On 10/09/2015 at 09:07, Cards13 said:

Why did Worsfold agree to the meeting without getting agreement/sign off from the club before hand?

ahh...now thats a gem of a question

  On 10/09/2015 at 09:07, Cards13 said:

Why did Worsfold agree to the meeting without getting agreement/sign off from the club before hand?

Why should he?

The clubs have an agreement, Essenscum broke it. How do we know Worsfold knew Essenscum were breaking their agreement?

We don't.

We do know he told Adelaide, so I find it hard to understand how he has done anything wrong.

Essendon have and have proven yet again they can't be trusted in any way and that a handshake agreement with them means nothing.

Adelaide are causing mischief, but dobbing people in is part of their established culture

Worsfold iught to be aware of the covenant. Didn't he ask Ess if all kosher ?

  On 10/09/2015 at 09:29, beelzebub said:

Worsfold iught to be aware of the covenant. Didn't he ask Ess if all kosher ?

Why would he?

He told Adelaide, I believe 5 days beforehand. FFS, it is a non-issue wrt Worsfolds actions

I simply asked did he .

That's what id have done.

Its a simple question.

Possibly he thought they hadn't

  On 10/09/2015 at 09:07, Cards13 said:

Why did Worsfold agree to the meeting without getting agreement/sign off from the club before hand?

what makes you think he didn't?

  On 09/09/2015 at 20:42, beelzebub said:

Learning ?? pffft They wouldnt have dont it had they learnt anything.

No...Still the same mob....different shirt

A stray 'r' wandered into your last word, BB. Damned autocorrect

  On 10/09/2015 at 10:05, daisycutter said:

what makes you think he didn't?

He told them after he'd agreed to meet, thus the Crows let it happen but we're [censored] about it.

  On 10/09/2015 at 12:20, Cards13 said:

He told them after he'd agreed to meet, thus the Crows let it happen but we're [censored] about it.

i'd need a source for that. i think that may just be an interptretation. the reporting i saw was not that specific

ess certainly approached him first without talking to crows

we don't know if he agreed at that time or said he would be interested and would get back to them orjust said let me think on it

in any case he then got in touch with club and was given the ok (reluctantly)

  On 10/09/2015 at 08:32, Ted Fidge said:

Interesting that Carlton used to have the same attitude. "We're Carlton and flip the rest" - S. Kernahan.

But some of their old timers have gone and they're having a bit of an identity crisis. They seem to have realised they are just one of 18.

Wonder if Ess will have the same revelation any time soon.

To go further, in my opinion much of Carlton's problem has been caused by that club's inability to understand how to function in the era of salary caps, drafting and modern corporate governance expectations. I wonder whether Paul Little's version of Essendon is somewhat similar.

Having said that, there is no doubt that Essendon didn't break any rules in speaking to Worsfold. Also, even if the "anti-tampering" rules were formally in place, given the particular circumstances which see Worsfold at Adelaide, it may be less than clear what rules might apply in this particular situation. Nevertheless, the very reason for that confusion should have seen Essendon take a conservative approach and speak with Adelaide first. Essendon will not progress until a new Chairman with an understanding of modern corporate governance expectations and requirements is installed. I remain gobsmacked that he hasn't yet been overthrown by a Board challenge.

Yes a lot of people at Essendon would appear to be curtailing any action at the moment.

A club divided is a club relocated or something like that.

WADA and China sign ground-breaking agreement to eliminate illegal manufacture and supply of PEDs

That'll put a crimp on Hirdy's lifestyle ...

Only the 'legal' ones from now on

  On 22/09/2015 at 21:06, beelzebub said:

Only the 'legal' ones from now on

They were all legal mate. They dont know what they were, but they were legal and cure cancer.

  On 22/09/2015 at 15:14, biggestred said:

WADA and China sign ground-breaking agreement to eliminate illegal manufacture and supply of PEDs

That'll put a crimp on Hirdy's lifestyle ...

for a moment there I thought you said that will put a chimp in Hirdy's lifestyle !!

  On 22/09/2015 at 23:05, beelzebub said:

for a moment there I thought you said that will put a chimp in Hirdy's lifestyle !!

A chimp would be more appropriate than testing on his players!

So when does the Essendrug case go before the courts?

Coming soon: Hillbilly PEDs.

  On 23/09/2015 at 04:41, hardtack said:

So when does the Essendrug case go before the courts?

the WADA appeal to CAS starts Nov 16

  On 23/09/2015 at 05:09, beelzebub said:

the WADA appeal to CAS starts Nov 16

gunna start a countdown, bub?

54

A chemist about to be appointed coach of Essendon.

You couldn't possibly make that up.

  On 16/08/2015 at 04:51, jnrmac said:

What a load of crap. IF they did tank, and its a big if in my book it was at best for 5-6 games. What you have forgotten is we were a pizz poor side. Tanking assumes we could have won and chose to lose.

What a load of crap. You can stick your head in the sand if you want. We tanked, and of course it was only a handful of games that it was required, but, along with other things, killed the culture and the spirit of the playing group and set us back years and years. And that is why Brock wanted out.

  On 26/09/2015 at 23:38, Forest Demon said:

What a load of crap. You can stick your head in the sand if you want. We tanked, and of course it was only a handful of games that it was required, but, along with other things, killed the culture and the spirit of the playing group and set us back years and years. And that is why Brock wanted out.

Did that handful include the game against Richmond?

  On 26/09/2015 at 23:38, Forest Demon said:

What a load of crap. You can stick your head in the sand if you want. We tanked, and of course it was only a handful of games that it was required, but, along with other things, killed the culture and the spirit of the playing group and set us back years and years. And that is why Brock wanted out.

Yeah, that set us back...

Tanking is different depending on who you talk to and how they define it.

If you want to legislate against tanking then a narrow view of telling players to lose should be the waters edge; positional changes, selection, and season ending surgeries are not the sole domain of those wishing to lose.

If you don't care about punishing those who tank then the broader view takes us all the way back to the end of 2007 when we began 'retiring' professionals and stalwarts of our club and replaced them entirely with youth.

That was when we began to prioritise something other than winning the next game.

So it depends on your own personal definition of tanking as to whether we did and for how long, and the impact it had.