Welcome everyone to One-Eyed Richmond's Tiger Forum Cheers from mightytiges and WilliamPowell.
FJ is the only one that makes sense.
Quote from: eliminator on February 21, 2014, 12:58:30 PMI think the Cousins situation was different. I believe although I maybe wrong that they argued that his actions were bringing the game into disrepute. He also was at the time or had faced criminal charges. It will really boil down to what is in King's contract. If there is a term in the contract then maybe they have the power but doubt it. Particularly as such clause would be difficult to draft and believe the Courts would read down such a clause. Furthermore Gale has successfully completed a law degree. His view contrasts with AD and I prefer the measured approach of Gale.Yep Cousins was certainly de-registered for bringing the game into disrepute. yes he was in trouble with the law for fleeing a breath test for memory. And that is why I used the analogy. The AFL determines what constitutes what "bringing the game into direpute' means. It is a something they have at their disposal that other rules do not cover, which means they have the power and can invoke when they feel like it And let's not forget that when this first raised it's extremely ugly head and Benny was on SEN I posted at the time (page 1 of this thread) that:(a) he didn't sound happy about what had appeared in papers(b) that despite the club not being able to enforce who players can & cannot associate with the club had indeed spoken to Jake and couselled him as to what is acceptable in a public forum(c) the Club was but very disappointed in Jake, needs to make better choices, he is a public figure and when he is in public he represents the RFCSo yes while the Club's approach is measured it doesn't mean the Club isn't disappointed because Benny said that they were. And I doubt a month out from the season they would enjoying it constantly being bought upI totally agree that the Club would not like this publicity. The important point is that Gale may be disappointed but he is not trying to profess that he has any power to determine who King associates with. It is also important to note that if the AFL tried to charge King with bringing the game into disrepute that decision is reviewable by a Court. Whilst the AFL may try and give a wide definition to the phrase bringing the game into disrepute the Court would take a conservative view being less expansive.
I think the Cousins situation was different. I believe although I maybe wrong that they argued that his actions were bringing the game into disrepute. He also was at the time or had faced criminal charges. It will really boil down to what is in King's contract. If there is a term in the contract then maybe they have the power but doubt it. Particularly as such clause would be difficult to draft and believe the Courts would read down such a clause. Furthermore Gale has successfully completed a law degree. His view contrasts with AD and I prefer the measured approach of Gale.
Easy for Koch to be a tough guy in hypothetical situations.Hope for him there are no skeletons in the Port closet. Would love to see what happens if Wingard's best mate ends up in court for something.
Quote from: Tiger Tragic on February 21, 2014, 09:11:38 AMEasy for Koch to be a tough guy in hypothetical situations.Hope for him there are no skeletons in the Port closet. Would love to see what happens if Wingard's best mate ends up in court for something.They have a player on their list wtih a criminal record, what a joke this guy is!
The media reports have stepped up a few gears today.Ch 7 arvo news now:- "Richmond under increasing pressure to act over Jake King's relationship with an outlaw bikie".
As an individual Mitchell has priors, has been shot twice, currently has a court case pending and was the head honcho of said bike gang (can't remember exactly the title he had). Again it isn't a good look, granted he has done his time but the mud sticks
Edit: Referring to a player by name or initial (especially when they are the only one with those initials) regarding crime or criminal records even in jest potentially puts the site at legal risk.
While I agree that Mitchell seems like a really nasty piece of work and it's not a good look for Kingy to hang around with him, especially after the ACC report into sport corruption, I think we should stick to the facts and not assume Mitchell is a "criminal" with "priors" or has "done time".
