Pride of the League & Arizona

[Miller was a legend]

I answered his question and gave him an example. Like I said, the Sharks and their supporters can hardly start preaching about ethical and behavioral conduct given the amount of incidents they have being embroiled in over the last few years. Its just that he is a bit bitter about it, probably feels a bit hard done by (which I would do too if I was a sharks supporter) and as result, takes out his anger on other clubs and supporters.

You are an idiot. You are the classic example of why decent South supporters cop shit in here.

1. Your argument is flawed and ridiculous. He pleads guilty, he is guilty. In fact regardless of pleading guilty or not, the player can and should have been stood down or sacked. Under the NRL contract there are avenues for the club to do it and many have.

2. You used an example that actually backs up the point above. Latu was sacked 24 hours after the incident. Every fan, Shark or not, seemed to agree it was the right thing to do, but you seem to suggest the Sharks should have stood by the thug.

You are wrong, but I bet you will NEVER admit it and give the decent Souths fans a break

 

[souths_pride]

your legal knowledge makes miguel sanchez seem intelligent...

with reference to your hypothetical scenario, the minute a'va (or should he be called a'vo?) pled guilty he was admitting he was at fault.

so any actions souffs take post then is based on his admission of guilt, and ergo their actions are based on his actions.

so should 'new evidence' come to light, and the girl change her story, his case for consequential loss would be directed towards the girl, and potentially the police for their handling of the evidence.

if he took souffs to court seeking damages based on his admission of guilt, he'd be laughed out by the judge.

He would not be laughed out of court. Depending on the terms of his contract, he would have a case for unfair/wrongful dismissal and could argue that Souths acted prematurely and should have waited for all legal proceedings to be concluded before they made their decision. In any case, it was something Souths didn't want to RISK. That is my entire point. Whether Souths would have been found guilty or not is completely irrelevant. Basically, they were looking after their own interests and ensuring they did not leave themselves open for any legal ramifications.

 

[ek999]

Surely there is a DNA test NRL clubs can do predetermining future player behaviour?

I'm quite certain David Smith is looking in to it right now...

I'm pretty sure that was what Dank was working on

 

[muzby]

You are wrong, but I bet you will NEVER admit it and give the decent Souths fans a break

fans?

 

[2010Dragons]

 

[Miller was a legend]

He would not be laughed out of court. Depending on the terms of his contract, he would have a case for unfair/wrongful dismissal and could argue that Souths acted prematurely and should have waited for all legal proceedings to be concluded before they made their decision. In any case, it was something Souths didn't want to RISK. That is my entire point. Whether Souths would have been found guilty or not is completely irrelevant. Basically, they were looking after their own interests and ensuring they did not leave themselves open for any legal ramifications.

FMD, this guy is a cornflake lawyer

 

[AJB1102]

He would not be laughed out of court. Depending on the terms of his contract, he would have a case for unfair/wrongful dismissal and could argue that Souths acted prematurely and should have waited for all legal proceedings to be concluded before they made their decision. In any case, it was something Souths didn't want to RISK. That is my entire point. Whether Souths would have been found guilty or not is completely irrelevant. Basically, they were looking after their own interests and ensuring they did not leave themselves open for any legal ramifications.

Closest you've been to correct in this thread, but you're slightly off. It should read:

"Basically they were looking after their own interests and ensuring they did not leave themselves down a quality centre."

 

[some11]

nothing like a USA mugshot to add to the family album..

smh.com.au has these up this morning:

[youtube]g02WR0OZ0MA[/youtube]

 

[snoozer]

where's bunniesman when you need him?

he'd sort this right out.

 

[muzby]

He would not be laughed out of court. Depending on the terms of his contract, he would have a case for unfair/wrongful dismissal and could argue that Souths acted prematurely and should have waited for all legal proceedings to be concluded before they made their decision. In any case, it was something Souths didn't want to RISK. That is my entire point. Whether Souths would have been found guilty or not is completely irrelevant. Basically, they were looking after their own interests and ensuring they did not leave themselves open for any legal ramifications.

