They can't be serious about two weeks, twelve months minimum imo, very lucky to even get that.

im not sensing much of their information has been from the real world.

2 matches hhahahaa. In their dreams.

Yeah 3/400 remember ha ha

All good for Mitch Clisby and Jim Magner.

Another two seasons beckon.

They shouldn't be eligible to play until after this year's draft. Let them play with a reduced list!

can this rot thread leave Demonland already?!

My point is if my employer had injected me with something and said it was something else id consider the duty of care breached regardless of my ban

If i was paddy ryder id be suing for all they had.

Well yes, but the players also have a "duty of care" in that they - and they alone - are responsible for everything that enters their body. If they'd checked with ASADA and had a record of that check (easy to get), then they wouldn't be looking down the barrel now.

im not sensing much of their information has been from the real world.

Well we have all had conversations with Essendon supporters, and virtually NONE of them live in the real world. They are delusional egged on by the propaganda perpetrated by certain sections of the media emanating from Hird's publicity machine. These articles discussed above are just two more examples, although I notice that there has been a tone of inevitability over the last couple of weeks as the verdicts draw near.

Much of the speculation in these articles is just that though - speculation. The fantasy of "a few weeks" has taken this to a new high (or is it low?), just as the comments the other day that "the tribunal want to make the penalties appeal proof". To do that they will need to go the full two years and they are not going there in my opinion. If they don't, ASADA/WADA will appeal, initially to the AFL Appeals Tribunal, and then to CAS. If they go the full two years, then the players will appeal to the AFL Appeals Tribunal, followed by long drawn out legal action from each player. If more than two players are suspended, then Essendon itself could be also suspended.

Patrick Smith, along with Caro, are two of the few journalists who seem to understand this. Patrick's last comment that Hird's term as coach will run its full term was said I think with his tongue firmly in his cheek. It may, but it will most likely be with a club (in its old form) no longer in the AFL. In my view there will have to be a complete rebuild at Essendon, including in a new corporate entity, so that the old one can continue the fight against the writs with the players, Worksafe, and with Hird's lawyers still negotiating with them to continue coaching a club with no players! (a pub with no beer anyone!).

Edited March 10, 201510 yr by Dees2014

...

Patrick Smith, along with Caro, are two of the few journalists who seem to understand this. Patrick's last comment that Hird's term as coach will run its full term was said I think with his tongue firmly in his cheek. It may, but it will most likely be with a club (in its old form) no longer in the AFL. In my view there will have to be a complete rebuild at Essendon, including in a new corporate entity, so that the old one can continue the fight against the writs with the players, Worksafe, and the arguments with Hird's lawyers as to whether he should be sacked or not!

If they remain in the AFL (which I suspect they will, no matter how protracted the battle might become) we can only wonder how long Hird's interest will continue in coaching a team without much hope of getting him to the grand final podium.

can this rot thread leave Demonland already?!

Don't like it TSFKA?

Those of us that read and contribute here do so out of choice. You are free to be elsewhere, may I suggest you take that option.

Edit: Fix acronym.

Edited March 11, 201510 yr by ManDee

If they remain in the AFL (which I suspect they will, no matter how protracted the battle might become) we can only wonder how long Hird's interest will continue in coaching a team without much hope of getting him to the grand final podium.

Oh i think they will remain in the AFL as well, everyone has too much to loose if they do not. But they must find a way around their current situation.

I think it may pan out a bit like this.

The 34 players are suspended for between 12-24 months. They all sue Essendon in its present form. Worksafe does its thing and flag substantial new fines both on the club and individuals. These two things represent tens of millions of additional liabilities to the current club. Their principle benefactors refuse to put additional funding in for this purpose, and the current entity goes bankrupt and the liquidators are called in. The liquidators sell the assets of the club (the brand, the license, the training facilities, the players) into a new entity without the current liabilities including Hird's contract. They can then totally start again by re-employing (or not as the case may be) everyone they want to on new contract. It would not be the first time this had been done in Australian corporate life, but it would be a difficult legal man-oeuvre probably requiring some negotiated settlement, not i am sure beyond Little's expensive legal team's capabilities.

