Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
bigred wrote:
And it most definitely should NOT be left up to the coach to do this.
I'm not sure it was 'left to the coach'.
It appears to be our standard approach to limit what we say publicly, and when we do make public comment it comes form Nettlefold - and when it's more than 5 sentences, it comes from Lyon.
We've done it this way for years now and let's be honest, we have pretty damn good form in handling these types of situations.
And a third note, imagine if Westaway got up and had a public crack every time a player or the club came under fire!
This year alone, he'd be a national celebrity by now!
rodgerfox wrote:On a kind of related topic - who said Baker was 'unmanly'?
I saw the headlines, but for the life of me I can't find where anyone has called Bakes 'unmanly'.
All I can see is this....
"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."
Tinney conceded football was robust and that taggers had a right to try to distract an opponent, but he said Baker had overstepped the spirit and rules of the game.
"That's not something that's in the spirit of the game and not what AFL football is about at all," he said.
I can't help but think as per the Ch10 news the other night, the headlines may have been a bit misleading and got everyone fired up.
Yep, as I quoted earlier, that is all that was said... by a prosecutor, trying to prove misconduct.
Was referring to the action, did not say 'unmanly', did not say 'coward'.
Whilst I think Steven Baker was grossly hard done by, I think the club probably did the correct thing. I reckon Baker is well aware of the amount of respect that he commands around the club for his courageous attitude. From what I could see, the public opinion of the St Kilda Football Club was steadily heading into negative territory. Within a day or so of Ross Lyon stating that we were not appealing I started to see a lot more positive comments about Ross and the club beginning to emerge in various comments made on line by the general public.
rodgerfox wrote:On a kind of related topic - who said Baker was 'unmanly'?
I saw the headlines, but for the life of me I can't find where anyone has called Bakes 'unmanly'.
All I can see is this....
"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."
Tinney conceded football was robust and that taggers had a right to try to distract an opponent, but he said Baker had overstepped the spirit and rules of the game.
"That's not something that's in the spirit of the game and not what AFL football is about at all," he said.
I can't help but think as per the Ch10 news the other night, the headlines may have been a bit misleading and got everyone fired up.
Andrew Tinney, at the tribunal. The players association has since released a statement raising concerns about his comments.
rodgerfox wrote:On a kind of related topic - who said Baker was 'unmanly'?
I saw the headlines, but for the life of me I can't find where anyone has called Bakes 'unmanly'.
All I can see is this....
"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."
Tinney conceded football was robust and that taggers had a right to try to distract an opponent, but he said Baker had overstepped the spirit and rules of the game.
"That's not something that's in the spirit of the game and not what AFL football is about at all," he said.
I can't help but think as per the Ch10 news the other night, the headlines may have been a bit misleading and got everyone fired up.
Andrew Tinney, at the tribunal. The players association has since released a statement raising concerns about his comments.
I haven't been able to find any quote as to where he was called 'unmanly' or anything really like that - aside form the headline in relation to the above comments I quoted.
rodgerfox wrote:On a kind of related topic - who said Baker was 'unmanly'?
I saw the headlines, but for the life of me I can't find where anyone has called Bakes 'unmanly'.
All I can see is this....
"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."
Tinney conceded football was robust and that taggers had a right to try to distract an opponent, but he said Baker had overstepped the spirit and rules of the game.
"That's not something that's in the spirit of the game and not what AFL football is about at all," he said.
I can't help but think as per the Ch10 news the other night, the headlines may have been a bit misleading and got everyone fired up.
Andrew Tinney, at the tribunal. The players association has since released a statement raising concerns about his comments.
I haven't been able to find any quote as to where he was called 'unmanly' or anything really like that - aside form the headline in relation to the above comments I quoted.
rodgerfox wrote:On a kind of related topic - who said Baker was 'unmanly'?
I saw the headlines, but for the life of me I can't find where anyone has called Bakes 'unmanly'.
All I can see is this....
"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."
Tinney conceded football was robust and that taggers had a right to try to distract an opponent, but he said Baker had overstepped the spirit and rules of the game.
"That's not something that's in the spirit of the game and not what AFL football is about at all," he said.
I can't help but think as per the Ch10 news the other night, the headlines may have been a bit misleading and got everyone fired up.
Andrew Tinney, at the tribunal. The players association has since released a statement raising concerns about his comments.
I haven't been able to find any quote as to where he was called 'unmanly' or anything really like that - aside form the headline in relation to the above comments I quoted.
So we have had Ross Lyon come out with a nice slap to the AFL appointed representative who inferred that Baker was unmanly and a coward. (Who welse were is provocative statement directed at?)
We have had the AFLPA make a statement.
Still not a peep from Westaway or anyone else in the administration.
