Both Swans & Port deny paying Hush Money

**floppinab** · 20 March 2004, 08:40 AM

Re: Both Swans & Port deny paying Hush Money

Originally posted by TheHood

This is tarnishing even innocent parties and to have to have Paul Roos make defensive statements (which he did very well) is an insult to Paul and the club.

No club does more than the Sydney Swans to help pave the way for young men to a fruitful and successful life as a responsible citizen.

As I mentioned in another thread that got deleted

I didn't think he came across that well. Why the Swans didn't meet this head on yesterday I have no idea. Colless issues a short statement that clarifies nothing, that was it, no presser, nothing else. The media of course wanted blood so it comes as no surprise that they ambushed Roos at the coaches meetings in Melbourne and the fact that he really was not be aware what was going on wasn't his fault.
When it comes to handling the media the Swans really have no idea.

**Reggi** · 20 March 2004, 09:43 AM

floppinab -the reason is that they haven't is there is nothing to respond to

They can't make comments like "we stand beside his side of the story", because he was never accused of doing anything

The only comment they have is "we have nothing to say, about something someone wasn't involved in, except we had no involvement either"

It is a little bit Monty-Pythonesque because "journalists" are trying to sell newspapers - and in another thread (quote from The Age), even they say they are saying he isn't accused of anything

I'm still asking the question, what the hell is the sory here (other than Heuskes and Burgoyne), cause all I can spot is innuendo - which unfortuanley may very well tarnish an innocent party to a shocking incident.

**floppinab** · 20 March 2004, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Reggi
floppinab -the reason is that they haven't is there is nothing to respond to

They can't make comments like "we stand beside his side of the story", because he was never accused of doing anything

The only comment they have is "we have nothing to say, about something someone wasn't involved in, except we had no involvement either"

It's not whether he was or was not involved in the incident it's that he has been accused of contributing to a substantial payment to the victim involved in this matter. The Swans have confirmed that this payment was made. If you think there is no story in that well...............

**Reggi** · 20 March 2004, 10:08 AM

Yeah - I do fail to see the significance of it

***NMWBloods*** · 20 March 2004, 10:47 AM

I think the Swans should have come out and reinforced that he did nothing, that they see no purpose of the story and possibly explained the reason for the payment.

Why not attack the newspapers and say they are trying to create a story that isn't there, we have nothing to hide and it is pretty poor journalism.

On the front foot may have been best.

**floppinab** · 20 March 2004, 11:43 AM

On the front foot may have been best.

I have to agree with you nmw. It's was not an easy call to make (the player involved's general dislike for the limelight may have had a part in that, but that's probably giving the Swans too much credit) but if the reaction on these and other boards yesterday was any indication I would have thought it would've been a lot better to be proactive with it, just like the Saints and Port did.

**The Boot** · 20 March 2004, 12:28 PM

Imagine my horror to see the swans player "named" in the Sydney Morning Herald of all things. I almost spilt my double frappa latte on my me new cargos. Seriously though, The Terror maybe .. maybe .. but the Herald???? Crikey.

I guess the view is that if it's in the public domain, then its O-U-T.

**Bron** · 20 March 2004, 12:36 PM

I think I agree ... but it's always easy to have the right answer in retrospect. And as someone has said ... what would they say? Go through the entire list and make a statement that each was not charged or even questioned by police?

I've just heard the 2UE 1pm news include a statement from the woman involved which said something along the lines of that she categorically stated that she had no claim against our player. If this could have been used when the story first hit, it might have hushed it down. I fervently hope that all those press outlets which have been baying for blood now do follow ups with this statement.

**The Boot** · 20 March 2004, 12:52 PM

originally posted by Bron
I fervently hope that all those press outlets which have been baying for blood now do follow ups with this statement.

That'd be like believing in the Tooth Fairy. No disrespect to our Tooth Fairy ..

**Gunn** · 20 March 2004, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I think the Swans should have come out and reinforced that he did nothing, that they see no purpose of the story and possibly explained the reason for the payment.

On the front foot may have been best.

The problem is that for the Swans to come out they would have negated the very reason for the money being paid in the first place ie to ensure this story doesn't get plastered all over the papers. As it turns out with the story coming out the money is wasted. I am confident that had **** known the story would have come out he wouldn't have paid anything in the first place. It is money down the drain.

Hindsite is a wonderful thing. Had he had forsight he wouldn't have paid.

**Gunn** · 20 March 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Bron
I think I agree ... but it's always easy to have the right answer in retrospect. And as someone has said ... what would they say? Go through the entire list and make a statement that each was not charged or even questioned by police?

I've just heard the 2UE 1pm news include a statement from the woman involved which said something along the lines of that she categorically stated that she had no claim against our player. If this could have been used when the story first hit, it might have hushed it down. I fervently hope that all those press outlets which have been baying for blood now do follow ups with this statement.

Bron the reporter from the Herald Sun that broke the story knew all along that our player had nothing to do with it apart from making a payment. He had interviewed the accuser personally. It suited the 'story' for him not to say that. I heard him interviewed on Melbourne radio and he just skirted the issue saying that if anyone publishes the NSW playes name they would be sued. Why say that if unless he knew our player was blameless? If he was blameworthy then of course he could be safely named. Not naming him created the public interest in his name.

You will note that when he was named today the press was careful to say he wasn't to blame. They created the furore about the "nameless" player and then publish the news naming him but not blaming him. What was it all for if not to sell newspapers or get a people listening to the radio?

**EMJ** · 20 March 2004, 01:48 PM

Because damn creepy Eddie brought it up what chance has anyone of keeping it quiet.
I am waiting for the dirt to come up about Collingwood - they are certainly no angels.

**Bron** · 20 March 2004, 01:59 PM

.

***NMWBloods*** · 20 March 2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Gunn
The problem is that for the Swans to come out they would have negated the very reason for the money being paid in the first place ie to ensure this story doesn't get plastered all over the papers.

Yep, but once the papers got hold of the story, it was only a matter of time before the name of the third party came out. We probably should have been more pro-active at that point, and made a bigger deal about who it was and how he wasn't part of the incident and the police didn't question him, etc. In other words, they should have controlled the information flow better and driven the process.

Both Swans & Port deny paying Hush Money

Both Swans & Port deny paying Hush Money

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment