TOPIC:

Without wanting to get into the push and shove abt WP and Peel but this is clearly a very harsh penalty for what seems to be a minor transgression. Souths are not a repeat offender unlike Peel, they have not brought the competition into disrepute to anywhere the extent that WP did (sorry but ya did)!

I would have thought that the loss of salary for a period and a probationary period would have been a sufficient penalty! 

Grump wrote:

Without wanting to get into the push and shove abt WP and Peel but this is clearly a very harsh penalty for what seems to be a minor transgression. Souths are not a repeat offender unlike Peel, they have not brought the competition into disrepute to anywhere the extent that WP did (sorry but ya did)!

I would have thought that the loss of salary for a period and a probationary period would have been a sufficient penalty! 

Yep should have been a suspended fine/penalty.
 

Grump wrote:

Without wanting to get into the push and shove abt WP and Peel but this is clearly a very harsh penalty for what seems to be a minor transgression. Souths are not a repeat offender unlike Peel, they have not brought the competition into disrepute to anywhere the extent that WP did (sorry but ya did)!

I would have thought that the loss of salary for a period and a probationary period would have been a sufficient penalty! 

The penalty seems extremely harsh and over the top to me, totally out of wack with previous transgressions by other clubs, something stinks here or there is more to it not being said, I have not seen an official statement from WAFC as yet.

For the club to rule out an appeal when the penalty on the face of it is clearly oppressive seems bizarre.

Hope Southernor is right and they look at it again.

 

Bazza wrote:

Grump wrote:

Without wanting to get into the push and shove abt WP and Peel but this is clearly a very harsh penalty for what seems to be a minor transgression. Souths are not a repeat offender unlike Peel, they have not brought the competition into disrepute to anywhere the extent that WP did (sorry but ya did)!

I would have thought that the loss of salary for a period and a probationary period would have been a sufficient penalty! 

The penalty seems extremely harsh and over the top to me, totally out of wack with previous transgressions by other clubs, something stinks here or there is more to it not being said, I have not seen an official statement from WAFC as yet.

For the club to rule out an appeal when the penalty on the face of it is clearly oppressive seems bizarre.

Hope Southernor is right and they look at it again.

Which makes suspect there has been a tip off by a disgruntled former employee 

Yep Dwert more to it...who left after 2021 unhappy?

Bazza wrote:

Yep Dwert more to it...who left after 2021 unhappy?

Just like Chris Bossong. Karma bus 🚐

***
TROLL POST REMOVED 

Poster : DD

Reason: A post deliberately placed to obtain a reaction or cause inflammation

Southerner wrote:

***
TROLL POST REMOVED 

Poster : DD

Reason: A post deliberately placed to obtain a reaction or cause inflammation

The post by DD is I believe on topic. 

G'Day

you are entitled to an opinion above anything else

this post belonged to another thread where I responded with the example of Chris Bossong and didn't have any relevance to what was being posted in the SF room - I did this with the intention of avoiding any unpleasant replies and/or bans being applied

 

Grump wrote:

Without wanting to get into the push and shove abt WP and Peel but this is clearly a very harsh penalty for what seems to be a minor transgression. Souths are not a repeat offender unlike Peel, they have not brought the competition into disrepute to anywhere the extent that WP did (sorry but ya did)!

I would have thought that the loss of salary for a period and a probationary period would have been a sufficient penalty! 

Grump, in defence to my Falcons it was not a salary issue !