I stand by GUTLESS, and i stand by the fact that this administration, like the previous one, has hung Baker out to dry.
Oh Westaway made some pissy comment on the inconsistencies of the tribunal, big woop.
Where was the defence of the Saints players character by the club.
GUTLESS.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
Maybe years from now a squad of ninjas handpicked and trained by Westaway himself will descend on this Andrew Tinney's home like a swarm of tarantulas, and f*** him up royally... maybe that's how he rolls.
joffaboy wrote:So we have had Ross Lyon come out with a nice slap to the AFL appointed representative who inferred that Baker was unmanly and a coward. (Who welse were is provocative statement directed at?)
I really don't think he inferred anything about Baker's character.
He definitely potted the act of slapping an injured player's hand - but I don't think outside of the Herald-Sun's slant on what was said, there was any attack on anyone's character.
joffaboy wrote:So we have had Ross Lyon come out with a nice slap to the AFL appointed representative who inferred that Baker was unmanly and a coward. (Who welse were is provocative statement directed at?)
We have had the AFLPA make a statement.
Still not a peep from Westaway or anyone else in the administration.
I stand by GUTLESS, and i stand by the fact that this administration, like the previous one, has hung Baker out to dry.
Oh Westaway made some pissy comment on the inconsistencies of the tribunal, big woop.
Where was the defence of the Saints players character by the club.
GUTLESS.
Joffa
I am p!!ssed at this whole saga and the treatment of Bakes, especially by that p!!ssant tosser at the tribunal, but I would think that comments made by the club have been controlled for the sake of a flag, and Bakes being the team man that he is would know that it needs to be this way. Basically I think they have realised that just about anything they say will be missrepresentd in the press and wont change anything. RL and players assoc have said there bit, wont have much effect though.
You have every right to be angry but to much more of this will only distrct from a real shot at the flag (Something bakes would not want)
I dont know if Bakes can take any legal action, but hope he does with the support of all of us
Teflon wrote:
I just do not buy this whole "grassy noll" cr@p - "if we dare say a word we will end up playing games in Siberia..." horseshyte. Its a lame excuse for doing nothing and supporters placating themselves with "ah well......we did the best we could..." false sense of security.
We could have at least publicly expressed our disgust that tribunal lawyers are performing character assasinations on our players - yep in the words of mark Robinson (who was there) it was character assasination....and our admin did squat except appear a little "upset".
The logic here is: we must bend over and accept that our club will be used as THE club to make examples of at the AFL's whim. If so, when (if ever) do you draw the line?........or you justify that with...."if we say nothing and smile while being rogered we 'may' get a good draw"......
effin weak.
Do you leave in the real world? Do you not remember the crappy draws and the ongoing punishment we would have for even breathing on a player under the GT regime? GT was infamously loud and outspoken and we were punished at every opportunity. Half of the hatred toward our club stems from his stint as coach.
Now I am not saying that some of his outbursts were not warranted, but what retribution did we suffer? Remember 'sirengate' and 'whispers in the sky'. Also, a distinct lack of Friday night games and the list goes on.
Seriously, smacking the AFL over the head publicly is not going to help anyone. If you think it is, you are living on another planet. It's like someone saying something you don't like and then you retaliating by smacking them in the mouth. You will end up on assault charges. Same scenario applies to the AFL.
Every St Kilda supporter is furious with the goings on of last week. As I also mentioned in a previous post, the AFL have never charged a player like that before (3-4 incidents from the one match). However, all of the charges where there. They had a point to prove. We now need to move on and prove a point to them. There will be enough going on behind the scenes between the club and the AFL that should be played out behind closed doors, NOT in full view of the footy public.
So again....nice and slow...
What your logic above is suggesting is we should NEVER stand up as a club and suggest the AFL ahve gotten matters wrong or used us as a scapegoat?
What YOUR REAL WORLD logic suggests is we should ALWAYS give in, take our medicine like a good boy and just be greatful they let us play?
Whose not in the real world FFS...
Yout think they wont be back? You think there wont be another tarvesty we are on the receiving end of?
If you NEVER stand up to bullies cause its "all to hard" you desernve what you get - and we get plenty.
All this other Dodgerfox semantics on supposed good draws "cause weve been good"is just fluff along with the "he didnt really call him unmanly.....what tripe....but its obvious where that comes from...
Weve gotten good draws cause we are a good side at present -the minute we are Richmond we wont be playing Friday nights.....and all the suckholing to the AFL in the world wont change that.
markp wrote:Maybe years from now a squad of ninjas handpicked and trained by Westaway himself will descend on this Andrew Tinney's home like a swarm of tarantulas, and f*** him up royally... maybe that's how he rolls.
