Our Admin are gutless

[cowboy18]

I agree 100% with joffaboy's OP.

They have simply let Steven Baker (and the club) down, by not questioning a very corrupt system. The yes men have FAILED again.

THOROUGHLY CHEESED OFF!

Yep. I thought my agreement with him was a kneejerk thing but on reflection it still resonates.

The club has not stood up to the awful inconsistencies in the application of tribunal and MRP "rules".

Once again, they go against our club.

[rodgerfox]

I think at some stage we should examine how do we prevent this sort of thing (an unnecessary and silly report ) from happening again.

Prevention is always better than cure.

Our team would have been penalised .. even if he got 3 weeks.

Throwing punches behind play is just plain silly.

Yep, Cameron Mooney's team have really been hurt by his indiscretions.

Ditto Josh Carr.

Ditto Dermie.

Ditto Jonothan Brown.

Ditto Byron Pickett.

Ditto the entire 2000 Essendon team.

Ditto the entire 2008 Hawthorn team.

etc. etc. etc.

[SainterK]

I think at some stage we should examine how do we prevent this sort of thing (an unnecessary and silly report ) from happening again.

Prevention is always better than cure.

Our team would have been penalised .. even if he got 3 weeks.

Throwing punches behind play is just plain silly.

Yep, Cameron Mooney's team have really been hurt by his indiscretions.

Could be yet, he'd want to be very careful...

[rodgerfox]

I think at some stage we should examine how do we prevent this sort of thing (an unnecessary and silly report ) from happening again.

Prevention is always better than cure.

Our team would have been penalised .. even if he got 3 weeks.

Throwing punches behind play is just plain silly.

Yep, Cameron Mooney's team have really been hurt by his indiscretions.

Could be yet, he'd want to be very careful...

Yeah, 3 flags. It's killing him and every team he plays for!!

IT MUST STOP!!! For the love of god Cameron, STOP THE INSANITY!! You're killing your team!!



Now that's sarcasm.

[Dis Believer]

Pick you lip up you lot. We are all effin' furious about the decision, but you are taking your frustration on the wrong people.

The facts are this:

1) Baker DID hit SJ and as the AFL wished to make a stand on taggers. We all expected 2-4 weeks (with the loading). He got 9 because the AFL wanted to send out a statement on this. Very wrong, but there was NOTHING that was going to change that verdict.

I'd argue that that is why we should fight like hell against this.

Why does Baker cop this 'statement'? Why Baker? Why us? Why this week?

Stand up and tell the AFL to get f****d and make their 'statement' on someone else.


That's why I'm piissed about this (among many other things). We need to cop the statement yet again.

We've been on the receiving end of too many of these flash in the pan statements.

Gawd I'm in strife now, I'm agreeing with RF.

But he's right on the money - picking and chosing when to "make a statement" from an "independent" panel smacks of selective judiciary.

Added to that is this complete bulls*** of the arbritrary "level of force required to constitute a strike". That's what pisses me off. The same people that last week determined that Judds elbow causing an opponent to require stitches was below the force necessary to "constitiute a strike" determined that 3 times this week Baker struck an opponent with enough force to contitute a strike. None of the 3 incidents would have bruised a tomato!! And where in the rule book does it state that a strike needs to be off a certain force ??? And how is that force determined ??? Is it scientifically measured with a force transducer? Is there a particular number (20 Newtons, 30 Newtons, 7.6 Newtons) that is the predetermined level that we should know about ???

There's more holes in this than swiss cheese and it's about time this arbitrary crap was blown open............

The entire system is gradually being shifted, year by year, to a set up that means everything is an area of grey, that is arbitrarily determined by the MRP and so therefore can't be fought. More charges every year are under the broad heading of "misconduct", and surprise, the whole thing has been engineered by Dimwits pet lawyer!

We are progressing down the path, by stealth, where everything hinges on the terminology used by the MRP in the charge, and nothing is argued on the basis of the events that took place. That is exactly the reason they removed the use of precedence, it upsets their agenda.

And finally, wait until all the feral bogans crapping on the papers about Baker being a "thug" cop the same s*** treatment for one of there own when the AFL takes a dislike to them.........I will enjoy that.

[saint75]

Pick you lip up you lot. We are all effin' furious about the decision, but you are taking your frustration on the wrong people.

