Fitzy2513
Oceanic Whitetip Shark
I will be. But Cobb isn't any part of those plans.
Of course not your CSSC. You are obviously happy with No Stadium sponsor, no major sponsor, civil litigation and a club divided.
I will be. But Cobb isn't any part of those plans.
Of course not your CSSC. You are obviously happy with No Stadium sponsor, no major sponsor, civil litigation and a club divided.
Of course not your CSSC. You are obviously happy with No Stadium sponsor, no major sponsor, civil litigation and a club divided.
I've got no interest in voting mindlessly with any bloc, CSSC or otherwise.
Your mate's running platform is as shallow as 'doing things differently.' That's fantastic! When he can provide specific details about how he would have done things differently, I'll pay attention. Until that point he's got nothing to offer.
At the moment your mate's campaign is as convincing as campaigns from 12 year olds running for school captain on the platform of putting Coke in the bubblers. Lots of populism but very little substance.
It's been obvious you hate the CSSC from the start - so you have an agenda and bring Mr Cobb along.
I'll put this back on you, CSSC hater - what have you done for our club fwit?
Peter your statement about there being no way you would have taken the same action as the board is, in my view, supremely arrogant. You DON'T know what they do, none of us do, and until you do any such statement is downright foolhardy.
You are a lawyer, right?
You know that, in addition to Kavanagh & Redman, the board took advice from Alan Sullivan QC, don't you?
Honestly, your statements on this matter (the sackings and ASADA case) are becoming comical. Really, it's like the fictional Denis Denuto claiming he knows more about Constitutional Law than old Bud Tingwell's character.
I don't mean to insult or ridicule, but take a step back and have an objective look at it from a legal standpoint.
Thanks Fitz for the Gow - De la explanation. The whole unity thing leaves me cold.
I have to take issue with you commenting "That's a bit like someone telling someone else how they would play a hand in poker without actually knowing what cards that person is holding." It is nothing anywhere near that.
Without having any more knowledge than what is read in the media. The starting point is that the Sharks are entitled to due process and natural justice. The Sharks are entitled to proceedings being carried out fairly and according to rules and principles, no bias and a fair hearing. I am at a loss to understand why the Board chose not to sit back and put the accusers (ASADA or whoever) to proof. This is a fundamental right to all of us. If a government agency (Police, ASADA or whoever) come with an allegation you are entitled to put them to proof.
The sensible thing would have been to remain silent on issues until faced with proof. And please don't say that telephone conversations and second hand hearsay about needles and equine stickers is proof. In any jurisidiction that could be defeated. I am talking actual evidence. Off the top of my head I could think of many matters I would want proof of starting with the drug allegations. Is there a certificate confirming what the drug was? These is a pretty basic undergraduate question that I have not heard an answer to yet. So it is not like not knowing someones hand at poker, not even remotely close.
Whilst ever we have people like Frenzy who crumble early we are in trouble. "Oh dear" alright.
No doubting Sullivan QC is a very, very knowledgeable man, but something I took from his interview with Hadley was his reference to the decision of the Board (in sacking the 4 staff members and standing down the coach and no doubt fronting a press conference with Kavanagh) as a very brave move. In my experience when a solicitor or Barrister has described something to me as a brave move they weren't necessarily in agreement with said "brave" move. i.e. your client goes to the police station for a "chat" and subsequently provides a formal statement. Brave and even honorable move, maybe...smart or prudent move, maybe not so much.
I can assure you that there is no way I would have acted as the Board did. Never. Other clubs such as Manly and Essendon have shown how to manage the ASADA inquiries. Our Board wilted and panicked at the first bit of pressure. All reports say that the Board wanted players to sign deeds of release to absolve them of any civil action. The Club and the players security should have been priority one.
To WillyinBris I simply did not nominate.
One matter I would like clarified (and once again you guys have the inside "mail") is whether Gow is behind the Unity ticket? I realise he came out with some press release a few weeks ago. However, is it confirmed that he has put it together? And the obvious question stemming from that is why is Gow behind the ticket and not at the front?
Don't roll around in the gutter with me AO.
Frenzy,
I lurked around the LU forum for a number of years. Finally joining up when Quiqs pulled out the unmerged shirts. I know Peter
Cobb and have declared this. Personally i find it disturbing and questionable that those entrusted to run the club would recommend an inducement of signing a waiver of ciivil action and an acceptance of a 6 months penalty be given. not to be in the best interest of those they are elected to govern over.
Over to LU, which one of us is the most upstanding, Frenzy who continually calls Damian Irvine Elmer on LU and comes on SF as a sheep and in agreeance with those he bags, or myself who says it as I see it.
No Frenzy. I don't think I'm doing Peter Cobb any harm.
SHANE Flanagan won't say anything publicly but we're hearing he is not happy about former chairman Damian Irvine standing for the Sharks board at the upcoming election. He will never forgive Irvine for being stood down and for the sacking of four of his coaching staff and best friends. There was never evidence of Flanagan knowing about illegal drug use.
Source: http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-through-the-eyes-of-our-refs/story-fndujljl-1226613934539
SHANE Flanagan won't say anything publicly but we're hearing he is not happy about former chairman Damian Irvine standing for the Sharks board at the upcoming election. He will never forgive Irvine for being stood down and for the sacking of four of his coaching staff and best friends. There was never evidence of Flanagan knowing about illegal drug use.
Rothfield is playing with the minds of the gullible.
Was also never the reason he was stood down. Correct me if I am wrong but Flano admitted to management failings himself, in a press conference, in words from his own mouth for everyone to see. That was why he was suspended.