Edited March 10, 201510 yr by Dees2014

That ol' reality bus just doesnt visit Essendon. How in the face of all evidence to the contrary they can consider themselves hard done by, the victims even is beyond me.

That the media ( hacks , fanboys etc ) continue this nonsense of attempting to groom a concioussness from which paltry penalty will arise is further proof that 1) the AFL and all its cronies still think they live in a world apart and that 2) it can in any way influence the outcome utter nonsense

Oh i think they will remain in the AFL as well, everyone has too much to loose if they do not. But they must find a way around their current situation.

I think it may pan out a bit like this.

The 34 players are suspended for between 12-24 months. They all sue Essendon in its present form. Worksafe does its thing and flag substantial new fines both on the club and individuals. These two things represent tens of millions of additional liabilities to the current club. Their principle benefactors refuse to put additional funding in for this purpose, and the current entity goes bankrupt and the liquidators are called in. The liquidators sell the assets of the club (the brand, the license, the training facilities, the players) into a new entity without the current liabilities including Hird's contract. They can then totally start again by re-employing (or not as the case may be) everyone they want to on new contract. It would not be the first time this had been done in Australian corporate life, but it would be a difficult legal man-oeuvre probably requiring some negotiated settlement, not i am sure beyond Little's expensive legal team's capabilities.

It might well go this way, possibly more as a voluntary wind up, rebirth. Some of the working liabilities might be assumed by insurances. but theyd be struggling to find anyone to continue underwriting them as this progresses.

Why its considered impossible for a team to fold Im not so sure. History suggests otherwise

Oh i think they will remain in the AFL as well, everyone has too much to loose if they do not. But they must find a way around their current situation.

I think it may pan out a bit like this.

The 34 players are suspended for between 12-24 months. They all sue Essendon in its present form. Worksafe does its thing and flag substantial new fines both on the club and individuals. These two things represent tens of millions of additional liabilities to the current club. Their principle benefactors refuse to put additional funding in for this purpose, and the current entity goes bankrupt and the liquidators are called in. The liquidators sell the assets of the club (the brand, the license, the training facilities, the players) into a new entity without the current liabilities including Hird's contract. They can then totally start again by re-employing (or not as the case may be) everyone they want to on new contract. It would not be the first time this had been done in Australian corporate life, but it would be a difficult legal man-oeuvre probably requiring some negotiated settlement, not i am sure beyond Little's expensive legal team's capabilities.

The AFL have to be in on it to make it work. I doubt Hird will be be in the package if that is the case.

I don't care which side it is. How big they are. If any Victorian side folds under their own weight then AFL either need to save them before they go or reallocate the license to another state.

It is a opportunity they would be remiss to miss. There may be short term pain and back lash but it would be easily explainable.

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-players-are-concerned-their-fate-is-already-decided-as-tribunal-decision-nears/story-fnp04d70-1227257480290?utm_content=SocialFlow&utm_campaign=EditorialSF&utm_source=HeraldSun&utm_medium=Twitter

Michael Warner!!!! Say no more. Clueless Muppet!!!!!!

There are a few journo's around, actually more than a few, who make you wonder how on earth they got a gig and how on earth they keep them. This one is right at the front of that queue. A journo either has access to sources that over time prove to be reliable so you can trust the facts they write about and/or have opinions based on experience and knowledge that is worth reading. Is it just me or do others feel like there is an increasing lack of any of this. For the life of me I can't understand how this bloke still had a gig. And he's not alone.

Oh i think they will remain in the AFL as well, everyone has too much to loose if they do not. But they must find a way around their current situation.

I think it may pan out a bit like this.

The 34 players are suspended for between 12-24 months. They all sue Essendon in its present form. Worksafe does its thing and flag substantial new fines both on the club and individuals. These two things represent tens of millions of additional liabilities to the current club. Their principle benefactors refuse to put additional funding in for this purpose, and the current entity goes bankrupt and the liquidators are called in. The liquidators sell the assets of the club (the brand, the license, the training facilities, the players) into a new entity without the current liabilities including Hird's contract. They can then totally start again by re-employing (or not as the case may be) everyone they want to on new contract. It would not be the first time this had been done in Australian corporate life, but it would be a difficult legal man-oeuvre probably requiring some negotiated settlement, not i am sure beyond Little's expensive legal team's capabilities.

