But nothing happens for months at a time and still we waffle on about it.

yeah...but its not about us...

This saga is just going to keep giving and giving.

Has anyone thought about the uneven impact on the competition next year if they are banned for a period of time during the first part of the season. The teams that play them during this time will be playing a reserves team that will clearly be non competitive, whereas say the bans run out mid July the teams that play them after that will have a significant disadvantage.

For instance the Hawks play them twice, the second time on 27 June. So quite conceivably could have two massive blow out games against a reserves team. Whereas the Swans play them only once in round 1 and the Power only play them once on 25 July so could have a massive disadvantage.

We only play them once in Rd 14, 11 July so they could well be back to full strength by then whereas the Saints play them twice, the second time on 5 July. So conceivably that could be a two game advantage plus percentage over us to a direct competitor. Lions get them once on 24 May.

So any bans that are less than 1 yr and therefore only apply to part of the season will stuff up the whole competition and have a major impact on final ladder positions. 1yr bans would have the added advantage of stopping this from happening except that every team that plays the reserve team they are fielding twice will have a very big advantage although less than if the reserves team only plays for part of the season.

This saga is just going to keep giving and giving.

Has anyone thought about the uneven impact on the competition next year if they are banned for a period of time during the first part of the season. The teams that play them during this time will be playing a reserves team that will clearly be non competitive, whereas say the bans run out mid July the teams that play them after that will have a significant disadvantage.

For instance the Hawks play them twice, the second time on 27 June. So quite conceivably could have two massive blow out games against a reserves team. Whereas the Swans play them only once in round 1 and the Power only play them once on 25 July so could have a massive disadvantage.

We only play them once in Rd 14, 11 July so they could well be back to full strength by then whereas the Saints play them twice, the second time on 5 July. So conceivably that could be a two game advantage plus percentage over us to a direct competitor. Lions get them once on 24 May.

So any bans that are less than 1 yr and therefore only apply to part of the season will stuff up the whole competition and have a major impact on final ladder positions. 1yr bans would have the added advantage of stopping this from happening except that every team that plays the reserve team they are fielding twice will have a very big advantage although less than if the reserves team only plays for part of the season.

it is quite possible a team penalty could be devised where they play 2015 for no points a'la storm

This saga is just going to keep giving and giving.

Has anyone thought about the uneven impact on the competition next year if they are banned for a period of time during the first part of the season. The teams that play them during this time will be playing a reserves team that will clearly be non competitive, whereas say the bans run out mid July the teams that play them after that will have a significant disadvantage.

For instance the Hawks play them twice, the second time on 27 June. So quite conceivably could have two massive blow out games against a reserves team. Whereas the Swans play them only once in round 1 and the Power only play them once on 25 July so could have a massive disadvantage.

We only play them once in Rd 14, 11 July so they could well be back to full strength by then whereas the Saints play them twice, the second time on 5 July. So conceivably that could be a two game advantage plus percentage over us to a direct competitor. Lions get them once on 24 May.

So any bans that are less than 1 yr and therefore only apply to part of the season will stuff up the whole competition and have a major impact on final ladder positions. 1yr bans would have the added advantage of stopping this from happening except that every team that plays the reserve team they are fielding twice will have a very big advantage although less than if the reserves team only plays for part of the season.

Aren't they banned from training with the rest of team as well, so even if they do get the players back through the year it is unlikely they will gel before the year is over.

Amen

Old Dee, there is no compulsion in reading this. If you think it has gone on too long - don't read it. It is simple really.

There are a lot of people who believe it is the most important thing in football at the moment - potentially could change the whole economics of the game. Some of us think that is not only interesting,but important. For those like you and Demoneyes, you presumably think the latest on Hogan's back is more interesting. Go for it, leave it to others to address issues effecting the future of football.

Edited November 24, 201410 yr by Dees2014

Aren't they banned from training with the rest of team as well, so even if they do get the players back through the year it is unlikely they will gel before the year is over.

The sanction given to the NRL players was 3 2014 matches plus part of the 2015 preseason. The sanction has just been completed.

Imagine what a brain drain it would be for that poor NRL team to loose all those players for such a period of time...

