Alleged incident at hotel on Sunday night

[Merdo5555]

Coudl I suggest that before any of the 5 be accepted back into the SS ranks that hey should firslty front the females directly involved with the club ) AFLW players and staff and then separately the remaining AFL players and staff to explain their actions on the night and seek forgiveness. Both meetings should be controlled by appropriate experts in Attiutude to Women.

Forgiveness for what?

Engaging in legal behaviour in their hotel room?

[mcs]

No the club stuffed our season by its complete overreaction, a rest of season suspension was totally and completely over the top for the alleged offences committed (which explicitly excluded any of the alleged sexual offences).

Instead of bowing to the braying mob they should have applied a fitting punishment for the crime (1 or at absolute most 2 matches). To be honest being out drinking and having strippers in their room might even just be a hefty fine.

We have now lost a season and a good player because the club and majority couldnt resist the howling noisy mob.

No they shouldnt have been out drinking and hiring strippers but no that doesnt justify a 3 match suspension (including finals) for engaging in legal behaviour.

As usual people are more concerned with optics than actual justice.

Or is someone going to say engaging in legal, but ill-advised behaviour, justified the punishment meted out?

At least you cant call me a hypocrite I have maintained the same view; the punishment was to satisfy the mob not a fair whack for ill-judged behaviour.

If the club didn't do it, the AFL would have. There was no world, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of it, where any of those guys playing again this season was going to be seen palatable nor acceptable, irrespective of the final outcome of it all.

And I reckon Blakey was on his way out before this anyway - too much smoke around for 18 months now. It was a convenient trigger to push a trade through sure, but I suspect he may have went anyway.

[lwjoyner]

cant agree with u merlo, sorry. too saty out late and drinking (forget the invovlment with the females) deserved a harsh punishment. I know it stuffed our season but its now over to them . Still cant forgive Nic , i dont know what he is "sh" about but 4.30am is beyong the pale. His dad should know that is wrong at any time during the season and even more so when heading into a finals series.

[UUaswan]

If the club didn't do it, the AFL would have. There was no world, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of it, where any of those guys playing again this season was going to be seen palatable nor acceptable, irrespective of the final outcome of it all.

And I reckon Blakey was on his way out before this anyway - too much smoke around for 18 months now. It was a convenient trigger to push a trade through sure, but I suspect he may have went anyway.

Should have made the AFL do it rather than look as stupid as they do now.

Blakey had 5yrs on his deal, longest tie up in the team, if that translates to "on the way out" than I dont know what to think about the rest of the list.

[The Big Cat]

Forgiveness for what?

Engaging in legal behaviour in their hotel room?

Being legal doesn’t make it right. The player’s behaviour doesn’t meet any moral standard, let alone that of a club that is trying to attract young men into its ranks.

[UUaswan]

Being legal doesn’t make it right. The player’s behaviour doesn’t meet any moral standard, let alone that of a club that is trying to attract young men into its ranks.

Paps is more likely to be charged for Drugs, wont get 5 weeks and is a worse look for young Prospects

[Merdo5555]

Being legal doesn’t make it right. The player’s behaviour doesn’t meet any moral standard, let alone that of a club that is trying to attract young men into its ranks.

And why should people abide by your moral code, who gifted you superior morality than anyone else?

We operate under a code of laws not a code of morality, there are very good reasons why if you would like to study history.

Personally I think any sportsperson who thanks God is utterly immoral and they should be banned for at least a match as it shows a lack of self-awareness and a complete misunderstanding of faith and religion, why shouldnt my morality prevail? Why is your's superior? I treat women respectively by the way, I just happen to believe people engaging in legal behaviour in their private domain are NONE of my business.

[Merdo5555]

Should have made the AFL do it rather than look as stupid as they do now.

Blakey had 5yrs on his deal, longest tie up in the team, if that translates to "on the way out" than I dont know what to think about the rest of the list.

Spot on. If your going to talk about punishing them for everything but what happened in that room than punish them on that basis, dont peddle PR spin and do your job. Let the AFL explain why getting drunk and hiring strippers (both legal activities) are deserving of missing 3 matches (possibly 4) including finals.

As for Blake, good riddance, I agree he may have been on the way out anyway but we gave him a ready made excuse to claim victimhood.

[mcs]

Should have made the AFL do it rather than look as stupid as they do now.

Blakey had 5yrs on his deal, longest tie up in the team, if that translates to "on the way out" than I dont know what to think about the rest of the list.

He was almost traded last year with 6 years on his deal. What exactly is your point, or just being a donkey again for the sake of it?

And you are the one claiming it made them look 'stupid'. Plenty of far more influential and important people think otherwise.

But as we know, you couldn't care less about the standing of the club, you have a 'to all ends' view of how football clubs should be run. In 2026, such a view is now rare rather than the common place it may have been 50 years ago.

[Merdo5555]

He was almost traded last year with 6 years on his deal. What exactly is your point, or just being a donkey again for the sake of it?

And you are the one claiming it made them look 'stupid'. Plenty of far more influential and important people think otherwise.

