Manly v. NRL

[lynx000]

I hate to say it, but I believe Manly are in the right in this battle with the NRL re the Stewart incident.

It really looks like the NRL had a knee jerk reaction to the sexual assault allegation and that was the reason why they hit him with the 4 week suspension and fined the club $100,000.00.

That is the reason why Gallop is adopting the move on nothing to see hear approach because he knows that he cannot justify what the NRL did. Stewart caught a cab home, and from all reports, although he had been drinking and may have been pissed, he was not paralytic. If they had the evidence to back up their position I am sure the NRL would have tabled it by now.

They made the mistake last time by going off early prior to the true position re the assault being tested in court. At least they have learnt their lesson by the subsequent approach to the Benji issue but Gallop should be man enough to admit that they got it wrong with Stewart.

 

[Coxy]

Tend to agree. Although it should be noted the fine against the club wasn't JUST because of Stewart. It was other behaviour by drunk Manly players at the season launch, including Watmough's foul mouthed attack on a sponsor's daughter.

However they do have to answer why Stewart was suspended until his court hearing while Marshall is allowed to play.

Sure, sexual assault charge > assault occasioning bodily harm charge, but if they're applying "innocent until proven guilty" on Marshall then it should apply across the board while ever the player in question is not in prison (if it were something serious like a murder or attempted murder charge there's a good chance the player would be remanded and denied bail...)

 

[Flutterby]

Am also inclined to agree; however I also think that Manly should let by-gones be by-gones and move on.

 

[Coxy]

Am also inclined to agree; however I also think that Manly should let by-gones be by-gones and move on.

Yes, or if they have an issue with it, take it up privately with the NRL. What we don't need is more off field crap dragging the game through the mud.

 

[lynx000]

Tend to agree. Although it should be noted the fine against the club wasn't JUST because of Stewart. It was other behaviour by drunk Manly players at the season launch, including Watmough's foul mouthed attack on a sponsor's daughter.

However they do have to answer why Stewart was suspended until his court hearing while Marshall is allowed to play.

Sure, sexual assault charge > assault occasioning bodily harm charge, but if they're applying "innocent until proven guilty" on Marshall then it should apply across the board while ever the player in question is not in prison (if it were something serious like a murder or attempted murder charge there's a good chance the player would be remanded and denied bail...)

That's right, I forgot about Watmough snotting one of their sponsors. Yes, fair enough, the fine was probably supportable given those other incidents.

 

[Kaz]

Going by the reports, Marshall wasn't drunk & Stewart was asked to leave the bar.

It was also the official launch of Manly's season. And it was MANLY. [icon_razz1

 

[Jeba]

Plus I think Stewart's case was a bit worse than Marshall's.

 

[Coxy]

Plus I think Stewart's case was a bit worse than Marshall's.

As alleged, yes. But subsequently proven false.

So he was punished quite severely for something he ultimately hadn't done.

Hence I think the caution about sacking/suspending players based on allegations and charges alone.

 

[mrslong]

Pfft Manly are hypocrites.

Did they even care that Anthony Watmaugh was clocked doing FIFTY KM PER HOUR OVER THE SPEED LIMIT recently.

That is CRAZY driving. You could easily kill someone travelling at those speeds. I wouldn't even do 50K's over when driving and I have a bit of a lead foot.

---

HELLO MANLY PULL YOUR HEADS IN.

 

[Porthoz]

Pfft Manly are hypocrites.

Did they even care that Anthony Watmaugh was clocked doing FIFTY KM PER HOUR OVER THE SPEED LIMIT recently.

That is CRAZY driving. You could easily kill someone travelling at those speeds. I wouldn't even do 50K's over when driving and I have a bit of a lead foot.

---

HELLO MANLY PULL YOUR HEADS IN.

Oh come on, what's wrong with a bit of speeding? [icon_shady

It was Manly, so it's justified! :twisted:

 

[mrslong]

Pfft Manly are hypocrites.

Did they even care that Anthony Watmaugh was clocked doing FIFTY KM PER HOUR OVER THE SPEED LIMIT recently.

That is CRAZY driving. You could easily kill someone travelling at those speeds. I wouldn't even do 50K's over when driving and I have a bit of a lead foot.

---

HELLO MANLY PULL YOUR HEADS IN.

Oh come on, what's wrong with a bit of speeding? [icon_shady

It was Manly, so it's justified! :twisted:

Nothing [icon_shady as you will see from my post, I like it. But there's speeding and there's speeding.

 

[Nashy]

I think any player who brings the game into disrepute like this, should indeed be suspended until everything is sorted out.

While the player is in the headlines for the wrong reason, kids don't need to see him playing.

 

[john1420]

My issue with it is Manly did not argue the case at the time. They agreed with all points and were not interested in disputing the facts. Now that the Benji incident has happened, they want to dispute facts they agreed with 2 years prior.

Sorry, but that's no good.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

My issue with it is Manly did not argue the case at the time. They agreed with all points and were not interested in disputing the facts. Now that the Benji incident has happened, they want to dispute facts they agreed with 2 years prior.

Sorry, but that's no good.

Spot on. If they didn't like it, they should have kicked up a stink then - it's no use trying to whinge about it now. [icon_shru

 

[Coxy]

Um, not spot on. Sure, they accepted the treatment then expecting other situations would be treated the same.

Carney drink drives despite being on an alcohol ban.
Marshall snots a bloke.
Neither get suspended. Neither club gets fined.

Ergo, manly a bit peeved.

 

[Kaz]

My issue with it is Manly did not argue the case at the time. They agreed with all points and were not interested in disputing the facts. Now that the Benji incident has happened, they want to dispute facts they agreed with 2 years prior.

Manly gave them the info. [icon_lol1.

The NRL responded by releasing details of the Sea Eagles' own report into the behaviour of their players at the club's 2009 season launch, which noted:

? ''17.10pm: There was an altercation between two males, [Manly forward] Anthony Watmough and [club sponsor] Paul Durazza. It was broken up and both had left the venue by 17.20pm.

? ''18.00pm: A Caucasian male, Brett Stewart, was asked to leave Main Bar due to intoxication.''


http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 1bmm7.html

 

[Flutterby]

Um, not spot on. Sure, they accepted the treatment then expecting other situations would be treated the same.

Carney drink drives despite being on an alcohol ban.
Marshall snots a bloke.
Neither get suspended. Neither club gets fined.

Ergo, manly a bit peeved.

However in the Carney and Marshall cases the clubs took some action against the players (albeit limited); whereas in the Watmough/Stewart case Manly were just like "meh". I think if Manly had taken ANY action themselves then the NRL wouldn't have been as harsh.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Um, not spot on. Sure, they accepted the treatment then expecting other situations would be treated the same.

Carney drink drives despite being on an alcohol ban.
Marshall snots a bloke.
Neither get suspended. Neither club gets fined.

Ergo, manly a bit peeved.

Umm, yes spot on. Manly can't accept the punishment without question and then, two years later, demand that the NRL tell them why he was punished.
The issue about uneven treatment is secondary to this main issue from what I have heard in the media from Des Hasler and crew.
That's like paying a speeding ticket and then, two years later, demanding that the Police tell you what evidence they had because someone got off lighter than you. [icon_shru