Cat got your tongue Gallop ?

[eagle_predator]

Cat got your tongue Gallop ? why didn't you want to be on the footy show tonight to talk about the Greg Inglis situation. You had plenty to say about our Brett Stewart did you not ? so what's wrong ill tell you your GUTLES.

 

[KaZa]

the whole media has gone easy on him.. or goes to show how hard they were hitting brett.

 

[eagle_predator]

News LTD love child mother ****ers double standards all the way.

 

[eagle_predator]

I heard on the news that Inglis could be playing soon if true WTF ?

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Nothing has changed since the NRL has taken over.

One rule for Manly and the ARL aligned clubs
Another for the Super League aligned clubs
And special treatment for the News Ltd owned clubs

The problem David Gallop has is the owners are his masters and they make the rules.

It's a disgrace the "difference" between the Brett Stewart "affair" and the Greg Inglis "affair"

But that's the NRL for you

 

[Corso_Pete]

Why is it a disgrace?, Manly forced the NRL to act, whether the decision by the NRL to suspend Brett is another debate. In this instance Melbourne took the onus away from the NRL and stood Inglis down, at the moment what decision do the NRL have to make?.

This matter is fairly fluid at the moment with reports overnight that Ms Robinson was actually trying to commit self harm and that Inglis was intervening, who know what the truth really is.

As much as it pains me me to admit the Storm have acted appropriatly at this stage and taken away the need for Gallop to intervene. One wonders if Manly had stood Brett down for 2 weeks when his stuff up first occurred would the NRL have stepped in and imposed a 4 week ban? My guess is that would not have, they were just so pissed off with Manly failing to take any action at all they just come over the top with the 4 week suspension.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Why is it a disgrace?, Manly forced the NRL to act, whether the decision by the NRL to suspend Brett is another debate. In this instance Melbourne took the onus away from the NRL and stood Inglis down, at the moment what decision do the NRL have to make?.

This matter is fairly fluid at the moment with reports overnight that Ms Robinson was actually trying to commit self harm and that Inglis was intervening, who know what the truth really is.

As much as it pains me me to admit the Storm have acted appropriatly at this stage and taken away the need for Gallop to intervene. One wonders if Manly had stood Brett down for 2 weeks when his stuff up first occurred would the NRL have stepped in and imposed a 4 week ban? My guess is that would not have, they were just so pissed off with Manly failing to take any action at all they just come over the top with the 4 week suspension.

Yes in todays smh it says her lawyer has got a new statement from her which is different from what she originally told police. Now she remembers much more clearly, in fact GI was saving her from self harming after she became depressed abour how easily she bruises from her botox treatment, or something along those lines. Anyway she now thinks he hasn't done anything wrong, what a relief.

I agree Storm have acted 'appropriately' under the new NRL guidelines which of course were only imposed on the run during the Brett Stewart scandal. They have arranged counselling for both Greg and his girlfriend. Although it now appears Greg may not need counselling as he hasn't done anything wrong? (I suppose he might still need counselling about how to deal with stress caused by having a crazy girlfriend who makes false allegations about him to police.?


Regardless of whether the allegations are true or not, and regardless whether they will be proved in court or not (which is a different thing altogether) Storm are right to stand him down for some period for 2 reasons, 1. It shows they take the issue seriously , and 2. Guilty or innocent, he must be going through a lot and couldn't be right to play footy just yet with these allegations and all the publicity.

 

[eagle_predator]

Why is it a disgrace?, Manly forced the NRL to act, whether the decision by the NRL to suspend Brett is another debate. In this instance Melbourne took the onus away from the NRL and stood Inglis down, at the moment what decision do the NRL have to make?.

This matter is fairly fluid at the moment with reports overnight that Ms Robinson was actually trying to commit self harm and that Inglis was intervening, who know what the truth really is.

As much as it pains me me to admit the Storm have acted appropriatly at this stage and taken away the need for Gallop to intervene. One wonders if Manly had stood Brett down for 2 weeks when his stuff up first occurred would the NRL have stepped in and imposed a 4 week ban? My guess is that would not have, they were just so pissed off with Manly failing to take any action at all they just come over the top with the 4 week suspension.

Yes the Storm did the right thing by standing him down and no one knows if Inglis is guilty or not ?. But Gallop is the CEO of the NRL he shouldn't be so gutless and hide behind a rock on this one. The fact is Stewart got 4 weeks and the media jumped all over him, and as a result of that Gallop made sure he had plenty to say on Snakes case. It's a total joke that's the point I'm making.

 

[Corso_Pete]

Ingils has been stood down! what is there for Gallop to do at this stage?

 

[eagle_predator]

Ingils has been stood down! what is there for Gallop to do at this stage?

