MY point was about remissions available to Hird and the Club as I would not be surprised to see a raft of show causes notices issued if player get bans. The Club itself could be banned under the rules.

Right, gotch ya. We can only hope that Hird cops a show cause.

We have been having bye's for 18 games a year in recent times jazza

How does that work?

with 17 teams and 22 actual rounds you would need each team to take TWO byes per season

most rounds having 1 team on a bye and a smaller number of rounds having 3 teams on a bye (totalling 34 byes in all)

I agree about the players and recon it is a good thing they have not joined the Club and Hird in court action.

MY point was about remissions available to Hird and the Club as I would not be surprised to see a raft of show causes notices issued if player get bans. The Club itself could be banned under the rules.

Banned, if they did what has been reported they should be kicked out of the league.

I am disgusted that an AFL Club would try this stuff on any think they should get away with it.

Sorry dc either I put it badly ( probably ) or you missed my drift.

I was suggesting the Dees had 18 byes PA as we only turned up for 3 -4 games PA.

Sorry dc either I put it badly ( probably ) or you missed my drift.

I was suggesting the Dees had 18 byes PA as we only turned up for 3 -4 games PA.

oh, gotcha. 18's a bit generous od, lol

If it turns out as we all suspect and essendon have systematically doped their players they SHOULD be kicked out of the league for a couple of years.

However the 9 games is too valuable. They will come up with some solution so that club can keep playing. Might involve them having to get complete unknowns to play but they will figure out a way

I really hope the bombers miss finals, it would be a shame if a more deserving team missed out only for the bombers to receive bans and so on just when it becomes too late.

One issue for the players in terms of mitigation has to be that they did not to my knowledge seek counsel of either the AFLPA or their individual player managers about a supplement regime that they obviously had concerns about given they sought formal written assurance from the club that it was WADA compliant.

IHS

The case put by the Bombers to have the joint Investigation decaled illegal and all the evidence chucked out is in the opinion of some on here and obviously ASADA, not strong. Even if the Judge finds the jont investigation illegal there are a range of discretionary reasons that the judge can use to allow theinvestigation to proceed. Historically Courts are loath to throw entire cases out on technicalities unless the reasons are compelling. The case put by Essendon is based more on how the AFL rules were used rather than actions taken for which no powers exist.

The fact that Essendon have taken this action rather than answer the show cause and show why they should not be listed on the register by the ADRVP indicates that they themselves believe that the evidence against them is compelling and that infractions are likely to follow. If they has evidence that showed they did nothing wrong they would use it.

Taking this action may ultimately negatively impact on the Bombers as it means remissions to any bans may not be available to them.

The show cause was a concrete step that made things worse for the Bombers.

I really struggle to understand how Essendon can sustain their argument when they stated repeatedly that they welcomed - and would cooperate with - the joint investigation. Even if the judge decides that ASADA somehow operated outside its charter, it would be stretching the point to rule that evidence given by an organisation that "wanted the truth to come out" [

ought to be suppressed.

As long as ASADA is permitted to use the evidence - even if they are forced to do so by re-issuing the infraction notices - Essendon will only have succeeded in wasting time and money.The interests of "justice" will be well served if the deadline for show cause letters now falls a week before the finals - with the officials receiving their notices the following day!

If it turns out as we all suspect and essendon have systematically doped their players they SHOULD be kicked out of the league for a couple of years.

However the 9 games is too valuable. They will come up with some solution so that club can keep playing. Might involve them having to get complete unknowns to play but they will figure out a way

It will be a surprise ending to Foxtel's "The Recruit"...

"Surprise, you all get to play for Essendon"

A little off topic but this gives a little insight into how the little business operates ~ Little people are the victims of union-business harassment

Essendon are probably stalling for time, i.e. see if they can hold off until their finals tilt (if they get one) is over then they can find a quick resolution and serve out their six months between September and the following year, maybe miss some pre-season games.

Essendon are probably stalling for time, i.e. see if they can hold off until their finals tilt (if they get one) is over then they can find a quick resolution and serve out their six months between September and the following year, maybe miss some pre-season games.

I believe they are stalling for time, so that the can maximise turning their list over and therefore be able to field a team when the players are suspended. Otherwise "Essendon" will not be able to exist.

"They" being Essendon are all about the survival of the Essendon Football Club, unfortunately the players haven't caught on to this yet.

Also it could be an interesting trade period as other clubs may look at a player with a potential suspension as an opportunity - where the damage to the clubs list is minimised (1 player missing 6 months is worth the risk) if it is offset by a promising future, think Heppel, Hurley, Bellchambers, Melksam, etc; while Essendon brings in players who are not at risk of suspension and therefore minimising Essendons risk of not being able to field a team.

Edit - formatting

Edited July 15, 201411 yr by Ungarie boy

Essendon's demise should not be because they were struggling to field a team. Kick the bastards out for what they did to the game, and what's worse, the way they thought they could take it all into court in an attempt to get away with it. AFL football cannot have a club that thinks like that. Talk about "bringing the game into disrepute"!!

