Will Didak be available to play us ?

RoseInOz · Post: # 561266Post **RoseInOz** » Mon 05 May 2008 4:20pm

Magpie Didak in bar dispute

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 22,00.html

Shortened version.....
"MAGPIE Alan Didak was among a group of AFL players booted out of a Chapel St nightspot at the weekend.

Didak, banned by contract from attending nightclubs since Melbourne's CBD shootings, hit the Prahran party strip on Saturday night.

Didak, 25, is on a tight leash with the club after his wild ride with accused murderer Christopher Wayne Hudson."

Seems like he will
"Rather than suspend him, the Magpies imposed a strict set of contract clauses including a 1am curfew, no alcohol, and no nightclubs.

Club spokesman Nick Hulett confirmed yesterday Didak had been at a Chapel St venue, but said there were no plans to reprimand him."

Eastern · Post: # 561333Post **Eastern** » Mon 05 May 2008 5:15pm

Is that the same Alan Didak who was out drinking at "The Hawthorn" the week before (well after 1.00am)? !!

Richter · Post: # 561335Post **Richter** » Mon 05 May 2008 5:16pm

Good grief. What a beat up. He was out drinking at a bar. BIG DEAL. Seriously - he was stupid to be involved with the other dude but this is a nonsense.

yipper · Post: # 561337Post **yipper** » Mon 05 May 2008 5:18pm

Richter wrote:Good grief. What a beat up. He was out drinking at a bar. BIG DEAL. Seriously - he was stupid to be involved with the other dude but this is a nonsense.

err.. he's supposed to be 1. off the grog and 2. not allowed to go to nightclubs!! So, not quite a beat up there!!

Mr Magic · Post: # 561338Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 05 May 2008 5:19pm

But neither time at a 'nightclub'.

His punishment is very specific - no 'nightclubs'.
He is alloweede to be out at Bars, Restaurants, Hotels, Buck's Parties, Bikie HQs, Shooting Galleries, or anywhere else as long as it's not a 'nightclub'.

Collingwood have already stated that he has nothing to answer for becuase he was out at a 'Bar/Restaurant and not a 'nightclub'.

Richter · Post: # 561399Post **Richter** » Mon 05 May 2008 6:20pm

yipper wrote:
Richter wrote:Good grief. What a beat up. He was out drinking at a bar. BIG DEAL. Seriously - he was stupid to be involved with the other dude but this is a nonsense.
err.. he's supposed to be 1. off the grog and 2. not allowed to go to nightclubs!! So, not quite a beat up there!!

1. Window dressing. Why should a 20-odd yr old bloke deny himself the reasonable pleasures any other bloke his age would have. Made a poor decision hanging around with the shooter, should he really be denied the opportunity to unwind in a bar with some mates. Think not.

2. His business, can imagine what sort of a slimy do-gooding sob would call up his employer/radio station to dob him in.

Solar · Post: # 561404Post **Solar** » Mon 05 May 2008 6:23pm

remember that the reason he was put onto this regime in the first place was because he was caught riding the car when someone was shot at by the guy who went on to shoot people in the city.

Seems like they are making it up as they go along. Don't worry, as malthouse has admitted, they have rules for some and different ones for others.

Mr Magic · Post: # 561418Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 05 May 2008 6:54pm

Richter wrote:
yipper wrote:
Richter wrote:Good grief. What a beat up. He was out drinking at a bar. BIG DEAL. Seriously - he was stupid to be involved with the other dude but this is a nonsense.
err.. he's supposed to be 1. off the grog and 2. not allowed to go to nightclubs!! So, not quite a beat up there!!
1. Window dressing. Why should a 20-odd yr old bloke deny himself the reasonable pleasures any other bloke his age would have. Made a poor decision hanging around with the shooter, should he really be denied the opportunity to unwind in a bar with some mates. Think not.

2. His business, can imagine what sort of a slimy do-gooding sob would call up his employer/radio station to dob him in.

He wants to earn teh big bucks (300-500k?) then he has to do what his employer wants him to do.

If they have made him sign a 'contract' saying he won't drink alsohol etc. etc. then it's up to him to perform his part of the 'contract'. No-one 'held a gun to his head' to sign it - he chose to sign it of his own free will.

So I suppose it's BS for Fev as well because he's also not supposed to be drinking alcohol?

St.Kenny · Post: # 561456Post **St.Kenny** » Mon 05 May 2008 8:02pm

The real issue here in my view is the fact that there is one rule for Didak at Collingwood and one for other members of the club. Lets face it if it was some first year 'pimply' hack breaking these rules he'd be out on his backside. Seems to underline to me the lack of an equitable discipline system at the club. Apparently this was going to change when TArrant was shown the door. Clearly it has not. The MAgpies still have their untouchables. This could be part of the reason for the lack of cohesion and discipline both on and off field............do you think I care by the way.

Cairnsman · Post: # 561459Post **Cairnsman** » Mon 05 May 2008 8:10pm

The Melbourne Bubble = glass house.

johnpeterbudgefanclub · Mon 05 May 2008 9:22pm

Richter wrote:Good grief. What a beat up. He was out drinking at a bar. BIG DEAL. Seriously - he was stupid to be involved with the other dude but this is a nonsense.

Hooray some perspective.....when u post a thread about an issue surrounding a player u might want to learn the whole story first. The manager of the venue had not one bad word to say about him and that was taken from 2 or 3 direct quotes.

However, what happened earlier with the other dude was abysmal to say the least.