Well he could start by not having double standards is that's not to much to ask for. And if Inglis is guilty ?? than Gallop should fine the Storm 100k just as he did to Manly.

 

[ManlyBacker]

No offence e_p, but Manly were fined 100k for having a season launch that went out of control, nothing to do with Brett's innocence or guilt. Also, I don't see why a club should be fined if one of their players is found guilty of an offence unless they were directly involved.

 

[OneEyedEagle]

I'm not insinuating that Inglis is guilty and that Robinson wasn't trying to harm herself but in previous reports I read that she had enough and was walking out on Inglis. Maybe see was leaving cause she caught up with this photo of her man.

So Inglis was trying to help her not harm herself, Go figure. So she ends up with two black eyes... What a croak of ****!!

Then again he could of been helping Sally with her makeup as he thought her complexion was a little sickly looking and to pale so he decided to help Sally apply her mascara when his fist slipped not once but twice.

Gallop you turd, do the right thing by the game and stand down before you lose it all for the rest of us.

 

[Jethro]

Why is it a disgrace?, Manly forced the NRL to act, whether the decision by the NRL to suspend Brett is another debate. In this instance Melbourne took the onus away from the NRL and stood Inglis down, at the moment what decision do the NRL have to make?.

This matter is fairly fluid at the moment with reports overnight that Ms Robinson was actually trying to commit self harm and that Inglis was intervening, who know what the truth really is.

As much as it pains me me to admit the Storm have acted appropriatly at this stage and taken away the need for Gallop to intervene. One wonders if Manly had stood Brett down for 2 weeks when his stuff up first occurred would the NRL have stepped in and imposed a 4 week ban? My guess is that would not have, they were just so pissed off with Manly failing to take any action at all they just come over the top with the 4 week suspension.

I could be wrong but didn't the NRL step in and impose an extra punishment earlier this year on a Sharks or Rooster player when they thought that the punishment dished out by the club was insufficient?

 

[Brookvale]

any one got Gallopppps email address???

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

[email protected]

(that is just a guess)

 

[Fluffy]

not one he will read

 

[Rex]

Why is it a disgrace?, Manly forced the NRL to act, whether the decision by the NRL to suspend Brett is another debate. In this instance Melbourne took the onus away from the NRL and stood Inglis down, at the moment what decision do the NRL have to make?.

"Manly forced the NRL to act".  Is that true?  

The NRL are saying that the suspension of Brett is solely for allegedly consuming excess alcohol to the point of being refused service of alcohol at an official function.  Whilst being a perceived talented clean-skin that the NRL wanted to farm the image of, in its advertising.

The NRL was advised by US experts that it was a risky and imprudent strategy to attach its image to the images of individual players. And the NRL (not Brett, Johns or Inglis) then chose to ignore this advice and run this advised imprudent risk with each of Stewart, Johns and Inglis.   And this advice has subsequently been proven sound by all three instances of the NRL ignoring it.  

The NRL repeatedly emphasised the suspension has nothing to do with any subsequent allegations of sexual assault. If they are not lying, then why must Manly suspend Brett Stewart for two weeks for being refused service of alcohol, and leaving without misbehaviour or incident, official function or not?  When was a player ever previously suspended for even one week for being refused service of alcohol and leaving peacefully at an official function - or even at an unofficial one?

Laurie Daley, a key face of the game, was subsequently refused entry to an alcohol-serving premises in the early morning because of excess alcohol consumption.  Except that he says he hadn't even had one drink.  No demands that he be suspended or punished or even criticised. A person who appears drunk is not always drunk.  And in any case the NRL does actively promote increased alcohol consumption in the community.  And an impact of increased alcohol consumption is reduction of awareness of what is excess alcohol consumption.  

So unless you are saying that the NRL are out-and-out lying about the real reason for Brett's suspension, then is it true that Manly forced the NRL to act?

Here's an alternate view: The NRL pointed the finger at Manly's "failure to act" to cover up its own incompetence. And that it then lost totally the plot by doubling what it thought was an appropriate penalty. That the leadership of the NRL is incompetent, reactive and erratic.

 

[Rex]

If (a huge if) Inglis had done nothing wrong, and in fact was a hero seeking to protect the girl, as is now being portrayed, then is it appropriate that he was suspended at all?  Why the desperation for knee-jerk reactions without careful assessment and investigation of facts?  Isn't that what the courts are there for?

 

[eagle_predator]

[email protected]

(that is just a guess)

That will do lol

 

[lsz]

Would it be fair to say that these matters are moral, ethical or legal decisions.

As such, due to the inherit conflicts of interest, a Rugby League club or the NRL are best placed to make the decision

The only way to move forward is an independent tribunal that can look at each case individually and act accordingly