Anyone see the comments by Tim Watson that Hird should not come back to the club this year? Not sure what to read in this but if Hird did have the players welfare as his priority I think Watson is 100% correct. The circus that will follow Hird will only distract the club and the players ata a time they should be focussing on a possible finals series.

Be interesting to see what the little egotist decides to do.

IMO if he was a half decent person and loved the club he would do what cuddles has done and fall on his sword. Not much honour on display at windy hill.

Banned, if they did what has been reported they should be kicked out of the league.

I am disgusted that an AFL Club would try this stuff on any think they should get away with it.

Replace them with a team from Tasmania.

Essendon are probably stalling for time, i.e. see if they can hold off until their finals tilt (if they get one) is over then they can find a quick resolution and serve out their six months between September and the following year, maybe miss some pre-season games.

Absolutely. Drag it out for two years and turn the list over. The players are fodder and stupid not to realise this.

I believe they are stalling for time, so that the can maximise turning their list over and therefore be able to field a team when the players are suspended. Otherwise "Essendon" will not be able to exist.

"They" being Essendon are all about the survival of the Essendon Football Club, unfortunately the players haven't caught on to this yet.

Also it could be an interesting trade period as other clubs may look at a player with a potential suspension as an opportunity - where the damage to the clubs list is minimised (1 player missing 6 months is worth the risk) if it is offset by a promising future, think Heppel, Hurley, Bellchambers, Melksam, etc; while Essendon brings in players who are not at risk of suspension and therefore minimising Essendons risk of not being able to field a team

Would not suprise me. Little continually states he is taking action to protect and fight for the players. I dont believe a word of it. His track record in business is the opposite when it comes to employees. I cant see how this Federal Court case is in the interests of the players. The week before doing this he was whinging about how long this had been going on and it needed to be finalised because of the toll on the players, then hang on!! lets drag this out at least another 6 months through the courts. This action is about playing finals this year.

I have no doubt that the actions taken by Little are all for the benefit of the business. He is a pragmatic businessman and well aware that at a minimum 8-10 player currently on the list will be gone next year. Any bans applied next year will therefor have less impact.

I cant see how the players cant see the danger of putting there eggs in littles basket. I would want not want to be facing a ban for the first half of next season with the Club making decisions on who stays and who goes. Little is setting the club up to ensure players facing bans who are not critical to the team can be delisted before bans are applied. Delisting players who are serving bans would be a real image and possibly legal problem.

Assuming the turn over a good part of their list perhaps the afl would hit the club harder, although the label of drug cheats won't wash off anytime soon, especially If hird remains at the club

Be interesting to see what the little egotist decides to do.

Hird is about 189cms.

Assuming the turn over a good part of their list perhaps the afl would hit the club harder, although the label of drug cheats won't wash off anytime soon, especially If hird remains at the club

The AFL has done its bit BTGID and from here on in,it will make sure a decimated EFC gets every chance to compete and regain its self esteem,Whether it be a money draw,financial help,draft help or any other means.

The AFL dont want dead clubs,they want 18 even franchises.

The AFL has done its bit BTGID and from here on in,it will make sure a decimated EFC gets every chance to compete and regain its self esteem,Whether it be a money draw,financial help,draft help or any other means.

The AFL dont want dead clubs,they want 18 even franchises.

Which I fully support providing all individuals involved are either not there anymore or have served any bans they are given, I really like the idea of each club having an AFL appointed full time integrity officer to prevent these things before they become a media circus.

The AFL has done its bit BTGID and from here on in,it will make sure a decimated EFC gets every chance to compete and regain its self esteem,Whether it be a money draw,financial help,draft help or any other means.

The AFL dont want dead clubs,they want 18 even franchises.

Hate to say it but you are right. As much as the AFL wants clubs to "tow the line" it knows that it cannot disenfranchise the large supporter base Essendon represents.

Behind closed doors, I think you'd find that the AFL would like to see Hird destroyed to demonstrate that no individual is bigger than the game - with Little to follow.

The only good thing about Essendon's recent on field success is that it will make it harder for Little to give Hird his job back. True to form Hird will insist on a full payout - which will focus attention on Little's stupidity in extending the contract of a suspended person.

You'd hope that would lead to a spill of Board positions - and a clean slate

As for the players? You can understand why none of them want to admit to being a drug cheat - but the longer they hold out against their infraction notices , the harder it will be for ASADA to discount the penalty

There are two key dates coming up - the date of the court case and the date Hird has a contractual right to return to the coach's box.

A little off topic but this gives a little insight into how the little business operates ~ Little people are the victims of union-business harassment

not sure why you emphasise "little" jack. unless you consider a $180+ Million shareholding as "little" - LOL

As much as the AFL wants clubs to "tow the line" it knows that it cannot disenfranchise the large supporter base Essendon represents.

I'm saying that they risk "disenfranchising" many in the non-Essendon supporter base if they don't take from Essendon the right to compete.