Alleged incident at hotel on Sunday night

[Merdo5555]

Yawn. Blakey has been unhappy for a lot longer than the last 8 weeks. There were plenty of rumours around last year about him, he was almost traded last Summer, and its clear he was unsettled well before now. Stop looking for a conspiracy in everything.

No one cares that you are no longer a financial member. If you want to make that decision, because the club did what it had to do, given the context and circumstances of football in 2026, that is your choice. I'm pretty confident there will be a whole lot more members out there that have chosen to continue to be financial members off the back of the club's decision making, then those that have thrown in the towel because of how the club responded to the incident.

Consider the counterfactual.

If any of the players were ultimately charged and found guilty, yet the Swans won a flag with them in the team because the club effectively put sporting results above everything else, imagine the absolutely massive uproar, and huge damage that would have done to the club and the competition. You've seen the outrage as it is - multiply it by 10,000 in that situation. That is not in doubt. It would of effectively put an * against the flag, and done huge, long term reputational damage to the club and the competition. That would have been the outcome in that circumstance, absolutely guaranteed.

Boards and executives ultimately have to balance risk and reward, and in this case the downside risk was absolutely enormous. Even if they (the club leadership/exec) thought it unlikely that criminal charges would follow, the risk of huge reputational damage resulting from the actions of the players (this is not talking about legalities - just perception and reputation) was always going to be substantial. A response that sought to downplay the allegations, not treat them seriously, and put sport above matters that are taken exceptionally seriously by society, was never going to be a viable approach for the board. That is irrespective of the veracity of the claims.

You are berating the club's leaders because they haven't employed a 1970s 'nothing to see here' view of the world, which is simply unviable in modern society and the professional era.

As for Tanner Bruhn - it is not any form of warning. Because a woman lied in one case, that doesn't mean every woman lies in every situation, and we should just downplay allegations because of it, or that the default position should be 'she is making it up'. That is nothing but a reflection on your character if you think that is the 'warning' said case sends.

You are clearly interpreting the outcome that the players clearly had no case to answer. The simple fact is, only very few know what went on in that room, and the players not being charged shouldn't be taken as 'nothing happened at all' in that room. Crime statistics show it is exceptionally difficult to achieve successful convictions in sexual assault cases unless a case is absolute rock solid. In plenty of cases, they get nowhere near court not because there is likely to be basis to the allegations, but because of an inability to build a sufficient case to prosecute. That may apply in this case, it may not. We simply do not, and probably will not ever know.

Your argument is full of myth and deflection. You constantly claim there was a binary option between sweeping it under the carpet or a ban for the rest of the season. The whole point is that is BS, there were a multitude of options available. The binary choice was the one being called for by the hungry mob, the one with torches and pitchforks waiting to storm Sydney HQ if they didnt get the result they wanted.

The reference to the 1970's is meaningless and an attempt to deflect from the substance of the argument.

The decision to punish the players appropriately for their acts (and not for criminal acts that MAY have been committed) is the key principle. One that you are more than happy to dispose of when the mob demands it. Justice be damned the mob has demanded scalps.

And lets say they were banned for 2 matches and the swans go on to win the premiership and the players are now fully exonerated, will people might think the punishment fitted the actions and the club was strong and principled enough to ignore the mob and make the right decision.

Or lets accept your scenario and they were now charged. What would people, supporters etc, thought. Well perhaps many (after some reflection) will have thought the club took a principled stance and punished the players for their actions and let the police do their job. Of course at that stage further action would be taken by the club including possibly standing down the players.

As is often the case the complete overreaction and hysteria in the days after the incident resulted in unprincipled decision making concerned with the best PR outcome rather than the appropriate and fair response for all.

Dont come out with PR spin that the players are being punished for the actions excluding what happened in the hotel room; there is simply no way a player is suspended for 3 or 4 matches for getting drunk and taking a woman or women back to their hotel room. Whether you morally approve or not is irrelevant.

The nonsense of the defence of the punishment is laid bare by comparing to a potential Tom Papley ban of 2 matches if, and its a big, if the second test confirms the presence of an illicit substance in his system

So a punishment for legal actions should be double that of criminal actions (if that occurs).

Oh and we abandon the principle of innocent until proven guilty because it doesnt suit your argument, so you can sort of imply okay maybe that big a ban was justified because something happened in that room. Men commit horrible crimes in massive numbers and some women (a relatively small number) lie, both are facts. Instead of assuming either how about let the police do their job and take it from there. They did their job no charges are laid, end of story. Whether you like it or not we have a legal system that has made its decision.

And how about not throw employees under the bus because its the expedient PR friendly approach.

What would have happened if one of the players had attempted self-harm, let alone were ultimately successful, because they felt the club ultimately accepted their guilt because of the length of the ban they were handed.

