Cousins stiffed by the league and his club

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ShockOfHair
    One Man Out
    • Dec 2007
    • 3668

    Cousins stiffed by the league and his club

    Like every other RWo-er I didn't pay any attention to the Cousins bird-flipping brouhaha.

    Then I read this:
    The real villain is Channel Ten - RFNews - realfooty.com.au

    Cousins flipped the bird to a camera in a changeroom two hours before a game. Channel 10 pulled the footage out and showed it, and then the weight of the league's moral guardians came crushing down on him.

    If Buddy had done that it would have been seen as a cheeky wave to his fans. He wouldn't have been fined $10,000.

    As Greg Baum says, Channel 10 ought to cop that fine, not the player.

    Pathetic that the league will stiff a player but utter not a word of condemnation of Channel 10.

    It also raises the question: Why on earth is there a live feed from the changeroom hours before a game? To watch the spriggers?
    The man who laughs has not yet heard the terrible news
  • dimelb
    pr. dim-melb; m not f
    • Jun 2003
    • 6889

    #2
    Low pseudo-journalism by Ten. Cousins has a right to privacy in those circumstances; he spends enough time living in a fishbowl. The expression of grievances and the letting off of steam is what the rest of do in privacy - he should be able to as well.
    I wonder if Demetriou will take the channel to task - even in private? I doubt it.
    He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

    Comment

    • Lucky Knickers
      Fandom of Fabulousness
      • Oct 2003
      • 4220

      #3
      Camera's in the rooms are a fixture on game day in the seniors. Cousin's knew it. He's been playing for many many years.
      Dumb dumb dumb choice by Ben (another in a long line). Actions have consequences. His is 5k (according to FSN last night). Pay up move on.
      I sincerely doubt that it would be viewed differently if it was Buddy and imagine Hawks would take a similarly dim view of a player doing this at any time, particularly one central to the club's marketing efforts.

      Comment

      • AnnieH
        RWOs Black Sheep
        • Aug 2006
        • 11332

        #4
        In as far as I hate the little "ex"-junkie ... that's a bit harsh.
        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

        • goswannie14
          Leadership Group
          • Sep 2005
          • 11166

          #5
          :starts rant: What really got up my nose was that sanctimonious twat Dimwitriou getting on radio saying "We don't want that sort of thing happening with any of our footballers, especially Ben Cousins." Fair enough to say we don't want it, but that word "especially" reeks of what the current CEO of the AFL is so good at, that is, being a sanctimonious wanker who is wrecking our game.

          We need more ben Cousins in the AFL and less Andrew Demetrious. :end of rant:
          Does God believe in Atheists?

          Comment

          • ScottH
            It's Goodes to cheer!!
            • Sep 2003
            • 23665

            #6
            I've been saying that all week.
            Ch 10 served his head up on a platter, for no real reason, other than to flog it's own pony.
            Ben did a stupid thing, in private, to a camera that he probably knew was not being show live.
            Ch10 should have shown it privately to AFL/Richmond, and it should've been dealt with privately. We don't need to know about it. Nor should we care.

            If it happened in the public arena, or during the 3 hour telecast, then that is another story.

            Gee, I see more idiots hanging over the fence giving the bird nearly every game. Infact watch the last 5 mins of that Freo game, and you'll see it.

            Poor form Ch 10.

            Comment

            • Lucky Knickers
              Fandom of Fabulousness
              • Oct 2003
              • 4220

              #7
              He copped $2.5k the rest is suspended. What's up with that?
              This is his job and he was at his workplace.
              If I did this at my workplace to a major stakeholder there would be consequences. What's different?

              Comment

              • pinkemu
                Silver member, not Gold
                • Sep 2006
                • 419

                #8
                The fact that Ch10 were recording 2 hours before the game shows they were wishing for something to happen. And they got it.

                I doubt the AFL would go in hard at the networks because you don't bite the hand that feeds.

                Comment

                • dimelb
                  pr. dim-melb; m not f
                  • Jun 2003
                  • 6889

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Lucky Knickers
                  He copped $2.5k the rest is suspended. What's up with that?
                  This is his job and he was at his workplace.
                  If I did this at my workplace to a major stakeholder there would be consequences. What's different?
                  You work for Big Brother? (Orwell's, not Ten's)
                  He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

                  Comment

                  • AnnieH
                    RWOs Black Sheep
                    • Aug 2006
                    • 11332

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Lucky Knickers
                    He copped $2.5k the rest is suspended. What's up with that?
                    This is his job and he was at his workplace.
                    If I did this at my workplace to a major stakeholder there would be consequences. What's different?
                    You are not Ben Cousins, and you did not bring the AFL into "disrepute".
                    Huge difference.
                    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

                    • goswannie14
                      Leadership Group
                      • Sep 2005
                      • 11166

                      #11
                      Originally posted by AnnieH
                      You are not Ben Cousins, and you did not bring the AFL into "disrepute".
                      So did about 10 other footballers this year, but the AFL won't name them. Hypocrites!
                      Does God believe in Atheists?

                      Comment

                      • AnnieH
                        RWOs Black Sheep
                        • Aug 2006
                        • 11332

                        #12
                        Originally posted by goswannie14
                        So did about 10 other footballers this year, but the AFL won't name them. Hypocrites!
                        Who? Did any of them ADMIT to taking banned drugs?
                        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

                        • goswannie14
                          Leadership Group
                          • Sep 2005
                          • 11166

                          #13
                          Originally posted by AnnieH
                          Who? Did any of them ADMIT to taking banned drugs?
                          No but they tested positive, which is something that Ben Cousins hasn't done. The AFL are soft on drugs when it suits them.
                          Does God believe in Atheists?

                          Comment

                          • CureTheSane
                            Carpe Noctem
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 5032

                            #14
                            Originally posted by AnnieH
                            Who? Did any of them ADMIT to taking banned drugs?
                            Damn.
                            Where to start.
                            With Annie I guess.

                            So you are saying that Olympic athletes who test positive should only be named when they admit to the drug use?
                            Or are you saying that you have no faith in the accuracy of drug testing?
                            The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

                            Comment

                            • CureTheSane
                              Carpe Noctem
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 5032

                              #15
                              Originally posted by goswannie14
                              So did about 10 other footballers this year, but the AFL won't name them. Hypocrites!
                              Abso@@@@@@@lutely

                              haha, that word worked better than I thought it would.....
                              The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

                              Comment

                              Working...