Contesting 2 charges

saintbrat · Post: # 949701Post **saintbrat** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:15pm

AFL If Baker wins both contested charges tonight he'll be out for 5 weeks (from the two charges he accepted). Lose both and he's out for 10.

lurker#134 · Post: # 949702Post **lurker#134** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:16pm

Contest two charges, get back just before the finals. Punch Stevie J. square in the face in the GF. Retire with premiership.

saintharvs · Post: # 949703Post **saintharvs** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:16pm

In my opinion they have to contest the hand slap. SJ was not in the hands of the trainers and is therefore deemed to be fit. Nothing to answer for.

Thinline · Post: # 949704Post **Thinline** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:16pm

saint75 wrote:It appears that he is only risking an extra week if he contests the 2 charges.

So, if he is still found guilty, instead of 9 weeks he gets 10 weeks.

If he gets off both charges, he only has to serve 5 weeks.

I am with true believer. A deal will be being worked on behind the scenes as we speak. 6-7 weeks will be the outcome IMO.

That's what I'm thinking...

A bit of two way "this wasn't meant to be how this system works."

samoht · Post: # 949708Post **samoht** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:18pm

Fingers crossed ..
4-6 weeks would be a better outcome ... and closer to the 2 weeks suspension that it only really deserved... but there's ego's involved here ?

bigcarl · Post: # 949710Post **bigcarl** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:20pm

samoht wrote:closer to the 2 weeks suspension that it only really deserved

i thought one, maybe two. that's what we should be aiming for.

afterall, who was the injured party in all of this?

ThePunter · Post: # 949712Post **ThePunter** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:20pm

Baker out for at least five weeks. If he loses the two appeals (third striking charge, misconduct charge), he gets ten weeks.

maverick · Post: # 949717Post **maverick** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:25pm

True Believer wrote:If Iam right, the misconduct over the hand hitting thing is worth only one week. SO if they contest (and win) two of the striking charges, then he's down to a 4 week holiday.

If they contest the misconduct and the softest of the the striking charges then he's down to 6 weeks, and depending on which ones they contest (assuming they win) he will be our for anything from 4 to 6 weeks.

Added to that I firmly believe a deal is already done or being worked on and they will win whatever they contest (anyone who believes the MRP and Tirburinal are independent please see me about a nice little bridge I have for sale in Sydney).

+1

sendmehomehappy · Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:25pm

Logic cannot be used with an irrational....or incompetent....or rigged unit like the MRC.

I think TB is on the money too.

This is so bad, so over the top that the stench won't die down if Bakes gets 12 or whatever.

Some kind of face-saving deal is being made.

Bakes will get enough to partially satisfy the the unwashed hordes while not getting too much for anyone to bother to maintain their rage.

It will die down until after the season when the MRC will undergo radical weight loss surgery.

Bakes will come back in plenty of time to cut Stevie J, or whoever, down to size in the big ones.

Milan Faletic · Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:27pm

I really hope we can get it down to 6 at the most.

He can still train and will be back in Round 20.

Like Roo's, Raph's, Zac's and Gram's injury, we have uncovered Stanley, Gwilt, Steven, Geary and Peake.

Bakes eye injury may have left him out this week anyway.

And he will be back for the business end with no bruises and niggles.

I hope it's only 6 at the most.

saint75 · Post: # 949721Post **saint75** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:28pm

lurker#134 wrote:Contest two charges, get back just before the finals. Punch Stevie J. square in the face in the GF. Retire with premiership.

Be reasonable. This is not the fault of SJ. You are sounding as bad as opposition supporters ringing up the radio. SJ and Bakes shook hands and had a chat after the game. There was no malice involved. They were both playing their roles for their respective teams. They both overstepped the mark. However, the issue is the severity of the penalty handed down to Baker. THIS is where the problem lies. I think most of us reasonably expected 2-4. 12 weeks (even taking into account the loading) is effin' ridiculous.

The fault of this lies at the feet of the AFL and MRP. If you want to punch anyone out, they should be your targets.

Stephen Theodore · Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:31pm

True Believer wrote:

If Iam right, the misconduct over the hand hitting thing is worth only one week. SO if they contest (and win) two of the striking charges, then he's down to a 4 week holiday.

If they contest the misconduct and the softest of the the striking charges then he's down to 6 weeks, and depending on which ones they contest (assuming they win) he will be our for anything from 4 to 6 weeks.

Added to that I firmly believe a deal is already done or being worked on and they will win whatever they contest (anyone who believes the MRP and Tirburinal are independent please see me about a nice little bridge I have for sale in Sydney).

What sort of money are you talking for this bridge ?

markp · Post: # 949732Post **markp** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:35pm

They said on the radio that he is only risking 1 extra week, and 'accepting' 5... which is a smart move when you take the bigger picture into account: Bakes deserves a premiership medallion!

ThePunter · Post: # 949733Post **ThePunter** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:36pm

Lisa, I want to buy your rock

dcstkfc · Post: # 949740Post **dcstkfc** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:40pm

Where is the tribunal exactly? Thinking about lurking around.