But as we know, you couldn't care less about the standing of the club, you have a 'to all ends' view of how football clubs should be run. In 2026, such a view is now rare rather than the common place it may have been 50 years ago.

Fancy having the quaint notion that the punishment should fit the crime rather than the demands of the howling mob, just so unacceptable in these enlightened times!

[mcs]

Fancy having the quaint notion that the punishment should fit the crime rather than the demands of the howling mob, just so unacceptable in these enlightened times!

Fancy the quaint notion of recognising the context in which decision making is made. Its nothing about enlightened times, just a recognition of modern times being very different to those times where you could sweep things under the carpet without worrying about consequences.

[UUaswan]

He was almost traded last year with 6 years on his deal. What exactly is your point, or just being a donkey again for the sake of it?

And you are the one claiming it made them look 'stupid'. Plenty of far more influential and important people think otherwise.

But as we know, you couldn't care less about the standing of the club, you have a 'to all ends' view of how football clubs should be run. In 2026, such a view is now rare rather than the common place it may have been 50 years ago.

Blakey on the way out was news to me, we all talk about it now that he is gone to make us feel better

Similar to these guys may not play again, to justify a 5 week ban and make us feel better

Important and influential people are looking stupid too, they didnt get charged.

They may never play again has turned into they will sign the biggest contract of their career

Im not running the club into the ground, im saying, in my opinion, more important and influential people at the club knew more about that night then what is being told.

And I dont believe their BS, buggest scandal everd, greatest win ever, courageous captain, Heart and Soul on drug charges, people even thought Paps should be vice Captain....

Letting time and process take its course may make this club not look so stupid

Im a supporter but no longer a financial member

[UUaswan]

Fancy the quaint notion of recognising the context in which decision making is made. Its nothing about enlightened times, just a recognition of modern times being very different to those times where you could sweep things under the carpet without worrying about consequences.

The Tanner Bruhn case should have served as a warning


Against the grain but I back Blakey to look after himself, couldn't imagine what is like to be called a rapist for 3 months on National TV

[Merdo5555]

Fancy the quaint notion of recognising the context in which decision making is made. Its nothing about enlightened times, just a recognition of modern times being very different to those times where you could sweep things under the carpet without worrying about consequences.

I never suggested it should be swept under the carpet; I have said the whole time the punishment should fit the crime (or lack of crime more accurately), it was egregiously excessive. So as long as the mob was satiated thats fine; its the modern way!

If you want to talk about culture how about whether its right to stand up and oppose something thats wrong or do you just stand with the mob because thats the easiest thing, the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

All those supporting the ban were happy to throw the players under the bus on the basis that had committed a crime. If getting drunk and bringing a girl back to your room is as egregious as its claimed to be I suspect perhaps a significant portion of AFL players would be banned every week.

But hey the club and its supporters satiated the mob, so nothing to see here, such noble people always willing to do whats right over whats expedient, oh oops.

[mcs]

Blakey on the way out was news to me, we all talk about it now that he is gone to make us feel better

Similar to these guys may not play again, to justify a 5 week ban and make us feel better

Important and influential people are looking stupid too, they didnt get charged.

They may never play again has turned into they will sign the biggest contract of their career

Im not running the club into the ground, im saying, in my opinion, more important and influential people at the club knew more about that night then what is being told.

And I dont believe their BS, buggest scandal everd, greatest win ever, courageous captain, Heart and Soul on drug charges, people even thought Paps should be vice Captain....

Letting time and process take its course may make this club not look so stupid

Im a supporter but no longer a financial member

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 the last conclusion that should be drawn from that case.

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.

I never suggested it should be swept under the carpet; I have said the whole time the punishment should fit the crime (or lack of crime more accurately), it was egregiously excessive. So as long as the mob was satiated thats fine; its the modern way!

If you want to talk about culture how about whether its right to stand up and oppose something thats wrong or do you just stand with the mob because thats the easiest thing, the standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

All those supporting the ban were happy to throw the players under the bus on the basis that had committed a crime. If getting drunk and bringing a girl back to your room is as egregious as its claimed to be I suspect perhaps a significant portion of AFL players would be banned every week.

But hey the club and its supporters satiated the mob, so nothing to see here, such noble people always willing to do whats right over whats expedient, oh oops.

2 weeks and players playing again this season would absolutely have been seen by a wide range of people as sweeping it under the carpet. There is no objective basis on which one can claim it was 'egregiously excessive' by the way - that is a purely subjective viewpoint. It is clear that plenty of others strongly disagree with your view of it, irrespective of what happened in the criminal matter.

Interesting to roll out 'the standard you walk past is the standard you accept' line, but simultaneously suggest the club should have taken a stance that would have been clearly perceived as putting sporting results above responding to allegations of sexual assault by senior footballers within the club. If that's how you think a football club can be run successfully in 2026, then I think you've missed the boat by several decades. One can yearn for yesteryear all one wants, but that is a world long gone where such a view would meet expectations (that is not making a judgment on said expectations - they are what they are. But as I said context is critical).

Anyway, enough of it all. What is done is done. On to next season and a clean start thank goodness - at least it isn't going to drag on over the pre-season too.