Roos under investigation (-> Cleared)

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Chow-Chicker
    Senior Player
    • Jun 2006
    • 1602

    Originally posted by CureTheSane
    Yep



    Yep



    Nope



    Because YOU don't consider the NAB Cup a valid comp, it's OK to throw games and the like, but if it happens in a comp that you approve of, then it's not ok....

    Either way, a team is in the competition, they should be there to win.
    Imagine the psychological damage of playing to lose, even once.
    I don't want that.
    Roos can feel how he like about the NAB cup but when I see the Swans play, I want to see them trying to win.



    Who made threats of fines against Roos?
    The media.
    But that becomes irrelevant when the AFL is up for attack.



    As I stated before, people like the Swans.
    If it was Malthouse, or



    There was no PROOF Not comments by Carlton staff, no player ex-girlfriends dishing the dirt, no nothing.
    How does the AFL investigate a team based on a gut feeling?
    Seriously, the whole Carlton tanking BS is a bit stupid.
    How did they drop games?
    How many players were in on it?
    Administration?
    Coaching staff?
    Who the hell tells a whole team of players that they are looking top lose games?
    There is no possible way it wouldn't get out.
    Player gets drunk... etc etc
    Yes, well.....whatever. At the end of the day, Roos will be not guilty - therefore he DID NOT instruct a player to not kick a goal and therfore DID NOT invlove himself in match fixing. Just like Carlton DID NOT tank. And Matthew Head DID NOT say "now I know what its like to have a victory".

    As I said, there is no problem whatsoever in AFL. Everything is just beeeeeeeeeeeewdiful.

    Comment

    • Claret
      Support Staff
      • Sep 2005
      • 1104

      Originally posted by Wardy
      .Add to Andy D's Hitleresque attitude - did anyone see that if players pull out, (injured or faux injured) of the Dream Team V v Vic game in May - those players will be banned from playing the next round ? - its almost like "you vill play zee game or else!" the man has far too much power.
      I think, in his defence, he said that they considered applying this but decided that it wasn't necessary.
      And the man who started it all, the Schneiderman . . . . .

      Comment

      • Chow-Chicker
        Senior Player
        • Jun 2006
        • 1602

        Originally posted by CureTheSane
        There was no PROOF Not comments by Carlton staff, no player ex-girlfriends dishing the dirt, no nothing.
        How does the AFL investigate a team based on a gut feeling?
        Seriously, the whole Carlton tanking BS is a bit stupid.
        How did they drop games?
        How many players were in on it?
        Administration?
        Coaching staff?
        Who the hell tells a whole team of players that they are looking top lose games?
        There is no possible way it wouldn't get out.
        Player gets drunk... etc etc
        On second thoughts.......there was a comment made by a Carlton Board member that they hoped to lose in order to get either the No.1 draft pick or something along those lines. It was controversial at the time....and I'm not sure if it was 2006. I'll be trying to dig that one up......unless someone else remembers it.

        Oh, and we all know about the times Fevola was taken off the ground after dominating certain games, only for them to lose their way and lose the match while he was sprinting around the boundary line uninjured....

        EDIT: Koutoufides was the one who suggested it was better to lose than win in order to get the No.1 draft pick. A whole bag full of Carlton personalities agreed - including Robert Walls

        Read the latest sports news, find live scores & fixtures for your favourite sports from around the world on Australia's sports leader FOX SPORTS.


        In any case, Roos telling McVeigh not to kick a goal does not mean he didn't want to win the match. As you say, he would have had to tell the entire playing group not to kick goals.
        Last edited by Chow-Chicker; 6 March 2008, 01:44 PM. Reason: Correction

        Comment

        • Triple B
          Formerly 'BBB'
          • Feb 2003
          • 6999

          Originally posted by Wardy
          Add to Andy D's Hitleresque attitude - did anyone see that if players pull out, (injured or faux injured) of the Dream Team V v Vic game in May - those players will be banned from playing the next round ? - its almost like "you vill play zee game or else!" the man has far too much power.
          I agree with him on this one.

          Maybe as a Sydneysider, therefore exposed to the State of Origin phenomena every year, I can see where he is coming from (for those who are unaware, players selected for SOO cannot play the club game on the weekend before each SOO game).

          They are trying to promote this match and if it is taken seriously, it will indeed be a great spectacle.

          They are going to play the game on a free weekend which has been scheduled to accommodate the game. If a player is unable to play for the Vics or the others because of injury, they would also have been unable to play for their club that week. Correct?