But nothing happens for months at a time and still we waffle on about it.

Demonland in a nutshell, OD ...

Imagine what a brain drain it would be for that poor NRL team to loose all those players for such a period of time...

Don't be surprised if the EFC is not too different

Demonland in a nutshell, OD ...

Yes R and B but at least it is the MFC not some other AFL team

Yes R and B but at least it is the MFC not some other AFL team

Amen! (or this case, not about MFC ...)

it is quite possible a team penalty could be devised where they play 2015 for no points a'la storm

Yeh, I thought of that but that means that all the teams that play them twice get adversely effected. So if they play those games for no points, I assume that means the opposition team gets no points for playing them plus no percentage. This is likely to be a big penalty for a team like the Hawks who play them twice compared to the Swans who play them once. On the other hand if they are automatically awarded the 4pts then that creates an unfair advantage. Eg Saints play them twice, we only play them once. That would have been slotted in as two of the harder games for them based on ladder position so they will play easier teams other than Essendon and that would be an unfair advantage compared to us.

No easy answer.

Yeh, I thought of that but that means that all the teams that play them twice get adversely effected. So if they play those games for no points, I assume that means the opposition team gets no points for playing them plus no percentage. This is likely to be a big penalty for a team like the Hawks who play them twice compared to the Swans who play them once. On the other hand if they are automatically awarded the 4pts then that creates an unfair advantage. Eg Saints play them twice, we only play them once. That would have been slotted in as two of the harder games for them based on ladder position so they will play easier teams other than Essendon and that would be an unfair advantage compared to us.

No easy answer.

I think the way it works is if Ess win they get zero points but if their opponents win eg Hawkes, then the Hawkes get the 4 pts. So it shouldn't affect the ladder position or % (Except that Ess end up on the bottom).

This would work as long as their draft position for 2015 is based on their 'unpenalised' ladder position. Ie a 'shadow' ladder is kept showing where Ess would be if they were playing for points/%'age. This way they do not get the #1 draft pick in 2015.

I think the way it works is if Ess win they get zero points but if their opponents win eg Hawkes, then the Hawkes get the 4 pts. So it shouldn't affect the ladder position or % (Except that Ess end up on the bottom).

This would work as long as their draft position for 2015 is based on their 'unpenalised' ladder position. Ie a 'shadow' ladder is kept showing where Ess would be if they were playing for points/%'age. This way they do not get the #1 draft pick in 2015.

This is a fantastic idea and as such has no chance of being implemented.

I think the way it works is if Ess win they get zero points but if their opponents win eg Hawkes, then the Hawkes get the 4 pts. So it shouldn't affect the ladder position or % (Except that Ess end up on the bottom).

This would work as long as their draft position for 2015 is based on their 'unpenalised' ladder position. Ie a 'shadow' ladder is kept showing where Ess would be if they were playing for points/%'age. This way they do not get the #1 draft pick in 2015.

Good thinking

I think the way it works is if Ess win they get zero points but if their opponents win eg Hawkes, then the Hawkes get the 4 pts. So it shouldn't affect the ladder position or % (Except that Ess end up on the bottom).

This would work as long as their draft position for 2015 is based on their 'unpenalised' ladder position. Ie a 'shadow' ladder is kept showing where Ess would be if they were playing for points/%'age. This way they do not get the #1 draft pick in 2015.

Better still kick them out of the league and promote another team.

Essendon is just another word for Drug Cheating Cult.

Do it for the Kids.

So they don't have to play AFL football with a Drug Cheating Cult.

Edited November 24, 201410 yr by The Chosen One

I think the way it works is if Ess win they get zero points but if their opponents win eg Hawkes, then the Hawkes get the 4 pts. So it shouldn't affect the ladder position or % (Except that Ess end up on the bottom).

This would work as long as their draft position for 2015 is based on their 'unpenalised' ladder position. Ie a 'shadow' ladder is kept showing where Ess would be if they were playing for points/%'age. This way they do not get the #1 draft pick in 2015.

I propose one improvement, they get their picks at the end of the round. The penalty that keeps on giving. - No need to tank.

