Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Nick Bowen:
Chairman: Judd entitle to have his guilty plea taken into account, a matter for jury what weight they give that. "In my judgment his contrition was sincere ..."
well chairman on his side by the looks
then again.......
Nick Bowen:
Chairman: we're not proceeding under MRP loading system. Entitled to consider his past offences as an aggravating factor
Last edited by matrix on Tue 17 Jul 2012 9:53pm, edited 1 time in total.
matrix wrote:Nick Bowen:
Chairman: Judd entitle to have his guilty plea taken into account, a matter for jury what weight they give that. "In my judgment his contrition was sincere ..."
Sounds right to me. What it does mean is a lot will complain. Those who said it was a beat up and those who wanted him hanged. No wonder the tribunal is nearly always wrong.
saintspremiers wrote:What a joke. 4 friggin weeks.
Considering if the MRP laid a charge and used the 30% loading its really only a 3 week penalty loaded up.
Clearly the AFL didn't want Carlton to appeal.
Well done to the Carlton legal team. I can only dream of our club ever putting up such a good fight.
Sainter K is a pretty fair judge and she said about 2 weeks. Does that mean she thinks the tribunal is a joke because tey are to harsh and Carlton should appeal. By the way the AFL were pushing for much more so at least get your facts right.
Plugger re read my post you knob. I said well done to the Carlton legal team. They saved a few extra weeks the tribunal could have easily added without such a strong argument.
We all know how we've fared with Baker and then appealing.
Carlton can be happy with 4 weeks and see no point in even considering an appeal.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
saintspremiers wrote:What a joke. 4 friggin weeks.
Considering if the MRP laid a charge and used the 30% loading its really only a 3 week penalty loaded up.
Clearly the AFL didn't want Carlton to appeal.
Well done to the Carlton legal team. I can only dream of our club ever putting up such a good fight.
Sainter K is a pretty fair judge and she said about 2 weeks. Does that mean she thinks the tribunal is a joke because tey are to harsh and Carlton should appeal. By the way the AFL were pushing for much more so at least get your facts right.
saintspremiers wrote:Plugger re read my post you knob. I said well done to the Carlton legal team. They saved a few extra weeks the tribunal could have easily added without such a strong argument.
We all know how we've fared with Baker and then appealing.
Carlton can be happy with 4 weeks and see no point in even considering an appeal.
I re read it and you said clearly the AFL dont want an appeal. Well the AFL were pushing for 6-7 weeks so they had nothing to do with the 4. You also said it was a joke. I gather that is because he only got 4. My point was others may think it is a joke because he got to many. The only ones happy will be the people who picked 4 weeks. And that is my point. All the others think the tribunal is wrong because he got to many or not enough. By the way the 30% loading doesnt look like it was used. They just picked 450 points.
Sounds like at least he went in with no pretence of intent or some silly story, probably just went with 'I did it, but I did not intend to hurt him that much'
Just one thing on this thread. It proves that these type of threads should be on this forum. It wouldnt hardly get a look in on the other one. Well thats my opinion on it anyway.
