When will the Carlton FC Arrive? Part 2

[Gethelred]

Who is arguing that is cannot? I critiqued them and posted what I thought of them. What's the issue?

Uh-uh. This is what you said about the people who criticised you:

Anyone with that opinion is usually lambasted.

That's not a critique, that's a strawman of their reasons for disagreeing with you.

Again, you are making this up which is a clear trend for you. I said most of the posts disagreeing did so in the manner that I explained. Nothing about entirety.

'Usually' is doing an awful lot of work for you.

Nonetheless, I concede that you intended for a different interpretation. Do you concede that their reasons for disagreeing with you might be other than you've portrayed them to be?

How vague it is is up for debate, but so what? I have never shied away from that it is an opinion of mine. What's the point of all of this?

You like the moral high ground. I'm questioning both how moral and how high that ground is.

Very debatable. Again, what's the point of all of this?

You don't seem to like me pointing out that your opinion isn't an educated one.

You are interested in trying to 'trip me up' and it's not going very well.

Trip you up? I mean, I've already done it; I don't need to keep doing it.

You clearly disagree with me and that's fine. All the the mental gymnastics about 'your opinion, my opinion, their opinion' is not required and nothing of substance is really being debated here.

...

You do realize where you're saying this, right? This is a) on the internet, where nothing of worth or substance was ever said or done, and b) on Bigfooty, where even less conversation is of worth than elsewhere online.

Nothing of substance is ever debated here.

I think you'll either have to forgive me for pointing out where and when you're inconsistent, or you won't. Pointing out that it's meaningless doesn't really add or subtract anything.

"Something that can be demonstrated to have happened" is simply false if you're referring to any incident relating to Lyon and the female staffer.

Something definitively happened; if it didn't happen, there would be no NDA, and no complaint made. What that something is cannot be said, but that something happened is a statement of fact.

If a tree falls in the woods and everyone who saw it and heard it happen all collectively agreed not to admit to it happening or to talk about it under the force of a court order, the tree still fell in the woods. Just because those who saw it choose not to tell anyone doesn't change the fact that it happened.

Were you there? Has either party made a statement of fact about what happened? Pretending that it's factual that Ross broke the law or is a threat to women in any way doesn't make it so.

And that's where you run into issues. Where, at all, have I said any of that? Have I said anything on the subject?

The above is about you wanting to go on the attack, because defense wasn't going so well.

 

[Kings of Lygon]

Uh-uh. This is what you said about the people who criticised you:

That's not a critique, that's a strawman of their reasons for disagreeing with you.

'Usually' is doing an awful lot of work for you.

Nonetheless, I concede that you intended for a different interpretation. Do you concede that their reasons for disagreeing with you might be other than you've portrayed them to be?

You like the moral high ground. I'm questioning both how moral and how high that ground is.

You don't seem to like me pointing out that your opinion isn't an educated one.

Trip you up? I mean, I've already done it; I don't need to keep doing it.

...

You do realize where you're saying this, right? This is a) on the internet, where nothing of worth or substance was ever said or done, and b) on Bigfooty, where even less conversation is of worth than elsewhere online.

Nothing of substance is ever debated here.

I think you'll either have to forgive me for pointing out where and when you're inconsistent, or you won't. Pointing out that it's meaningless doesn't really add or subtract anything.

Something definitively happened; if it didn't happen, there would be no NDA, and no complaint made. What that something is cannot be said, but that something happened is a statement of fact.

If a tree falls in the woods and everyone who saw it and heard it happen all collectively agreed not to admit to it happening or to talk about it under the force of a court order, the tree still fell in the woods. Just because those who saw it choose not to tell anyone doesn't change the fact that it happened.

And that's where you run into issues. Where, at all, have I said any of that? Have I said anything on the subject?

The above is about you wanting to go on the attack, because defense wasn't going so well.

You're proving my point for me.

Labelling me and my opinions 'uneducated'. Questioning my morality. Attacking the person and not the content.

This is what I was talking about and why I choose not to engage with you anymore. You can choose to see it as a win for you and go ahead and get in the last word if you wish, that's cool. I'm not going to waste time responding to someone who isn't going to converse in good faith.

You're gonna make Vince cry soon lol

Classic drive-by attempt by someone who has nothing of value to add but would rather try to attack the poster and not the post. Also proving my point.

 

[Gethelred]

You're proving my point for me.

