Player caught betting on team mate to kick first goal...

BigMart · Post: # 1105387Post **BigMart** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 7:58pm

This is awsome......

Stillwaiting · Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:04pm

BigMart wrote:This is awsome......

Yes I have had some fun with it before o left work, and I can't wait to see a Inlaw who is the worst type of filth supporter

even might buy the herald sun craptorial tomorrow and frame it

Eastern · Post: # 1105392Post **Eastern** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:07pm

Stillwaiting wrote:
BigMart wrote:This is awsome......
Yes I have had some fun with it before o left work, and I can't wait to see a Inlaw who is the worst type of filth supporter

even might buy the herald sun craptorial tomorrow and frame it

Mother Inlaw?

!!

Stillwaiting · Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:11pm

Eastern wrote:
Stillwaiting wrote:
BigMart wrote:This is awsome......
Yes I have had some fun with it before o left work, and I can't wait to see a Inlaw who is the worst type of filth supporter

even might buy the herald sun craptorial tomorrow and frame it
Mother Inlaw? !!

Actually it's brother on law, the same prick who rang up st 5 am after the gf to hang shyte. I don't talk to him normally but I think it's time to start

InkerSaint · Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:12pm

Has anyone else considered that, in spite of Anderson's ranting, it's not the integrity of the AFL under threat but the integrity of the betting markets?

Creates a very interesting subtext... Caro... where are you...

saintspremiers · Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:38pm

No Inker!

Where would Monkey Boy get all his gambling sponsorship money from then???

satchmo · Post: # 1105405Post **satchmo** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:38pm

InkerSaint wrote:Has anyone else considered that, in spite of Anderson's ranting, it's not the integrity of the AFL under threat but the integrity of the betting markets?

Exactly.

plugger66 · Post: # 1105406Post **plugger66** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:40pm

Eastern wrote:We can argue all day whetther Shaw's penalty was right or wrong, but I have real concerns with the consistency of the AFL and their handling of Shaw & Maxwell;

Shaw goes halves with a mate on a $20 bet ($10 each) and cops an eight week suspension and $20K fine

Maxwell's family members (was it his mum? was it his 2 month old baby?) put $85 on the same bet and he cops a $5,000 fine (the other $5,000 is suspended.

Can someone PLEASE explain the logic behind this. IMHO, the Maxwell penalty should have been at least double the Shaw penalty. ie Maxwell 8 weeks, Shaw 4 weeks !!

Maxwell has done what 100% of players do and that is tell them where he is playing. the one thing he didnt do which nil% of players do and that is say dont bet on this. Should never have been fined but he should fine his family for being stupid.

plugger66 · Post: # 1105407Post **plugger66** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:43pm

satchmo wrote:
InkerSaint wrote:Has anyone else considered that, in spite of Anderson's ranting, it's not the integrity of the AFL under threat but the integrity of the betting markets?
Exactly.

What this proves is the AFL should be involved with the bookies otherwise people would still bet but the AFL would get no details.

Dan Warna · Post: # 1105415Post **Dan Warna** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:51pm

Apparently heath shaw got 50k back on a spread bet of 8 to 12 weeks with 2k at 25 to 1, they paid out as the suspended sentence weeks don't count.

Didak was there but he said he was sleeping while the bet was made.

Ben Cousins passed out at the bookies and was rushed to hospital from shock.

Gram said it was only two ounces, and Jeff farmer went around and beat the crap out of the chick who took the bet.

IN breaking news Hutcho said it was kosi....

SainterK · Post: # 1105424Post **SainterK** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 8:58pm

So Shaw has missed the second highest amount of games for off field misdemeanours in recent history, 4 games in 2008, 8 in 2011.

Ben Cousins (22 matches) in 2007.

