Is there some kind of online petition someone can set up to encourage the club to appeal?
Might help
Online petition
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
saint patrick
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4338
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 5:20pm
- Location: mt.martha
Just a message entilted "Petition-Appeal this Decision " would be the go and your memerbership number...reckon we could have 1000 by midnight ...easy.
reception@saints.com.au
reception@saints.com.au
Last edited by saint patrick on Tue 21 Aug 2007 11:00pm, edited 1 time in total.
Never take a backward step even to gain momentum.....
'It's OK to have the capabilities and abilities, but you've got to get it done." Terry Daniher 05
"We have beauty in our captain and we have a true leader in our coach. Our time will come"
Thinline.Post 09 Grand final.
'It's OK to have the capabilities and abilities, but you've got to get it done." Terry Daniher 05
"We have beauty in our captain and we have a true leader in our coach. Our time will come"
Thinline.Post 09 Grand final.
-
Nick_Dal_Santo = ChAmPiOn
- Club Player
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Fri 18 Aug 2006 11:39pm
- Location: melbourne, vic
-
Sxc_Sainter
- Club Player
- Posts: 778
- Joined: Wed 22 Jun 2005 7:01pm
Re: Online petition
i'll try find onerexy wrote:Is there some kind of online petition someone can set up to encourage the club to appeal?
Might help
Guyyysssss and girls
Umm....you do realise that you are flooding the Inbox of the Club and that its not Jeff Farmer who'll have the job of deleting them all at 9am tomorrow??
Cant we find a way to send our support that wont cause our reception/admin staff so much grief??
Umm....you do realise that you are flooding the Inbox of the Club and that its not Jeff Farmer who'll have the job of deleting them all at 9am tomorrow??
Cant we find a way to send our support that wont cause our reception/admin staff so much grief??
THE BUBBLE HAS BURST
2011 player sponsor
They need to know that we are not f****** happy about this.saint66au wrote:Guyyysssss and girls
Umm....you do realise that you are flooding the Inbox of the Club and that its not Jeff Farmer who'll have the job of deleting them all at 9am tomorrow??
Cant we find a way to send our support that wont cause our reception/admin staff so much grief??
-
saint patrick
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4338
- Joined: Sun 14 Mar 2004 5:20pm
- Location: mt.martha
Would normally agree Michael but its important the club knows the depth of feeling here...deleting a few thousand emails is not a major drama....inaction by the club I have financially supported for 25 years issaint66au wrote:Guyyysssss and girls
Umm....you do realise that you are flooding the Inbox of the Club and that its not Jeff Farmer who'll have the job of deleting them all at 9am tomorrow??
Cant we find a way to send our support that wont cause our reception/admin staff so much grief??
Never take a backward step even to gain momentum.....
'It's OK to have the capabilities and abilities, but you've got to get it done." Terry Daniher 05
"We have beauty in our captain and we have a true leader in our coach. Our time will come"
Thinline.Post 09 Grand final.
'It's OK to have the capabilities and abilities, but you've got to get it done." Terry Daniher 05
"We have beauty in our captain and we have a true leader in our coach. Our time will come"
Thinline.Post 09 Grand final.
-
fonz_#15
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3804
- Joined: Tue 30 May 2006 7:34pm
- Location: the new home of the saints :)
saint66au wrote:Guyyysssss and girls
Umm....you do realise that you are flooding the Inbox of the Club and that its not Jeff Farmer who'll have the job of deleting them all at 9am tomorrow??
Cant we find a way to send our support that wont cause our reception/admin staff so much grief??
always the clubman s66 and good on ya.
the crap thing for me is i need to contact the club for something unrelated to this subject so i may struggle to get my questions answered.
Robert Harvey- Simply the best
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12798
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 811 times
- Been thanked: 433 times
Spot on.Sam23 wrote:They need to know that we are not f****** happy about this.saint66au wrote:Guyyysssss and girls
Umm....you do realise that you are flooding the Inbox of the Club and that its not Jeff Farmer who'll have the job of deleting them all at 9am tomorrow??
Cant we find a way to send our support that wont cause our reception/admin staff so much grief??
Let them be under no misconception about the anger out in Saint heartland.
I've just sent an email with 4 Social Club numbers
-
iwantmeseats
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3303
- Joined: Tue 23 May 2006 6:14pm
- Location: East Oakleigh
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 40 times
-
Sxc_Sainter
- Club Player
- Posts: 778
- Joined: Wed 22 Jun 2005 7:01pm
-
givethommoago
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Thu 16 Aug 2007 9:14pm
Why is there nothing on saints.com.au - surely this is pivotal to any chance we have this week and the following finals period. Yet I can buy raffle tickets and coach says it is ok to use evidence from a Freo official - and this after Bakes assured coach he had nothing to worry about - helloooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!
