The Footy Show thread 2010

[andrew057]

Cheers.

Why was Stewart suspended for 4 games? When Watmough who was the one who had the incident at the launch was free to play?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpAhCJrZg3M

Just answered my own question. Gallop said Stewart was suspended for 4 weeks because he was the face of the game.

 

[undertaker]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone remember what tv ratings the Footy Show were achieving when they at their peak (I assume they got their highest ratings during the '90s)? Because I've noticed that with the exception of last night's GF show (which got over 300,000), the previous few weeks they've barely got past 200,000 viewers in Sydney and Brisbane (I believe in one week, the Melbourne audience at 11:30pm was nearly the same as the Sydney audience figures at 9:30pm)

 

[Timmah]

Good post. Unfortunately I doubt Timmah has the mental capacity to comprehend it.

I comprehend it fully, I don't think any Manly fan comprehends as a large organisation what sort of position the NRL was in.

Given the media speculation at the time (whether it was justified or not), they had an obligation to sponsors and corporates at a time where the game was ridiculously under-fire. There were media reports left right and centre that sponsors were considering pulling the plug.

I'd really hate to be in the position of the NRL to be honest - they couldn't tell whether he was innocent or guilty - imagine how dumb they would've looked had they stood by him and then he was guilty.

To me they looked to take a neutral stand - an early ban then allowed him to play for the following two years as he remained innocent til proven guilty.

I don't think they necessarily hung him out to dry as such - the injuries since that time have probably helped Manly fans' negative perceptions of the NRL through all this.

 

[MSIH]

Wow, and Manly have made two... how is that so much better? :?

I think any decade where a team makes a GF can be considered somewhat successful - only Cronulla, Canberra, Gold Coast and South Sydney can say they haven't been there.

Old mate was the one ripping on another sides lack of finals success, when his sides isn't great by any stretch. And yes, 2 Grand Finals including one Premiership in the last 4 years is a much better recent finals record than 1 Grand Final appearance in the last decade.

In regards to Stewart, you had him as guilty from the first Daily Telegraph report on the matter.

4 weeks because he was the face of the game? You'd love this rule, because it will never affect the Dogs. All your players are sh*t.

 

[MSIH]

Getting to the finals is better than.... say.... not getting there?

No sh*t sherlock. But just getting to the finals doesn't mean you've got a successful finals record does it?

 

[cleary89]

Old mate was the one ripping on another sides lack of finals success, when his sides isn't great by any stretch. And yes, 2 Grand Finals including one Premiership in the last 4 years is a much better recent finals record than 1 Grand Final appearance in the last decade.

Lol at picking and choosing the time period to suit your argument.

1 GF in the last year, as apposed to getting knocked out in 8th. Good finals record.

 

[MSIH]

Lol at picking and choosing the time period to suit your argument.

1 GF in the last year, as apposed to getting knocked out in 8th. Good finals record.

:lol: I was expecting too much for that to slip through to the keeper.

 

[cleary89]

haha A for effort though.

 

[Eagle_Rocker]

Why should Manly have stood Stewart down? Clearly they knew the story and they also know the kind of person Stewart is, therefore they never doubted him. The NRL reacted to news reports, and apparently never even spoke to him. The only reason any other player has been stood down by their club is because they saw what happened with Stewart. Melbourne thought it was better to lose Inglis for 2 weeks rather than 4 weeks so they did it themselves etc. Inglis also plead guilty, yet copped half the suspension Stewart did, how is that fair?

 

[Timmah]

Old mate was the one ripping on another sides lack of finals success, when his sides isn't great by any stretch. And yes, 2 Grand Finals including one Premiership in the last 4 years is a much better recent finals record than 1 Grand Final appearance in the last decade.

:lol: So we're comparing a four year period to a ten year period? :lol:

Why should Manly have stood Stewart down? Clearly they knew the story and they also know the kind of person Stewart is, therefore they never doubted him. The NRL reacted to news reports, and apparently never even spoke to him. The only reason any other player has been stood down by their club is because they saw what happened with Stewart. Melbourne thought it was better to lose Inglis for 2 weeks rather than 4 weeks so they did it themselves etc. Inglis also plead guilty, yet copped half the suspension Stewart did, how is that fair?

