ManlyMania
Juniors
- Messages
- 299
Yes - if same had been done to carney then there would have been no issue.
In incidents with other clubs, the club agreed to take action against the player, meaning the NRL did not have to do so. In the case of Stewart, Manly refused to punish him for his actions, which forced the NRL's hand.
In incidents with other clubs, the club agreed to take action against the player, meaning the NRL did not have to do so.
apologise for what ? One person was responsible for bringing the game into disrepute and it was not Gallop.final jury decision appeared to me a BENEFIT of the Doubt decision.
for what ?
Manly confirmed stewart carried on like a friggin idiot at the 2009 season launch & brought the game into disrepute
4 weeks is a fair enough punishment from the NRL because Manly were going to do nothing
Moot point.
It's over.
John Howard will apologise to the stolen generation before Gallop offers any sort of apology to Brett Stewart.
Life goes on, c'est la vie, move on.
Not that the media people will ever let this go anyway.
I can understand why Stewart would feel hard done by. However there is a time and place for this sort of stuff and after the GF when getting your premiership ring is not it. Stewart should have arranged a meeting well before the GF to have it out with Gallop.
NOT Guilty also means Benefit of the doubt , not enough evidence . something happenned, where there is smoke/there is fire and only one person responsible for that.