Why don't we all agree that BillyVassi should never GM another GLB team and just shut the f**k up about it already?!?
Forum > Pacific Pro League > Oceania Conference > Brisbane Bandits caught up in controversy? Season tarnished? Possible collusion?
joemalaka
offline
offline
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
Well reasonable doubt would be used, right?
Catspaw posts HB is inactive and wants him gone. Then posts later than the team needs a good backup CB that is active. BillyVassi sees both these posts. BillyVassi offers Catspaw an active CB that would be the needed backup for the inactive HB.
I think reasonably you can see the Catspaw knew that he was dumping an inactive for something needed in return. Since BillyVassi is a player on catspaw team, it is reasonable to assume that Catspaw knew BillyVassi was doing something not "honorable".
Would catspaw trade an active good player for a complete inactive? NO WAY IN HELL!!! But he let a player on his team trade him an active player for a complete inactive, using inside information to get it done. That, in my opinion, shows it was known.
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
Well reasonable doubt would be used, right?
Catspaw posts HB is inactive and wants him gone. Then posts later than the team needs a good backup CB that is active. BillyVassi sees both these posts. BillyVassi offers Catspaw an active CB that would be the needed backup for the inactive HB.
I think reasonably you can see the Catspaw knew that he was dumping an inactive for something needed in return. Since BillyVassi is a player on catspaw team, it is reasonable to assume that Catspaw knew BillyVassi was doing something not "honorable".
Would catspaw trade an active good player for a complete inactive? NO WAY IN HELL!!! But he let a player on his team trade him an active player for a complete inactive, using inside information to get it done. That, in my opinion, shows it was known.
billyvassi
offline
offline
During the season I traded for a very high level inactive LB from the trading block. I sent a lost password request to him and he came back and I had a level 16 LB 
Since then I've traded for tons of inactives.
Not relevant to the situation, just an FYI anecdote for those saying nobody would ever trade an inactive.
Since then I've traded for tons of inactives.Not relevant to the situation, just an FYI anecdote for those saying nobody would ever trade an inactive.
joemalaka
offline
offline
Originally posted by Daman
again catspaw told me personally that ray day had gone on vacation and said he would rarely log on.Originally posted by joemalaka
Originally posted by Daman
actually he said that ray day was on vacation, he said it was fine if u told him u were going to be inactive for a while as long as u told him. for example ulk armadon(former center) was inactive consectutive days. so we traded him for cash considerations. and i got more playing time !Originally posted by joemalaka
Brisbane players.....
Did catspaw post on the private forums about the traded HB being inactive? Did he state how he was unhappy about it? Did he post about how he wanted to get rid of him? Was the HB in question inactive for a long time? Did BillyVassi have access to see this?
Did catspaw post that a backup good CB was needed? Did BillyVassi have access to see this?
Did the inactive HB get traded for the needed backup CB , who was active? Was BillyVassi the one to get the needed CB to the Bandits? Did the Bandits give up a player that played only a few downs, was inactive, and was worth not much to the Bandits?
Reread the forum. Nothing about the latest inactive HB being on vacation. He went AWOL.
Then why did the forum read differently?
again catspaw told me personally that ray day had gone on vacation and said he would rarely log on.Originally posted by joemalaka
Originally posted by Daman
actually he said that ray day was on vacation, he said it was fine if u told him u were going to be inactive for a while as long as u told him. for example ulk armadon(former center) was inactive consectutive days. so we traded him for cash considerations. and i got more playing time !
Originally posted by joemalakaBrisbane players.....
Did catspaw post on the private forums about the traded HB being inactive? Did he state how he was unhappy about it? Did he post about how he wanted to get rid of him? Was the HB in question inactive for a long time? Did BillyVassi have access to see this?
Did catspaw post that a backup good CB was needed? Did BillyVassi have access to see this?
Did the inactive HB get traded for the needed backup CB , who was active? Was BillyVassi the one to get the needed CB to the Bandits? Did the Bandits give up a player that played only a few downs, was inactive, and was worth not much to the Bandits?
Reread the forum. Nothing about the latest inactive HB being on vacation. He went AWOL.
Then why did the forum read differently?
bigpimpin123
offline
offline
Originally posted by joemalaka
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
Well reasonable doubt would be used, right?
Catspaw posts HB is inactive and wants him gone. Then posts later than the team needs a good backup CB that is active. BillyVassi sees both these posts. BillyVassi offers Catspaw an active CB that would be the needed backup for the inactive HB.
I think reasonably you can see the Catspaw knew that he was dumping an inactive for something needed in return. Since BillyVassi is a player on catspaw team, it is reasonable to assume that Catspaw knew BillyVassi was doing something not "honorable".
Would catspaw trade an active good player for a complete inactive? NO WAY IN HELL!!! But he let a player on his team trade him an active player for a complete inactive, using inside information to get it done. That, in my opinion, shows it was known.
reasonable doubt is used the other way around but still...