Labelling me and my opinions 'uneducated'. Questioning my morality. Attacking the person and not the content.

...

Do you teach a class in deliberately missing the point?

Your opinion is uneducated because it's not based on evidence; ergo, it's not an educated opinion.
You position yourself on the moral high ground. It is not questioning your morals to say that your position is not as high as you've said it is and your portrayal of others is off.

And that's the next thing: you're attacking again. You're not really trying to defend yourself anymore.

Does it gall you, that I haven't actually done more than critique what you've said? Not really said anything about myself or my views? Makes it tricky to paint yourself the victim, doesn't it; might have to rely on deliberately misinterpreting words in order to portray offendedness or the illusion of being attacked.

This is what I was talking about and why I choose not to engage with you anymore. You can choose to see it as a win for you and go ahead and get in the last word if you wish, that's cool. I'm not going to waste time responding to someone who isn't going to converse in good faith.

At no point have I insulted you, called you a name, attacked you personally.

When it rains, do you melt?

Classic drive-by attempt by someone who has nothing of value to add but would rather try to attack the poster and not the post. Also proving my point.

... and you've just made mine.

 

[kozi]

Carlton hierarchy don’t have much confidence in Voss and he can’t possibly have any confidence in them. It’s an interesting dynamic.

 

[LordLucifer]

Carlton hierarchy don’t have much confidence in Voss and he can’t possibly have any confidence in them. It’s an interesting dynamic.

How the feck do you arrive at those two conclusions ???

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Unfortunately, woke politics looks like costing us a perfect fit to coach us IMO. Don't mention that elsewhere though, they really come hard for you.

“Woke politics”

An investigation into sexual harassment in the workplace, you mean.

 

[Kings of Lygon]

“Woke politics”

An investigation into sexual harassment in the workplace, you mean.

Lyon was cleared by the AFL integrity department, didn't have any police charges laid against him and an agreement/settlement of the issue was reached between the relevant parties. So no, that's not what I mean.

The 'woke politics' comment refers to people portraying investigations to equal guilt that should preclude people from future employment or opportunities. Pretty common these days unfortunately. I dislike using buzz terms like that, but it sums it up pretty well in my opinion.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Lyon was cleared by the AFL integrity department, didn't have any police charges laid against him and an agreement/settlement of the issue was reached between the relevant parties. So no, that's not what I mean.

The 'woke politics' comment refers to people portraying investigations to equal guilt that should preclude people from future employment or opportunities. Pretty common these days unfortunately. I dislike using buzz terms like that, but it sums it up pretty well in my opinion.

It’s called due diligence.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

One has to applaud Carlton for stepping up and doing their bit for equality and social justice.

Not sure they are aware but the current front runner for the job has a history of alleged violence. In fact, it is alleged a member of his party beat the living suitcase out of a woman at a premises which at the time had a current liquor licence.

I am sure this is a mere oversight, and I will email the club either directly or through the organisations legal firm of Browne, Papyrus & Bags to inform them this appointment may be in conflict with their Cralton Respects initiative.

One would hope the 'process' involves a thorough background check and direct questioning of the applicant, even if said applicant has been cleared of any wrong doing.

"Coaching candidate Voss, former Brisbane Lions teammate Simon Black and St Kilda spearhead Fraser Gehrig are among six men facing charges over the violence that erupted at St Kilda's Prince of Wales Hotel on Grand Final eve last year.

Gehrig, 31, will face a charge of unlawful assault on a woman, while Brownlow medallist Black, 28, has been charged with counts of recklessly causing injury and assault by kicking in the early hours of September 29.

The incident could tarnish Voss's coaching hopes"

Unlawful assault. That covers things like threatening to punch and spitting in someone's direction. Voss claimed he was kicked and then struck a man with an open hand, which could easily have been a shove to the chest. The other man had previous convictions for assault and criminal damage and was also charged with reckless conduct endangering serious injury for throwing a billiard ball at Craig Lambert. The group sued the players for an unspecified amount.
Sounds like Gehrig and Lawrence were trying to crack onto the blokes girlfriend. Voss and Black probably didn't even know that was happening and then came to help out after a scuffle broke out.

So 15 years ago. He was most likely helping his mates out who he saw in a scuffle and probably didn't know how or why it started. Was charged with a pretty minor assault charge. Pleaded guilty and fined without conviction and put into a diversion program for first offenders.
Reckon he's probably paid his dues on that one. Doesn't really appear to have a history of violence.