Wouldn't have known about the 7 looking at our official online outlet - thank saints for saintsational.com
Wouldn't have known about the 7 looking at our official online outlet - thank saints for saintsational.com
-
midas_touch
- Club Player
- Posts: 1636
- Joined: Wed 29 Mar 2006 5:24pm
- Location: Sunshine, Vic
-
BackFromUSA
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4642
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:38am
- Has thanked: 51 times
- Been thanked: 508 times
Signed petition and wrote this in comments:
So many reasons to be angry. The Hall - Maguire precedent says the admitted block was "in play" as it was leading to the where the ball was going and the clash of heads in this case was accidental at best according to the only believable independent testimony - that of Ricky Nixon. It was at best a free kick for not being within 5 metres. The Whelan hit on Ball was also not within 5 metres (just) and was not even brought up to the tribunal despite having video evidence of an intentional and reckless act that caused more damage. It was viewed as being accidental and was not brought up. But the Scarlett on Riewoldt incident established that if there was no conclusive video and conflicting stories no penalty could be given, the player being given the benefit of the doubt. The club MUST appeal on a matter of the application of the AFL rules and penalties. This was according to the evidence an accidental head clash, in play, with no video or credible witness testimony to state otherwise.
One word. Appeal.
If that fails. Challenge this in the courts!
So many reasons to be angry. The Hall - Maguire precedent says the admitted block was "in play" as it was leading to the where the ball was going and the clash of heads in this case was accidental at best according to the only believable independent testimony - that of Ricky Nixon. It was at best a free kick for not being within 5 metres. The Whelan hit on Ball was also not within 5 metres (just) and was not even brought up to the tribunal despite having video evidence of an intentional and reckless act that caused more damage. It was viewed as being accidental and was not brought up. But the Scarlett on Riewoldt incident established that if there was no conclusive video and conflicting stories no penalty could be given, the player being given the benefit of the doubt. The club MUST appeal on a matter of the application of the AFL rules and penalties. This was according to the evidence an accidental head clash, in play, with no video or credible witness testimony to state otherwise.
One word. Appeal.
If that fails. Challenge this in the courts!
AwayInUSA no longer ... have based myself back in Melbourne for a decade of Saintsational Success (with regular trips back to the USA)
"Saintsational Player Sponsor 2007 - 2018"
"Saintsational Player Sponsor 2007 - 2018"
-
maysiemoo
Sam23
its like you think the club is happy about the decision.
i say tomorrow afternoon if they DO NOT contest thats when we flood them, but at the moment they haven't been able to give their stance on it because its just been handed down tonight.
i feel sorry for the poor receptionist who has to sort through the emails tomorrow (this is if the club is going to protest it)
you're better sending an email to the afl venting your anger, and letting them know this is unacceptable
its like you think the club is happy about the decision.
i say tomorrow afternoon if they DO NOT contest thats when we flood them, but at the moment they haven't been able to give their stance on it because its just been handed down tonight.
i feel sorry for the poor receptionist who has to sort through the emails tomorrow (this is if the club is going to protest it)
you're better sending an email to the afl venting your anger, and letting them know this is unacceptable
-
SteveStevens66
- Club Player
- Posts: 655
- Joined: Wed 10 Aug 2005 4:55pm
- Been thanked: 18 times
Sent this to the club. Short and to the point.
--------------------------------
Dear Mr. Butterss,
It is imperative that the club appeal this outrageous decision. If we don't do this we will show ourselves to be supine in the face of this obvious miscarriage of justice. It is time for the St.Kilda Football Club stand up.
Sincerely,
*****
St.Kilda FC Member
--------------------------------
Dear Mr. Butterss,
It is imperative that the club appeal this outrageous decision. If we don't do this we will show ourselves to be supine in the face of this obvious miscarriage of justice. It is time for the St.Kilda Football Club stand up.
Sincerely,
*****
St.Kilda FC Member
Carna Saints!!!
-
BackFromUSA
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4642
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:38am
- Has thanked: 51 times
- Been thanked: 508 times
and I sent this e-mail ... under the title MAD AS HELL
Dear Archie and team
I am a member as are my wife and child. We are also social club members and seat holders.
There are so many reasons to be angry with the Baker suspension.
An appeal is a MUST from the view point of the members. I am sure you will be flooded with e-mails just like this one.
