Greg Williams - Once a Prick, always a Prick.

Madden · Post by **Madden** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:57 pm

Im sure a few here saw this article this morning.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/ ... 22,00.html

Greg Williams is apparently about to launch legal action in a bid to be recognised as the joint winner of the 1993 Brownlow Medal. The basis for this is that one of the umpires has made a statement saying that Williams was overlooked because he back-chatted them all day.

Guess what Greg? The Brownlow medal is awarded by the votes of the umpires, not by some objective standard of who was BOG. And you know what? If you want the umpires to give you votes, maybe it would be best to not snipe and bitch at them all day.

You already won the medal twice, and its been 13 years since 1993. So shut the f**k up and stop your bitching.

Thoughts?

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:03 pm

Interesting situation really.

There's no doubt (imo) that he was dudded that day. How can you get 44 possessions and not get a vote.

The umpires excuse that they couldn't see his handballing from in the packs is:

A) Crap

and

B) Bad news for Scotty West tonight.

And before all the Williams haters start saying he got what he deserved, just remember how you felt when Hirdy didn't get a vote the week after he bagged the umpires on the footy show when he was clearly in the best three on the ground if not the best.

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:13 pm

He won't actually launch legal action; he's got no grounds to. Any lawyer will tell him to take his medicine and sulk in private. The Brownlow votes are awarded to the players who are the BEST and FAIREST on a given day, so whilst Williams might've been the best, if he was swearing all day at the umpires then they are entitled to not give him any votes because he wasn't 'fair'.

The only way he might have grounds for a legal challenge, IMO, is if there is a definition of what "fairest" means. If "fairest" simply means you have to not be suspended to be eligible, then maybe he could challenge. However, if "fairest" is undefined as i assume it is, then the umpires can use whatever means they like to determine what fair is, and Williams wouldn't have any hope in hell of a legal challenge.

But what opportunistic timing but a true wanker of the game. He sure has picked his moment to go public - the day of the Brownlow count!!!

Besides, i don't think anyone can deny that umpires take into account personal grudges when awarding votes. It's a well-known fact and that clowns like Derek Humphrey-Smith can claim that umpires don't take such grudges into account is such rubbish.

Remember when Hird single handedly won that game against West Coast 3 days after he publicly bagged Scott McLaren, and then he got 0 votes? I remember the entire Paladium Room pretty much laughing, and when the cameras did a close up of Hird at that very moment, he simply chuckled and gave a wry smile. That's the difference between a true champion and a petulant, arrogant toss-bag like Williams in a nutshell.

beer-man · Post by **beer-man** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:01 pm

swoodley wrote:
And before all the Williams haters start saying he got what he deserved, just remember how you felt when Hirdy didn't get a vote the week after he bagged the umpires on the footy show when he was clearly in the best three on the ground if not the best.

I felt like he got what he deserved given the award is for the best and fairist.....not just the best.

Crowny · Post by **Crowny** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:02 pm

Sean Denham said it best: "have a look at the scoreboard you fat c***"

It was williams' own teammates who got the votes anyway so does he want the votes taken off them. Besides, chances are williams picked up votes he shouldnt have got throughout the year anyway. f*** him!

bombercol · Post by **bombercol** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:08 pm

I laughed when I read this and earlier this year you did not hear Chris Grant carry on over Bronlow controveries.

In this matter I'd like to quote umprie Russo.

f*** HIM!

Post by **Jazz_84** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:33 pm

haha hope he gets nothing and totally disgraced, how would wanganeen be feeling at the moment?? oh wait Williams does't care! wanker!!

robbie67 · Post by **robbie67** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 6:37 pm

The fat c*** got what he deserved. He was a f****** whining prick who I hate more than Bluey.

Should consider his 2 medals a f****** bonus, because he was a selfish weak cock sucker of a footballer. SEAN DENHAM"S BITCH!!

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:49 pm

Im just wondering whether Williams has a look at some of the games that he didnt deserve to get a vote, yet still managed to get one. Should we then take votes off him and he hands back his medal?

mollard · Post by **mollard** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:03 pm

He should be laughed at by the entire football community. Has made it clear what everyone suspected anyway. He was only in the game for personal gain and stuff everyone else. Just a shocker of a bloke.

F111 · Post by **F111** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:41 pm

Another example of unprofessionalism from the umpires.

Remember Hird's game after his FS faux pas? No votes, won the game and had at least a dozen possessions in the Q4.

They obviously need a chaperone when adjudicating votes as they take too much into consideration.

As for William's...

...ya big sook.

BERT · Post by **BERT** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:16 am

What Robbie said.

Doctor Fish · Post by **Doctor Fish** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:48 am

44 possessions back then, probably isn't the same as getting 44 today. Very stiff not to get 1 stinkin' vote... He was a tool though...

Marillion · Post by **Marillion** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:41 am

Sook! Just gives us ANOTHER reason to hate Carlton,as if we don't have enough now! That club is the laughing stock of the AFL,12 Million in Debt,had to ask AFL for money early this year to pay staff,hopeless on field for 5 years,their members turning on the club,Graham Smorgan,the man who knows NOTHING about Football and tells the Coach what to do and who to recruit.OH HOW THE ONCE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN!......

robrulz5 · Post by **robrulz5** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:04 am

A champion footballer must be a champion in every way. The way they play plus the way they are graceful in defeat.

Madden · Post by **Madden** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:28 am

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/ ... 22,00.html

More on this today. Looks like the legal submission is going ahead (which surprises me).

This guy is a dead set tool. Its not like its a tragic case where he didnt get any rewards in his career. He missed out in 1993 - so what? Im sure the other 2 Brownlows, Premiership Medal, multipleAll-Australian awards and countless Big V selections will keep him warm at night.

I said it before and ill say it again: once a prick, always a prick.

dingus · Post by **dingus** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:39 am

It's a best and fairest award. Abusing umpires is not fair play. End of story.

Our game is full of people who "deserve" a Brownlow and never get one. We saw a bloke last night in Scott West who has been a champion for years once again go unrewarded, and not bitch about it like a whining turd.

Williams, suck my balls. You were a c*** then, you're a c*** now. You have contributed absolutlely nothing to the game and consequently it owes you nothing in return.

billyduckworth · Post by **billyduckworth** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:43 pm

I always thought the bloke was a tool and a FIGJAM.
Now I know it for sure.

Ossie · Post by **Ossie** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:46 pm

I don't think any umpires have ever changed their mind on a decision. Especially not 10 years after the fact. F*ck off Williams you turd. Arrogant wanker.

Post by **Jazz_84** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:35 pm

NO-ONE is going to consider him a brownlow winner in 1993 regardless of the outcome to this!

what a tosser!! f*** off somewhere else