Tweet
A problem at the Swans? Is it just me, or are journos basing their reports solely on what other journos are reporting which are based on what other journos are reporting? Have not heard one piece of hard evidence, yet. ROK not picked + a loss to GWS = problems within the team? "Where there's smoke there's fire," they say. Can somebody tell where there is smoke except in the Journos eyes for being kept in the dark for 12 months and made to look like fools when the Swans-Franklin deal was made public.
Let's look at the facts as best we know them
1. Hannebery borrowed Franklin's car and had a crash. (Club says no alcohol or drugs involved and the car is insured). Russell Barwich then says "We don't know if he was breath tested or not." (Presumably he doesn't understand the connection between no alcohol and breath testing)
2. There have been no stories in the paper (to my knowledge) of Buddy or Hannebery misbehaving. (And the press would be looking more closely for one than the search for the missing Malaysian Airlines plane!)
3. ROK was not selected. The coach gave an explanation for his non-selection. The club was then forced to come out and strenuously deny a supposed punch-up between ROK and Franklin at training which would have been reported in every newspaper in the land had such a punch-up been witnessed. And do people really believe that if ROK was being disciplined he would have been made an emergency and then later brought into the side, particularly against a team most people (and obviously the Swans) thought would be easy beats?
4. The players went out of their way to mob Franklin when he kicked his first goal and when he ran down the GWS bloke just prior to half time. No sign of resentment there.
5. If Hannebery was in the gun surely he would have been the one to have served some sort of penance.
6. Russell Barwick seems to be quoting sources inside the GWS. Has he got an axe to grind with the Swans?
I live a long way from Sydney. Can anybody up in Harbour town tell me if this media frenzy down here in Victoria is based on anything but the oversupply of footy writers trying to create a story. Had the Swans won by 10 goals would we be discussing this?
Let's look at the facts as best we know them
1. Hannebery borrowed Franklin's car and had a crash. (Club says no alcohol or drugs involved and the car is insured). Russell Barwich then says "We don't know if he was breath tested or not." (Presumably he doesn't understand the connection between no alcohol and breath testing)
2. There have been no stories in the paper (to my knowledge) of Buddy or Hannebery misbehaving. (And the press would be looking more closely for one than the search for the missing Malaysian Airlines plane!)
3. ROK was not selected. The coach gave an explanation for his non-selection. The club was then forced to come out and strenuously deny a supposed punch-up between ROK and Franklin at training which would have been reported in every newspaper in the land had such a punch-up been witnessed. And do people really believe that if ROK was being disciplined he would have been made an emergency and then later brought into the side, particularly against a team most people (and obviously the Swans) thought would be easy beats?
4. The players went out of their way to mob Franklin when he kicked his first goal and when he ran down the GWS bloke just prior to half time. No sign of resentment there.
5. If Hannebery was in the gun surely he would have been the one to have served some sort of penance.
6. Russell Barwick seems to be quoting sources inside the GWS. Has he got an axe to grind with the Swans?
I live a long way from Sydney. Can anybody up in Harbour town tell me if this media frenzy down here in Victoria is based on anything but the oversupply of footy writers trying to create a story. Had the Swans won by 10 goals would we be discussing this?
Comment