Previous to that, Doug Fraser and Alex Lang in 1910 (99 each) for bribery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Tribunal

ando051 · Post: # 1105428Post **ando051** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:07pm

plugger66 wrote:
Eastern wrote:We can argue all day whetther Shaw's penalty was right or wrong, but I have real concerns with the consistency of the AFL and their handling of Shaw & Maxwell;

Shaw goes halves with a mate on a $20 bet ($10 each) and cops an eight week suspension and $20K fine

Maxwell's family members (was it his mum? was it his 2 month old baby?) put $85 on the same bet and he cops a $5,000 fine (the other $5,000 is suspended.

Can someone PLEASE explain the logic behind this. IMHO, the Maxwell penalty should have been at least double the Shaw penalty. ie Maxwell 8 weeks, Shaw 4 weeks !!
Maxwell has done what 100% of players do and that is tell them where he is playing. the one thing he didnt do which nil% of players do and that is say dont bet on this. Should never have been fined but he should fine his family for being stupid.

Totally agree Plugger, Maxwell did not do much wrong other than to tell the family not to bet.

There is more to Shaw though, as we know he likes to lie. I bet you he was the one on cctv handing over the cash at the TAB. How would the AFL know he gave his mate $10 to put towards a bet on Maxwell for the first goal.

Good to see Eddie Everywhere has stuck to his word and given Shaw his last last chance. You are a Jellyfish Eddie, No Spine.

Dr Spaceman · Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:08pm

SainterK wrote:So Shaw has missed the second highest amount of games for off field misdemeanours in recent history, 4 games in 2008, 8 in 2011.

Ben Cousins (22 matches) in 2007.

Previous to that, Doug Fraser and Alex Lang in 1910 (99 each) for bribery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL_Tribunal

Well if you include the VFA then Ned Kelly, who played with Williamstown, would have them all covered.

mullet · Post: # 1105434Post **mullet** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:13pm

The info was that he was starting up forward.

However everyone decided to have him as first goal kicker.

If all they said was that he was starting up forward then they would have to get pretty lucky that he actually kicked the first goal.

Unless of course the whole team planned on kicking it to him. Is that how cocky they have become that they know who will get the first goal.

I would be disgusted if our players bet on any out come of our games.

Should have got more imo like the indian cricketers.

This just stinks

satchmo · Post: # 1105435Post **satchmo** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:15pm

mullet wrote:
This just stinks

As long as the afl profit from it, then all is good. Apparently.

mr six o'clock · Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:17pm

1 : HOORAY !!!! its Collingwood

2 : AFL got the penalties right !

3 : whist i like a punt , i'm anti all the gambling advertising around , bring on next year when it is to be reduced .

4 : Would also prefer if Centrebet wasn't one of our major sponsors

5 : HOORAY !!! its Collingwood

plugger66 · Post: # 1105437Post **plugger66** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:17pm

mullet wrote:The info was that he was starting up forward.

However everyone decided to have him as first goal kicker.

If all they said was that he was starting up forward then they would have to get pretty lucky that he actually kicked the first goal.

Unless of course the whole team planned on kicking it to him. Is that how cocky they have become that they know who will get the first goal.

I would be disgusted if our players bet on any out come of our games.

Should have got more imo like the indian cricketers.

This just stinks

Yep because it makes so much sense that the whole team is in on it for the amount of money they may have won. Some peoples hatred of the pies means they lose common sense. By the way if they were all in on it why didnt he kick the first goal?

mullet · Post: # 1105444Post **mullet** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:25pm

hmm yeah hatred of collingwood.

think I said I would be disgusted if our players did it.

How anyone can try to say that this isnt so bad is beyond me

plugger66 · Post: # 1105448Post **plugger66** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:29pm

mullet wrote:hmm yeah hatred of collingwood.

think I said I would be disgusted if our players did it.

How anyone can try to say that this isnt so bad is beyond me

Yes it is bad if the whole team was in on it as you suggested. I suggest that not one person cared who kicked the first goal once the game started even Shaw.

Echospace · Post: # 1105451Post **Echospace** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:31pm

Hi folks.

Anyone else amused by the timing of Malthouse's hyper-sponsored, earth-shattering, completely unscripted revelations on Eddie's show last night and today's non-sponsored turn of events. Nice strategy to dilute press coverage and "protect and serve" sponsors I reckon. Wish we were as clever....

saint tash · Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:35pm

Echospace wrote:Hi folks.

Anyone else amused by the timing of Malthouse's hyper-sponsored, earth-shattering, completely unscripted revelations on Eddie's show last night and today's non-sponsored turn of events. Nice strategy to dilute press coverage and "protect and serve" sponsors I reckon. Wish we were as clever....

New member?

satchmo · Post: # 1105458Post **satchmo** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:38pm

plugger66 wrote:
mullet wrote:The info was that he was starting up forward.

However everyone decided to have him as first goal kicker.

If all they said was that he was starting up forward then they would have to get pretty lucky that he actually kicked the first goal.

Unless of course the whole team planned on kicking it to him. Is that how cocky they have become that they know who will get the first goal.

I would be disgusted if our players bet on any out come of our games.

Should have got more imo like the indian cricketers.

This just stinks
Yep because it makes so much sense that the whole team is in on it for the amount of money they may have won. Some peoples hatred of the pies means they lose common sense. By the way if they were all in on it why didnt he kick the first goal?

Yes, it makes so much sense that everything they do is alright because Saints fan hate them. By the way if they weren't all in on it then maxwell's mum is Doris Stokes.

satchmo · Post: # 1105460Post **satchmo** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:41pm

saint tash wrote:
Echospace wrote:Hi folks.

Anyone else amused by the timing of Malthouse's hyper-sponsored, earth-shattering, completely unscripted revelations on Eddie's show last night and today's non-sponsored turn of events. Nice strategy to dilute press coverage and "protect and serve" sponsors I reckon. Wish we were as clever....
New member?

Not a registered troll?

mullet · Post: # 1105463Post **mullet** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:44pm

satchmo wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
mullet wrote:The info was that he was starting up forward.

However everyone decided to have him as first goal kicker.

If all they said was that he was starting up forward then they would have to get pretty lucky that he actually kicked the first goal.

Unless of course the whole team planned on kicking it to him. Is that how cocky they have become that they know who will get the first goal.

I would be disgusted if our players bet on any out come of our games.

Should have got more imo like the indian cricketers.

This just stinks
Yep because it makes so much sense that the whole team is in on it for the amount of money they may have won. Some peoples hatred of the pies means they lose common sense. By the way if they were all in on it why didnt he kick the first goal?
Yes, it makes so much sense that everything they do is alright because Saints fan hate them. By the way if they weren't all in on it then maxwell's mum is Doris Stokes.

Would love to watch the game again, well the first quarter anyway. Would prob make some interesting hindsight viewing. BTW who kicked the first goal???????

plugger66 · Post: # 1105464Post **plugger66** » Fri 15 Jul 2011 9:44pm

satchmo wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
mullet wrote:The info was that he was starting up forward.

However everyone decided to have him as first goal kicker.

If all they said was that he was starting up forward then they would have to get pretty lucky that he actually kicked the first goal.

Unless of course the whole team planned on kicking it to him. Is that how cocky they have become that they know who will get the first goal.

I would be disgusted if our players bet on any out come of our games.

Should have got more imo like the indian cricketers.

This just stinks
Yep because it makes so much sense that the whole team is in on it for the amount of money they may have won. Some peoples hatred of the pies means they lose common sense. By the way if they were all in on it why didnt he kick the first goal?
Yes, it makes so much sense that everything they do is alright because Saints fan hate them. By the way if they weren't all in on it then maxwell's mum is Doris Stokes.

I have a the silliest post ever list and that takes the lead. It makes 100% no sens. At least it is 100% stupid.