News: Gallop goads Manly again

[Masked Eagle]

Zorba was responsible for compiling the report for the NRL, regarding the dramas at the season launch in 09.
Parts of that report were probably incorrect but it still ultimately came from the Sea Eagles. Someone at the club made a judgement call to try and quell the events of the evening and rather than putting all the focus on stupidmoughs slapping of the sponsor and degrading treatment of the sponsors daughter, they made a bad call. The club thought they could use Brett as the 'clean skin' to take the heat believing he will not be punished.
This does not excuse Gallop's non apology stance but oh how it helps to have your nephew own the joint when you're a media manager that can't submit a factual report. Zorba should have copped the bullet and the heat would have been off Brett.

Wow, if thats true then its extremely poor form. I've always wanted to find out more about our clubs report, the contents, the author, who signed off on it, etc. It sounds like we are as much to blame for Bretts suspension than the NRL if our internal report but Brett in the firing line. To me its a bit hypocritical of us calling for Gallop to make a public apology if we don't do the same thing.

Maybe the club has apologised to Brett about the report but just not openly to the media. Even if they haven't, you have to remember that the club has always publicly stood by and fully supported Brett for the whole duration up until and after his court appearance and they still do. Gallop has never given Brett the time of day and still flatly refuses to make amends and won't meet with Brett unless the club or Brett contacts him to make an appointment.

The club may have indeed apologised to Snake in private, but IMO if what WAMF has said is true then they need to do so publically. Its hypocritical to say they want an NRL apology in public but not admitting their own failings at the same time.

No disrespect to wamf but I see his post as pure misguided speculation

Quite possibly. 🙂 However, it does seem the report we submitted is at least open to conjecture. I would definitely like to see it because it either lends weight to the NRL decision, (and makes us look amateurish) or makes them look even more foolish.

 

[MadMarcus]

It is a pretty bad stuff up if the report was inaccurate, as appears to be the case. Lets give Gallop the benefit of the doubt for a minute and say that he believed Stewart was drunk on the night and did not come across anything to refute that in his own investigation.

As I understand it, this was the information before Gallop at the time he made the decision:

- Stewart had been chosen as the face of the game after a long record of exemplary behaviour, on and off the field;

- Stewart had been charged (or at the time was likely to be charged) with very serious sexual assault charges, carrying possible terms of imprisonment;

- The question of whether Stewart was intoxicated is likely to be a factor in the potential prosecution of Stewart;

- Manly's report claimed that Stewart had been thrown out of a hotel, but (presumably) didn't do anything else wrong that night;

- The media throwing mud at Stewart, Manly and to a lesser extent the NRL in general like it was going out of fashion;

- The Manly club had decided to take no action against Stewart after conducting its own investigation and determining that he had done nothing to bring the game into disrepute; and

- The NRL had the power to impose its own suspension if it did not agree with the action taken by the club, but the NRL (or its predecessors) had never exercised that power.

As I see it Gallop had 2 options.

1. Take no action on the basis that it is a matter for the Courts and the NRL should not intervene until the Court has made a decision

Pros

- Difficult for anyone to question the logic;
- Shows appropriate respect for the Court process and the Australian legal system;
- Assists the troubled Stewart in his time of need;
- The NRL will be able to take action later if it is established that Stewart was guilty or any wrongdoing; and
- Consistent with the NRL's approach to previous similar incidents.

Cons

- The media would criticise Gallop because the media had already decided Stewart is guilty.

2. Suspend Stewart for 4 weeks and come out in the media labelling Stewart a disgrace

Pros

- The media will love it as Gallop is seen to be doing something about these no good players.

Cons

- Tends to support unproven allegations made in the media;
- May prejudice Stewart's defence by lending weight to the argument that Stewart was drunk;
- Distances the NRL and Gallop from Stewart when Stewart could use all the support he can get; and
- Not consistent with the NRL's approach to similar incidents in the past.

Gallop went for option 2, which quite clearly tells us the Gallop is more interested in protecting his own reputation in the media than the welfare of his players. He still thinks this was the right thing to do. This is one of the many reasons why he is not fit to be NRL CEO.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Gallop keeps quoting the Manly report which according to Gallop says Stewart was drunk. I agree with whoever above says that Manly has to explain the report or apologise themsleves to Brett Stewart for putting him in the firing line if it twernt true. If someone at the club made a poor call at the time then maybe its time for them to stand up to pave the way for Brett to be vindicated? Whenever there is a possibility of criminal charges being laid then it is irresponsible in the extreme to be putting about hearsay accounts of a person's behaviour.