Further Legal action possible RB

[saintspremiers]

per SEN

[Sainter_4_life]

I would say we would be a huge chance to win this case in a courtroom. Taking into account the lack of evidence and Farmers letter today (why the hell didnt he say that on tuesday night )

Is there any chance of an injunction to get him in the team for tomorrow night ?

We must fight this in court and let a real legal system take care of it. Would be sweet to stick it right up the AFL

[saint patrick]

I would say we would be a huge chance to win this case in a courtroom. Taking into account the lack of evidence and Farmers letter today (why the hell didnt he say that on tuesday night )

Is there any chance of an injunction to get him in the team for tomorrow night ?

We must fight this in court and let a real legal system take care of it. Would be sweet to stick it right up the AFL

Ihave never advocated taking this radical step...but this is a must...everyone I spoke to today has said how non sensical and baseless this whole charge is...can't lose a final or not make it [in Harvs last year!!!! ]on the basis of this garbage...
go for it Saints

[SaintDippa]

If I were Bakes I'd be taking Civil action against the AFL for persecution that may endanger his profession. Case: First given two weeks for not hitting someone, self-defence reflex action deemed kicking and a suspension and now 7 weeks based on zero evidence. Might be worth a million.

[rogerwa]

the first action to be taken would be to pyss off our legal dropkicks...the easiest case in the history of footy to get off yet our so called highly qualified legal eagles hand baker with a 7 match ban...dropkicks

no point going any further with this ....hope to christ butterss is kicking a few arses as we speak

hope the farkwits who represented baker dont put out their hand for a fee...they are more guilty of stuffing up than what the tribunal are

[evertonfc]

It's a natural step to take and was my first reaction after the initial decision.

For such an extreme case with such a big hole in it, I would have thought it's a pretty a standard step.

I'd expect the papers to be lodged at Flagstaff very early.

[Eastern]

If we were to lodge an injunction, I would leave it until around 4.00pm tomorrow. That way the AFL would not have time to respond, Bakes would be free to play and we could fight it out in court on Monday.

Let's not forget that we DO have a precedent of taking the AFL/VFL on in court and beating them. Remember Silvio Foschini !!

[Teflon]

the first action to be taken would be to pyss off our legal dropkicks...the easiest case in the history of footy to get off yet our so called highly qualified legal eagles hand baker with a 7 match ban...dropkicks

no point going any further with this ....hope to christ butterss is kicking a few arses as we speak

hope the farkwits who represented baker dont put out their hand for a fee...they are more guilty of stuffing up than what the tribunal are

Have to say I agree.

Could NOT believe this peanut could not simply instruct Baker to say..

"I had eyes on the ball and felt contact to the back of my head from Farmer..."

Pretty f@rgon simply...

But no....our brilliant QC instructs Baker in...."oh yeah I was trying to a block on 5000 meters off ther ball...."

Just f@rjking incredible. Seriously I dont reckon I have ever heard of a Saints player PROPERLY represented at a tribunal- we wheel in the cut lunch commandoes.

Disgraceful.
Better go to court
Better do better.

WE WANT STINGER GALBALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Dal_Santos_Gal]

http://www.afl.com.au/Default.aspx?tabi ... wsId=49650

ST KILDA has not ruled out taking Steven Baker’s case to the courts, after the appeals tribunal upheld Baker’s seven-match suspension tonight.

After a marathon three-hour hearing, the appeals tribunal let stand Baker’s penalty, imposed on Tuesday night for rough conduct against Fremantle's Jeff Farmer during last Saturday's match at Telstra Dome.

Saints president Rod Butterss told reporters after the hearing the club had not yet decided whether it would take the case further.

Do you dare lay down and accept the AFL's butt banging...
We must take this FURTHER.. its a MUST

[rogerwa]

best way to have a win is on the footy field...after all we are responsible for stuffing up our own defence...
imagine our highly qualified dropkicks going to court...baker would end up getting 10 yrs hard labour

cant help myself...we are represented by farkin dropkicks

[satchmo]

What if Bakes goes back top the tribunal and claims he lied in his evidence, there was no contact....cops a 7.5grand fine for lying and the case has to be thrown out for insufficient evidence ?

[St. Luke]

This must go further!

[Riewoldting]

What if Bakes goes back top the tribunal and claims he lied in his evidence, there was no contact....cops a 7.5grand fine for lying and the case has to be thrown out for insufficient evidence ?

Hehe if only

[barks4eva]

What if Bakes goes back top the tribunal and claims he lied in his evidence, there was no contact....cops a 7.5grand fine for lying and the case has to be thrown out for insufficient evidence ?

Actually makes a lot of sense, I think you may be onto something

[Oh When the Saints]

best way to have a win is on the footy field...after all we are responsible for stuffing up our own defence...
imagine our highly qualified dropkicks going to court...baker would end up getting 10 yrs hard labour

cant help myself...we are represented by farkin dropkicks

No.

The QC had no knowledge that Baker's testimony was the sole evidence that was to be trusted by the tribunal ...

No tribunal accepts the victim's testimony as the sole reason for sentencing him when the victim claims to have made contact that isn't a reportable offence ... it just doesn't happen.

Obviously if this was known, the Baker would have just been instructed to lie.

But in the presence of other witnesses, such as Ricky Nixon, Baker lying would have only compounded the situation and reduces his credibility.