What would we be saying now. Yes of course the club supported them during the time, but the support may not have been enough.

Hypotheticals are great fun, id prefer to stand on principle because no matter what happens you have approached the topic with integrity and honesty without care or concern for pleasing the mob no matter how big or powerful it is.

[UUaswan]

Your argument is full of myth and deflection. You constantly claim there was a binary option between sweeping it under the carpet or a ban for the rest of the season. The whole point is that is BS, there were a multitude of options available. The binary choice was the one being called for by the hungry mob, the one with torches and pitchforks waiting to storm Sydney HQ if they didnt get the result they wanted.

The reference to the 1970's is meaningless and an attempt to deflect from the substance of the argument.

The decision to punish the players appropriately for their acts (and not for criminal acts that MAY have been committed) is the key principle. One that you are more than happy to dispose of when the mob demands it. Justice be damned the mob has demanded scalps.

And lets say they were banned for 2 matches and the swans go on to win the premiership and the players are now fully exonerated, will people might think the punishment fitted the actions and the club was strong and principled enough to ignore the mob and make the right decision.

Or lets accept your scenario and they were now charged. What would people, supporters etc, thought. Well perhaps many (after some reflection) will have thought the club took a principled stance and punished the players for their actions and let the police do their job. Of course at that stage further action would be taken by the club including possibly standing down the players.

As is often the case the complete overreaction and hysteria in the days after the incident resulted in unprincipled decision making concerned with the best PR outcome rather than the appropriate and fair response for all.

Dont come out with PR spin that the players are being punished for the actions excluding what happened in the hotel room; there is simply no way a player is suspended for 3 or 4 matches for getting drunk and taking a woman or women back to their hotel room. Whether you morally approve or not is irrelevant.

The nonsense of the defence of the punishment is laid bare by comparing to a potential Tom Papley ban of 2 matches if, and its a big, if the second test confirms the presence of an illicit substance in his system

So a punishment for legal actions should be double that of criminal actions (if that occurs).

Oh and we abandon the principle of innocent until proven guilty because it doesnt suit your argument, so you can sort of imply okay maybe that big a ban was justified because something happened in that room. Men commit horrible crimes in massive numbers and some women (a relatively small number) lie, both are facts. Instead of assuming either how about let the police do their job and take it from there. They did their job no charges are laid, end of story. Whether you like it or not we have a legal system that has made its decision.

And how about not throw employees under the bus because its the expedient PR friendly approach.

What would have happened if one of the players had attempted self-harm, let alone were ultimately successful, because they felt the club ultimately accepted their guilt because of the length of the ban they were handed.

What would we be saying now. Yes of course the club supported them during the time, but the support may not have been enough.

Hypotheticals are great fun, id prefer to stand on principle because no matter what happens you have approached the topic with integrity and honesty without care or concern for pleasing the mob no matter how big or powerful it is.

Well said, good point on Papley too

Why are we waiting for the 2nd Sample ? Why do we now need confirmation of a crime before we act ?

[mcs]

Whatever Merdo. My pespective is clearly different to yours, that does not make it full of 'myth and deflection' - absolute horse@@@@ mate.

You clearly have a different take on the modern world than many others, and the environment in which AFL clubs operate in the modern professional era. You effectively want the club to operate in a 'vacuum', ignore the context that it exists within, and make decisions on that basis.

I suspect there is a fairly strong majority of people that recognise that in the modern world, irrespective of noble intent behind such views, that is very unlikely to ever be a tenable approach to things.

Enjoy the off season.

[Merdo5555]

We need confirmation in this case because there is no angry mob demanding otherwise, hence the club is more than happy to do the right thing.

[Dow]

Your argument is full of myth and deflection. You constantly claim there was a binary option between sweeping it under the carpet or a ban for the rest of the season. The whole point is that is BS, there were a multitude of options available. The binary choice was the one being called for by the hungry mob, the one with torches and pitchforks waiting to storm Sydney HQ if they didnt get the result they wanted.

The reference to the 1970's is meaningless and an attempt to deflect from the substance of the argument.

The decision to punish the players appropriately for their acts (and not for criminal acts that MAY have been committed) is the key principle. One that you are more than happy to dispose of when the mob demands it. Justice be damned the mob has demanded scalps.

And lets say they were banned for 2 matches and the swans go on to win the premiership and the players are now fully exonerated, will people might think the punishment fitted the actions and the club was strong and principled enough to ignore the mob and make the right decision.

Or lets accept your scenario and they were now charged. What would people, supporters etc, thought. Well perhaps many (after some reflection) will have thought the club took a principled stance and punished the players for their actions and let the police do their job. Of course at that stage further action would be taken by the club including possibly standing down the players.

As is often the case the complete overreaction and hysteria in the days after the incident resulted in unprincipled decision making concerned with the best PR outcome rather than the appropriate and fair response for all.