Look at who else was involved; Craig McRae.

Voss okay with his side of story

Voss okay with his side of story

www.foxsports.com.au

Lyon, on the other hand, we don't really know what he did, if he did it, and we won't ever know due to the NDA and settlement.
The two incidents aren't really comparable.

 

[faible]

Lyon was cleared by the AFL integrity department, didn't have any police charges laid against him and an agreement/settlement of the issue was reached between the relevant parties. So no, that's not what I mean.

The 'woke politics' comment refers to people portraying investigations to equal guilt that should preclude people from future employment or opportunities. Pretty common these days unfortunately. I dislike using buzz terms like that, but it sums it up pretty well in my opinion.

Lyon is employed.

Just not as head coach at a club who also runs a community organisation based around respectful behaviour towards women.

Funny that.

 

[demondavey]

Lyon was cleared by the AFL integrity department, didn't have any police charges laid against him and an agreement/settlement of the issue was reached between the relevant parties. So no, that's not what I mean.

The 'woke politics' comment refers to people portraying investigations to equal guilt that should preclude people from future employment or opportunities. Pretty common these days unfortunately. I dislike using buzz terms like that, but it sums it up pretty well in my opinion.

The AFL doesn’t have an integrity department. If it says it has one then you’ve been hoodwinked.

 

[Soggy2112]

Lyon was cleared by the AFL integrity department, didn't have any police charges laid against him and an agreement/settlement of the issue was reached between the relevant parties. So no, that's not what I mean.

The 'woke politics' comment refers to people portraying investigations to equal guilt that should preclude people from future employment or opportunities. Pretty common these days unfortunately. I dislike using buzz terms like that, but it sums it up pretty well in my opinion.

I hope you can understand why people find the suggestion that it is “woke politics” to be offensive. Sexual assault and harassment cases are heavily stacked against the victim. Countless cases do not result in convictions because of this, I have witnessed this first hand. I’m not saying that Ross did this, but there is every chance that he did, and a football club treating an incident like this as serious as it needs to be is not an example of “woke politics” it’s the correct thing to do from a business and ethical standpoint.

 

[Kings of Lygon]

I hope you can understand why people find the suggestion that it is “woke politics” to be offensive. Sexual assault and harassment cases are heavily stacked against the victim. Countless cases do not result in convictions because of this, I have witnessed this first hand. I’m not saying that Ross did this, but there is every chance that he did, and a football club treating an incident like this as serious as it needs to be is not an example of “woke politics” it’s the correct thing to do from a business and ethical standpoint.

I'm not going to divulge personal details, but I understand full well how these types of things can affect victims. I think you are approaching this in a good and respectful manner and we are mostly on the same page to be honest. I must say though, I think its super important to be really clear with terminology and I'm not aware of Ross being accused of sexual assault. I can accept that may be a mistake on your behalf to put that in there.

My view is that the incident is over and done with, there is nothing for Carlton or any other company to look into. The alleged victim and Ross have agreed to a settlement and the details and what was discussed in that settlement are and will remain a mystery as they should. He could have admitted fault, she could have agreed it was a misunderstanding. Unlike some, I don't wish to cast aspersions over or injure any party because we will never know. If he had been charged with something and found guilty, that's a whole different kettle of fish and this is a very different conversation - but he just wasn't. He is bound by a NDA, so people can ask him all they like and all he can do is say 'no comment'.

If it's good enough for the alleged victim to agree to settle the dispute and move on, it's more than good enough for me. That's my view. If Carlton want to look further into that and rule someone like him out of the job on the basis of a unfounded allegations from the past, I think it's a mistake and sets a terrible precedent.

 

[Ati Tude]

I'm not going to divulge personal details, but I understand full well how these types of things can affect victims. I think you are approaching this in a good and respectful manner and we are mostly on the same page to be honest. I must say though, I think its super important to be really clear with terminology and I'm not aware of Ross being accused of sexual assault. I can accept that may be a mistake on your behalf to put that in there.

My view is that the incident is over and done with, there is nothing for Carlton or any other company to look into. The alleged victim and Ross have agreed to a settlement and the details and what was discussed in that settlement are and will remain a mystery as they should. He could have admitted fault, she could have agreed it was a misunderstanding. Unlike some, I don't wish to cast aspersions over or injure any party because we will never know. If he had been charged with something and found guilty, that's a whole different kettle of fish and this is a very different conversation - but he just wasn't. He is bound by a NDA, so people can ask him all they like and all he can do is say 'no comment'.

