Alleged incident at hotel on Sunday night

[crackedactor 01]

It ain't 1976 anymore. The fact you call actions 'stupid' says a lot - they may be stupid in isolation, but they may well also be shown to have directly led to actions that were ultimately criminal. That is not something to just go 'ah well' and move on and shove under the carpt.

Such an approach of prioritising football above all else would like have a vastly more significant long term impact on the clubs standing in the game - you think the media had a field day as it has been lol.

Imagine winning a flag with those players in the team and then one or more ultimately being found guilty of sexual assault. Add that to a situation where the club actively put football first, and the longer term damage of that would be a multitude of the damage already done.

I'm glad we have people on our board that can recognise the need for a risk averse approach in this case, and not the risk loving for the sake of the football you suggest. They have responded to events that led to a very unsavoury event (that is the best case description we can hope for at the end of it all) in an appropriate manner, and in a manner reflecting the wider expectations of I'd suggest a significant majority of the community.

We have treated all 5 players involved in the wider circumstance exactly the same. There is zero evidence the club has treated Heeney in any way different to the rest.

Yes we may well lose out on the field this season as a result. But the decision making of the board has nothing to do with arrogance, and everything to do with the world modern footy clubs operate in and recognising when to 'hold' and when to 'fold'.

Are you on some medications? It did not stop them erecting a statue of that hero Nicky Winmar. There is zero evidence they have done anything illegal.

[111431]

It ain't 1976 anymore. The fact you call actions 'stupid' says a lot - they may be stupid in isolation, but they may well also be shown to have directly led to actions that were ultimately criminal. That is not something to just go 'ah well' and move on and shove under the carpt.

Such an approach of prioritising football above all else would like have a vastly more significant long term impact on the clubs standing in the game - you think the media had a field day as it has been lol.

Imagine winning a flag with those players in the team and then one or more ultimately being found guilty of sexual assault. Add that to a situation where the club actively put football first, and the longer term damage of that would be a multitude of the damage already done.

I'm glad we have people on our board that can recognise the need for a risk averse approach in this case, and not the risk loving for the sake of the football you suggest. They have responded to events that led to a very unsavoury event (that is the best case description we can hope for at the end of it all) in an appropriate manner, and in a manner reflecting the wider expectations of I'd suggest a significant majority of the community.

We have treated all 5 players involved in the wider circumstance exactly the same. There is zero evidence the club has treated Heeney in any way different to the rest.

Yes we may well lose out on the field this season as a result. But the decision making of the board has nothing to do with arrogance, and everything to do with the world modern footy clubs operate in and recognising when to 'hold' and when to 'fold'.

Well said

[stevoswan]

Are you on some medications? It did not stop them erecting a statue of that hero Nicky Winmar. There is zero evidence they have done anything illegal.

I think you're on meds CA....you just don't get it and it seems, never will. It's truly a waste of time trying to spell it out for you.

BTW, Winmar's statue has been removed....oh and he had a perfectly clean record when they erected it, ie: he was a hero back then. You're supposed analogy is frankly pathetic.

[mcs]

Blah blah blah, Freo, Brissy, Hawks, Geelong wouldnt do what we just did on the eve of finals.... just the Swans

Want to prove your claim other clubs wouldn't do it? Go on.

You are dead set wrong on this.

Are you on some medications? It did not stop them erecting a statue of that hero Nicky Winmar. There is zero evidence they have done anything illegal.

Years before he was tried and found guilty you goose. And there was a response of course when he was.

Any other club in the same situation would have done the same thing, or faced the substantial consequences in terms of long term support and reputation if they did not. That is not in question.

Start living in 2026, not 1976.

[liz]

Can we please restore some civility to this thread. You can disagree without resorting to personal insults.

[Sandridge]

It ain't 1976 anymore. The fact you call actions 'stupid' says a lot - they may be stupid in isolation, but they may well also be shown to have directly led to actions that were ultimately criminal. That is not something to just go 'ah well' and move on and shove under the carpt.

Such an approach of prioritising football above all else would like have a vastly more significant long term impact on the clubs standing in the game - you think the media had a field day as it has been lol.

Imagine winning a flag with those players in the team and then one or more ultimately being found guilty of sexual assault. Add that to a situation where the club actively put football first, and the longer term damage of that would be a multitude of the damage already done.

I'm glad we have people on our board that can recognise the need for a risk averse approach in this case, and not the risk loving for the sake of the football you suggest. They have responded to events that led to a very unsavoury event (that is the best case description we can hope for at the end of it all) in an appropriate manner, and in a manner reflecting the wider expectations of I'd suggest a significant majority of the community.

We have treated all 5 players involved in the wider circumstance exactly the same. There is zero evidence the club has treated Heeney in any way different to the rest.

Yes we may well lose out on the field this season as a result. But the decision making of the board has nothing to do with arrogance, and everything to do with the world modern footy clubs operate in and recognising when to 'hold' and when to 'fold'.

Great post mcs ! Sensible and well stated.

A pity a couple of posters responded churlishly.

[Go Swannies]

Can we please restore some civility to this thread. You can disagree without resorting to personal insults.