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
Well reasonable doubt would be used, right?
Catspaw posts HB is inactive and wants him gone. Then posts later than the team needs a good backup CB that is active. BillyVassi sees both these posts. BillyVassi offers Catspaw an active CB that would be the needed backup for the inactive HB.
I think reasonably you can see the Catspaw knew that he was dumping an inactive for something needed in return. Since BillyVassi is a player on catspaw team, it is reasonable to assume that Catspaw knew BillyVassi was doing something not "honorable".
Would catspaw trade an active good player for a complete inactive? NO WAY IN HELL!!! But he let a player on his team trade him an active player for a complete inactive, using inside information to get it done. That, in my opinion, shows it was known.
reasonable doubt is used the other way around but still...
bigpimpin123
offline
offline
Originally posted by billyvassi
During the season I traded for a very high level inactive LB from the trading block. I sent a lost password request to him and he came back and I had a level 16 LB Since then I've traded for tons of inactives.
Not relevant to the situation, just an FYI anecdote for those saying nobody would ever trade an inactive.
of course youve traded for inactives...you just gutted a team!
During the season I traded for a very high level inactive LB from the trading block. I sent a lost password request to him and he came back and I had a level 16 LB
Since then I've traded for tons of inactives.Not relevant to the situation, just an FYI anecdote for those saying nobody would ever trade an inactive.
of course youve traded for inactives...you just gutted a team!
joemalaka
offline
offline
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
Originally posted by joemalaka
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
Well reasonable doubt would be used, right?
Catspaw posts HB is inactive and wants him gone. Then posts later than the team needs a good backup CB that is active. BillyVassi sees both these posts. BillyVassi offers Catspaw an active CB that would be the needed backup for the inactive HB.
I think reasonably you can see the Catspaw knew that he was dumping an inactive for something needed in return. Since BillyVassi is a player on catspaw team, it is reasonable to assume that Catspaw knew BillyVassi was doing something not "honorable".
Would catspaw trade an active good player for a complete inactive? NO WAY IN HELL!!! But he let a player on his team trade him an active player for a complete inactive, using inside information to get it done. That, in my opinion, shows it was known.
reasonable doubt is used the other way around but still...
I am not a lawyer, so.........
But I wanted to bring up the last point especially. The trade would never happen the other way around.
Originally posted by joemalaka
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
Well reasonable doubt would be used, right?
Catspaw posts HB is inactive and wants him gone. Then posts later than the team needs a good backup CB that is active. BillyVassi sees both these posts. BillyVassi offers Catspaw an active CB that would be the needed backup for the inactive HB.
I think reasonably you can see the Catspaw knew that he was dumping an inactive for something needed in return. Since BillyVassi is a player on catspaw team, it is reasonable to assume that Catspaw knew BillyVassi was doing something not "honorable".
Would catspaw trade an active good player for a complete inactive? NO WAY IN HELL!!! But he let a player on his team trade him an active player for a complete inactive, using inside information to get it done. That, in my opinion, shows it was known.
reasonable doubt is used the other way around but still...
I am not a lawyer, so.........
But I wanted to bring up the last point especially. The trade would never happen the other way around.
civarian
offline
offline
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by civarian
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
but you are failing to see the error in your logic. this is not a court of law. more or less it is a court of public opinion. there are not courts of law in GLB. so the i'm a lawyer mumbo jumbo doesn't really fly.
I'm not saying I'm a lawyer to make myself sound great, I only did so to perhaps lend credibility to some of my claims about why this is or isn't collusion.
As for this being a court of public opinion... if that's the case, then we've got problems. Nothing would every be decided fairly, and of course, everyone's going to come down hard on the team that's 13-0. I'm not saying this is a court of law at all, but I hardly think that the fate of the Bandits should be left to the public's opinion...
nor do i, but alas here we are. we won't ever have the whole story tho, will we? especially because nobody involved seems interested in sitting down with this and sorting it out. they'd rather call each other names, insult so and sos honor and manhood, and keep this argument going.
Originally posted by civarian
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
but you are failing to see the error in your logic. this is not a court of law. more or less it is a court of public opinion. there are not courts of law in GLB. so the i'm a lawyer mumbo jumbo doesn't really fly.
I'm not saying I'm a lawyer to make myself sound great, I only did so to perhaps lend credibility to some of my claims about why this is or isn't collusion.
As for this being a court of public opinion... if that's the case, then we've got problems. Nothing would every be decided fairly, and of course, everyone's going to come down hard on the team that's 13-0. I'm not saying this is a court of law at all, but I hardly think that the fate of the Bandits should be left to the public's opinion...
nor do i, but alas here we are. we won't ever have the whole story tho, will we? especially because nobody involved seems interested in sitting down with this and sorting it out. they'd rather call each other names, insult so and sos honor and manhood, and keep this argument going.
atm490
offline
offline
Originally posted by joemalaka
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
Well reasonable doubt would be used, right?
