Then why should the Swans officials put up the shutters if all we were talking about was some rookie list player from years ago?Originally posted by Tooth Fairy
Well there you go people. Why don't you all have a look into that little rumor? Good point captain.
Every news organisation tonight ran it was a "current Swans player"
Exactly. Would have been VERY simple for Colless or Roos today to clear that up if it was a former player. Today seemed to confirm it was a current player.Originally posted by Dudley
Then why should the Swans officials put up the shutters if all we were talking about was some rookie list player from years ago?
Every news organisation tonight ran it was a "current Swans player"
Alot of the news coming out by the News organisation, 2GB and 2UE , utoday is designed to deflect information
WMP
I alwaus cringe when I see this type of journalism IMO this should be against the law. If a person hasn't got the guts to put their name to a claim it should not be printed.Originally posted by Reggi
Payout on footy sex
Russell Robinson
19mar04
According to a legal source: "Three separate players took part (in the settlement). All three contributed, and the amount was substantial."
Just another way the media is allowed to (in many cases) get away with mis-informing the public.
"As a player he simply should not have been able to do the things he did. Leo was a 185cm, 88kg full-back and played on some of the biggest, fastest and best full-forwards of all time, and constantly beat them." Roos.
Leo Barry? you star! We'll miss ya, ''Leapin''.
Maybe think twice before you believe what you hear from the media.Originally posted by swan_song
God thank heavens I returned to the board for the latest update before I went to the post box to send back my membership...
It's becoming a little clearer now....
"As a player he simply should not have been able to do the things he did. Leo was a 185cm, 88kg full-back and played on some of the biggest, fastest and best full-forwards of all time, and constantly beat them." Roos.
Leo Barry? you star! We'll miss ya, ''Leapin''.
This thread surprises me a bit. It was so widely reported at the time I thought everyone knew.
But, it was always reported from day one that the high profile player (who everyone now knows), was in no way involved in the incident.
As is said - he wasn't even interviewed. As far as was reported he was not there at all.
Why the hell is someone 'implicated' in anything, or have any guilt by association when they wren't even there?
If there is a story here (other than Burgoyne and Heuskes), then I can't see it.
What exactly is he being accused of the he should be concerned about?
I don't get it
Last edited by Reggi; 20th March 2004 at 12:15 AM.
You don't ban those who supported your opponent, you make them wallow in their loserdom by covering your victory! You sit them in the front row. You give them a hat! Toby Ziegler
Originally posted by Captain
I don't belive the Essendon board has got it correct or 2GB for that matter. The player involved lets say may have only been related to a 'high profile' player....
But work it out, how many Swans players would have a reason to be in South Australia coming out of Heaven NightClub. (Let me guess, the expat South Australians!?)
As soon as I heard it was Burgoyne, I pretty much knew who the other player involved would have been.
I too feel sick in the stomach over all of this.
JF
"Never ever ever state that Sydney is gone.They are like cockroaches in the aftermath of a nuclear war"
(Forum poster 'Change', Big Footy 04Apr09)
The cost of a defending a civil case would be significant. Each of 3 players would have had their own lawyers. Plus there would have been time off the job, plus publicity. You can understand why someone would think it easier to make a payment to close the whole thing down.
Given that there appears to be no indication at all that our player was involved in the alleged rape ... if there was the slightest evidence of this, surely the police would have spoken to him ... I think that the media is being totally irresponsible in sensationalising the Swan player's involvement.
And I don't think us putting his name on this thread does anyone any good. Could a moderator please remove it. If the Club and player involved wished for this to be public, then they would have done so. We are supporters of the Club, we should support them in this.
This is not the same as the situation with the pitbulls. The police have questioned the whole team and are focusing on the players involved. In our case, the police saw no reason to question our player.
Dream, believe, achieve!
If either yourself or damien can't work it out, then I suggest you don't follow the swans players and lists too carefully. Nor do you understand the facts of the case (nor do I). Current player making the payment... yes (reportedly). Previously listed player being near the altercation... perhaps. I'm not going to make it any clearer than that.Originally posted by Dudley
Then why should the Swans officials put up the shutters if all we were talking about was some rookie list player from years ago?
Every news organisation tonight ran it was a "current Swans player"
edit: on a side note, I too have chipped in to settle a civil dispute with our local cricket club and a household neighbouring our club ground. Does that make me a criminal too? In your eyes, yes. pfft.
Last edited by Tooth Fairy; 20th March 2004 at 08:59 AM.
If u don't believe me, I will knock your bloody teeth out and not pay you a cent.
I disagree.And I don't think us putting his name on this thread does anyone any good.
What's the difference to anming a name and posting a link to a Bombers board where he is named?
That is why this thread is so long, because people want to know.
Let everyone know, and then delete it all.
It's out in the open, people can now move on.
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks