Tiger troy Taylor

[Tiger74]

What caricature?

My view is simple - I am disappointed in the actions of a Richmond player. Many excuse those actions simply because he is a Richmond player which is a fair enough view also but not one I subscribe too.

this isn't what most are saying

they just want to hear the facts before deciding guilt. Right now this is the situation:

1) one version of events has been made public (claim TT belt up three blokes)
2) TT apparently has a different version of events, but has not taken this public (probably on legal advice)
3) Police have issued ONE charge of assault again TT, not three. No further comment from police on their view of what happened.

What this tells me is we have three versions in play. The publicized one from the blokes who got hit. TT is still to say squat, so we can only speculate on what his stance is. As for the cops, they either had insufficient evidence to prove TT belted three blokes, or don't believe 3 blokes were beaten by TT.

In any case, there is still a lot of contention on this one, so we don't know the full facts yet. This, and given the case is a minor one (its a punch up only), I'm inclined to wait until hanging him.

On Lovett - seems that is getting messy. Lovett has launched a complaint with the AFL demanding he be allowed to play/train with the Saints. On SEN however they are saying that the playing group don't want him there. Don't like where this one is heading at all (its going to get ugly no matter what outcome).

And given that it is interesting even though it is between jimbob and t74 makes it surprising in itself. ;D

thats almost goldpost worthy ;D (almost :hihi)

 

[lamb22]

What caricature?

My view is simple - I am disappointed in the actions of a Richmond player. Many excuse those actions simply because he is a Richmond player which is a fair enough view also but not one I subscribe too.

What are you disappointed about JB? - you dont know the facts in the matter. Are you disppointed on presumed facts?

Was Troy assualted first? There is only one charge of assualt so we might ASSUME (dangerous) that (a) the alleged assaults of alleged victims (2) and (3) didn't happen ; or were in self defence or the prosceution is of the belief that the evidence is too weak or conflicted to convict.

One might also assume that scuffles on new year's eve are dealt with in a pragmatic way by authourities generally. Was there pressure to do something because Troy was a footballer and the Sun stuck their nose in "in the interests of journalism.

Was Troy an a - hole that night looking for trouble?

Was the alledged victim an a -hole that night looking for trouble?

I dont know these things because I am not appraised of the full facts and I believe that neither are you!

 

[evo]

On Lovett - seems that is getting messy. Lovett has launched a complaint with the AFL demanding he be allowed to play/train with the Saints. On SEN however they are saying that the playing group don't want him there. Don't like where this one is heading at all (its going to get ugly no matter what outcome).

yeah, I was listening to SEN earlier too.

Lovett must know the players, club and coach don't want him there. So why would he want to be there anyway? He is still getting paid.

It seems to me a legal ploy to feather his nest for the future (given that the future is looking bleak).

 

[jb03]

this isn't what most are saying

they just want to hear the facts before deciding guilt. Right now this is the situation:

1) one version of events has been made public (claim TT belt up three blokes)
2) TT apparently has a different version of events, but has not taken this public (probably on legal advice)
3) Police have issued ONE charge of assault again TT, not three. No further comment from police on their view of what happened.

What this tells me is we have three versions in play. The publicized one from the blokes who got hit. TT is still to say squat, so we can only speculate on what his stance is. As for the cops, they either had insufficient evidence to prove TT belted three blokes, or don't believe 3 blokes were beaten by TT.

In any case, there is still a lot of contention on this one, so we don't know the full facts yet. This, and given the case is a minor one (its a punch up only), I'm inclined to wait until hanging him.

On Lovett - seems that is getting messy. Lovett has launched a complaint with the AFL demanding he be allowed to play/train with the Saints. On SEN however they are saying that the playing group don't want him there. Don't like where this one is heading at all (its going to get ugly no matter what outcome).

thats almost goldpost worthy ;D (almost :hihi)

Geez I have had two nods from evo in the last week. Something is amiss.

This article on Lovett does indeed make the Lovett situation interesting.http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/lovett-takes-legal-action-to-fight-st-kildas-ban-20100202-nb40.html

Seems Lovett has his own version of his incident as well and would like natural justice and a innocent until proven guilty attitude adopted by St Kilda. Interesting reference to the Milne/Montagna case as well.

 

[TigerForce]

On Lovett - seems that is getting messy. Lovett has launched a complaint with the AFL demanding he be allowed to play/train with the Saints. On SEN however they are saying that the playing group don't want him there. Don't like where this one is heading at all (its going to get ugly no matter what outcome).

If this allegation that the playing group don't want him there is true, I'm surprised that either Lovett hasn't officially quit or no actual words have been spoken by other players to prove this is true, otherwise if found not guilty how do they get on?.

IMO, it's a media-driven in-house rumour which is making matters worse for Lovett and like I said before, the Saints have made a big mistake in suspending him. This is sounding more like St Kilda finding ways to cover their regret in recruiting him.

 

[mb64]

Seemed to me like a fairly interesting debate so far.

And given that it is interesting even though it is between jimbob and t74 makes it surprising in itself. ;D

JB a comfortable leader at this stage

 

[duki]

You don't think Troy was on thin ice after his recent trip to the big house?

From a club point of view no, he had not caused the club any bad press, not wronged us in any way.

From a legal point of view yes he was on thin ice, but he had no association with Richmond when inside the big house. Don't get me wrong, i think if found guilty and has to return to the big house a de-listing is on the cards, but i see no point in comparisons with Lovett and his suspension from St Kilda

 

[Spanish Prisoner]

I don't think the club has been dragged down in any way SP. The kid's behaviour was nothing to do with RFC and the official comments about Troy living with the consequences of his actions, and the fact we'll support him, reflect well on us imo.

Rosy, IMO the real damage of this situation is that it has once again distracted the media at a time when the club needs desperately to rebuild credibility and also recover lost members. Lets forget about the dedicated people. People who were tossing up purchasing a membership would look at this situation, and say “here we go again”….

Sorry SP, but I fail to see how the club can be held accountable at this early stage in regards to Troy. He'd only been in the system for what, a couple of months?

Troy was recruited with recruiters having full knowledge of a questionable track record. Then this happens.

This did not come out of the blue, this could have been better managed!

SP has a point, a club rightly or wrongly is defined by the actions of its players. Troy obviously has a history of letting his fists talk for him and he obvioulsy needs some guidance in controland discipline and perhaps to address some root causes. he is young so hopefully he gets a chance to address those issues and play some good footy with Richmond.

This is true, but be careful backing me up can get you in trouble on here!

In Troy's favour is that he actually confronts people rather than inanimate objects and it appears he can actually look after himself. Perhaps not quite like the role models listed below:

1. On December 20, 2008 Hawthorn's Brent Renouf jumped on two parked cars while drunk at Burwood Road in Hawthorn, shattering the back windscreen of one of them. Police charged him with criminal damage; Hawthorn suspended him for two matches and fined him $5,000

2. Sept 2009 - Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson has been given a suspended $5000 fine for his on-field behaviour following the conclusion of last weekend's fiery clash against Essendon at the MCG.
Clarkson reacted angrily towards Essendon players and had to be restrained after Bombers skipper Matthew Lloyd knocked out Brad Sewell with a vicious bump that saw the spearhead given a four-match suspension and left Sewell with a fractured cheek and eye-socket.
Clarkson was found to be in breach of AFL Player Rule 29.1 in that he acted in a threatening or aggressive manner towards another player and his suspended fine will be in place until the end of the 2011 season.

3. Campbell Brown was charged with criminal damage and using indecent language offences stemming from his attack on an out of order 7-Eleven ATM. He pleaded guilty to the charges and was placed into a diversionary program for young offenders.

4. Peter Everitt’s family was being torn apart in a bitter feud over claims he swindled his sister out of her life savings. Everitt's younger sister, Linda, was threatening legal action against the Hawthorn star, accusing him of conning her into buying a failing juice-bar business

5. Jarryd Roughead has his licence suspended for a year after being caught speeding.

6. Lance Franklin was punched in the face during in a pub brawl in Perth in 2009.

7. Hawthorn's Mark Williams was convicted of unlicensed driving in 2006.

8. Sam Mitchell involved in an altercation in a Hawthorn hotel on December 4 2006

Premiership players can get away with a lot more because they have tasted ultimate glory. We would forget KB or Michael Roach quicker than some other clowns who have never achieved anything. Put simply, flags equal credibility…

 

[WesternTiger]

What are you waffling on about. We aren't talking about the justice system itself. That is a differnet discussion completely. You were simply saying we should let the justice system determine his guilt or otherwise and only then should the club act. But you then go on to excuse StKilda for doing the opposite because a) his alleged crime in your view is worse and/or b) because that last bastion of truth, 3AW 'get the feeling' that StKilda know enough to be 'not happy'.

Difference is that the Lovett alleged offence happened at a team mates house and the players and club know exactly what happened! (I have a contact close to the saints). Also Lovett is a grown man who had been discarded from one club and had already stuffed up at the Saints within a few weeks of joining them.

 

[mb64]

Difference is that the Lovett alleged offence happened at a team mates house and the players and club know exactly what happened! (I have a contact close to the saints). Also Lovett is a grown man who had been discarded from one club and had already stuffed up at the Saints within a few weeks of joining them.

Surely you can come up with something better than that

 

[WesternTiger]

Seems Lovett has his own version of his incident as well and would like natural justice and a innocent until proven guilty attitude adopted by St Kilda. Interesting reference to the Milne/Montagna case as well.

I actually raised that with my contact close to the Saints and he stated that it was significantly different and a lot worse.

 

[evo]

If this allegation that the playing group don't want him there is true, I'm surprised that either Lovett hasn't officially quit

he wouldn't get paid if he quit. Would be crazy to do that.

IMO, it's a media-driven in-house rumour which is making matters worse for Lovett

agree

and like I said before, the Saints have made a big mistake in suspending him.

Interesting.

What type of mistake do you think it was: legal? ethical? financial?
Because it seems to me they had no choice. They are trying to establish their culture is "fixed" after being damaged for decades and exacerbated by a number of unsavoury incidents like MIlne/Montagna and the Gehrig one where the dsaints did bugger all to punish the player.

 

[WesternTiger]

Surely you can come up with something better than that

How do you mean MB? My response was to jb's comparison of the two cases and the response from the two clubs. One club knows what happened and the other club only has Troy's version (true or false) and will let the courts decide.

You want me to spell out on here what I have been told happened with Lovett? Would love to but for legal reasons I cannot. If you want to question my credibility re the saints do a search.

 

[TigerForce]

he wouldn't get paid if he quit. Would be crazy to do that.
agree
Interesting.

What type of mistake do you think it was: legal? ethical? financial?
Because it seems to me they had no choice. They are trying to establish their culture is "fixed" after being damaged for decades and exacerbated by a number of unsavoury incidents like MIlne/Montagna and the Gehrig one.

Legal as he is 'innocent until proven guilty', and ethical in that, if found not guilty, they wasted a player's (his) pre-season training and also settling in with (getting to know/making friends with) other players.

I can't see the point of taking a risk in not having a recruit train with the club until a verdict has arrived. If this rumour is true by the players not wanting him, then what type of mentality have they got when it comes to someone's rights?

It sounds too childish to me if it's true.

As far as culture goes, were St Kilda aware of what Lovett's off-field history was like when recruiting him? Do they understand what risk means?

 

[evo]

Legal as he is 'innocent until proven guilty', and ethical in that, if found not guilty, they wasted a player's (his) pre-season training and also settling in with (getting to know/making friends with) other players.

I can't see the point of taking a risk in not having a recruit train with the club until a verdict has arrived. If this rumour is true by the players not wanting him, then what type of mentality have they got when it comes to someone's rights?

It's fairly exceptional circumstances though. It (allegedly)happened at a players house, presumably to someone they know. And he had only been their 5 minutes. I can understand why some of the players are none too impressed with his work.

It sounds too childish to me if it's true.

Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine if it happened at a party of you and your closest 12 or so mates. And furthermore it happened to the 'new guy' - the guy who has a bad history as well.

You yourself even acknowledge he is a bit of bad egg as evidenced here...

As far as culture goes, were St Kilda aware of what Lovett's off-field history was like when recruiting him? Do they understand what risk means?

Again it is understandable. They see the premiership window open, took a calculated risk - icing on the cake type player. The risk has blown up up in their face - sh!t happens. Now they gotta go into (image) damage control. The 'brand' always cones first.

 

[TigerForce]

It's fairly exceptional circumstances though. It (allegedly)happened at a players house, presumably to someone they know. And he had only been their 5 minutes. I can understand why some of the players are none too impressed with his work.

Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine if it happened at a party of you and your closest 12 or so mates. And furthermore it happened to the 'new guy' - the guy who has a bad history as well.

You yourself even acknowledge he is a bit of bad egg as evidenced here....

Again it is understandable. They see the premiership window open, took a calculated risk - icing on the cake type player. The risk has blown up up in their face - sh!t happens. Now they gotta go into (image) damage control. The 'brand' always cones first.

Well the cops are still investigating this case and he's applied for a grievance procedure with the club. I reckon the Saints are in a real mess here. It will be interesting to see what type of rape level / sexual assault this actually is.

 

[Tiger74]

Geez I have had two nods from evo in the last week. Something is amiss.

This article on Lovett does indeed make the Lovett situation interesting.http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/lovett-takes-legal-action-to-fight-st-kildas-ban-20100202-nb40.html

Seems Lovett has his own version of his incident as well and would like natural justice and a innocent until proven guilty attitude adopted by St Kilda. Interesting reference to the Milne/Montagna case as well.

As I mentioned before, I equate rape similar to murder. In real life I am reluctant to grant an alleged rapist bail, so in AFL life I would want them to take a break from the club.

As Evo said though, no idea what he is fighting for. If the players don't want you there, why fight it?

 

[Tigermad2005]

Looks like the cats are going to be in the *smile* now, drugs olice: olice:

 

[NZtiger]

Troy was recruited with recruiters having full knowledge of a questionable track record. Then this happens.

This did not come out of the blue, this could have been better managed!

That they did, but how could they have managed what Troy did on New Years Eve (whilest interstate) any better SP?

Troy stated that he wanted to change his life around and had already demonstrated a desire to do so by his on-field committment in the NT. The club wanted to help facilitate that. The club also took Troy away from his old surroundings, which in theory should help in time.
No doubt they explained that they would support him as much as possible, but it was up to him to make the most of the opportunity.

Troy was involved in an altercation, which I openly admit was stupid, but we don't even know what actually took place on that night. Also, as far as I know he is not guilty yet.


Getting back to how the club could have handled this better, should they have:

(a) Not drafted him?
(b) Kept him on home detention in Melbourne over the break?
(c) Had Troy escorted around during his break?


Yes, I agree that this is bad press for the club, and I'm sure that none of us want our players in headlines for the wrong reasons, but don't we need to draw a line in terms of responsibility somewhere between the individual and the club?

I'm not having a go at you SP, I just see things differently.

 

[Leysy Days]

As Evo said though, no idea what he is fighting for. If the players don't want you there, why fight it?

$$$$