Stand up and fight Stkilda

saint tezza · Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:21pm

We have a history of taking lame tribunal decisions with not even a murmur when we get shafted.

Here is your chance St Kilda ......fight for Baker , and if we lose keep fighting . This was trial by media (Boofhead journalists and low iq Former players) .

Where is the Stkilda president saying the AFL is crucifying our club.

Could you imagine Maguire if this was the scum. NO the AFL wouldnt do it to them.

Surely us members are sick of Stkilda being victimised by the tribunual....

Solar · Post: # 948723Post **Solar** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:22pm

I am happy to put some money towards taking this to the supreme court. This is the worst decision (and thats saying something).

Teflon · Post: # 948747Post **Teflon** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:32pm

I bet the club allow the outrage before announcing they "dont want to derail the season and will accept the ban" - back it in.

Wont be long before some posters get on here suggesting we should all "wear it" - Plugger 66 will be along soon to tell us its all in our heads....

Weak as p!ss is my bet.

saintsrus · Post: # 948750Post **saintsrus** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:33pm

The club wont comment until 11am tomorrow

Saints43 · Post: # 948754Post **Saints43** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:36pm

Teflon wrote:I bet the club allow the outrage before announcing they "dont want to derail the season and will accept the ban" - back it in.

Wont be long before some posters get on here suggesting we should all "wear it" - Plugger 66 will be along soon to tell us its all in our heads....

Weak as p!ss is my bet.

Not again, surely. The Farmer decision was an absolute disgrace but this has gone too far.

The MRP will not consider precedent but the supreme court will. It's time to take this arbitrary decision making panel all the way.

matrix · Post: # 948761Post **matrix** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:38pm

its the farmer decision that has pushed it out to 12 weeks this time

a pretty bad knock on effect for someone running into a shoulder while running off the ground with no video footage

python · Post: # 948762Post **python** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:38pm

We have to fight this, it is an absolute joke, I thought he would be unlucky to get 2, but with his history (getting run into) he might have to cop 3-4. That is a disgrace, and we have to fight it if not for the fact its completely unjustifiable, but for the sanity of the competition and the MRP. They are a farce.

ozrulestrace · Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:38pm

Well let's hope they use words like "denial of natural justice" refer to yesterday's page 1 of the Herald Sune.

Double standards if it includes the rapping of Johnson's hand when it was injured then ask for a referral to Jack Riewoldt against Tait Pears, no precedent set there.

Johnson get off relatively likely for an injury that could have done real damage to Bakers eye.

And then there's the Chris Judd rules-elbow that's ok.

It shows the whole AFL for what it is-it does what it likes and doesn't care about the ramifications including the cynicism and suspicion of how games are well and truly fixed.

saint75 · Post: # 948764Post **saint75** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:39pm

Screwed big time. The club fight it and we miss him for the finals. They would have to take it to the Supreme Court. Do we need the headache?

Trial by media worked a treat didn't it?

saintharvs · Post: # 948766Post **saintharvs** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:41pm

This has to be taken further. I am not one for involving the courts in sporting decisions such as this but enough is enough. The club has a responsibility to Baker and its members to fight this injustice. I am absolutely sick of this club being made a scapegoat.

Brooksy_Babe_24 · Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:44pm

I'LL PUT MY HARD EARNED MONEY IN IF THE CLUB NEED THE MONEY TO PAY FOR COURT ACTION. THIS IS JUST bulls***

SainterK · Post: # 948775Post **SainterK** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:45pm

Let me point out that I have been excessively vocal about not liking Baker punching Johnsons hand, and was prepared for him to cop his fair whack.

This being said, the suspension is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever heard.

Baker's 4 charges I assume have been individually deemed at 3 weeks each?

Johnsons 2 charges I assume have been individually deemed at 1.5 to 2 weeks each?

Who busted who open again?

matrix · Post: # 948778Post **matrix** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:48pm

he is still paying for the farmer incident
50% hanging over his head according to an article i read on afl.crap today

SydneySainter · Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:49pm

TAKE IT TO COURT AND IF WE LOSE AND HE'S GONE FOR THE SEASON, SO BE IT! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

spert · Post: # 948789Post **spert** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:53pm

The club has shown incredible strength this season, and we need the President to at least publicly state support for Bakes...at least talk a little tough.

Waltzing St Kilda · Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:54pm

The AFL should fine the tribunal for throwing the code into disrepute.

JacksonsGirl · Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:56pm

Club will contest all 4 I'm led to believe.

St Fidelius · Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:56pm

SydneySainter wrote:TAKE IT TO COURT AND IF WE LOSE AND HE'S GONE FOR THE SEASON, SO BE IT! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

The only problem with that is that Baker would miss out on a possible GF and being a possible premiership player.

He is screwed and the decision first would have to be Baker's call and it would be a tough call IMO

SainterK · Post: # 948800Post **SainterK** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:56pm

matrix wrote:he is still paying for the farmer incident
50% hanging over his head according to an article i read on afl.crap today

Well, that would explain each charge being double the anticipated charge.

matrix · Post: # 948802Post **matrix** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:57pm

cop the nine
back for first final

two weeks later prem medal
retires
tells them to stick it up their asses
and gives lingy a beauty to go out with

kaos theory · Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:58pm

The AFL is clearly currupt!

It would make a North Korean court look like a pillar of justice!

Baker gets his eye smashed, off the ground for a qtr, can't see properly and Jonhstone gets 2 weeks.

Johnstone gets a few love taps with no harm done and Baker get 12 weeks!

saintharvs · Post: # 948807Post **saintharvs** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:58pm

JacksonsGirl wrote:Club will contest all 4 I'm led to believe.

And so they should

backit · Post: # 948810Post **backit** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 6:59pm

It would only take a good QC to show the precedents that the AFL MRP has made this year with numerous decisions and indecisions in regards to what the MRP has reviewed and taken little to mainly no action on to show any Supreme Court that their process is flawed and have the MRP decision overturned.

There are many precedents over this year and over many years that would show that the MRP decision is incorrect in procedural fairness and has erred in its decision.

I am sure there are some QC's who would love to take this on.

St Kilda FC needs to stand by Steven Baker and make a stand as a club.

saintbrat · Post: # 948819Post **saintbrat** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:01pm

backit wrote:It would only take a good QC to show the precedents that the AFL MRP has made this year with numerous decisions and indecisions in regards to what the

I am thinking they can;t use precedence untill it gets to the appeal against tribunal
first step is Tribunal- tues
then oif that fails Appeal process.

samoht · Post: # 948822Post **samoht** » Mon 28 Jun 2010 7:04pm

we got screwed ... and Baker was the willing nut again.

St Kilda is famous for shooting itself in the foot .. this is extreme but it's still self inflicted.