agree, I sense their possible penalties will get bigger by the second.

hird is going to hurt his own club, again.

Spot on.

If they were staring at an alleged $2.5m fine, 12 month suspensions for the Amigos, and loss of draft picks for 2 years god only knows what they will face if they lose their case or decide on a last minute settlement.

Big roll of the dice.

Are you in the real world or just naive, Dees, Dogs, Power, North, Blues, GWS, Lions, Saints & Suns are going to jeopardise their AFL funding which is bankrolled by the television rights.

If there is not 9 games a week the contract is null & void.

It is not that simple hence the need for negotiation and a protracted process

yep

your right

No disrespect iva.........But there are people who do not have the money to engage high profile QC's.......There have been many a shady character that has been wealthy enough to hire the best QC's in the land.....The QC will then argue the merits of his clients case to the best of his ability Wether they truly believe their client is right or wrong is immaterial

They are paid to put the best case before the court are they not??????

Sorry that is just wrong. Let's differentiate between civil matters - which this is- and criminal matters. Here's how it goes. Client seeks to engage a solicitor. Solicitor reviews the documents/evidence to hand at that time. Solicitor provides preliminary advice on possible merits of the case. On the basis of the solicitor's advice, the client chooses to either proceed or to cease. If the decision is to proceed, the solicitor prepares a brief to Counsel for an opinion. Upon receipt of the opinion, a decision is made as to whether to prosecute a case or not.

James Hird may well have been injudicious, but he's no dill. But even James Hird does not engage Counsel directly. Sorry guys, i hate to disappoint you, but it is not a case of some disgruntled party saying to a Barrister, I want to take this to Court and the Barrister saying, fine, show me the colour of your money. It just does not happen that way.

What about the 50's and 60's?

haHa. I was too young to appreciate them for what they were worth, other than the arts of the time.

even our flag I have NO recollection of....

a carlton dominated family.. mum was a passive Dee I realised years later... my more aggressive father & older sister were blues. the TV was fought over, but the Red & Blue lost out in the black & white imagery.

Sorry that is just wrong. Let's differentiate between civil matters - which this is- and criminal matters. Here's how it goes. Client seeks to engage a solicitor. Solicitor reviews the documents/evidence to hand at that time. Solicitor provides preliminary advice on possible merits of the case. On the basis of the solicitor's advice, the client chooses to either proceed or to cease. If the decision is to proceed, the solicitor prepares a brief to Counsel for an opinion. Upon receipt of the opinion, a decision is made as to whether to prosecute a case or not.

James Hird may well have been injudicious, but he's no dill. But even James Hird does not engage Counsel directly. Sorry guys, i hate to disappoint you, but it is not a case of some disgruntled party saying to a Barrister, I want to take this to Court and the Barrister saying, fine, show me the colour of your money. It just does not happen that way.

But aren't you ignoring the possibility that an ego-maniac plaintiff will ignore the advice of counsel that they have a weak case?

Spot on.

If they were staring at an alleged $2.5m fine, 12 month suspensions for the Amigos, and loss of draft picks for 2 years god only knows what they will face if they lose their case or decide on a last minute settlement.

Big roll of the dice.

I think Mr reid will be allowed to walk.

I think pretty boy has missed his chance now & will suffer from his Ego.

bomba could go bush for a few months to refresh???

& danny boy may well forever wallow in melancholic detachmnet.

Sorry that is just wrong. Let's differentiate between civil matters - which this is- and criminal matters. Here's how it goes. Client seeks to engage a solicitor. Solicitor reviews the documents/evidence to hand at that time. Solicitor provides preliminary advice on possible merits of the case. On the basis of the solicitor's advice, the client chooses to either proceed or to cease. If the decision is to proceed, the solicitor prepares a brief to Counsel for an opinion. Upon receipt of the opinion, a decision is made as to whether to prosecute a case or not.

James Hird may well have been injudicious, but he's no dill. But even James Hird does not engage Counsel directly. Sorry guys, i hate to disappoint you, but it is not a case of some disgruntled party saying to a Barrister, I want to take this to Court and the Barrister saying, fine, show me the colour of your money. It just does not happen that way.

So I put as an example........Kerry Packer wants to sue Cadburys because he gets a yellow smartie one instead of a blue one........He goes to his QC and says "We are sueing......The QC say I don't think you will win.........Kerry says "F**k that I am going to sue anyway"

QC say "It's your money Kerry"

Case goes ahead because Kerry has the money and QC will do as he is told if he wants to remain as Kerry's QC.

well for a start hes only 5"1"

so theres no eyeballing

Then there would be if the others were all sitting down.

Like I said, even Kerry Packer would not engage a Barrister directly for litigation. But if you want to provide spurious examples it is a free world after all. Talk about long bows.

Spot on.

If they were staring at an alleged $2.5m fine, 12 month suspensions for the Amigos, and loss of draft picks for 2 years god only knows what they will face if they lose their case or decide on a last minute settlement.

