Port Adelaide 2018

[MW]

I get the anger against Ch7 for going so early on this story but on the other hand, for Port to agree there was "inappropriate contact" with the girl, then refuse to say what that contact was or let anyone else view the footage makes them seem untruthful. It just makes Ch7 dig in even deeper.

Firstly, it's not PAFC's footage to distribute, it does not belong the them.

Secondly, I'm not sure what's to be gained from having it released, it will either incriminate one party further or potentially ( I say potentially ) embarrass the other party if it appears innocuous.

Finally, one party was afforded and continues to be afforded anonymity and rightfully so, but from the outset wording such as "sexual assault" and that "her night took a sickening turn" were accompanied with Sam Powell-Peppers name. The AFL have found that the incident isn't considered by their integrity unit a sexual assault, but that's too late as C7 have been calling it that for two weeks.

In law, a sexual offender cannot be named until either facing court ( at which time a suppression order may be invoked - Bernie Finnigan ) or if they enter a guilty plea. Unfortunately SPP wasn't afforded any of this as he was deemed to have been guilty and of having committed a "sexual assault" 12 hours after the incident, by Channel 7's wording. This is what Port Adelaide are unhappy about and I'd say rightfully so.

The correct process was afforded only to one of the parties involved.

If it is as clear cut as that, I am surprised this is not in the courts already

[Booney]

I get the anger against Ch7 for going so early on this story but on the other hand, for Port to agree there was "inappropriate contact" with the girl, then refuse to say what that contact was or let anyone else view the footage makes them seem untruthful. It just makes Ch7 dig in even deeper.

Firstly, it's not PAFC's footage to distribute, it does not belong the them.

Secondly, I'm not sure what's to be gained from having it released, it will either incriminate one party further or potentially ( I say potentially ) embarrass the other party if it appears innocuous.

Finally, one party was afforded and continues to be afforded anonymity and rightfully so, but from the outset wording such as "sexual assault" and that "her night took a sickening turn" were accompanied with Sam Powell-Peppers name. The AFL have found that the incident isn't considered by their integrity unit a sexual assault, but that's too late as C7 have been calling it that for two weeks.

In law, a sexual offender cannot be named until either facing court ( at which time a suppression order may be invoked - Bernie Finnigan ) or if they enter a guilty plea. Unfortunately SPP wasn't afforded any of this as he was deemed to have been guilty and of having committed a "sexual assault" 12 hours after the incident, by Channel 7's wording. This is what Port Adelaide are unhappy about and I'd say rightfully so.

The correct process was afforded only to one of the parties involved.

If it is as clear cut as that, I am surprised this is not in the courts already

"In law" meaning if you've been charged by police.

[MW]

I mean I am surprised Port or SPP have not taken Ch7 to court yet

[Dogwatcher]

I agree.

[Booney]

When KT said in the presser yesterday, to a very persistent Mike Smithson "We'll be speaking to Channel 7 behind closed doors about the wording of their report" I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they'll be referring to.

Far from finished.

[The Bedge]

When KT said in the presser yesterday, to a very persistent Mike Smithson "We'll be speaking to Channel 7 behind closed doors about the wording of their report" I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they'll be referring to.

Far from finished.

He did also make mention that something along the lines of they wont rule out taking it further, or keeping options open or something like that.

[MW]

I don't think they will.

[Trader]

They won't take them to court but they'll make it very clear C7 have done the wrong thing and if their attacks against PAFC players continue they will quickly lose access to said players.

It is in neither party's interest (PAFC or C7) to be at war with each other. C7 want access and PAFC don't want negative stories.
As a result, there will be talks behind closed doors and the axes will be put down, for now.

[Spargo]

They won't take them to court but they'll make it very clear C7 have done the wrong thing and if their attacks against PAFC players continue they will quickly lose access to said players.

It is in neither party's interest (PAFC or C7) to be at war with each other. C7 want access and PAFC don't want negative stories.
As a result, there will be talks behind closed doors and the axes will be put down, for now.

Not forgetting the conflict of interest your president has...

[mots02]

They won't take them to court but they'll make it very clear C7 have done the wrong thing and if their attacks against PAFC players continue they will quickly lose access to said players.

It is in neither party's interest (PAFC or C7) to be at war with each other. C7 want access and PAFC don't want negative stories.
As a result, there will be talks behind closed doors and the axes will be put down, for now.

I've asked this before but... apart from the latest SPP issue with C7, what other player attacks have occurred?

[Booney]

They won't take them to court but they'll make it very clear C7 have done the wrong thing and if their attacks against PAFC players continue they will quickly lose access to said players.

It is in neither party's interest (PAFC or C7) to be at war with each other. C7 want access and PAFC don't want negative stories.
As a result, there will be talks behind closed doors and the axes will be put down, for now.

I've asked this before but... apart from the latest SPP issue with C7, what other player attacks have occurred?

I think attack is a touch too harsh.

They had Smithson door stopping Ryder after his late night chase down of some home invaders, probably could have let that one go.