Dr Spaceman · Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:44pm

saint75 wrote:
lurker#134 wrote:Contest two charges, get back just before the finals. Punch Stevie J. square in the face in the GF. Retire with premiership.
Be reasonable. This is not the fault of SJ. You are sounding as bad as opposition supporters ringing up the radio. SJ and Bakes shook hands and had a chat after the game. There was no malice involved. They were both playing their roles for their respective teams. They both overstepped the mark. However, the issue is the severity of the penalty handed down to Baker. THIS is where the problem lies. I think most of us reasonably expected 2-4. 12 weeks (even taking into account the loading) is effin' ridiculous.

The fault of this lies at the feet of the AFL and MRP. If you want to punch anyone out, they should be your targets.

Excellent post saint75. It is not SJ's fault this has all come up. Yeah he wacked Bakes and he got his fair whack for that.

The whole issue is the ridiculous findings of the MRP/AFL.

dcstkfc · Post: # 949747Post **dcstkfc** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:44pm

ThePunter wrote:Lisa, I want to buy your rock

You don't see any Tigers around do you?

Saint Bev · Post: # 949748Post **Saint Bev** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:45pm

saint75 wrote:It appears that he is only risking an extra week if he contests the 2 charges.

So, if he is still found guilty, instead of 9 weeks he gets 10 weeks.

If he gets off both charges, he only has to serve 5 weeks.

I am with true believer. A deal will be being worked on behind the scenes as we speak. 6-7 weeks will be the outcome IMO.

Why would they do a deal?

rodgerfox · Post: # 949750Post **rodgerfox** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:45pm

If Johnson hadn't have elbowed Bakes in the face and drew blood - does anyone think that Baker wouldn't have had a case to answer at all here?

lurker#134 · Post: # 949754Post **lurker#134** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 2:49pm

saint75 wrote:
lurker#134 wrote:Contest two charges, get back just before the finals. Punch Stevie J. square in the face in the GF. Retire with premiership.
Be reasonable. This is not the fault of SJ. You are sounding as bad as opposition supporters ringing up the radio. SJ and Bakes shook hands and had a chat after the game. There was no malice involved. They were both playing their roles for their respective teams. They both overstepped the mark. However, the issue is the severity of the penalty handed down to Baker. THIS is where the problem lies. I think most of us reasonably expected 2-4. 12 weeks (even taking into account the loading) is effin' ridiculous.

The fault of this lies at the feet of the AFL and MRP. If you want to punch anyone out, they should be your targets.

Why should I be reasonable? The MRP wasn't.

35...LEGEND · Tue 29 Jun 2010 4:25pm

rodgerfox wrote:If Johnson hadn't have elbowed Bakes in the face and drew blood - does anyone think that Baker wouldn't have had a case to answer at all here?

No............it's all about why "Stevie J" done what he did.

Saint Bev · Post: # 949825Post **Saint Bev** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 4:29pm

I think they will reduce that wack on the hand to one week. And leave the other as is. So the penalty will be the same. Not that I agree, just what I think.

Dis Believer · Tue 29 Jun 2010 4:41pm

Saint Bev wrote:
saint75 wrote:It appears that he is only risking an extra week if he contests the 2 charges.

So, if he is still found guilty, instead of 9 weeks he gets 10 weeks.

If he gets off both charges, he only has to serve 5 weeks.

I am with true believer. A deal will be being worked on behind the scenes as we speak. 6-7 weeks will be the outcome IMO.
Why would they do a deal?

Because the AFL don't want to end up looking like the dicks they are in the supreme court! Anyone who is not a bogan feral, understands that this is either (a) gross incompetence, (b) corruption or (c) a hiterto unrealised MAJOR flaw in the the AFL judicial process. They had a player not even cited for opening up another players cheek last week, and a guy susupended this week for 3 months for 4 minior hits that wouldn't crack an egg. That calls their integrity to account in a very public way. They cannot have that and will do a deal.
The Saints, on the other hand, know the MRP is out to get Bakes (GT said openly last night the club was warned by the AFL during his tenure) and knows this isn't fair or just, and is well out of whack with his actions. They would also be aware that if they want to go as far as the Supreme Court they will have a very good case.

The AFL will want to do a deal, even if it a few quiet words before the tribunal sits.

Dis Believer · Tue 29 Jun 2010 4:50pm

Stephen Theodore wrote: What sort of money are you talking for this bridge ?

PM me - it is a very reasonable deal for a heritage listed, internationally recognised Australian icon.

The royalties from commercial use of the image alone will provide a robust revenue stream, and the tax minimisation strategies are endless.
I can't be dishonest however, so you do need to know that the tourist generated revenue is somewhat seasonal, although the tolled traffic income is generally consistent.

saint75 · Post: # 949838Post **saint75** » Tue 29 Jun 2010 4:56pm

lurker#134 wrote:
saint75 wrote:
lurker#134 wrote:Contest two charges, get back just before the finals. Punch Stevie J. square in the face in the GF. Retire with premiership.
Be reasonable. This is not the fault of SJ. You are sounding as bad as opposition supporters ringing up the radio. SJ and Bakes shook hands and had a chat after the game. There was no malice involved. They were both playing their roles for their respective teams. They both overstepped the mark. However, the issue is the severity of the penalty handed down to Baker. THIS is where the problem lies. I think most of us reasonably expected 2-4. 12 weeks (even taking into account the loading) is effin' ridiculous.

The fault of this lies at the feet of the AFL and MRP. If you want to punch anyone out, they should be your targets.
Why should I be reasonable? The MRP wasn't.

No they were not reasonable. However, what does SJ have to do with the farce that is known as the MRP? Nothing, hence my comments above.