Grant - The Champion Tag?
Collapse
X
-
-
Re: Grant - The Champion Tag?
Col Austen was from 1949 ...
there was also Harry Collier (Collingwood 1930), Bill Hutchinson (Essendon 1952), Verdun Howell (St Kilda 1952), and Allan Hopkins (Footscray 1930) & Noel Teasdale (South Melbourne 1965) who you've already mentionedComment
-
Comment
-
Re: Grant - The Champion Tag?
What I dont understand is why people get upset at what certain radio stations, or footy shows or papers say. Of course brayshaw is going to say Brown is a champion. Brayshaw / Lyon / Newman need to pump up the tyres of their overated, over hyped show. That is why they also find it necessary to degrade women and the contribution they make to society and football.FFC: Established 1883
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: Grant - The Champion Tag?
Ah, but you see, Corey DESERVED his suspension. So he's technically not a 'top vote-getter to miss out'. He was ineligible.
In my mind, Chris was and is eligible. He wasn't suspended by any law or official of the game, apart from a NON-MATCH administrator with a vendetta. No one even knew Collins as an administrator had a say in reporting people until that point in time, and it hasn't happened since (and wouldn't happen - convention prevents it), and there is ample evidence that the match review panel of the day was leaned on heavily by Collins, which is prejudice in the extreme thus invalidating their ruling -- in law it would be known as a false or non-binding precedent. It's not a real case -- trumped up charges, personal agendas, non-objective ruling etc. etc.. in real case law one would easily be able to go back, review the case and overturn the charges.
Thus, the top vote-getter. The ONLY top vote-getter. Who didn't get his Brownlow.
HIS Brownlow.Comment
-
Re: Grant - The Champion Tag?
Ah, but you see, Corey DESERVED his suspension. So he's technically not a 'top vote-getter to miss out'. He was ineligible.
In my mind, Chris was and is eligible. He wasn't suspended by any law or official of the game, apart from a NON-MATCH administrator with a vendetta. No one even knew Collins as an administrator had a say in reporting people until that point in time, and it hasn't happened since (and wouldn't happen - convention prevents it), and there is ample evidence that the match review panel of the day was leaned on heavily by Collins, which is prejudice in the extreme thus invalidating their ruling -- in law it would be known as a false or non-binding precedent. It's not a real case -- trumped up charges, personal agendas, non-objective ruling etc. etc.. in real case law one would easily be able to go back, review the case and overturn the charges.
Thus, the top vote-getter. The ONLY top vote-getter. Who didn't get his Brownlow.
HIS Brownlow.
The injustice still stings, and along with the Stadium deals, he maintains that smug expression. Would you brake if you saw him crossing the street? (a line from the Simpsons in case anyone thinks that's too harsh - of course I would, but I'd slow down and give him a fearful spray)Float Along - Fill Your LungsComment
Comment