 

[souths_pride]

You are an idiot. You are the classic example of why decent South supporters cop shit in here.

1. Your argument is flawed and ridiculous. He pleads guilty, he is guilty. In fact regardless of pleading guilty or not, the players can and should have been stood down or sacked. Under the NRL contract there are avenues for the club to do it and many have.

2. You used an example that actually backs up the point above. Latu was sacked 24 hours after the incident. Every fan, Shark or not, seemed to agree it was the right thing to do, but you seem to suggest the Sharks should have stood by the thug.

You are wrong, but I bet you will NEVER admit it and give the decent Souths fans a break

For god sake!! I was not comparing the two incidents. I was just using that example to a question that was asked of me. With the Auva'a incident, all I am saying is that Souths wanted to wait until all legal proceedings were finished before they acted so they didn't compromise themselves legally. Depending on the details of the case, there is an argument to suggest that the Sharks could have waited and even just stood him down pending the legal proceedings as they concluded on the 10th July 2006.

As for standing by thugs, well that is another issue altogether. Should Souths sack Auva'a? Only if he is banned for life from the NRL. There is no point having any of these half-assed punishments, because the only party that is going to lose are the clubs. Why should we sack a good player in the attempt of doing the right thing only to see him go off and star for someone else.

As for giving Souths fans a break, most South Sydney fans tend to think the club acted appropriated with the Auva'a incident.

 

[souths_pride]

FMD, this guy is a cornflake lawyer

Would you care to explain in legal terms why Souths would not have been compromised in anyway, shape or form if they had sacked Auva'a? Even having to appear in court would be an ordeal for the club. Like I said earlier, if he had only played 2-3 games that season and not featured in our grand final team, then no one would be questioning how Souths handled the situation.

 

[muzby]

As for giving Souths fans a break, most South Sydney fans tend to think the club acted appropriated with the Auva'a incident.

lets not forget these are the same south sydney fans who think it's appropriate to expose your genitals on national tv..

and choose to unveil a 'scum forever in our shadow' banner on live tv...

 

[souths_pride]

Closest you've been to correct in this thread, but you're slightly off. It should read:

"Basically they were looking after their own interests and ensuring they did not leave themselves down a quality centre."

Would you have made that comment if he played only a few games last season and was a fringe first grader? Would you be questioning the way Souths handled the situation if he wasn't any good?

 

[AJB1102]

But Souths didn't wait till it was completely over and done with. They suspended him for a week or some bullshit and fined him.

After his final court date the NRL handed out their punishment.

 

[Vic Mackey]

So it's now been confirmed the bouncer was paid off to drop the charges

TheLOLs continue by the minute

 

[jc155776]

So it's been confirmed Souths paid the complainant to drop the charges.

Typical Soufs.

 

[AJB1102]

Would you have made that comment if he played only a few games last season and was a fringe first grader? Would you be questioning the way Souths handled the situation if he wasn't any good?

It makes no difference. They knew what he meant to them at the time, I wouldn't of known him if I fell over him.

But he did play more than a few games and was a lot more than a fringe first grader because Souths let that be the case.

 

[souths_pride]

lets not forget these are the same south sydney fans who think it's appropriate to expose your genitals on national tv..

and choose to unveil a 'scum forever in our shadow' banner on live tv...

LOL! I bet you got a laugh out of the 'c**k bloke' as much as everyone supporter in the NRL. It was just a bit of fun. Word is that one of the major reasons why the next TV deal is going to be worth so much. :lol:

 

[manly40gimps0]

The man at the centre of South Sydney's wild night out in Flagstaff "received satisfaction" in order to drop the police charges against John Sutton and Luke Burgess.
In relation to the US justice system, "satisfaction" almost always relates to a financial compensation being paid to a victim. The victim of the assault was Patrick Scruggs, a 21-year-old local security guard.

http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-leag...-sutton-and-luke-burgess-20150211-13bxpz.html