Thanks Liz, I keep coming here but a couple of posters make me reluctant to post - some of it is more extreme than much of the stuff posted on BigFooty (though a lot of that seems Tate brothers inspired).
I will be at the game on Saturday and I would not have been if the Five were playing. I would have been furious if the AFL had imposed the sanctions but was proud when the Swans did. And I found being part of the crowd at the Norths game - and the players reaction - really wonderful. I hope the players can bring the same energy for a win against the Lions. And I hope the mental health of the Five is being taken care of because they would not be in a good way. Go Swannies indeed.

[KSAS]

Hope the police investigation is wound up sooner rather than later from a club perspective, as media speculation about the futures of the 5 players involved is unsettling to hear. Much will hinge on whether any charges are laid.

According to the Midweek Tackle on Fox Footy last night, the police will begin formally interviewing the 5 players involved this weekend in Sydney. They mentioned interviewing the accused last is normal police process in these types of cases.

Hope the truth is uncovered no matter which way it falls.

[rb4x]

Police have now interviewed four Sydney men and have said that they have interviewed all Sydney men in the room. They have given ages and it is then easy to work out which of the five was not in the room. No charges laid as yet. Source ABC.

[mcs]

They haven't effectively said they weren't in the room - just that they weren't interviewed. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-...view/107102336

SMH is suggesting it is Bice that has been cleared from the criminal investigation (he could still be one of the other three 'in the room' that will be interviewed as potential witnesses however).

That article also talks about 8 weeks until a further update. Which will drag well into trade season and towards pre-season.

[stevoswan]

They haven't effectively said they weren't in the room - just that they weren't interviewed. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-...view/107102336

SMH is suggesting it is Bice that has been cleared from the criminal investigation (he could still be one of the other three 'in the room' that will be interviewed as potential witnesses however).

That article also talks about 8 weeks until a further update. Which will drag well into trade season and towards pre-season.

Which will mean 8 more weeks of pathetic judgy Victorian media speculation.....let's hope they just pay attention to a certain finals series which is about to begin.

Weird that it may be Bice that has been cleared from the criminal investigation when it was he that ordered the girls....and that is now an accepted fact so I'm not going to provide 'a link' to those who may have been living under a rock for the last few weeks.

Of course, simply ordering the strippers doesn't mean he did anything wrong once the ladies were there. This Bice revelation also pours cold water on Blakey's claim that he wasn't there and did nothing wrong.....but I guess we'll know more on this in 8 long weeks.

[mcs]

Which will mean 8 more weeks of pathetic judgy Victorian media speculation.....let's hope they just pay attention to a certain finals series which is about to begin.

Weird that it may be Bice that has been cleared from the criminal investigation when it was he that ordered the girls....and that is now an accepted fact so I'm not going to provide 'a link' to those who may have been living under a rock for the last few weeks.

Of course, simply ordering the strippers doesn't mean he did anything wrong once the ladies were there. This Bice revelation also pours cold water on Blakey's claim that he wasn't there and did nothing wrong.....but I guess we'll know more on this in 8 long weeks.

I expect in 8 weeks time it will still just be another update - that is likely the time they will hone in on anyone likely to face criminal charges through further interviews. So I suspect it'll drag well into the Summer now.

Only time will tell.

[imuninformedtwo]

They haven't effectively said they weren't in the room - just that they weren't interviewed. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-...view/107102336

SMH is suggesting it is Bice that has been cleared from the criminal investigation (he could still be one of the other three 'in the room' that will be interviewed as potential witnesses however).

That article also talks about 8 weeks until a further update. Which will drag well into trade season and towards pre-season.

Just for the purposes of clarity, here’s the actual police statement. It identifies a 30yo, 26yo, 25yo and 25yo as being interviewed. None of that means anything of course.

Re the speculation re Bice, it says police spoke to or will speak to three people as witnesses. It’s possible Bice is in the spoke to category, if that is true. He, Chad and Jordon are all 25, so one didn’t make the list in the four identified above.

https://www.police.vic.gov.au/investigation-east-melbourne-sexual-assaults-continues

[imuninformedtwo]

I expect in 8 weeks time it will still just be another update - that is likely the time they will hone in on anyone likely to face criminal charges through further interviews. So I suspect it'll drag well into the Summer now.

Only time will tell.

And whilst this isn’t the main point, that’s past the trade window, and no club is going to touch a player still subject to an ongoing investigation. I’m not hoping for a trade here, but just to deal with some of the media speculation on that.

[mcs]

Just for the purposes of clarity, here’s the actual police statement. It identifies a 30yo, 26yo, 25yo and 25yo as being interviewed. None of that means anything of course.

Re the speculation re Bice, it says police spoke to or will speak to three people as witnesses. It’s possible Bice is in the spoke to category, if that is true. He, Chad and Jordon are all 25, so one didn’t make the list in the four identified above.

https://www.police.vic.gov.au/investigation-east-melbourne-sexual-assaults-continues

I fully guarantee that Bice will be in that category (or whoever it is) - i.e. in the room, but not implicated in any way with what may or may not have happened (perhaps a case of 'looking' and nothing more....)