Every other club who had someone involved in an incident (guilty or not), stood their own players down. Mason for the Roosters, Barba/Idris for Canterbury and a few more I think El Diablo covered a few pages back in the Stewart thread.

With the duest of respect though can you lot keep your Stewart whinging to the right thread, this is about the Footy Show and I found that part of it forgettable. The funny stuff is far better.

 

[Eagle_Rocker]

:lol: So we're comparing a four year period to a ten year period? :lol:


Every other club who had someone involved in an incident (guilty or not), stood their own players down. Mason for the Roosters, Barba/Idris for Canterbury and a few more I think El Diablo covered a few pages back in the Stewart thread.

With the duest of respect though can you lot keep your Stewart whinging to the right thread, this is about the Footy Show and I found that part of it forgettable. The funny stuff is far better.

The Stewart interview was part of the footy show, whether you thought it was forgettable or not. I wonder what your reaction would be if you were ever to find yourself in a situation where you have been wrongly accussed of a serious crime. Your lack of sympathy is startling.

Also, I'm proud to support a club that has the balls to stand up for their players when they feel they have been wronged.

 

[Eagle_Rocker]

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s-year-from-hell/story-e6frexnr-1225775111248
- Brett Seymour (Sharks) fined $20,000 and banned for two games by club after video footage shows him drunk in public.

- Willie Mason (Roosters) stood down 1 week by club for drinking on non-authorised day.

- Nate Myles (Roosters) stood down 1 week by club for drinking on non-authorised day.

- Jamal Idris, Ben Barba (Bulldogs) stood down one week by club for drunken fight among teammates in RSL car park.

Yes, all of these players were stood down by their CLUBS not the NRL. Each of them admitted to doing the wrong thing, Stewart said he was innocent from day one. The Manly club believed him and rightly so, why should they have stood him down?

As for Bird, he was sacked by the SHARKS not the NRL. They didn't believe in their player when perhaps they should have, and in the end that was their loss.

 

[Garts]

I comprehend it fully, I don't think any Manly fan comprehends as a large organisation what sort of position the NRL was in.

Given the media speculation at the time (whether it was justified or not), they had an obligation to sponsors and corporates at a time where the game was ridiculously under-fire. There were media reports left right and centre that sponsors were considering pulling the plug.

I'd really hate to be in the position of the NRL to be honest - they couldn't tell whether he was innocent or guilty - imagine how dumb they would've looked had they stood by him and then he was guilty.

To me they looked to take a neutral stand - an early ban then allowed him to play for the following two years as he remained innocent til proven guilty.

I don't think they necessarily hung him out to dry as such - the injuries since that time have probably helped Manly fans' negative perceptions of the NRL through all this.

I tend to agree, the NRL were in a tough position and would have been under enormous pressure to act. In hindsight they probably got it wrong but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Hopefully they learn from this and conduct are more through investigation into these types of matters and not believe what is in the press. They should support their players when appropriate and not always succumb to media pressure.

 

[Timmah]

The Stewart interview was part of the footy show, whether you thought it was forgettable or not. I wonder what your reaction would be if you were ever to find yourself in a situation where you have been wrongly accussed of a serious crime. Your lack of sympathy is startling.

Also, I'm proud to support a club that has the balls to stand up for their players when they feel they have been wronged.

Sympathy? He's a free man! For f**k sake he's got his life ahead of him now and I for one can't wait to see him back on the field. I don't like the guy, never have, but he's a good player and the NRL will be richer for his return next year.

The reason I ask you desist from Stewart arguments and whinging in here is because there's already a big bulky thread in this forum with the same discussions taking place. Let this thread be for less serious discussion - e.g. how bad of a host Fatty is, how shiny Sterlo's head is, or how egotistical Dell is.