The facts are this:

1) Baker DID hit SJ and as the AFL wished to make a stand on taggers. We all expected 2-4 weeks (with the loading). He got 9 because the AFL wanted to send out a statement on this. Very wrong, but there was NOTHING that was going to change that verdict.

I'd argue that that is why we should fight like hell against this.

Why does Baker cop this 'statement'? Why Baker? Why us? Why this week?

Stand up and tell the AFL to get f****d and make their 'statement' on someone else.


That's why I'm piissed about this (among many other things). We need to cop the statement yet again.

We've been on the receiving end of too many of these flash in the pan statements.

We are all effin' irate about this, but once again, I ask the question. WHAT would you have fought? The fact that he DIDN'T hit someone. He did. They got him to the letter of the law.

The fact that Baker DIDN'T know that Johnson was injured. Apparently there is vision that none of us saw that disputes that. Also, after the Roo incident, there was legislation that was introduced (but not used until this point) that says they can charge Baker with this. Once again, they got him within the letter of the law.

The only thing you can argue is conspiracy theories. Do any of you have anything to back your statements? Yes, it looks as if we are hard done by, but that ain't going to work in a court of law.

So WHAT are you going is your case What are you going to fight the AFL on in the Supreme Court? That the poor Saints were picked on? Seriously RF, I thought you of all people had more sense.

Channel your anger back at the MRP and it's inconsistencies. Yes, they screwed us, but they made sure they dotted their i's and crossed their t's.

Not arguing the fact that we were royally screwed. We were. We are not the first and we won't be the last.

[SainterK]

I think at some stage we should examine how do we prevent this sort of thing (an unnecessary and silly report ) from happening again.

Prevention is always better than cure.

Our team would have been penalised .. even if he got 3 weeks.

Throwing punches behind play is just plain silly.

Yep, Cameron Mooney's team have really been hurt by his indiscretions.

Could be yet, he'd want to be very careful...

Yeah, 3 flags. It's killing him and every team he plays for!!

IT MUST STOP!!! For the love of god Cameron, STOP THE INSANITY!! You're killing your team!!



Now that's sarcasm.

You're in a reflective mood, obviously I meant this year...

[gringo]

Anyone that thinks you can fight this system really is barking up the wrong tree. It has been set up to cost less money not be more just. If you are are picked up by the match review panel you really aren't going to get off. It is based on plea bargaining where you except the ruling in return for a lesser penalty. It has no right of reply once a judgement is made, unless you can find evidence not already submitted like a piece of video evidence showing that contact was not made in the way you had been charged for. The clubs go through a charade representing their man only to have the AFL keep the sanction in place because allowing decisions to be over ruled would lead to teams challenging their suspensions.

[Dis Believer]

We are all effin' irate about this, but once again, I ask the question. WHAT would you have fought? The fact that he DIDN'T hit someone. He did. They got him to the letter of the law.

no they didn't - I would have argued that they were below the level of force required to constitute a strike - that is exactly why Judd did not go last week, and they cannot argue against it as there is no set level of force required in the rules - it is completely arbitrary and based on the cases that have been dismissed this year, none of the Baker love-taps would qualify - argue that through triburinal. appeals, and then if necessary, into the supreme court, where precedence is admissible !!!

[rodgerfox]

We are all effin' irate about this, but once again, I ask the question. WHAT would you have fought? The fact that he DIDN'T hit someone. He did. They got him to the letter of the law.

no they didn't - I would have argued that they were below the level of force required to constitute a strike - that is exactly why Judd did not go last week, and they cannot argue against it as there is no set level of force required in the rules - it is completely arbitrary and based on the cases that have been dismissed this year, none of the Baker love-taps would qualify - argue that through triburinal. appeals, and then if necessary, into the supreme court, where precedence is admissible !!!

Once this point is argued and disregarded by the tribunal - then take them to court.
No sane person outside the corrupt walls of the AFL could possibly allow Steven Baker to be robbed of 12 matches for what he did.

[skeptic]

all well and good to say "have some balls", "do something" etc but what? And how much are you willing to sacrifice for it?
We know the AFL is a corrupt organisation, we know through the umpires, MRP, fixtures, fines etc they'll make us pay.

Are you happy to let it cost us a crack at this years premiership?

[Teflon]

The club should at LEAST.

AT LEAST

Put in a formal complaint against that pea-heart mouth who labelled him a coward.

And it should be announced to all and sundry that we are almighty pissed off about it.

f*** that.

Now see this to me is where the proof the club and its "seen not heard" President are gutless.

Forget about the incidents, forget about the loading points etc etc - here we have a clear case of a tribunal member deciding HE is going to be the leagues moral compass and he's going to publicly humiliate one of our players to make himself look tough.

And what have we done to even address this?

Nothing.

Ok we aint gonna get weeks taken off....but frk me surely SURELY the club could make a statement to the effect that this conduct by a tribunal member must be addressed as its clearly not professikonal and a case of a maggot (Id clean up some words...) over stepping his duties....

WE COUDLNT EVEN MANAGE THAT.

Nup, as I said orginally.....we got the usual limp wristed statement:

"St Kilda FC is very upset but in order to not upset anyone esle....we won't even defend the REPUTATION of one of our own..."

Now seriously ask yourself again - would Maguire/Malthouse have said nothing about Maxwell being publicly derided as a coward??????

Fkn weak. We will never get the respect of a top club till we stand up. Until then we are with Bulldogs, Nth and Melb.....and here was I thinking......with 40k members just maybe we are moving into true powerhouse territory.......wrong again...

[Face]

Now see this to me is where the proof the club and its "seen not heard" President are gutless.

You're a fine one to talk about being gutless.

Also, it's a bit rich to attribute the club's actions to the "seen and not heard" form of presidency given the song-and-dance-man we had would get down on all fours before negotiating with the AFL.

The AFL is far too corrupt to fight city hall.

[Halo]

Where is our President Greg Westaway ??

You would think with whats going on he would at least say something .

With the AFL shafting us like they are . now is the time for him to show some Leadership !!!

[joffaboy]

The club should at LEAST.

AT LEAST

Put in a formal complaint against that pea-heart mouth who labelled him a coward.

And it should be announced to all and sundry that we are almighty pissed off about it.

f*** that.

Now see this to me is where the proof the club and its "seen not heard" President are gutless.

Forget about the incidents, forget about the loading points etc etc - here we have a clear case of a tribunal member deciding HE is going to be the leagues moral compass and he's going to publicly humiliate one of our players to make himself look tough.

And what have we done to even address this?

Nothing.

Ok we aint gonna get weeks taken off....but frk me surely SURELY the club could make a statement to the effect that this conduct by a tribunal member must be addressed as its clearly not professikonal and a case of a maggot (Id clean up some words...) over stepping his duties....

WE COUDLNT EVEN MANAGE THAT.

Nup, as I said orginally.....we got the usual limp wristed statement:

"St Kilda FC is very upset but in order to not upset anyone esle....we won't even defend the REPUTATION of one of our own..."

Now seriously ask yourself again - would Maguire/Malthouse have said nothing about Maxwell being publicly derided as a coward??????

Fkn weak. We will never get the respect of a top club till we stand up. Until then we are with Bulldogs, Nth and Melb.....and here was I thinking......with 40k members just maybe we are moving into true powerhouse territory.......wrong again...

This is it in a nutshell.

It has nothing to do with the penalties, unfair or not, they are there. Unfair or not Baker had loading.

This is about protecting the integrity of the player and his reputation.

has there been one defence in public of Baker and the fact that he was personally insulted by the AFL representative SC at the tribunal last night?

Not a peep.

This is the issue. Standing up for a player who has been personally insulted and humiliated.

Nettlefold and Westaway and the rest are gutless squibs and i stand by that assertion.

The message i posted to Baker in the sticky was that he should retire as the club has hung him out to dry.

Sends a great message to the playing list.

Boys, bled for the club, get pinged, get abused and insulted by representatives of the AFL, and we will do NOTHING to back you.

Strength through Loyalty is our supposed motto.

Westaway and Nettlefold have pissed on this and have pissed on Baker.

[GoTheTorp]

This thread is like a fart in the wind, stinks for a second but soon blows away.

CLub hasnt finished with the intergity side of things yet, but of course 99% of the keyboard jockeys on this forum know better.

[Enrico_Misso]

Where are you Westaway?

You are our leader.
You stood by and let the AFL roll us by meekly agreeing to wear our away strip for OUR HOME game against Essendon.

