Coming out on SEN and AW. AFL has written to Melbourne RE: Demons players' tweets after the tribunal hearing. They want a response by midday Friday.

Thoughts?

Because it needs to be explained??

They have NFI.

Fine us or f-off.

Edited May 11, 201114 yr by Deestroy All

MFC RESPONSE: Dear afl please take all the tweets from players roll them in a ball and jam them in your ass

MFC RESPONSE: Dear afl please take all the tweets from players roll them in a ball and jam them in your ass

LOL

only the simpletons at the AFL would need an explanation for what the rest of the world seem to quite clearly understand

Fine us or f-off.

That's what I thought too. The players were obviously crapped off like the rest of us, what's to explain?

It's probably part of the AFL's procedures to call for an explanation before taking any action, which seems reasonable to me - it just so happens that in this case it's obvious what happened, but policy is policy.

I imagine our response will be along the lines of "the players were disappointed in the result, the tweets have all been removed, blah blah blah...".

AFL need a please explain? I thought it was pretty obvious that the tribunal's decision was one of their worst ever. I would have been disappointed if the boys didn't rally around Trenners.

AFL owe us dees fans a please explain!

AFL need a please explain? I thought it was pretty obvious that the tribunal's decision was one of their worst ever. I would have been disappointed if the boys didn't rally around Trenners.

AFL owe us dees fans a please explain!

That's a much better idea!

None of the tweets refer directly to Trengove, they could have been talking about anything! The timing is just a coincidence Mr Anderson!

Not sure why players are not allowed to tweet their opinions yet the AFL website is allowed to print opinion pieces on their site that call for Melbourne supporters to stop whinging about the possibility of losing Scully.

Not sure why players are not allowed to tweet their opinions yet the AFL website is allowed to print opinion pieces on their site that call for Melbourne supporters to stop whinging about the possibility of losing Scully.

Welcome to the AFL, where freedom of speech is not allowed.

If the decision on thursday falls in our favour (as it may well), I think the 'fines for criticising the decision' rule should be applied retroactively and all people who publicly defended the nonsense decision should fork over $5k.

Welcome to the AFL, where freedom of speech is not allowed.

Except when the afl is the one doing the talking! Really there is no diFference between the afl and the third reich!!

If Jack gets off do they still have to explain there comments?

Except when the afl is the one doing the talking! Really there is no diFference between the afl and the third reich!!

Ja, ich stimme

I hope the club tells the players to leave them up and they'll cover the fines.

Dear AFL,

Please refer to Trengove case for our explanation. If you can decipher that, there is your answer.

Mfc.

This sort of stuff really sh!ts me off.

Send in the thought police! Big brother can not be questioned!

As a Neville Brothers Song called Sons & Daughters said back in 1988

"There's Freedom of Speech, as long as you Don't say too Much".....so very True it is.

Great Song BTW.

"Sons & Daughters"

Edited May 11, 201114 yr by why you little

Response : "They were spontaneous utterances and as such should be deemed inadmissable"

Coming out on SEN and AW. AFL has written to Melbourne RE: Demons players' tweets after the tribunal hearing. They want a response by midday Friday.

Thoughts?

I don't recall one tweet actually mentioning the Tribunal. If the Tribunal has not been criticized how can the AFL take any action. Also the only tweet that was derogatory was Petterd's and who can say what he was referring to. For example he may have suffered concussion from one of Johncock's hits to the back of his head and was reacting to the suggestion that he might miss this week.

I don't recall one tweet actually mentioning the Tribunal. If the Tribunal has not been criticized how can the AFL take any action. Also the only tweet that was derogatory was Petterd's and who can say what he was referring to. For example he may have suffered concussion from one of Johncock's hits to the back of his head and was reacting to the suggestion that he might miss this week.

Col Sylvia and Bull both referred to it, in particular Tappy asking Col 'can we actually tackle anymore' and Sylvia saying 'scared to tackle'. Cale Morton and Brad Green both mentioned the 'duty of care' bit.

Col Sylvia and Bull both referred to it, in particular Tappy asking Col 'can we actually tackle anymore' and Sylvia saying 'scared to tackle'. Cale Morton and Brad Green both mentioned the 'duty of care' bit.

That's fine, that's players asking as a result of the decision what they are allowed to do. I referred to actually naming the Tribunal and then denigrating the Tribunal members or the AFL, which I don't believe happened. That is what they want stamped out. Also for example if you said Umpire ...... was hopeless.

If I was the club I would ask which Tweet they were particularly referring to and what in that Tweet was it that the AFL found offensive.