Maybe we could send in a squad of "suckole ninjas" and they can break into AFL HQ and provide Demetriou and Anderson with blowjobs so these nasty boys give the Saints "nice draws" and leave us alone in the showers???
Maybe "Face" could train them in the art of sucking and grovelling?
Teflon wrote:
I just do not buy this whole "grassy noll" cr@p - "if we dare say a word we will end up playing games in Siberia..." horseshyte. Its a lame excuse for doing nothing and supporters placating themselves with "ah well......we did the best we could..." false sense of security.
We could have at least publicly expressed our disgust that tribunal lawyers are performing character assasinations on our players - yep in the words of mark Robinson (who was there) it was character assasination....and our admin did squat except appear a little "upset".
The logic here is: we must bend over and accept that our club will be used as THE club to make examples of at the AFL's whim. If so, when (if ever) do you draw the line?........or you justify that with...."if we say nothing and smile while being rogered we 'may' get a good draw"......
effin weak.
Do you leave in the real world? Do you not remember the crappy draws and the ongoing punishment we would have for even breathing on a player under the GT regime? GT was infamously loud and outspoken and we were punished at every opportunity. Half of the hatred toward our club stems from his stint as coach.
Now I am not saying that some of his outbursts were not warranted, but what retribution did we suffer? Remember 'sirengate' and 'whispers in the sky'. Also, a distinct lack of Friday night games and the list goes on.
Seriously, smacking the AFL over the head publicly is not going to help anyone. If you think it is, you are living on another planet. It's like someone saying something you don't like and then you retaliating by smacking them in the mouth. You will end up on assault charges. Same scenario applies to the AFL.
Every St Kilda supporter is furious with the goings on of last week. As I also mentioned in a previous post, the AFL have never charged a player like that before (3-4 incidents from the one match). However, all of the charges where there. They had a point to prove. We now need to move on and prove a point to them. There will be enough going on behind the scenes between the club and the AFL that should be played out behind closed doors, NOT in full view of the footy public.
So again....nice and slow...
What your logic above is suggesting is we should NEVER stand up as a club and suggest the AFL ahve gotten matters wrong or used us as a scapegoat?
What YOUR REAL WORLD logic suggests is we should ALWAYS give in, take our medicine like a good boy and just be greatful they let us play?
Whose not in the real world FFS...
Yout think they wont be back? You think there wont be another tarvesty we are on the receiving end of?
If you NEVER stand up to bullies cause its "all to hard" you desernve what you get - and we get plenty.
All this other Dodgerfox semantics on supposed good draws "cause weve been good"is just fluff along with the "he didnt really call him unmanly.....what tripe....but its obvious where that comes from...
Weve gotten good draws cause we are a good side at present -the minute we are Richmond we wont be playing Friday nights.....and all the suckholing to the AFL in the world wont change that.
Wake up.
Once again for you n-i-c-e a-n-d s-l-o-w.......
You have to pick the battles you want to fight with the AFL. This was not one of them. Baker was suspended on legitimate charges. What were you going to fight? The 50% loading? That was a battle that should have been fought almost 3 years ago. Had it been another scenario like that one, I would be behind you 100%. That WAS a battle that should have been fought that the previous administration declined to pursue after the presentation of his case was stuffed up at the tribunal.
The 'slur' from the Tinney. Is that what you would also like to have fought? RL answered that one beautifully in his press conference. You don't have to jump up and down and scream like a mad man. Ross's words had more impact than a little temper tantrum from the President or any other member at the club.
Also, to deny that we were punished for the comments of GT is ridiculous. You need to wake up if you think we did not suffer because of his tirades and open hostility towards Demetriou and the umpiring fraternity. Yes in part our current draw is due to us being a good side, but also due to us towing the company line. Considering all the biatching about our style of play from most opposition supporters, why would the AFL give us a good draw?
So in the real world, you pick your battles. This was NEVER going to be one that we were going to take up.
Teflon wrote:
I just do not buy this whole "grassy noll" cr@p - "if we dare say a word we will end up playing games in Siberia..." horseshyte. Its a lame excuse for doing nothing and supporters placating themselves with "ah well......we did the best we could..." false sense of security.
We could have at least publicly expressed our disgust that tribunal lawyers are performing character assasinations on our players - yep in the words of mark Robinson (who was there) it was character assasination....and our admin did squat except appear a little "upset".
The logic here is: we must bend over and accept that our club will be used as THE club to make examples of at the AFL's whim. If so, when (if ever) do you draw the line?........or you justify that with...."if we say nothing and smile while being rogered we 'may' get a good draw"......
effin weak.
Do you leave in the real world? Do you not remember the crappy draws and the ongoing punishment we would have for even breathing on a player under the GT regime? GT was infamously loud and outspoken and we were punished at every opportunity. Half of the hatred toward our club stems from his stint as coach.