Dont come out with PR spin that the players are being punished for the actions excluding what happened in the hotel room; there is simply no way a player is suspended for 3 or 4 matches for getting drunk and taking a woman or women back to their hotel room. Whether you morally approve or not is irrelevant.

The nonsense of the defence of the punishment is laid bare by comparing to a potential Tom Papley ban of 2 matches if, and its a big, if the second test confirms the presence of an illicit substance in his system

So a punishment for legal actions should be double that of criminal actions (if that occurs).

Oh and we abandon the principle of innocent until proven guilty because it doesnt suit your argument, so you can sort of imply okay maybe that big a ban was justified because something happened in that room. Men commit horrible crimes in massive numbers and some women (a relatively small number) lie, both are facts. Instead of assuming either how about let the police do their job and take it from there. They did their job no charges are laid, end of story. Whether you like it or not we have a legal system that has made its decision.

And how about not throw employees under the bus because its the expedient PR friendly approach.

What would have happened if one of the players had attempted self-harm, let alone were ultimately successful, because they felt the club ultimately accepted their guilt because of the length of the ban they were handed.

What would we be saying now. Yes of course the club supported them during the time, but the support may not have been enough.

Hypotheticals are great fun, id prefer to stand on principle because no matter what happens you have approached the topic with integrity and honesty without care or concern for pleasing the mob no matter how big or powerful it is.

I have heard some crap in my life, but this waffle takes the cake

[UUaswan]

I have heard some crap in my life, but this waffle takes the cake

Go read the first few pages of this thread about careers being over and the well being of victims if you really want to read some crap

[Merdo5555]

I have heard some crap in my life, but this waffle takes the cake

So says the man holding the torch and pitchfork!

[Dow]

So says the man holding the torch and pitchfork!

No torch and pitchfork, they let their teammates, themselves, families down in a massive way and quite frankly are lucky to have jobs, If i had got on the piss and had strippers attend a hotel room the company had paid for on a business trip i would be fired no investigation and no second chance. i dont want them fired or hung out to dry, but i don't feel sorry for them the punishment to date has been lite in my opinion and they need to know actions have consequences - people strutting screaming they have been persecuted are in my opinion way of the mark

[stevoswan]

Go read the first few pages of this thread about careers being over and the well being of victims if you really want to read some crap

As opposed to 'losing all five players' you mean? Spare us all your crap.


So here we are, the players will not face further charges as most of us suspected and it's good news.

Of course the 'enablers' have come out to arrogantly and naively claim they were right all along.....because of course, totally screwing up behaviorally 2 weeks out from finals deserves no punishment because it wasn't 'illegal'.

Get your heads in the game, it was totally stupid and unacceptable, threatened everything the club had been working for all season and the club acted correctly. No amount of hysterical 'we told you so' bleating to the contrary will change my mind on that and the minds of those with a modicum of moral intelligence.

I'm guessing you and Merdo5555 think Russell Brand was hard done by as well? FFS......can't wait for crackedactor to chime in on all this in support of his manosphere mates. Not.

It's all as predictable as it is tiresome. It's such a pity some men just can't drag their arses and knuckles into the 21st century.

Now, as for the women involved.....the fact that they have now announced they will pursue civil lawsuits makes it quite plain to me that this was mainly about money all along. I'm not saying nothing untoward happened in that room but suspect that when the cops say there was not enough evidence, they actually mean there is little evidence to suggest that something unlawful happened. We will now never know exactly what happened so that moot.

Add to that the fact that there is a tape now in the authority's possession of the girls discussing their course of action once they knew the players were not 'tradies' but highly paid AFL footballers makes me suspect any future lawsuits/money grabs will likely be unsuccessful.

Having said that, I am absolutely fully supportive of a society that listens to women when they make a complaint or report of any form of abuse to police and as such, treats said reports seriously. To have the opposite approach that assumes that women lie about these things would be dangerous, extremely disrespectful and morally wrong.

Well, these women have been listened to and their claims have been treated seriously. Unfortunately for them, it has led to an unsatisfactory result, whatever their motives. On the flipside, if nothing illegal happened in that room, it's a just result for our players. Again, we'll never really know either way.

But none of this changes the fact that the club acted absolutely correctly in the face of this controversy and the entire playing group is now on notice that this sort of self indulgent BS will not be tolerated by their employer....as it shouldn't. To send any other message, like the enablers above are sending, would frankly be club suicide.

Now....I'm not even going to talk about Paps....sheese! Total knob.....but how could I not love him?

FFS, roll on 2027 and just let this year be over!