Catspaw posts HB is inactive and wants him gone. Then posts later than the team needs a good backup CB that is active. BillyVassi sees both these posts. BillyVassi offers Catspaw an active CB that would be the needed backup for the inactive HB.
I think reasonably you can see the Catspaw knew that he was dumping an inactive for something needed in return. Since BillyVassi is a player on catspaw team, it is reasonable to assume that Catspaw knew BillyVassi was doing something not "honorable".
Would catspaw trade an active good player for a complete inactive? NO WAY IN HELL!!! But he let a player on his team trade him an active player for a complete inactive, using inside information to get it done. That, in my opinion, shows it was known.
That's not actually how "reasonable doubt" works, but your point is well taken. I admit, and already have admitted, that there is evidence to suggest that Cats might have known. But I don't yet believe that he knew the entire situation, and so personally, I don't think that Cats or the Bandits are guilty here.
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
Well reasonable doubt would be used, right?
Catspaw posts HB is inactive and wants him gone. Then posts later than the team needs a good backup CB that is active. BillyVassi sees both these posts. BillyVassi offers Catspaw an active CB that would be the needed backup for the inactive HB.
I think reasonably you can see the Catspaw knew that he was dumping an inactive for something needed in return. Since BillyVassi is a player on catspaw team, it is reasonable to assume that Catspaw knew BillyVassi was doing something not "honorable".
Would catspaw trade an active good player for a complete inactive? NO WAY IN HELL!!! But he let a player on his team trade him an active player for a complete inactive, using inside information to get it done. That, in my opinion, shows it was known.
That's not actually how "reasonable doubt" works, but your point is well taken. I admit, and already have admitted, that there is evidence to suggest that Cats might have known. But I don't yet believe that he knew the entire situation, and so personally, I don't think that Cats or the Bandits are guilty here.
civarian
offline
offline
Originally posted by MC_Hammer
Why don't we all agree that BillyVassi should never GM another GLB team and just shut the f**k up about it already?!?
amen!
Why don't we all agree that BillyVassi should never GM another GLB team and just shut the f**k up about it already?!?
amen!
HaplosDog
offline
offline
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by civarian
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
but you are failing to see the error in your logic. this is not a court of law. more or less it is a court of public opinion. there are not courts of law in GLB. so the i'm a lawyer mumbo jumbo doesn't really fly.
I'm not saying I'm a lawyer to make myself sound great, I only did so to perhaps lend credibility to some of my claims about why this is or isn't collusion.
As for this being a court of public opinion... if that's the case, then we've got problems. Nothing would every be decided fairly, and of course, everyone's going to come down hard on the team that's 13-0. I'm not saying this is a court of law at all, but I hardly think that the fate of the Bandits should be left to the public's opinion...
Unfortunately, the public forums on GLB are a de facto court of public opinion. The Bandits will likely now always be considered "cheaters" and have their reputation tarnished even though we were 13-0 before this happened, because of these allegations. If we win the championship game, people will now be able to say: "Let's put an asterisk on that championship because they unfairly acquired a fourth string CB and a third string HB."
Originally posted by civarian
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
but you are failing to see the error in your logic. this is not a court of law. more or less it is a court of public opinion. there are not courts of law in GLB. so the i'm a lawyer mumbo jumbo doesn't really fly.
I'm not saying I'm a lawyer to make myself sound great, I only did so to perhaps lend credibility to some of my claims about why this is or isn't collusion.
As for this being a court of public opinion... if that's the case, then we've got problems. Nothing would every be decided fairly, and of course, everyone's going to come down hard on the team that's 13-0. I'm not saying this is a court of law at all, but I hardly think that the fate of the Bandits should be left to the public's opinion...
Unfortunately, the public forums on GLB are a de facto court of public opinion. The Bandits will likely now always be considered "cheaters" and have their reputation tarnished even though we were 13-0 before this happened, because of these allegations. If we win the championship game, people will now be able to say: "Let's put an asterisk on that championship because they unfairly acquired a fourth string CB and a third string HB."
bigpimpin123
offline
offline
Originally posted by HaplosDog
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by civarian
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
but you are failing to see the error in your logic. this is not a court of law. more or less it is a court of public opinion. there are not courts of law in GLB. so the i'm a lawyer mumbo jumbo doesn't really fly.
I'm not saying I'm a lawyer to make myself sound great, I only did so to perhaps lend credibility to some of my claims about why this is or isn't collusion.
As for this being a court of public opinion... if that's the case, then we've got problems. Nothing would every be decided fairly, and of course, everyone's going to come down hard on the team that's 13-0. I'm not saying this is a court of law at all, but I hardly think that the fate of the Bandits should be left to the public's opinion...
