melon.... said:
DJ1 said:
This will have to be a hefty fine to the Roosters. No doubt the NRL will be consistent here.
If the NRL claims to justify the $500K fine against the dogs were,
Allegedly urinating on the field at training
Allegedly kicking a ball on a football field when journalists were present
Dressing down
Someone unknown and unidentified allegedly speaking to a journalist
Someone else unknown and unidentified allegedly speaking to a different journalist
Whilst all except the wardrobe selection has been unsubstantiated, what will the fine be for actually being charged with criminal offences,
Assaulting Police!
Obstructing Police!
Public Nuisance!
Must be in the millions!
Cry me a River...your club's players think because they got away with Coffs they are untouchable.
No, the players have all stated that they are innocent not untouchable. We'll save the "untouchable" tag for another club.
Interesting how the ABC AM report this morning has changed it's stance towards the players being totally innocent once it actually got hold of the official DPP report. mmm medical evidence does not support her claim at all.
Whats the wager your club has to fork out the remaining 350K by 2006? Easy money....
No doubt, considering the amount of concrete evidence the NRL used in this fine.
In comparison, compared to the actual criminal charges of,
Assaulting Police
Obstructing Police
Public Nuisance
What penalty do you think the NRL will give the Roosters seeing that the NRL has already stated that "The Club" is responsible for the actions of the player and the $500K penalty imposed on the Bulldogs was despite "No Charges" and only unsubstantiated allegations in the media?