What is the purpose of the restructure? If the answer is to limit liability or the ability of others to pursue damages then it would fail. I think any new entity needs to be a new entity and in my opinion that would entail new brand, new location and new personnel. Or I would think the only way to keep the brand would be if the AFL took over the club and guaranteed any current or future claims against the old club. Perhaps then to hand club over to members after a suitable period, perhaps 20 years.

Oh i think they will remain in the AFL as well, everyone has too much to loose if they do not. But they must find a way around their current situation.

I think it may pan out a bit like this.

The 34 players are suspended for between 12-24 months. They all sue Essendon in its present form. Worksafe does its thing and flag substantial new fines both on the club and individuals. These two things represent tens of millions of additional liabilities to the current club. Their principle benefactors refuse to put additional funding in for this purpose, and the current entity goes bankrupt and the liquidators are called in. The liquidators sell the assets of the club (the brand, the license, the training facilities, the players) into a new entity without the current liabilities including Hird's contract. They can then totally start again by re-employing (or not as the case may be) everyone they want to on new contract. It would not be the first time this had been done in Australian corporate life, but it would be a difficult legal man-oeuvre probably requiring some negotiated settlement, not i am sure beyond Little's expensive legal team's capabilities.

I like this scenario but I suspect that it involves no Essendon until next year when the AFL approves the entry of the new "Essendon"! I also expect that they will have no more right than the other 17 teams to pick up the 18 players as their suspensions come to an end. It is a shame that Chappy will be 35 when the new Club gets going! Oh I feel so very sorry for them!

I don't care which side it is. How big they are. If any Victorian side folds under their own weight then AFL either need to save them before they go or reallocate the license to another state.

It is a opportunity they would be remiss to miss. There may be short term pain and back lash but it would be easily explainable.

I disagree in the notion saving for savings sake alone.. A problem with the comp is its now too victoria-centric. Granted the highest concentration of support is here but I wouldnt put any lives of loved ones on the line thinking its not beyond possibility a Vic team will fold or move ( again )

I have this strange niggle that no ones really going to expect what happens this year as a result of the Bombers fiasco. Once penalties are given and alliances disintegrate , once knives are sharpened and the shark frenzy begins there may only be a resemblance to a carcass anyway.

This has some ways to play out, far beyond this tribunal. Once that momentum builds theres no going back. The AFL will become spectators to a train wreck.

The AFL have to be in on it to make it work. I doubt Hird will be be in the package if that is the case.

This in many ways is as good a settlement as either Essendon or the AFL could possibly hope for. Sure it is a playing setback for them for several years, but it cleanses out of the club the toxic Hird culture and practices, and clears them of many of their potential legal difficulties which otherwise would go on for years. It also gives the current playing group a clean future which they say they desire. WADA/ASADA i suspect would also be happy with this outcome. The people it wouldn't help are those who are seeking legal res-dress for the Hird regime's "crimes", although even that may be able to be able to be settled by negotiation.

Dees2014 i think your predictions are way too doomsday. Ess won't fold. Won't happen. There won't be any appeals. There may be legal action from players but it will be settled out of court. But as you say we will see.

I do agree that the likely penalties are 2 years, which will be halved to 12 months under the being duped clause. By end of March they will already have served 5 months (except for Fletcher and Watson - silly boys), meaning they will have seven months to go, which will wipe out this season but mean they are right to resume at beginning of next pre season. The AFL will allow the use of top players. No more than 17 will be required (and possibly as few as 13-15 if they run with a reduced list) so whilst they will not be competitive they will still field a side. And be back to full strength for 2016.

What is the purpose of the restructure? If the answer is to limit liability or the ability of others to pursue damages then it would fail. I think any new entity needs to be a new entity and in my opinion that would entail new brand, new location and new personnel. Or I would think the only way to keep the brand would be if the AFL took over the club and guaranteed any current or future claims against the old club. Perhaps then to hand club over to members after a suitable period, perhaps 20 years.