If it's good enough for the alleged victim to agree to settle the dispute and move on, it's more than good enough for me. That's my view. If Carlton want to look further into that and rule someone like him out of the job on the basis of a unfounded allegations from the past, I think it's a mistake and sets a terrible precedent.

Yet that seems to be what has happened. Look on the bright side - you (and more significantly, everyone else), miss the most awful game style imaginable and maybe a GF loss if the players buy in.

 

[Freomaniac]

Average of 10 wins a year, 4 finals wins total out of 8 games. No finals since their last loss in 2016.

Bog average. And moaning about everything all the way.

No shame in that. Your team Hasnt made finals in 9 or so years. Mine hasnt in the last 6. Gold coast havent played finals in their 12 year existence.

As I have stated, I dont mind Freo having a similar run With Justin Longmuir like Brad Scott did at North. I dont care if its 4 years of 5th or 6th placed finishes and Freo wins 4 home elim finals in a row and bundle out in the semis away.

Hell, I dont care if its 2 finals wins and 6 losses from 8 games. Have 3-4 elim finals in which freo wins one of them. then Have 1 prelim finishing 3rd or 4th of losing the qualifying final, then win the semi final and bundle out the prelim final.

Carlton needs to play finals and eventually win one or 2 with this actual squad.

 

[Soggy2112]

I'm not going to divulge personal details, but I understand full well how these types of things can affect victims. I think you are approaching this in a good and respectful manner and we are mostly on the same page to be honest. I must say though, I think its super important to be really clear with terminology and I'm not aware of Ross being accused of sexual assault. I can accept that may be a mistake on your behalf to put that in there.

My view is that the incident is over and done with, there is nothing for Carlton or any other company to look into. The alleged victim and Ross have agreed to a settlement and the details and what was discussed in that settlement are and will remain a mystery as they should. He could have admitted fault, she could have agreed it was a misunderstanding. Unlike some, I don't wish to cast aspersions over or injure any party because we will never know. If he had been charged with something and found guilty, that's a whole different kettle of fish and this is a very different conversation - but he just wasn't. He is bound by a NDA, so people can ask him all they like and all he can do is say 'no comment'.

If it's good enough for the alleged victim to agree to settle the dispute and move on, it's more than good enough for me. That's my view. If Carlton want to look further into that and rule someone like him out of the job on the basis of a unfounded allegations from the past, I think it's a mistake and sets a terrible precedent.

Apologies, my intention was not to suggest Ross had assaulted anyone. I put sexual assault and harassment together because they are similar in terms of how they are handled legally, and how some people like to imply that addressing it is part of the “woke agenda”. Obviously one is more serious than the other and I’m not suggesting that he assaulted anyone.

My view is that the settlement doesn’t prove his innocent or guilty. Carlton as a football club deciding to consider that and find out more about it is progress and a good thing. Obviously they can’t find anything about the actual incident themselves, but I’m sure that people much more intelligent than I would be able to investigate to determine if they think there’s a risk. Also, we don’t know the circumstances and if the alleged victim was happy to move on, although I don’t think we should be publicly label him as guilty, I also think it’s important for all victims sakes to acknowledge that he also might not be innocent.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I'm not going to divulge personal details, but I understand full well how these types of things can affect victims. I think you are approaching this in a good and respectful manner and we are mostly on the same page to be honest. I must say though, I think its super important to be really clear with terminology and I'm not aware of Ross being accused of sexual assault. I can accept that may be a mistake on your behalf to put that in there.

My view is that the incident is over and done with, there is nothing for Carlton or any other company to look into. The alleged victim and Ross have agreed to a settlement and the details and what was discussed in that settlement are and will remain a mystery as they should. He could have admitted fault, she could have agreed it was a misunderstanding. Unlike some, I don't wish to cast aspersions over or injure any party because we will never know. If he had been charged with something and found guilty, that's a whole different kettle of fish and this is a very different conversation - but he just wasn't. He is bound by a NDA, so people can ask him all they like and all he can do is say 'no comment'.