I think the way it works is if Ess win they get zero points but if their opponents win eg Hawkes, then the Hawkes get the 4 pts. So it shouldn't affect the ladder position or % (Except that Ess end up on the bottom).

...

Is that assuming no players are rubbed out? If they are rubbed out, then the team which plays their 'reserves' twice (or before the ban expires) has an extra 4 points over other teams which don't and a boosted percentage (assuming the likely outcome is a hiding). Am I missing something?

Edited November 24, 201410 yr by sue

Is that assuming no players are rubbed out? If they are rubbed out, then the team which plays their 'reserves' twice (or before the ban expires) has an extra 4 points over other teams which don't and a boosted percentage (assuming the likely outcome is a hiding). Am I missing something?

Not really ( missing anything )

but with 18 teams there cant be equity in all of this no matte where you start in at.

Five teams play the buggers twice. Hawks, Saints, Tiges, Pies and Roos.

So be it

I think the way it works is if Ess win they get zero points but if their opponents win eg Hawkes, then the Hawkes get the 4 pts. So it shouldn't affect the ladder position or % (Except that Ess end up on the bottom).

This would work as long as their draft position for 2015 is based on their 'unpenalised' ladder position. Ie a 'shadow' ladder is kept showing where Ess would be if they were playing for points/%'age. This way they do not get the #1 draft pick in 2015.

It's a perfect way to suck any competitive interest from a game that will have supporters from both EFC and competing clubs deserting the games in droves, TV viewers switching off and it destabilises and undermines the whole AFL season. The AFL loses big time and as a consequence everyone in football loses big time including MFC.

As I understand it the penalties that are likely will be at the players and not the Club level. And if the players are suspended for a fair period then the Club will be crippled enough without the outcome of taking the points.

The punishment for EFC is they need to jettison Hird and Reid. Not re employ Bomber and they need to exit Little and other Involved Board member ASAP

I don't think the Melbourne Storm situation is applicable or appropriate here.

Edited November 24, 201410 yr by Qwerty30

didnt stop Storm from playing or competing...just saying

Is that assuming no players are rubbed out? If they are rubbed out, then the team which plays their 'reserves' twice (or before the ban expires) has an extra 4 points over other teams which don't and a boosted percentage (assuming the likely outcome is a hiding). Am I missing something?

I would have thought players would be rubbed out for a period. But hitting the club for points as well is draconian and unnecessary.

didnt stop Storm from playing or competing...just saying

They didn't have players suspended as well. And the penalty Storm were done for was salary cap rorting. The penalties were at the Club and not the player level.

This saga is just going to keep giving and giving.

Has anyone thought about the uneven impact on the competition next year if they are banned for a period of time during the first part of the season. The teams that play them during this time will be playing a reserves team that will clearly be non competitive, whereas say the bans run out mid July the teams that play them after that will have a significant disadvantage.

For instance the Hawks play them twice, the second time on 27 June. So quite conceivably could have two massive blow out games against a reserves team. Whereas the Swans play them only once in round 1 and the Power only play them once on 25 July so could have a massive disadvantage.

We only play them once in Rd 14, 11 July so they could well be back to full strength by then whereas the Saints play them twice, the second time on 5 July. So conceivably that could be a two game advantage plus percentage over us to a direct competitor. Lions get them once on 24 May.

So any bans that are less than 1 yr and therefore only apply to part of the season will stuff up the whole competition and have a major impact on final ladder positions. 1yr bans would have the added advantage of stopping this from happening except that every team that plays the reserve team they are fielding twice will have a very big advantage although less than if the reserves team only plays for part of the season.

a grossly unfair and uneven "draw" has never worried the AFL hierarchy before so I don't see why it will suddenly do so

The Medical Board / AHPRA are being as tardy and neglectful as are WorkSafe (or whatever they are called this week). He (appears to have ) failed in his primary duty, which is to to care for his patients and look after their welfare and instead put the employers' priorities first. E P I C F A I L !

Could be as simple as the possible fact that no one has made a complaint to the relevant body

I was of the understanding that they were charged with diligent oversight of the profession, so shouldn't need a complaint. And they ain't blind and deaf so will know about his behaviour in this matter. Not sure of the footy allegiances of those on the board though.