Now I am not saying that some of his outbursts were not warranted, but what retribution did we suffer? Remember 'sirengate' and 'whispers in the sky'. Also, a distinct lack of Friday night games and the list goes on.
Seriously, smacking the AFL over the head publicly is not going to help anyone. If you think it is, you are living on another planet. It's like someone saying something you don't like and then you retaliating by smacking them in the mouth. You will end up on assault charges. Same scenario applies to the AFL.
Every St Kilda supporter is furious with the goings on of last week. As I also mentioned in a previous post, the AFL have never charged a player like that before (3-4 incidents from the one match). However, all of the charges where there. They had a point to prove. We now need to move on and prove a point to them. There will be enough going on behind the scenes between the club and the AFL that should be played out behind closed doors, NOT in full view of the footy public.
So again....nice and slow...
What your logic above is suggesting is we should NEVER stand up as a club and suggest the AFL ahve gotten matters wrong or used us as a scapegoat?
What YOUR REAL WORLD logic suggests is we should ALWAYS give in, take our medicine like a good boy and just be greatful they let us play?
Whose not in the real world FFS...
Yout think they wont be back? You think there wont be another tarvesty we are on the receiving end of?
If you NEVER stand up to bullies cause its "all to hard" you desernve what you get - and we get plenty.
All this other Dodgerfox semantics on supposed good draws "cause weve been good"is just fluff along with the "he didnt really call him unmanly.....what tripe....but its obvious where that comes from...
Weve gotten good draws cause we are a good side at present -the minute we are Richmond we wont be playing Friday nights.....and all the suckholing to the AFL in the world wont change that.
Wake up.
Once again for you n-i-c-e a-n-d s-l-o-w.......
You have to pick the battles you want to fight with the AFL. This was not one of them. Baker was suspended on legitimate charges. What were you going to fight? The 50% loading? That was a battle that should have been fought almost 3 years ago. Had it been another scenario like that one, I would be behind you 100%. That WAS a battle that should have been fought that the previous administration declined to pursue after the presentation of his case was stuffed up at the tribunal.
The 'slur' from the Tinney. Is that what you would also like to have fought? RL answered that one beautifully in his press conference. You don't have to jump up and down and scream like a mad man. Ross's words had more impact than a little temper tantrum from the President or any other member at the club.
Also, to deny that we were punished for the comments of GT is ridiculous. You need to wake up if you think we did not suffer because of his tirades and open hostility towards Demetriou and the umpiring fraternity. Yes in part our current draw is due to us being a good side, but also due to us towing the company line. Considering all the biatching about our style of play from most opposition supporters, why would the AFL give us a good draw?
So in the real world, you pick your battles. This was NEVER going to be one that we were going to take up.
Do show ONE battle we have taken a stance on and won? Just won lets have it REAL WORLD man?
This "pick your battles" cliche is just you being a walking excuse for doing nothing.
Sure, suffice yourself in Ross's eloquent side step but lets not pretend we even remotely dealt with Tinney slur cause we didnt.
We've been singled out ANOTHER AFL FIRST using our club as the crash test dummy.....why?....cause they know we dont "pick our battles" we just shut up.
Spare me the AFL conspiracy theory - sure it helps you sleep at night for the do nothing but THE BEST football sides get looked after by the AFL cause they win and the league has little choice.
Bernard Shakey wrote:Maybe we should just play footy?
Apparently we should ask the AFL how they'd like us to play...so we dont upset anyone at HQ...
I reckon they'd probably say play within the rules and don't whack opponents in the head when the cameras are watching.
If the players were even 0.001% as concerned about the events of the last week as some of the posters here, I'd be selling the house and putting the lot on the Dees.
Thankfully I think the Saints are focussed and are "home"
Bernard Shakey wrote:Maybe we should just play footy?
Apparently we should ask the AFL how they'd like us to play...so we dont upset anyone at HQ...
I reckon they'd probably say play within the rules and don't whack opponents in the head when the cameras are watching.
Yes cause that works for Jack Riewoldt.....Barry Hall 05........Brisbane Lions.........
Maybe theyd just come up with a new rule midweek, tell no one they are gonna be tough and wait for the good old saints to limp out before smacking them?
Bernard Shakey wrote:Maybe we should just play footy?
Apparently we should ask the AFL how they'd like us to play...so we dont upset anyone at HQ...
I reckon they'd probably say play within the rules and don't whack opponents in the head when the cameras are watching.
If the players were even 0.001% as concerned about the events of the last week as some of the posters here, I'd be selling the house and putting the lot on the Dees.
Thankfully I think the Saints are focussed and are "home"
Good point cause its the players this thread and supporters are asking to stand up and make public their views on the treatment of our club..................isnt it?