Big roll of the dice.

watch this space, I sense a pantomime of massive proportions possibly going on, but I hEARS someones not playing along with the script!!!

the feel is for a soothing outcome, but mr big ears is to big for his Beanie

I suspect a mutiny will end in his walking the plank??? & will be dogpaddling for what seems an eternity.

GAblettsnr's timeout will be put in the shade.

# my advice: take a bex, & then for him to Don a beanie & take a long slow walk down to the Junction @ 3039, & buy some

Like I said, even Kerry Packer would not engage a Barrister directly for litigation. But if you want to provide spurious examples it is a free world after all. Talk about long bows.

Mate...Just saying that if you are powerful and rich enough then you can dictate to your legal team.....I have been on the receiving end of many a QC through cross examinations though not so much in civil matters........Just saying.....

Like I said, even Kerry Packer would not engage a Barrister directly for litigation. But if you want to provide spurious examples it is a free world after all. Talk about long bows.

Sorry in my earlier post I said counsel when I meant solicitor. What about:

But aren't you ignoring the possibility that an ego-maniac plaintiff will ignore the advice of a solicitor that they have a weak case? And tell him to find a barrister.

But aren't you ignoring the possibility that an ego-maniac plaintiff will ignore the advice of counsel that they have a weak case?

And the possibility that counsel will refuse an ego maniac plaintiff's irrational position and refuse the brief?

With all due respect, from hearing Burnside speak in the public arena, he is not stupid ( quite the opposite) and would not support a frivolous claim.

Note your correction but a barrister will surely be gun shy of a brief direct from a client where a solicitor has issued a no case position and if the client came direct I reckon a barrister would require the client to have an instructing solicitor.

I will leave it to Iva to equivocate further

And the possibility that counsel will refuse an ego maniac plaintiff's irrational position and refuse the brief?

With all due respect, from hearing Burnside speak in the public arena, he is not stupid ( quite the opposite) and would not support a frivolous claim.

also possible. So it comes down to "will the barrister not take a brief to preserve his reputation, particularly that of a winner". I know nothing of Burnside's reputation, but his not being stupid is taken for granted or he wouldn't have got through law school let alone be a QC. But you could be intelligent and still take on hopeless cases. (No idea if he fits that mould, just saying).

also possible. So it comes down to "will the barrister not take a brief to preserve his reputation, particularly that of a winner". I know nothing of Burnside's reputation, but his not being stupid is taken for granted or he wouldn't have got through law school let alone be a QC. But you could be intelligent and still take on hopeless cases. (No idea if he fits that mould, just saying).

There are thousands of those that support the MFC

There is a hopeless case if there ever was one.

There are still some quite badly-advised cases that go to court.

And Burnside doesn't win every case he appears in.

Like I said, even Kerry Packer would not engage a Barrister directly for litigation.

But that doesn't mean someone would just take who they get. A solicitor would surely ask the barristers' clerk in chambers 'who have you got?'.

There are thousands of those that support the MFC

There is a hopeless case if there ever was one.

But at least we also fulfil the intelligent part of the statement.

Where has this idea that Demetriou is 'conflicted' come from? Only Essendon, I'd guess.

Oh ... and the AFL Commissioners aren't dills. All are very highly qualified in business, most with directorships in large companies. One is even a retired Family Court judge who is an 'ardent' Essendon supporter.

Wonder if Bombers and Hird will ask her to stand aside because of conflict. She is also the head of Essendon Womens Group.

But at least we also fulfil the intelligent part of the statement.

That is what i was suggesting Sue

There are thousands of intelligent people who support one of the most hopeless cases going around.

Wonder if Bombers and Hird will ask her to stand aside because of conflict. She is also the head of Essendon Womens Group.

huh..no conflict there surely

No disrespect iva.........But there are people who do not have the money to engage high profile QC's.......There have been many a shady character that has been wealthy enough to hire the best QC's in the land.....The QC will then argue the merits of his clients case to the best of his ability Wether they truly believe their client is right or wrong is immaterial

They are paid to put the best case before the court are they not??????

They are, as long as they also obey established legal pinciples.

huh..no conflict there surely

Didn't think so. Perhaps I could be asked to sit on the next case involving us.

Didn't think so. Perhaps I could be asked to sit on the next case involving us.

fine by me

Even still, I don't imagine Burnside charges differently depending on the case he is working on, nor is the type of bloke who is struggling for work.

I believe he is the type to not get involved in a frivolous claim.

And I think the Hird camp does have a point.

The problem is, it doesn't dissolve him of all culpability, it just slightly lessens his culpability.

Edit: in fact, not even that. It just casts some legitimate doubt on Hird's ability to get a fair hearing.

In all likelihood, if an independent arbiter presides, it will cost the AFL a lot more, but Hird will still cop the majority of what he has coming.

It's just Hird's way of causing as much carnage as he can, as he continues the downward spiral.