At the tribunal, maybe Baker should have lied.

In a court of law, Baker did exactly the right thing ...

[To the top]

I would imagine that, on the basis of a lack of intent to actually cause injury, which should be easily established as grounds, at least interim relief would be granted in the Federal Court pending a full submission.

Restraint of trade precedent is established.

I would suggest the AFL is on precarious ground.

The AFL will view that they have contracts binding competing clubs in that those competing clubs will not challenge the rules and regulations of the AFL.

This will also compromise the AFL in regards any Restraint of Trade application.

It is a matter of who brings the action.

Because the premise of the AFL must be tested.

[saintspremiers]

best way to have a win is on the footy field...after all we are responsible for stuffing up our own defence...
imagine our highly qualified dropkicks going to court...baker would end up getting 10 yrs hard labour

cant help myself...we are represented by farkin dropkicks

No.

The QC had no knowledge that Baker's testimony was the sole evidence that was to be trusted by the tribunal ...

No tribunal accepts the victim's testimony as the sole reason for sentencing him when the victim claims to have made contact that isn't a reportable offence ... it just doesn't happen.

Obviously if this was known, the Baker would have just been instructed to lie.

But in the presence of other witnesses, such as Ricky Nixon, Baker lying would have only compounded the situation and reduces his credibility.


At the tribunal, maybe Baker should have lied.

In a court of law, Baker did exactly the right thing ...

spot on OWTS....

But since when does taking the Moral High Ground get you anywhere in the AFL???

Shows them up exactly for what they are, doesn't it???

[Solar]

I would imagine that, on the basis of a lack of intent to actually cause injury, which should be easily established as grounds, at least interim relief would be granted in the Federal Court pending a full submission.

Restraint of trade precedent is established.

I would suggest the AFL is on precarious ground.

The AFL will view that they have contracts binding competing clubs in that those competing clubs will not challenge the rules and regulations of the AFL.

This will also compromise the AFL in regards any Restraint of Trade application.

It is a matter of who brings the action.

Because the premise of the AFL must be tested.

didn't sydney take the dunkley case to court so he could play the 96 granny???

[rogerwa]

owts...your first 2 or 3 words sum it up imo

our qc had no knowledge...its their job,the dykwits are paid massive amounts to know whats going on

they are responsible for this stuff up...not baker not the afl but our CLOWNS IN GOWNS...farkin idiots

[saint patrick]

I would imagine that, on the basis of a lack of intent to actually cause injury, which should be easily established as grounds, at least interim relief would be granted in the Federal Court pending a full submission.

Restraint of trade precedent is established.

I would suggest the AFL is on precarious ground.

The AFL will view that they have contracts binding competing clubs in that those competing clubs will not challenge the rules and regulations of the AFL.

This will also compromise the AFL in regards any Restraint of Trade application.

It is a matter of who brings the action.

Because the premise of the AFL must be tested.

didn't sydney take the dunkley case to court so he could play the 96 granny???

yes and this case is 10 times more dubious..Rod needs to know if they don't act on our behalf on this it will not be forgotten

[saintsrus]

Time to show some B@lls RB

[Teflon]

surely the AFL have a responsibility to uphold here with regard to proper camera scrutiny of games to ensure ALL evidence is able to be bought to account?

surely they have an onus here....as opposed to an own-us?

[Grimfang]

Looks like St. Kilda will have to carry the can again in taking legal action to rectify a broken system in the AFL/VFL.

Remember folks, we were heavily involved in the court action that dismantled the VFL's clearance rules (which were a clear restraint of trade) back in 1983.

We won't win any friends doing it but it's got to be done.

[kalsaint]

the first action to be taken would be to pyss off our legal dropkicks...the easiest case in the history of footy to get off yet our so called highly qualified legal eagles hand baker with a 7 match ban...dropkicks

no point going any further with this ....hope to christ butterss is kicking a few arses as we speak

hope the farkwits who represented baker dont put out their hand for a fee...they are more guilty of stuffing up than what the tribunal are

Have to say I agree.

Could NOT believe this peanut could not simply instruct Baker to say..

"I had eyes on the ball and felt contact to the back of my head from Farmer..."

Pretty f@rgon simply...

But no....our brilliant QC instructs Baker in...."oh yeah I was trying to a block on 5000 meters off ther ball...."

Just f@rjking incredible. Seriously I dont reckon I have ever heard of a Saints player PROPERLY represented at a tribunal- we wheel in the cut lunch commandoes.

Disgraceful.
Better go to court
Better do better.

WE WANT STINGER GALBALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Not sure I totally agree about this. The QC's correct in asking Bake to tell it as it is. The same line in both hearings needed to be the same.

If the decision was not upheld in the appeal due to Bake's evidence he is better off now if we go to a real court. Remember this is a ruling worhty of a kangaroo court. In a real deal all the kangaroos being present as attendees rather than governors will assist Bake's case.

The QC did right in my mind. Taking them on legally now is the only way this corrupt organisation will be brought into line. Bakes truth will now serve him well where real standards apply.

[rogerwa]

if someone runs into the back of your car you dont say its my fault i shoved the brakes on suddenly & call in a witness to say you did that..you stfu & let the person who ran up your arze try to get out of it

our qc's noddy & bigears have been walking around in wigs & dresses for too long