O'Neills Only wrote:Neville Bartoss:
Guilty by association.....guess we should start persecuting the brothers and sisters of criminals....
Why? Where's the correlation? If that was the case then no ex-Titans players would be playing at all. Anyway, I'm sure that if brothers and sisters of crims are complicit, then they get done too don't they?
You're missing the point. It's not about LAW. It's about the RULES of our game. I don't think it will get through because the State Committee has not erred here.
Only the ex-Titans leadership group is affected. Pretty fitting really for a bunch of mates who condoned and encouraged their club's actions and culture. You obviously do not know the full details. And why any other club would want to take this on is beyond me. Why would a club want to attract the kind of attention it will receive on and off the field if this is overturned. My guess is it doesn't have your club's full support and this is a matter of sticking up for a mate. Commendable, although misguided.
Sorry to go on about it, but I came into this forum quite late into the discussion. I do, however, look forward to it being tested by the Australasian brains trust, if it makes it that far.
Firstly I probably know as much if not more than what you know about the Titans situation.....Oneills
The Titans were kicked out of the competition primarily because of their off field antics (powerpoint presentation etc), they would have not been banned due to their on field behavior.
I personally do not support the behavior of the Titans and their off field antics and am disgusted by it. I believe these core group of players should NOT be allowed back into the competition. My argument is.
1. Daniel was not involved in this off field behaviour any more than the other Titans currently playing in the comp
2. Daniel was not suspended during his final years playing for the Titans
3. Daniel has written a letter of apology to the state committee, for introducing certain players to the competition in 2003 (6 years ago) who were involved in a fight and were sent off. From my understanding the other team was banned from the comp. Daniel was not sent off during his incident. He did not introduce these players with the intent to cause problems.
4. He was a member of the minors state side which one the national title and his father was the major sponsor
5. The state committee meeting gave Flinders Oneills little chance of getting a fair hearing
6. There is no evidence linking Daniel to the core group or committee.
7. His disciplinary record is quite good, there are no match reports or suspensions to prove otherwise
8. The state decision was made by persons with a personal vendetta against Daniel
I stress these comments are personal and I am not a representative of the flinders Oneills club or committee
Lets hope common sense prevails at the national meeting this week