This may well be the case. I have carefully outlined that any restructure would need to be carefully negotiated by Little's lawyers, but i have no doubt some new structure would emerge. The AFL would be crazy to guarantee the EFC debts - they could eventually run into hundreds of millions of dollars and take up to 10 years to settle. It would effectively strangle the competition for decades.

If the current EFC went bankrupt, then those creditors get very little, and the clubs assets would be worth a fraction of what they are now if the liquidators are not allowed to sell those assets close to their current form. Under these circumstances, the creditors either take a negotiated settlement, or get close to nothing. I know which i would choose.

Dees2014 i think your predictions are way too doomsday. Ess won't fold. Won't happen. There won't be any appeals. There may be legal action from players but it will be settled out of court. But as you say we will see.

I do agree that the likely penalties are 2 years, which will be halved to 12 months under the being duped clause. By end of March they will already have served 5 months (except for Fletcher and Watson - silly boys), meaning they will have seven months to go, which will wipe out this season but mean they are right to resume at beginning of next pre season. The AFL will allow the use of top players. No more than 17 will be required (and possibly as few as 13-15 if they run with a reduced list) so whilst they will not be competitive they will still field a side. And be back to full strength for 2016.

There is no way WADA would allow such a sweetheart deal. I agree the AFL tribunal may try it on, but there are other forces at work here. Oh yes, and open cheque books have their limits, even in the face of this sort of stupidity

Dees2014 i think your predictions are way too doomsday. Ess won't fold. Won't happen. There won't be any appeals. There may be legal action from players but it will be settled out of court. But as you say we will see.

I do agree that the likely penalties are 2 years, which will be halved to 12 months under the being duped clause. By end of March they will already have served 5 months (except for Fletcher and Watson - silly boys), meaning they will have seven months to go, which will wipe out this season but mean they are right to resume at beginning of next pre season. The AFL will allow the use of top players. No more than 17 will be required (and possibly as few as 13-15 if they run with a reduced list) so whilst they will not be competitive they will still field a side. And be back to full strength for 2016.

Bin...much of this surmises that all parties can in some ways manage control over the situation. Im not sure they will be able to. Once things leave the AFL's sphere of influence and make its way to the courts and other agencies that want their turn Im very much of the idea it will turn into a very ugly monster.

Footy is only just Footy.. Its not biggest player in town...and quite a few of them havent even started warming up yet.

At what point could Essendon be come insolvent ?

As a hypothetical. What is to stop the AFL removing the Essendon franchise from the current organisation and giving it to a clean sheet start up, on the basis of having failed in its obligation and adherence to rules etc ?

I disagree in the notion saving for savings sake alone.. A problem with the comp is its now too victoria-centric. Granted the highest concentration of support is here but I wouldnt put any lives of loved ones on the line thinking its not beyond possibility a Vic team will fold or move ( again )

I have this strange niggle that no ones really going to expect what happens this year as a result of the Bombers fiasco. Once penalties are given and alliances disintegrate , once knives are sharpened and the shark frenzy begins there may only be a resemblance to a carcass anyway.

This has some ways to play out, far beyond this tribunal. Once that momentum builds theres no going back. The AFL will become spectators to a train wreck.

I don't think I quite emphasised the score of what I meant. I wasn't only talking current scenario.

The AFL have saved us when in dire straights through cash and through personnel support.

Im saying, that I the scenario Essendon loses players have massive legal fall out etc the AFL needs to either choose to save Essendon or take the license off them.

If it is not financially to save them the drop feeding and supporting should be off the table. Pull the plug and be done with it.

Bin...much of this surmises that all parties can in some ways manage control over the situation. Im not sure they will be able to. Once things leave the AFL's sphere of influence and make its way to the courts and other agencies that want their turn Im very much of the idea it will turn into a very ugly monster.

Footy is only just Footy.. Its not biggest player in town...and quite a few of them havent even started warming up yet.

At what point could Essendon be come insolvent ?

In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough groundfor lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz3U1lYnXnB

If Little or some other benefactor offered to underwrite the club they would be fine. The main issue would be removal of franchise or ban from competition, in these cases they would fold fairly quickly, as future income would be slashed and potential liability could be massive.