Now one of our players is cruficied by a blatently inconsistent and unfair system and again you are invisible.

Where are you Westaway?
DO SOMETHING !!!!

[markp]

"It's hardly the manly exercise on the football field to slap someone on the hand," Tinney told the jury of former players Wayne Henwood, Michael Sexton and Wayne Schimmelbusch.

"There's nothing brave in zeroing in and focusing on an injured player and targeting that area."

That's what was actually said... by a prosecutor, trying to prove misconduct.

Did not say 'unmanly', did not say 'coward', and was referring to the act, not the man.

Lyon referred to Baker's actions as unprofessional and disappointing too... which, by the way, is not the same as calling him unprofessional or a disappointment.

Nothing for anyone to lose sleep over, I'd have thought... and certainly one of the least distressing aspects of the whole thing.

[Dr Spaceman]

This is the issue. Standing up for a player who has been personally insulted and humiliated.

Nettlefold and Westaway and the rest are gutless squibs and i stand by that assertion.

The message i posted to Baker in the sticky was that he should retire as the club has hung him out to dry.

Sends a great message to the playing list.

Boys, bled for the club, get pinged, get abused and insulted by representatives of the AFL, and we will do NOTHING to back you.

Strength through Loyalty is our supposed motto.

Westaway and Nettlefold have pissed on this and have pissed on Baker.

joffaboy, I have chosen your post to respond to however I could have chosen many similar ones by other posters. I certainly mean you no disrespect. I do understand people have many varying views on this matter .

But this is my take on what you have said.

I cannot accept that the club has let Baker down and certainly not let the playing group down.

Under Lyon, more than ever, we are about TEAM. That is why we didn’t suck up to Luke Ball and offer him $500,000 p.a. It’s why we had to tell Max he wasn’t playing in the GF last year.

As has been noted elsewhere, we have had to endure an unprecedented array of off-field and on-field hurdles this year of which this is just the latest one. Despite that we have managed to soldier on to the point where we are equal top at 10-3.

However if there is one incident with the potential to seriously derail the 2010 campaign it would be the Saints taking on the AFL in the Supreme Court. Presumably any such action would involve seeking an injunction and letting Bakes take the field on Sunday. Believe me, if we looked to go down that path all hell would break lose. And that hell would drag on for months.

Yes the club owes a loyalty to Bakes. But it also owes a loyalty to all the other players on the list and to all the members and supporters. And that loyalty is not best served by engaging QCs in a suicide mission.

It should be noted that after all that has happened, Bakes appeared in good spirits at training today. Despite the doomsayers, there is nothing to suggest he or his team mates feel let down by this great club of ours.

Anyway that’s just my take on it. Feel free to continue expressing your own.

[Bernard Shakey]

I've only read the OP (can't be bothered reading five pages).
All I can say is jboy, you have no idea what's good or bad for the St Kilda Football Club.

The fact is Bakes was guilty of every charge. He had a loading hanging over his head, because Kenny Sheldon stuffed up three years ago. That has nothing to do with this administration and we are about winning a premiership, not playing footy politics.

[rodgerfox]

Did anyone else hear what Lyon said about it?

Wow.

[R. Harvey 3 votes!]

Where are you Westaway?

You are our leader.
You stood by and let the AFL roll us by meekly agreeing to wear our away strip for OUR HOME game against Essendon.

Now one of our players is cruficied by a blatently inconsistent and unfair system and again you are invisible.

Where are you Westaway?
DO SOMETHING !!!!

What can he do though mate? I feel the same way, but we have been in the bubble all year and we should just stay there and win the flag. We have copped so much and I feel as bad as anyone and want us to stand up and do something, but I don't think it will achieve much besides distract us from what we are destined to do this year. I am so proud of the team to be where we are with everything we have copped, its an amazing effort.
Keep things how they are and win the bloody flag, then he should come out at the end of the year when we are on top of the world and have his say on behalf of everyone.

[3rd generation saint]

All I can sa y is let's do something that will realy p@#* them off.
Win the premiership and wouldn't be great if Nick turned to Demetriou and said F@#k you mate.

[Dr Spaceman]

Win the premiership and wouldn't be great if Nick turned to Demetriou and said F@#k you mate.

Funk you mate???

[3rd generation saint]

Andrew would probably need one of those if he played on Bakes.