our list?
 
I think I just failed the football version of the Psychopath Test (PT) ....


PT - While at the funeral of her own mother, a girl met a guy whom she did not know.

We have a spud on our list who is chewing up salary space and a valuable spot for a player who can contribute.

PT - She thought this guy was amazing, so much her dream guy she believed him to be, that she fell in love with him there and then … A few days later, the girl killed her own sister.

One day he was implicated in a crime that could mean, if convicted, would void his contract and see him delisted without a payout.

PT - Question: What is her motive in killing her sister?

Question: Would you be happy for the player to be found guilty and sent to jail and reap all the benefits of his misfortune?

PT - Answer: She was hoping that the guy would appear at the funeral again.

Answer: Yes!
 
While I think this bleeding heart discussion is completely baseless and not worthy of further debate, his father hasn't helped his future damages claim (against this thread) by quoting his son in today's paper..... "he takes no notice of it...and...I don't listen to it, I don't care". The defence rests your Honour.
Now can we get back to enjoying the place he frees up on our list?

Mate certainly no bleeding heart here. I can see how you've taken it that way, but you're off target.

Pretty sure Boyd told Luke Beveridge he was fine.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Do we think he will get any punishment from the club?

Yes he hasn't been charged, but he put himself in a really stupid position. It's a bad look for the club.
 
Do we think he will get any punishment from the club?

Yes he hasn't been charged, but he put himself in a really stupid position. It's a bad look for the club.

Jake King will break Clarko's kneecaps if Vickers is punished.
 
Something to clarify on defamation - it's not illegal or 'prohibited' to defame another person. Defamation is a tort which simply means you can be held liable for damages if you defame someone.

The key point is that you have to be able to demonstrate financial damages. You have to demonstrate that the defamatory statements firstly resulted in actual damage to your reputation, or caused people to think less of you, and you have to be able to put a price on that damage. Beyond that, there are a variety of possible defences. In some states truth is a defence by itself (though in others truth is only a defence if it is actually in the public interest for that truth to be widely known). Fair comment is another defence and would likely apply in the case of the media laying into a particular footballer either for being s**t at football or general (real or perceived) floggery.

On the other hand, if a newspaper print an article stating that a given player is a drug/gambling addict and as a result that player doesn't get his contract renewed or is forced to accept lesser terms, they would very much be liable if the player sued them and they couldn't substantiate the truth of their claims in court. Though it should be noted that it would be a civil trial and so the standard of proof would only be balance of probabilities.

So you are 'allowed' to defame someone in the same way that you are allowed to break a contract. The government won't punish you for it, but the person with whom you had the contract has legal remedies available to enforce it.

Please also note that I am not a legal professional and as such this post should not be construed as legal advice.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Something to clarify on defamation - it's not illegal or 'prohibited' to defame another person. Defamation is a tort which simply means you can be held liable for damages if you defame someone.

The key point is that you have to be able to demonstrate financial damages. You have to demonstrate that the defamatory statements firstly resulted in actual damage to your reputation, or caused people to think less of you, and you have to be able to put a price on that damage. Beyond that, there are a variety of possible defences. In some states truth is a defence by itself (though in others truth is only a defence if it is actually in the public interest for that truth to be widely known). Fair comment is another defence and would likely apply in the case of the media laying into a particular footballer either for being s**t at football or general (real or perceived) floggery.

On the other hand, if a newspaper print an article stating that a given player is a drug/gambling addict and as a result that player doesn't get his contract renewed or is forced to accept lesser terms, they would very much be liable if the player sued them and they couldn't substantiate the truth of their claims in court. Though it should be noted that it would be a civil trial and so the standard of proof would only be balance of probabilities.

So you are 'allowed' to defame someone in the same way that you are allowed to break a contract. The government won't punish you for it, but the person with whom you had the contract has legal remedies available to enforce it.

Please also note that I am not a legal professional and as such this post should not be construed as legal advice.

If you're not a legal professional then why are you adding a disclaimer warning that it's not legal advice? Or don't you know, because you're not a legal professional? Or perhaps you do know, but you can't tell us why, because then you'd have to send Jake King round to silence everyone?
 
Do we think he will get any punishment from the club?

Yes he hasn't been charged, but he put himself in a really stupid position. It's a bad look for the club.
Am inclined to think he should be for bringing this bullshit Richmond culture (ie Jake King and his bikie mates) to our club
 
It would be nice if people didn't jump to conclusions, but the fact that ha has been named as an emergency suggests to me the club has received a satisfactory explanation from him.

Is Jake King a licenced debt collector?
Could he have acted alone initially, then requested Ty's presence at the debtors business address, or whe ever they were picked up?
There's a long way to go before we see a final wrap up, and for all we know Ty could come out unblemished, so let's let the law take its course.

If there is no action against Ty, I would like to see, but wouldn't expect apologies from those who have thrown mud.
 
As Ash Browne's tweeted, it seems the club have wrapped their arms around him, letting him train and also naming him as an emergency to go down to Tassie so that he will be surrounded by teammates.

On the face of it, it looks like Tyrone has made a really poor decision which will bear consequences, but even before this blow up I was a bit worried about the level of angst directed his way.

Before he put a Hawthorn jumper on the amount of vitriol and mud being thrown at Vickery on bigfooty, twitter, Facebook and wherever else that people can spew insults, has been alarming. I have never really understood it, because he's never been an outspoken figure, a big name or a guy earning mega bucks. And yet people have lined up to take a swing and make a joke at his expense.

On a day when another footballer announced that he was struggling the AFLPA stated that the amount of abuse leveled at players via social undoubtetly effects them and has an impact on their mental health.

Two weeks ago Vickery was the victim of some pretty horrible verbal abuse at a VFL match, if he dares log on to Facebook he'll see memes shared and liked by people about him from greenfield post, sportsbet or triple M...he's lost 100k to a business partner, his wife is on the other side of the globe and he's being investigated for extortion...if he's not struggling right now then he's a stronger man than I.

Tyrone will need to face the consequences of his actions in due course, if there are any, but for now I really want the HFC to get behind him and wrap their arms around him, because I think he really needs it.
 
As Ash Browne's tweeted, it seems the club have wrapped their arms around him, letting him train and also naming him as an emergency to go up to Sydney so that he will be surrounded by teammates.

Very well said and 100% agree, just a minor correction Abasi the team not to go up to Sydney but down to Launceston.

How can we show that we support him?
 

Assuming the following is accurately reported, TV's business partner seems pretty dodgy.

"Mr Mokdissi, who goes by several first names, has left a string of creditors in his wake following a series of failed hospitality ventures and unsuccessful investments in at least two racehorses.
One default judgment against Mr Mokdissi in the Magistrates Court last year showed he owed BMW's financing arm $64,327. Another unpaid debt to a food wholesaler totalled $38,859."

Do we think it is possible that King introduced TV to Mr Mokdissi and felt he had to do something to fix (arg) the problem? It would explain a lot.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top