We are sick of receiving a raw deal at the hands of the tribunal .This is a case where the facts have been ignored and speculation and media hype have overtaken common sense application of the rules of the game.
Besides being furious that the AFL’s star witness, a Fremantle trainer, was allowed to view other witness testimony before providing his own (surely a procedural red flag) there are key precedents to help decide how this case should have been treated.
The Hall - Maguire precedent says the admitted block was "in play" as Farmer was leading to and Baker blocking from where the ball was going in the Fremantle forward line and the resulting clash of heads in this case was accidental at best - according to the only believable independent testimony - that of Ricky Nixon. It was at best a free kick for not being within 5 metres. Not a report and not a suspension.
The Whelan hit on Ball was also not within 5 metres (just) and despite having video evidence of an intentional and reckless act that caused more damage, it was viewed as being accidental and no suspension was given. There is no doubt that the block laid by Whelan was similar to the Baker / Farmer incident. Ball not seeing the block. Whelan turning and bracing. The key here is that it was an deemed accidental head clash.
Finally, the Scarlett on Riewoldt incident established that if there was no conclusive video and there were conflicting stories then no penalty could be given, the player being given the benefit of the doubt.
The club MUST appeal on a matter of the application and fluctuating interpretation of the AFL rules and penalties.
This case was according to the evidence an accidental head clash, in play, with no video or credible witness testimony to state otherwise. It was at best a free kick. It would happen dozens of times a game with players dodging each other to gain positional advantage – the difference here is that there was a clash because one player did not spot the other player leading to the clash.
Did Baker have an opportunity to avoid the clash? Did he have a duty of care to attempt to avoid it? Or was he entitled to stand his ground and when the clash became inevitable to protect himself by bracing?
Which eyewitnesses, in the absence of video evidence, provided credible and independent evidence? Only Ricky Nixon fits that category. His evidence should be carefully examined. The evidence of Farmer and the trainer appear to conflict dramatically with the independent witness but agrees with baker’s evidence. Surely this sends up a red flag.
One word.
Appeal.
If that fails. Challenge this in the courts!
Dear Archie and team
I am a member as are my wife and child. We are also social club members and seat holders.
There are so many reasons to be angry with the Baker suspension.
An appeal is a MUST from the view point of the members. I am sure you will be flooded with e-mails just like this one.
We are sick of receiving a raw deal at the hands of the tribunal .This is a case where the facts have been ignored and speculation and media hype have overtaken common sense application of the rules of the game.
Besides being furious that the AFL’s star witness, a Fremantle trainer, was allowed to view other witness testimony before providing his own (surely a procedural red flag) there are key precedents to help decide how this case should have been treated.
The Hall - Maguire precedent says the admitted block was "in play" as Farmer was leading to and Baker blocking from where the ball was going in the Fremantle forward line and the resulting clash of heads in this case was accidental at best - according to the only believable independent testimony - that of Ricky Nixon. It was at best a free kick for not being within 5 metres. Not a report and not a suspension.
The Whelan hit on Ball was also not within 5 metres (just) and despite having video evidence of an intentional and reckless act that caused more damage, it was viewed as being accidental and no suspension was given. There is no doubt that the block laid by Whelan was similar to the Baker / Farmer incident. Ball not seeing the block. Whelan turning and bracing. The key here is that it was an deemed accidental head clash.
Finally, the Scarlett on Riewoldt incident established that if there was no conclusive video and there were conflicting stories then no penalty could be given, the player being given the benefit of the doubt.
The club MUST appeal on a matter of the application and fluctuating interpretation of the AFL rules and penalties.
This case was according to the evidence an accidental head clash, in play, with no video or credible witness testimony to state otherwise. It was at best a free kick. It would happen dozens of times a game with players dodging each other to gain positional advantage – the difference here is that there was a clash because one player did not spot the other player leading to the clash.
Did Baker have an opportunity to avoid the clash? Did he have a duty of care to attempt to avoid it? Or was he entitled to stand his ground and when the clash became inevitable to protect himself by bracing?
Which eyewitnesses, in the absence of video evidence, provided credible and independent evidence? Only Ricky Nixon fits that category. His evidence should be carefully examined. The evidence of Farmer and the trainer appear to conflict dramatically with the independent witness but agrees with baker’s evidence. Surely this sends up a red flag.
One word.
Appeal.
If that fails. Challenge this in the courts!
AwayInUSA no longer ... have based myself back in Melbourne for a decade of Saintsational Success (with regular trips back to the USA)
"Saintsational Player Sponsor 2007 - 2018"
"Saintsational Player Sponsor 2007 - 2018"