          Therefore, they will sitout the following week in lieu of the week they would not have been able to play for their club on Vics v Others weekend.

          I know the argument won't be popular among the inmates on RWO, but I think it is a good move designed to create a monster spectacle in May. I would love to be in Melbourne for the match, should be a ripper.
          Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09

          Comment

          • Claret
            Support Staff
            • Sep 2005
            • 1104

            Originally posted by BBB
            I know the argument won't be popular among the inmates on RWO, but I think it is a good move designed to create a monster spectacle in May.
            For those of you who missed it , I'll say it again. THIS ISN'T HAPPENING.

            From Demetriou himself . . .

            We talked about introducing a rule that if a player pulled out with an injury or phantom injury that they wouldn't play the following week (in the home-and-away season) but I don't think we are going to need to.
            Source
            And the man who started it all, the Schneiderman . . . . .

            Comment

            • Triple B
              Formerly 'BBB'
              • Feb 2003
              • 6999

              My position hasn't changed.

              If a player is unavailable thru injury to play in the 'marquee' match, I have no problems with them missing the next H & A game.
              Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09

              Comment

              • TheGrimReaper
                Suspended by the MRP
                • Sep 2007
                • 2203

                Any new news on events on Roosey?

                I hope Roosey, when he gets off, sue the AFL for defamation.

                Comment

                • AnnieH
                  RWOs Black Sheep
                  • Aug 2006
                  • 11332

                  Originally posted by TheGrimReaper
                  Any new news on events on Roosey?

                  I hope Roosey, when he gets off, sue the AFL for defamation.
                  A decision by the AFL won't be made until tomorrow ... knowing them, it'll be after 5pm.

                  If he gets off, Roosey won't sue - that's beneath him.
                  He'll just have another "feather in cap", i.e. another time when Roosey was right and Theo Dimwit was wrong.
                  Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
                  Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.

                  Comment

                  • TheGrimReaper
                    Suspended by the MRP
                    • Sep 2007
                    • 2203

                    Originally posted by Annie Haddad
                    A decision by the AFL won't be made until tomorrow ... knowing them, it'll be after 5pm.
                    Right after their sexual orgies no doubt.

                    Comment

                    • 573v30
                      On the bandwagon...
                      • Sep 2005
                      • 5017

                      Originally posted by Annie Haddad
                      A decision by the AFL won't be made until tomorrow ... knowing them, it'll be after 5pm.
                      Hopefully common sense will prevail and Roos is found not guilty of match fixing or whatever charge the AFL want to use in order to damage his integrity.
                      I only support one team: The SYDNEY SWANS!!!!! :adore

                      Comment

                      • DeadlyAkkuret
                        Veterans List
                        • Oct 2006
                        • 4547

                        Is there even any proof against Roos? It seems like hearsay to me, one man's word against another's.

                        Comment

                        • ernie koala
                          Senior Player
                          • May 2007
                          • 3251

                          Originally posted by TheGrimReaper
                          Any new news on events on Roosey?

                          I hope Roosey, when he gets off, sue the AFL for defamation.
                          I'd like to think a comprehensive autobiography from Roosy once he retires, with at least one chapter devoted to Demetrio, should add the final touches to the already massive omlete he's wearing.
                          Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MT

                          Comment

                          • ROK Lobster
                            RWO Life Member
                            • Aug 2004
                            • 8658

                            Originally posted by DeadlyAkkuret
                            Is there even any proof against Roos? It seems like hearsay to me, one man's word against another's.
                            That's not hearsay.

                            Comment

                            • DeadlyAkkuret
                              Veterans List
                              • Oct 2006
                              • 4547

                              Originally posted by ROK Lobster
                              That's not hearsay.
                              Uh yes, it is.

                              hearsay ( ) n. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.

                              That's one man's word against another's, whether it be true or not.
                              Last edited by DeadlyAkkuret; 7 March 2008, 12:49 AM.

                              Comment

                              • goswannie14
                                Leadership Group
                                • Sep 2005
                                • 11166

                                Originally posted by DeadlyAkkuret
                                Uh yes, it is.

                                hearsay ( ) n. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.

                                That's one man's word against another's, whether it be true or not.
                                I think you will find hearsay would be if the person who heard the alleged remarks passed it on to someone else. If that person then repeated it, it is hearsay. Which is what the highlighted part of your quote means.
                                Does God believe in Atheists?

                                Comment

                                Working...