If it's good enough for the alleged victim to agree to settle the dispute and move on, it's more than good enough for me. That's my view. If Carlton want to look further into that and rule someone like him out of the job on the basis of a unfounded allegations from the past, I think it's a mistake and sets a terrible precedent.

Did the bolded actually happen though?
Because the narrative seems to be that he ruled himself out.
Regardless of the fact that there were no charges or rulings against him, or that there is an NDA in place, it makes perfect sense for Carlton to want to sit down and discuss the allegations with him, in a broader sense, and how that reflects on the Carlton Respects program. He doesn't need to go into details and break the NDA. It could just have been an open and honest discussion about the program and how his appointment could be seen to go against that, and potential ways to turn it into a positive and get on the front foot.
Nothing wrong with the club being cautious about it.
If Ross baulked at that, it probably says more about him to be honest, and shows that he obviously wasn't all in on the job.

 

[Kings of Lygon]

Apologies, my intention was not to suggest Ross had assaulted anyone. I put sexual assault and harassment together because they are similar in terms of how they are handled legally, and how some people like to imply that addressing it is part of the “woke agenda”. Obviously one is more serious than the other and I’m not suggesting that he assaulted anyone.

I knew it wouldn't be as that doesn't appear to be your style or intent.

My view is that the settlement doesn’t prove his innocent or guilty. Carlton as a football club deciding to consider that and find out more about it is progress and a good thing. Obviously they can’t find anything about the actual incident themselves, but I’m sure that people much more intelligent than I would be able to investigate to determine if they think there’s a risk. Also, we don’t know the circumstances and if the alleged victim was happy to move on, although I don’t think we should be publicly label him as guilty, I also think it’s important for all victims sakes to acknowledge that he also might not be innocent.

This is just where we disagree slightly and I think that's ok. Not sure I have anything else to add, but it was nice to have a civil discussion. We've perhaps gone off course a bit and are taking up too much space in a thread not really about this, not sure.

Did the bolded actually happen though?
Because the narrative seems to be that he ruled himself out.
Regardless of the fact that there were no charges or rulings against him, or that there is an NDA in place, it makes perfect sense for Carlton to want to sit down and discuss the allegations with him, in a broader sense, and how that reflects on the Carlton Respects program. He doesn't need to go into details and break the NDA. It could just have been an open and honest discussion about the program and how his appointment could be seen to go against that, and potential ways to turn it into a positive and get on the front foot.
Nothing wrong with the club being cautious about it.
If Ross baulked at that, it probably says more about him to be honest, and shows that he obviously wasn't all in on the job.

It's speculation on my behalf that there is/was a sect of people at Carlton that have that view and wanted to go down that road with regards to Ross. This was fairly openly reported in the media and makes sense to me / works in with how keen Ross was/is to be the Carlton coach, to all of a sudden do the 180.

If he didn't want to even discuss CR in a broader sense, I would be surprised. He's actually on record as someone who wants to continue his personal growth journey, but I accept it's a possibility because we just don't know. As for wanting to discuss it broadly behind closed doors and without detail, not sure but it doesn't seem like enough to put someone like Ross off. Reckon there might have been some hard pushing against him for the job from the start.

If it was implied/mandated that they would need to make a public comment, even without going into details about the alleged incident, about how he fits into that framework as head coach, I'm not surprised he isn't interested.

Consider for a minute that it's yourself and the allegations made in the media and by some on here are about you and totally baseless. Would you want to be wheeled out and essentially be seen to having to show contrition for it in order to accept a job? I don't think it's as simple as saying 'it says a lot about him' because that implies there is a level of guilt.

 

[calman]

the saddest thing is thread , is people thinking the AFL have any integrity at all, let alone a whole department worth.

 

[HBF]

Is the Bluemour thread on Carlton's board satire? Has to be, surely

I'm continually amazed the "ITK's" on the Carlton board were saying it was Clarkson, yet none of them mentioned anything about SPS wanting to leave. Total s**t show!

 

[Yoda_]

I'm continually amazed the "ITK's" on the Carlton board were saying it was Clarkson, yet none of them mentioned anything about SPS wanting to leave. Total sh*t show!

Many of your contemporaries want to dig at any other club that moves whilst there own house continually burns to the ground. This still amazes me.


Carlton seem a poisoned chalice at the moment. I hope Vossy (if the rumours are true) goes better than his time at Brisbane. The wraps on him are big, he's obviously developed and learnt a hell of a lot since those times at Brisbane.