[UUaswan]

No torch and pitchfork, they let their teammates, themselves, families down in a massive way and quite frankly are lucky to have jobs, If i had got on the piss and had strippers attend a hotel room the company had paid for on a business trip i would be fired no investigation and no second chance. i dont want them fired or hung out to dry, but i don't feel sorry for them the punishment to date has been lite in my opinion and they need to know actions have consequences - people strutting screaming they have been persecuted are in my opinion way of the mark

Not sure what you do mate but id be very positive you aren't Heeney or Warner to whoever you work for

And its 2026, not 1970, you cant sack someone for not doing their job let alone sacking someone for what they did after work, would be a unfair dismissal claim

Being called a rapist by every media outlet for 3 months only too be cleared is probably fair grounds to say you feel persecuted

[UUaswan]

As opposed to 'losing all five players' you mean? Spare us all your crap.


So here we are, the players will not face further charges as most of us suspected and it's good news.

Of course the 'enablers' have come out to arrogantly and naively claim they were right all along.....because of course, totally screwing up behaviorally 2 weeks out from finals deserves no punishment because it wasn't 'illegal'.

Get your heads in the game, it was totally stupid and unacceptable, threatened everything the club had been working for all season and the club acted correctly. No amount of hysterical 'we told you so' bleating to the contrary will change my mind on that and the minds of those with a modicum of moral intelligence.

I'm guessing you and Merdo5555 think Russell Brand was hard done by as well? FFS......can't wait for crackedactor to chime in on all this in support of his manosphere mates. Not.

It's all as predictable as it is tiresome. It's such a pity some men just can't drag their arses and knuckles into the 21st century.

Now, as for the women involved.....the fact that they have now announced they will pursue civil lawsuits makes it quite plain to me that this was mainly about money all along. I'm not saying nothing untoward happened in that room but suspect that when the cops say there was not enough evidence, they actually mean there is little evidence to suggest that something unlawful happened. We will now never know exactly what happened so that moot.

Add to that the fact that there is a tape now in the authority's possession of the girls discussing their course of action once they knew the players were not 'tradies' but highly paid AFL footballers makes me suspect any future lawsuits/money grabs will likely be unsuccessful.

Having said that, I am absolutely fully supportive of a society that listens to women when they make a complaint or report of any form of abuse to police and as such, treats said reports seriously. To have the opposite approach that assumes that women lie about these things would be dangerous, extremely disrespectful and morally wrong.

Well, these women have been listened to and their claims have been treated seriously. Unfortunately for them, it has led to an unsatisfactory result, whatever their motives. On the flipside, if nothing illegal happened in that room, it's a just result for our players. Again, we'll never really know either way.

But none of this changes the fact that the club acted absolutely correctly in the face of this controversy and the entire playing group is now on notice that this sort of self indulgent BS will not be tolerated by their employer....as it shouldn't. To send any other message, like the enablers above are sending, would frankly be club suicide.

Now....I'm not even going to talk about Paps....sheese! Total knob.....but how could I not love him?

FFS, roll on 2027 and just let this year be over!

The way you feel with Paps is the way we felt about the 5......Less the expected conviction

[mcs]

Not sure what you do mate but id be very positive you aren't Heeney or Warner to whoever you work for

And its 2026, not 1970, you cant sack someone for not doing their job let alone sacking someone for what they did after work, would be a unfair dismissal claim

Being called a rapist by every media outlet for 3 months only too be cleared is probably fair grounds to say you feel persecuted

There are very, very few things the media did right in this case. But they were absolutely very clear in the way they talked about the alleged incident. No one was called a 'rapist' at any point. Almost every article had the same disclaimer lines within them (or words to the same effect). I'm not trying to excuse the abhorrent media circus around it all, but that is one of the few parts where they did what they are meant to do (in general - there may have been a few examples along the way where people did not).

And you absolutely can be sacked for what happens after work if it is specified within contractual agreements. There are plenty of sectors where there are very clear expectations built into contracts. But when said opinion comes with drivel like 'you can't sack someone for not doing their job', then it is difficult to take said opinion particularly seriously after all.

[stevoswan]

The way you feel with Paps is the way we felt about the 5......Less the expected conviction

I do like the 4 that remain, at least they understood the crime and accepted the punishment.....can't stand sooky boy Blakey though. Ran back to mummy and daddy.

[lwjoyner]

rhe punishment handed down by the club fits the crime.No doubt about it. it may have cost us a p[s but so what our culture is what matters. For players to be out until the hours indicated particularly Blakey was THE CRIME as regards our culture and the Board acted correctly. END OF SAGA

[Merdo5555]

rhe punishment handed down by the club fits the crime.No doubt about it. it may have cost us a p[s but so what our culture is what matters. For players to be out until the hours indicated particularly Blakey was THE CRIME as regards our culture and the Board acted correctly. END OF SAGA

Total BS, there was no crime! They were punished to satisfy the baying mob!