Unfortunately, the public forums on GLB are a de facto court of public opinion. The Bandits will likely now always be considered "cheaters" and have their reputation tarnished even though we were 13-0 before this happened, because of these allegations. If we win the championship game, people will now be able to say: "Let's put an asterisk on that championship because they unfairly acquired a fourth string CB and a third string HB."
you could trade them back and this would all be undone
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by civarian
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
but you are failing to see the error in your logic. this is not a court of law. more or less it is a court of public opinion. there are not courts of law in GLB. so the i'm a lawyer mumbo jumbo doesn't really fly.
I'm not saying I'm a lawyer to make myself sound great, I only did so to perhaps lend credibility to some of my claims about why this is or isn't collusion.
As for this being a court of public opinion... if that's the case, then we've got problems. Nothing would every be decided fairly, and of course, everyone's going to come down hard on the team that's 13-0. I'm not saying this is a court of law at all, but I hardly think that the fate of the Bandits should be left to the public's opinion...
Unfortunately, the public forums on GLB are a de facto court of public opinion. The Bandits will likely now always be considered "cheaters" and have their reputation tarnished even though we were 13-0 before this happened, because of these allegations. If we win the championship game, people will now be able to say: "Let's put an asterisk on that championship because they unfairly acquired a fourth string CB and a third string HB."
you could trade them back and this would all be undone
joemalaka
offline
offline
Originally posted by civarian
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by civarian
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
but you are failing to see the error in your logic. this is not a court of law. more or less it is a court of public opinion. there are not courts of law in GLB. so the i'm a lawyer mumbo jumbo doesn't really fly.
I'm not saying I'm a lawyer to make myself sound great, I only did so to perhaps lend credibility to some of my claims about why this is or isn't collusion.
As for this being a court of public opinion... if that's the case, then we've got problems. Nothing would every be decided fairly, and of course, everyone's going to come down hard on the team that's 13-0. I'm not saying this is a court of law at all, but I hardly think that the fate of the Bandits should be left to the public's opinion...
nor do i, but alas here we are. we won't ever have the whole story tho, will we? especially because nobody involved seems interested in sitting down with this and sorting it out. they'd rather call each other names, insult so and sos honor and manhood, and keep this argument going.
I have tried to work it out. I offered to lay out all PM's. Catspaw said no. I offered to work it out before going public, but no.
Catspaw could have quickly ended this but instead gives out little info to make me look bad but leaves out 95% of the info.
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by civarian
Originally posted by atm490
Originally posted by bigpimpin123
it hasnt been disproven either. odds are he knew it was a crappy and suspicious deal. all he had to do was look at the team which isnt hard to believe
While we are arguing about something that happened in Oceania, they're still under Common Law. Under common law, and in America, the very basis of the legal system is that you're innocent until proven guilty...
My job as a prosecutor would be A LOT easier if I could just say, "Well, the defendant hasn't proven that he ISN'T guilty."
but you are failing to see the error in your logic. this is not a court of law. more or less it is a court of public opinion. there are not courts of law in GLB. so the i'm a lawyer mumbo jumbo doesn't really fly.
I'm not saying I'm a lawyer to make myself sound great, I only did so to perhaps lend credibility to some of my claims about why this is or isn't collusion.
As for this being a court of public opinion... if that's the case, then we've got problems. Nothing would every be decided fairly, and of course, everyone's going to come down hard on the team that's 13-0. I'm not saying this is a court of law at all, but I hardly think that the fate of the Bandits should be left to the public's opinion...
nor do i, but alas here we are. we won't ever have the whole story tho, will we? especially because nobody involved seems interested in sitting down with this and sorting it out. they'd rather call each other names, insult so and sos honor and manhood, and keep this argument going.
I have tried to work it out. I offered to lay out all PM's. Catspaw said no. I offered to work it out before going public, but no.
Catspaw could have quickly ended this but instead gives out little info to make me look bad but leaves out 95% of the info.
HaplosDog
offline
offline
Originally posted by MC_Hammer
Why don't we all agree that BillyVassi should never GM another GLB team and just shut the f**k up about it already?!?
agreed. especially since billy has publically said that he doesn't want to GM again.
Why don't we all agree that BillyVassi should never GM another GLB team and just shut the f**k up about it already?!?
agreed. especially since billy has publically said that he doesn't want to GM again.
Daman
offline
offline
Catspaw is a good dude. he doesnt like the browns but thats not my problem. i know that guy has built this team from dust. joe do u know wat he saw in u? he saw a guy who had a good full back and was a guy who wouldn't try to harm the team in any way. know cats cant trust what he sees anymore because this forum is about to have over 300 posts and its all about hurting this team. u should really think in ur head before u start some thing . everyone on the brisbane bandits is officaily ashamed of what u have done.
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
