Dragons boss falls on his sword: Young resigns due to fallout from Finch support letter

Thanks Noel, I wasn't aware of that.

That's right. It was the authority of his office that he used to provide what was a deeply personal reference. Finch has never been part of the Dragons club, so far as I'm aware. Young had no business writing in his official capacity. It seems obvious to me that the lawyers representing Finch knew that an official letterhead would be more persuasive in a court room, and requested he use it. Young should've known better not to.

Haven't got the context right, I don't think, TB3. Finch has been convicted of criminal offences and is awaiting sentence. The character reference is part of the plea in mitigation. Young is merely saying what so many other people with family and friends going through criminal proceedings - acknowledging that, absent addiction, the person before the court is redeemable. In this case, Finch has blamed his behaviour entirely on his drug addiction. As to the existence of the addiction, there seems to be plenty of at least anecdotal evidence of that. As to what effect it had on his behaviour, well, that's another question.

I was joking, Womblat. I don't like you, but I know you don't stray into that region of the dark world...

Young provided a character reference ending with the phrase - prior to a damaging addiction. This might help his parents, but it isn't going to help Finch at all as it confirms Finch is a vial low life who will be charged with a crime.

I'm glad your apparent personal experience and resultant opinion has misled you. Hell isn't hot enough and eternity isn't long enough for the haters and child molesters in this world.

Seems to be a club mentality about who is member and who is a guest. Tony is particularly critical of the 'guest' status... to him guests are no more than a pest. I agree with you 'Footy fan' on a free website it doesn't really matter at the end of the day.

Sure if you're illiterate contact the roar and I'll help

Yawn...........

Indeed. No doubt you are scouring the web looking for other miscreants to defend... Just remember though - you invited the discussion with both your puerile defence of a dreadfully unprofessional mistake, and with your guest/member garbage.

OK Jeremy, let's leave this fascinating discussion about the meaning of guest profiles and corporate ethics. I'm sure we both have better things to do with our time.

Yes, I'm shocked too. I did have you painted as someone who would absolutely support and defend people's right to support and defend child abuse criminals, and almost certainly, the activity itself.

The point is I am prepared to put my name to my opinions, while apparently you are not. One, we'll never know whether Duncan Smith (the latter, the most common surname in the country) is a real name. Secondly, to highlight I was a guest was to also imply some kind of superiority by highlighting that I am a guest, and thus somehow you are more qualified than others because you spent 30 seconds registering your profile. If it didn't matter to you, why did you bother pointing it out? I can use my own name without having to sign in. You know that. My handle is my handle. Sincerely Jeremy Ramirez

For once, we agree. I hope this doesn't hound him forever either, but some people have long memories, and the hostility to go with it.

Davico was disrespectful to my opinion, hence I replied in turn. Your first response on the other hand, was respectful. You can question my ethics all you like. I'm happy to stand by them. As for corporate life, I'm no expert on that and it may indeed be the required outcome that Craig Young was sacked. If I'm wrong on that topic, so be it. I don't exist in the corporate world. I'm not sure why you imagine I'm 'backed into a corner.' And if I really need to explain it to you, no one, including myself has any interest in who is or isn't a 'member' of a website, whatever that means. The point is I am prepared to put my name to my opinions, while apparently you are not.

There's no interpretation there. "Whoop de do" is simply disrespectful to other opinions, and in this case, the absolute majority opinion. While I wouldn't go to the extremes of Davico, I definitely question your ethics and your understanding of corporate life if that you think a mere apology is sufficient for a chairman under the circumstances. I'm really not sure why people, when backed into a corner, seem to want to highlight who is a "roar guest" or a "roar member". It's not the Australian Club, Duncan. No one - and I mean no one - cares that you are a member of a free website.

No, that's your interpretation. I stated my opinion. Davico went off on a rant about it and tried to imply nefarious motives to me. I told me to P off. As for you, why not sign in under your own name instead of as a 'guest'?

If you have a different opinion, whoop-de-doo. So, basically "agree with me or I will disregard your opinion as nonsense".

I suspect if he wrote it as a private citizen on blank stationary, he would have got away with it, subject to him informing the board of his intentions first.

It would have been blackened further if he tried to stay in post. He had the good sense to recognise he had to go. People will forget about this in time. Everyone always does. It was a horrific mistake, but a mistake it was. He isn't the criminal after all.