White Line Fever wrote:I think he needs to get the sack.
Or stop exposing it.....

by Dirko » Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:45 pm
White Line Fever wrote:I think he needs to get the sack.
by mighty_tiger_79 » Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:55 pm
by fish » Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:10 pm
mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Fev hasnt done anything wrong
by Psyber » Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:06 am
The Lions' response suggests they don't believe his denial.mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Fev hasnt done anything wrong
by Hondo » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:38 pm
by Barto » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:54 pm
Hondo wrote:I cringe sometimes at the labels the media put on people. I keep reading "mother of 4". Is whatever Fev did or didn't do any worse because the alleged victim is a "mother of 4". Isn't such an offence just as bad if the victim was a woman with no children? If she had a sister would she be "mother of 4, sister of 1 and daughter of 2"?
it just seems like a way to juice up the headline unnecessarily![]()
I'm not defending Fev here BTW.
by Media Park » Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:02 am
Barto wrote:Hondo wrote:I cringe sometimes at the labels the media put on people. I keep reading "mother of 4". Is whatever Fev did or didn't do any worse because the alleged victim is a "mother of 4". Isn't such an offence just as bad if the victim was a woman with no children? If she had a sister would she be "mother of 4, sister of 1 and daughter of 2"?
it just seems like a way to juice up the headline unnecessarily![]()
I'm not defending Fev here BTW.
I just posted something similar on another forum. That does my head in the way the media carry on, as if someone is pure as the driven snow as soon as they spit out kids.
For all we know she's a crack head and the kids have four different fathers.
And for the record: I reckon he didn't do it this time.
Wedgie wrote:I wear skin tight arseless leather pants, wtf do you wear?
by Punk Rooster » Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:24 am
White Line Fever wrote:Wow i don't believe it.
What a muppet.
As much as i admire his footballing ability, I think he needs to get the sack.
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by White Line Fever » Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:48 am
Punk Rooster wrote:White Line Fever wrote:Wow i don't believe it.
What a muppet.
As much as i admire his footballing ability, I think he needs to get the sack.
here I was thinking you only got sacked for not doing your job properly...
by dodgingandweaving » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:01 am
by stan » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:08 am
by Psyber » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:43 am
Agreed - that's why they are paid so much, and that's why maintaining the image is part of the deal!White Line Fever wrote:Perks of the job ... role model.Punk Rooster wrote: here I was thinking you only got sacked for not doing your job properly...
An AFL footballer these days is a brand.
If that brand isn't up to scratch then it gets tossed.
They are entertainers these days.
by Psyber » Fri Sep 10, 2010 10:44 am
I suspect they may have information not available to the public about this incident, or others that have been kept under wraps.stan wrote:Geez top shelf stuff shown by the lions, shoot first and ask questions later at the moment, how about waiting until investigations have been released.
I know he has past history working against him, but at least wait until some evidence has come out before suspending him indefinitely and looking to get rid of him.
by Interceptor » Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:37 pm
by White Line Fever » Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:08 pm
Interceptor wrote:One area the NRL consistently trumps the AFL is scandals... salary cap rorts, betting issues and player behaviour:
http://www.news.com.au/national/new-disgrace-as-rooster-rookies-defecate-in-hotel/story-e6frfkvr-1225917011086
AFL players are saints in comparsion, they just have a wizz in inappropriate places
by am Bays » Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:18 pm
Interceptor wrote:One area the NRL consistently trumps the AFL is scandals... salary cap rorts, betting issues and player behaviour:
http://www.news.com.au/national/new-disgrace-as-rooster-rookies-defecate-in-hotel/story-e6frfkvr-1225917011086
AFL players are saints in comparsion, they just have a wizz in inappropriate places
by Dog_ger » Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:39 am
by Barto » Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:26 pm
"What we learn from the police is relevant and important, and if the Queensland police determine they want to take matters forward, that is relevant," he said.
"If they determine they have no further action to take, we would still reserve the right to conduct a further investigation.''
The AFL had already interviewed the woman before she laid the official complaint to police on Thursday.
by Punk Rooster » Sat Sep 11, 2010 4:23 pm
stan wrote:Geez top shelf stuff shown by the lions, shoot first and ask questions later at the moment, how about waiting until investigations have been released.
I know he has past history working against him, but at least wait until some evidence has come out before suspending him indefinitly and looking to get rid of him.
Ralph Wiggum wrote:That's where I saw the leprechaun. He told me to burn things
by Psyber » Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:52 pm
None, but they are interested in his behaviour as an employee and representative of the club, whereas the Police are only interested in whether their is evidence to support a charge for a criminal offence.Barto wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-keeping-watch-on-fev-20100910-15503.html
Sieg G'day.Errrr... which branch of law enforcement do the AFL come under again? Cant recall that one."What we learn from the police is relevant and important, and if the Queensland police determine they want to take matters forward, that is relevant," he said.
"If they determine they have no further action to take, we would still reserve the right to conduct a further investigation.''
The AFL had already interviewed the woman before she laid the official complaint to police on Thursday.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |