Why didn't We?

[WayneJudson42]

Ok, so there's been some intense discussion, speculation and innuendo thrown around on the forum.

So a quick poll...

why do you think we didn't take him?

sponsors? Lifestyle? Age? Injuries?

and on that basis, did the board make the right call?

My view: We didn't take him because the board was not 100% convinced that BC has given up his habits.

I reckon the sponsors would have spoken up immediately when they found out that we were pursuing him. it doesn't make sense that they wait until the meeting. Unless they were living in a cave for the previous 5 months.

If this is the reason, then, yes they made the right call IMO.

[St DAC]

Can we just get over it for crying out loud? It's done and dusted ... he's Richmond's problem/salvation now.

[saintbrat]

I DON't care .........................................................

we have
St Kilda – 48 players (38 primary, 1 veteran and 9 rookies)
who will get My full support as long as they wear the Red Black and White

If we are looking at "what if's " I'd be rich enought to retire and spend more time haunting the saints or SS

have we heard who the new rookies barracked for before being added to the saints?

[saintbart]

I think the main reason we didnt take him was that the AFL made some other conditions that were not make public should he offend again. One of those conditions, I believe, is loss of premiership points, along with fines, and other sanctions to the club.

Because we could not completly guarantee he could come to the club and stay problem free, we were not prepared to take the chance, particularly the loss of points.

Just my opinion.

[Mr Magic]

I think the main reason we didnt take him was that the AFL made some other conditions that were not make public should he offend again. One of those conditions, I believe, is loss of premiership points, along with fines, and other sanctions to the club.

Because we could not completly guarantee he could come to the club and stay problem free, we were not prepared to take the chance, particularly the loss of points.

Just my opinion.

I don't think those conditions were not made public.
IIRC they were announced well before Cousins was re-registered and there was certainly discussion about them on SEN at the time.

Most people keep 'glossing over' these penalties in reference to Cousins re-offending and tbh, I'm not sure why?

It is conceivable that if he is picked up in a 'hair drug test in July/August, that the AFL could strip away any premeiership points won by that team (in any game he played) because they wouldn't/couldn't identify at what exact point in time during those 3 months he had re-offended. Now I'm not saying that they would do it, but they could.

If they did I'm sure the Club concerned (now Richmond) would fight it but what argument could they possibly mount given the AFL has warned all Clubs about the consequences/penalties that can be applied?

[The Fireman]

Poor decision making?

[Launcestonsaint]

YAWN. (Sorry for shouting)

Why hasn't everyone started a Ben Cousins thread?

Locked.