Yes, all of these players were stood down by their CLUBS not the NRL. Each of them admitted to doing the wrong thing, Stewart said he was innocent from day one. The Manly club believed him and rightly so, why should they have stood him down?

As for Bird, he was sacked by the SHARKS not the NRL. They didn't believe in their player when perhaps they should have, and in the end that was their loss.

The reason the NRL stepped in is exactly that - MANLY DID NOTHING. Under the circumstances the NRL did what they thought best for their organisation. Supporting somebody charged (not accused, but charged) with sexual assault of a minor is something their sponsors probably wouldn't have appreciated.

There were far worse parties than NRL with regards to Stewart's situation. Your fans' continued attacks on him and the organisation look like trying to find someone to blame. As I said previously I think the 2-seasons worth of injury has made it look far worse for the NRL than you're making out and I also don't think any Manly fans have considered what position the NRL were in when the whole thing came to light and he was charged.

 

[Timmah]

I tend to agree, the NRL were in a tough position and would have been under enormous pressure to act. In hindsight they probably got it wrong but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Hopefully they learn from this and conduct are more through investigation into these types of matters and not believe what is in the press. They should support their players when appropriate and not always succumb to media pressure.

Exactly the point I've been trying to make. According to parts of the court case they may not have taken the best action, but based on the information they had available to them at the time, they chose to err on the side of caution.

I think the role of the media needs to be looked at more than anything, the standards, ethics etc of journalists these days seems to be lower than ever before, despite them having more coverage and relevance than ever before.

 

[Garts]

I am annoyed that they took the press reports as their source of information. They should have conducted their own investigation which would have included interviewing Stewart. I just hope they learn that league players are not as bad as the press make out and that there are people who will try and capitalize on that. I am sure you can appreciate that after what happened with the dogs Timmah.

 

[Timmah]

The problem with conducting their own investigations is that (if I recall correctly) Manly didn't want to cooperate, and furthermore there was a police investigation pending which would take precedence to their own.

 

[El Diablo]

I am annoyed that they took the press reports as their source of information. They should have conducted their own investigation which would have included interviewing Stewart. I just hope they learn that league players are not as bad as the press make out and that there are people who will try and capitalize on that. I am sure you can appreciate that after what happened with the dogs Timmah.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...nk-before-assault-witness-20100915-15bt3.html

The jury of five women and seven men on Wednesday afternoon heard from three prosecution witnesses, including a security guard who worked at the Steyne Hotel where Stewart was drinking on the day of the allegations.

"I've seen a lot of intoxicated people in my job and I think Brett was drunk," Ezekiel Tupou told police in a statement.

Giving evidence on Wednesday, Mr Tupou said he remembered asking Stewart and "his friends" who were sitting in the pub's beer garden, to leave the hotel. They complied.

 

[Eagle_Rocker]

Exactly the point I've been trying to make. According to parts of the court case they may not have taken the best action, but based on the information they had available to them at the time, they chose to err on the side of caution.

I think the role of the media needs to be looked at more than anything, the standards, ethics etc of journalists these days seems to be lower than ever before, despite them having more coverage and relevance than ever before.

I'm definately more angry with the media and who ever was responsible for allowing this case to go as far as it did than I am the NRL. But none-the-less, their punishment insinuated guilt. I still can't believe they didn't MAKE SURE to make contact with him. They say that they tried through the Manly club, but surely they shouldn't have trouble contacting someone within their organisation and talking to them before handing down a punishment. They obviously had no problem getting through to him when they wanted him in their advertisement campaign. I realise it was a tough situation for them, but this doesn't excuse them from not talking to him first. Obviusly Gould agrees otherwise he would not have highlighted that question.

The NRL were probably forced to react at the time, but in hindsight the suspension and a couple of poorly chosen comments from an angry NRL board at the time were unjustified considering they had not heard Stewart's side of the story. All we want from the NRL is for them to admit that 'in hindsight the punishment of an innocent man was unjustified'. As Stewart said, he couldn't have done anything else to avoid a situation.

 

[El Diablo]

unjustified lol

he was drunk ffs

that's why he was punished