Wish him all the best, the stakes are already high before he steps foot in the joint/

 

[Noidnadroj]

Unlawful assault. That covers things like threatening to punch and spitting in someone's direction. Voss claimed he was kicked and then struck a man with an open hand, which could easily have been a shove to the chest. The other man had previous convictions for assault and criminal damage and was also charged with reckless conduct endangering serious injury for throwing a billiard ball at Craig Lambert. The group sued the players for an unspecified amount.
Sounds like Gehrig and Lawrence were trying to crack onto the blokes girlfriend. Voss and Black probably didn't even know that was happening and then came to help out after a scuffle broke out.

So 15 years ago. He was most likely helping his mates out who he saw in a scuffle and probably didn't know how or why it started. Was charged with a pretty minor assault charge. Pleaded guilty and fined without conviction and put into a diversion program for first offenders.
Reckon he's probably paid his dues on that one. Doesn't really appear to have a history of violence.

Look at who else was involved; Craig McRae.

Voss okay with his side of story

Voss okay with his side of story

www.foxsports.com.au

Lyon, on the other hand, we don't really know what he did, if he did it, and we won't ever know due to the NDA and settlement.
The two incidents aren't really comparable.

You are correct, they are not comparable at all. One man was found guilty, the other was found not guilty.

And you have chosen to presume a lot of things about Voss ….’unlawful assault can include threatening to punch, it was probably an open hand, they probably came to help, they were probably innocent bystanders, he doesn’t have a history of violence ’ etc…..

But you don’t afford Lyon any such concession despite having absolutely no idea what happened. You do know ‘sexual harassment’ can include commenting on someone’s clothing. Or someone over hearing a joke deemed inappropriate? Or saying someone has a nice figure? So how do you know what Lyon did or didn’t do?

All we know is he was found not guilty by the law, was found he didn’t have a case to answer by the AFL integrity department (who would have spoken to the female in question and loads of witnesses) and does not have a history of sexual harassment incidents.

Something is wrong with society today when someone who is found guilty is given more lenience than someone who is not found guilty of anything …. just because people don’t know what happened.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

You are correct, they are not comparable at all. One man was found guilty, the other was found not guilty.

And you have chosen to presume a lot of things about Voss ….’unlawful assault can include threatening to punch, it was probably an open hand, they probably came to help, they were probably innocent bystanders, he doesn’t have a history of violence ’ etc…..

But you don’t afford Lyon any such concession despite having absolutely no idea what happened. You do know ‘sexual harassment’ can include commenting on someone’s clothing. Or someone over hearing a joke deemed inappropriate? Or saying someone has a nice figure? So how do you know what Lyon did or didn’t do?

All we know is he was found not guilty by the law, was found he didn’t have a case to answer by the AFL integrity department (who would have spoken to the female in question and loads of witnesses) and does not have a history of sexual harassment incidents.

Something is wrong with society today when someone who is found guilty is given more lenience than someone who is not found guilty of anything …. just because people don’t know what happened.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Firstly, I didn't say probably an open hand. That was from Voss.
I just speculated on what that could mean.
Voss gets leniency for an incident that happened 15 years ago, which he pleaded guilty to and copped his punishment. Didn't have a prior history of violence and hasn't had one since, to my knowledge.
So, yeah, he's paid his dues.

Was Lyon actually charged with anything, or was it settled before it got that far?
We don't know a lot about it. I believe it was rumoured that he made a comment about a co-worker's breasts, who was pregnant at the time. There was also reports of a $100k settlement. While that doesn't guarantee guilt or innocence, history tells us that accused parties who settle for monetary values, usually aren't innocent.

I don't believe that should necessarily have ruled him out for the job, just as I don't think Voss' 15yo indiscretion should. That doesn't mean that Carlton shouldn't request a chat with Lyon about it before making a decision on his suitability. I don't see how that could be considered unnecessarily harsh.

 

[Brick Loosener]

I'm continually amazed the "ITK's" on the Carlton board were saying it was Clarkson, yet none of them mentioned anything about SPS wanting to leave. Total sh*t show!

Didn't want to jinx it.

 

[HBF]

Didn't want to jinx it.

Just an interesting perspective. I've been around here for a while and the ITK's whilst sometimes get some information correct, for the most part they're wrong. For guys who apparently have a connection to the club they miss ALOT of info.