[Trader]

They won't take them to court but they'll make it very clear C7 have done the wrong thing and if their attacks against PAFC players continue they will quickly lose access to said players.

I've asked this before but... apart from the latest SPP issue with C7, what other player attacks have occurred?

To be honest I can't really think of that many, however there is clearly a feeling out there that C7 generally run anti port stories while C9 run pro-port stories (potentially due to Tredrea's influence).

[mots02]

They won't take them to court but they'll make it very clear C7 have done the wrong thing and if their attacks against PAFC players continue they will quickly lose access to said players.

It is in neither party's interest (PAFC or C7) to be at war with each other. C7 want access and PAFC don't want negative stories.
As a result, there will be talks behind closed doors and the axes will be put down, for now.

I've asked this before but... apart from the latest SPP issue with C7, what other player attacks have occurred?

I think attack is a touch too harsh.

They had Smithson door stopping Ryder after his late night chase down of some home invaders, probably could have let that one go.

I think the statements re SPP by C7 were out of line but more a sign of the times than an anti-port sentiment.

Journalists in general are getting grubbier as the speed of news breaking has increased with the advent of the social media channels but i'd seen this reference multiple times in the last couple of weeks from Port people that they felt they were getting constantly targeted by C7.

With strong Port people like Abernathy, DIttmar and indeed Koch on the books at C7 i found this a little hard to believe.

Will admit that i don't follow mainstream news that closely so assumed i'd missed some other examples of Port players getting unfairly treated.

[The Bedge]

All this is distracting from the fact Toumpas is on the plane to Melbourne with the Power squad!

[Dutchy]

TIMELINE TO A THREE-GAME BAN

APRIL 9: Female university student approaches the Port Adelaide Football Club — and Channel 7 in Adelaide — to take issue with Powell-Pepper’s behaviour in the nightclub.

.

Rooch has this wrong again, SPP was at our footy club at 5.50pm April 9 when he received a phone call from the footy club informing him of the story about to go to air at 6pm on CH7.

Its clear she went to Ch7 who prepared the story without Port knowing, they got blindsided by the story.

[MW]

TIMELINE TO A THREE-GAME BAN

APRIL 9: Female university student approaches the Port Adelaide Football Club — and Channel 7 in Adelaide — to take issue with Powell-Pepper’s behaviour in the nightclub.

.

Rooch has this wrong again, SPP was at our footy club at 5.50pm April 9 when he received a phone call from the footy club informing him of the story about to go to air at 6pm on CH7.

Its clear she went to Ch7 who prepared the story without Port knowing, they got blindsided by the story.

Did you ask him this did you?

[Booney]

They won't take them to court but they'll make it very clear C7 have done the wrong thing and if their attacks against PAFC players continue they will quickly lose access to said players.

It is in neither party's interest (PAFC or C7) to be at war with each other. C7 want access and PAFC don't want negative stories.
As a result, there will be talks behind closed doors and the axes will be put down, for now.

I've asked this before but... apart from the latest SPP issue with C7, what other player attacks have occurred?

I think attack is a touch too harsh.

They had Smithson door stopping Ryder after his late night chase down of some home invaders, probably could have let that one go.

I think the statements re SPP by C7 were out of line but more a sign of the times than an anti-port sentiment.

Journalists in general are getting grubbier as the speed of news breaking has increased with the advent of the social media channels but i'd seen this reference multiple times in the last couple of weeks from Port people that they felt they were getting constantly targeted by C7.

With strong Port people like Abernathy, DIttmar and indeed Koch on the books at C7 i found this a little hard to believe.

Will admit that i don't follow mainstream news that closely so assumed i'd missed some other examples of Port players getting unfairly treated.

It's a sign that the reporting of anything football related has reached saturation point and if your headline isn't more sensational than the next you drown in the so-and-so "headlines" that don't create click bait banners.

See > Robbo saying the Worsfold contract extension was a mistake after losing to the Bulldogs, see Walls saying Walker huff and puffs but doesn't blow any houses down etc.

[Booney]

All this is distracting from the fact Toumpas is on the plane to Melbourne with the Power squad!

Thomas, Toumpas, Port Adelaide working alphabetically through their list.

[The Bedge]

Rooch has this wrong again, SPP was at our footy club at 5.50pm April 9 when he received a phone call from the footy club informing him of the story about to go to air at 6pm on CH7..

Did you ask him this did you?

I can recall Dutchy posting about it a couple weeks back, mentioned SPP was good spirits then got what appeared a serious phone call.

[Dutchy]

TIMELINE TO A THREE-GAME BAN

APRIL 9: Female university student approaches the Port Adelaide Football Club — and Channel 7 in Adelaide — to take issue with Powell-Pepper’s behaviour in the nightclub.

.

Rooch has this wrong again, SPP was at our footy club at 5.50pm April 9 when he received a phone call from the footy club informing him of the story about to go to air at 6pm on CH7.

Its clear she went to Ch7 who prepared the story without Port knowing, they got blindsided by the story.

Did you ask him this did you?

He was standing right next to me when he got the call, do you really think the club would send him out to a junior footy club if they knew of this issue? (he had been at the club all day)