Why didn't We?
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- WayneJudson42
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon 07 Jul 2008 9:53pm
- Location: I'm a victim of circumstance
Why didn't We?
Ok, so there's been some intense discussion, speculation and innuendo thrown around on the forum.
So a quick poll...
why do you think we didn't take him?
sponsors? Lifestyle? Age? Injuries?
and on that basis, did the board make the right call?
My view: We didn't take him because the board was not 100% convinced that BC has given up his habits.
I reckon the sponsors would have spoken up immediately when they found out that we were pursuing him. it doesn't make sense that they wait until the meeting. Unless they were living in a cave for the previous 5 months.
If this is the reason, then, yes they made the right call IMO.
So a quick poll...
why do you think we didn't take him?
sponsors? Lifestyle? Age? Injuries?
and on that basis, did the board make the right call?
My view: We didn't take him because the board was not 100% convinced that BC has given up his habits.
I reckon the sponsors would have spoken up immediately when they found out that we were pursuing him. it doesn't make sense that they wait until the meeting. Unless they were living in a cave for the previous 5 months.
If this is the reason, then, yes they made the right call IMO.
The lid is off after Round 2! Enjoy the journey, coz you just don't know where we'll end up. Live for today and seize the moment.
- saintbrat
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 44575
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:11pm
- Location: saints zone
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 188 times
I DON't care .........................................................
we have
St Kilda – 48 players (38 primary, 1 veteran and 9 rookies)
who will get My full support as long as they wear the Red Black and White
If we are looking at "what if's " I'd be rich enought to retire and spend more time haunting the saints or SS
have we heard who the new rookies barracked for before being added to the saints?
we have
St Kilda – 48 players (38 primary, 1 veteran and 9 rookies)
who will get My full support as long as they wear the Red Black and White
If we are looking at "what if's " I'd be rich enought to retire and spend more time haunting the saints or SS
have we heard who the new rookies barracked for before being added to the saints?
StReNgTh ThRoUgH LoYaLtY
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly..!!
MEMBERSHIP 2014 31,134 Membership 2015 32,746 MEMBERSHIP 2016 - 38,101
MEMBERSHIP 2017 42,095 , Membership 2018 46,998
MEMBERSHIP 2019 43,106 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php? ... 9#p1816890
MEMBERSHIP 2020 48,588 http://saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=100107
I think the main reason we didnt take him was that the AFL made some other conditions that were not make public should he offend again. One of those conditions, I believe, is loss of premiership points, along with fines, and other sanctions to the club.
Because we could not completly guarantee he could come to the club and stay problem free, we were not prepared to take the chance, particularly the loss of points.
Just my opinion.
Because we could not completly guarantee he could come to the club and stay problem free, we were not prepared to take the chance, particularly the loss of points.
Just my opinion.
- Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12789
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 801 times
- Been thanked: 428 times
I don't think those conditions were not made public.saintbart wrote:I think the main reason we didnt take him was that the AFL made some other conditions that were not make public should he offend again. One of those conditions, I believe, is loss of premiership points, along with fines, and other sanctions to the club.
Because we could not completly guarantee he could come to the club and stay problem free, we were not prepared to take the chance, particularly the loss of points.
Just my opinion.
IIRC they were announced well before Cousins was re-registered and there was certainly discussion about them on SEN at the time.
Most people keep 'glossing over' these penalties in reference to Cousins re-offending and tbh, I'm not sure why?
It is conceivable that if he is picked up in a 'hair drug test in July/August, that the AFL could strip away any premeiership points won by that team (in any game he played) because they wouldn't/couldn't identify at what exact point in time during those 3 months he had re-offended. Now I'm not saying that they would do it, but they could.
If they did I'm sure the Club concerned (now Richmond) would fight it but what argument could they possibly mount given the AFL has warned all Clubs about the consequences/penalties that can be applied?
- The Fireman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13289
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
- Has thanked: 662 times
- Been thanked: 1951 times
- Launcestonsaint
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2558
- Joined: Tue 16 Mar 2004 10:19pm
- Location: Watching our games on tele or listening to the radio :(