Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

TSP said:
In which case he could have made a statemenf to police at another time.

He said he was " required" to attend when he did. I very much doubt that.

Where they going to arrest him if he didnt go? No. Can they? No.

It seems to be a pretty ill thought-out and bad excuse.
Click to expand...

We don’t know what the police said. Or the other circumstances , so pointless to speculate
 
TSP said:
During his training?

He said he was "required" to go.

Thats unlikely.
Click to expand...

I read the article … he says it was regarding a family member in relation to a domestic violence matter… is that not a reasonable priority over missing 40 minutes of training ?
 
Tom Shines said:
I read the article … he says it was regarding a family member in relation to a domestic violence matter… is that it a reasonable priority ?
Click to expand...
dv matters arent resolved during a period of training.

They can arrest and deny bail to a dv suspect on reasonable grounds. They do it all time.

They did it to Taylan May!
 
batboy said:
Biggest misconception around this Joint is that Wests Ashfield have plenty of money...
And they own Wests Tigers, Therefore - It shouldn't be an issue.

They might have more money than the pope - but they don't spend anywhere near the amount they should on this club... Never have.

I've said it many times,
I remember a meeting where it was discussed by the higher ups, Maybe 15 years ago...
One year, Canterbury Leagues Club gave 4 mill to the Football operations
- Must have been around 12-14 when they were red hot.

Wests Magpies and Balmain gave the Football operations (WT's) Less than 400k total
(Between both of them!!)

And here we were thinking we can compete.
Click to expand...
So I guess what Adele said on the podcast was right, we have owners that don't spend money on anything to do with the joint. He was saying the best thing for us in terms of how HBG look after the place would be to privatise. He said though it has to be to the right owner, one who understands that success makes their investment worth more. So they pump money into the joint knowing if there's success they can get a return on investment. He said since the inception of the JV our owners whoever they are at the time have never really put money into the joint. Don't understand why Richo and the board don't just tell HBG they're a not for profit So start pumping money into the Wests Tigers.
 
kade7 said:
No new information from our club.

But please, dont believe the media beat up around Galvin taking less money from us

Our contract was a proposal of a package, it was a 5 year 6 million dollar agreement that factored in 3rd party payments, it was never ever going to take up 1.1 million in salary cap every year.

Galvin has taken 750k for this year at the dogs which goes up 25% over the the length of the deal

throw in the third party payments from laundy hotels.

he is earning more than he would have received at the tigers.
Click to expand...
How does Laundy supply third party deals. There is no way they can argue he is at arms length from the dogs being there major sponsor. Unless you're suggesting they are under the table payments.
 
Tom Shines said:
They might be ..based on his statement he provided
Click to expand...
Nope.

He voluntarily attends to make a statement.

Police have to compare and contrast his statement to other material they have.

They have a process.

They cant and wouldnt conclude an investigation into someone during or after a statement is being taken.

No chance.

And its their job to be a bit skepitical of what they are told by people anyway.

He could have lied in his statement.

But the issue is whether he had to go and make it when he said he did. And at first blush, i think thats rubbish.

If he didnt have to make it then but went anyway, he should be up-front.

Dont get me wrong, in principle id like to think people should be protected from other demands if they are making a statement. But to say that he was required to, at that time, on that date-i think its coming the raw prawn.
 
Last edited:
TSP said:
Nope.

He voluntarily attends to make a statement.

Police have to compare and contrast his statement to other material they have.

They have a process.

They cant and wouldnt conclude an investigation into someone during or after a statement is being taken.

No chance.
Click to expand...

What if he provides information that gets someone out or keeps someone in a cell? This could be the deciding factor needed with other evidence the police already have
 
Tom Shines said:
What if he provides information that gets someone out or keeps someone in a cell? This could be the deciding factor needed with other evidence the police already have
Click to expand...
I understand your point but the question is whether or not he was "requied to" at that time and on that date.

Im suggesting hes not under any legal obligation to make that statement at that time and on that date when he said he was required to.

So he may not be being truthful.

Even if he provides infornation, police will suss it out. They wont release someone because someone says something.

People lie in statements all the time unfortunately. Police are alive to peoples mischiefs.

But they will follow their processss.

If he can provide evidence that they threatened him in some way to make a statement at the time and date, he may have a case. But the chances of that are probably a million to 1.

I think they would have asked him when could he come in and then tried to help with a mutual time. Theyd appreciate him stepping forward.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 763 (members: 31, guests: 732)
Back
Top