7 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

it's purely up to each club, and of course the player involved

this started with essendon who said they would offer an extra year on the contract to their players. so far i don't know if any or how many players have taken up the offer. in essendon's case it is more about trying to compensate players and encourage them not to leave the club as dfas or trades (which is likely at least for some)

can't see mfc offering melksham an extra year at this stage. would be smarter and prudent to see what condition he comes back in sept and how he performs in 2017 season. but you never know

Makes sense. Thanks for clarifying.

I thought the possibility of a twelve-month suspension figured in the decision to offer Melksham four years rather than three.  Trying to read the minds of the notoriously closed-mouthed Melbourne FD.

43 minutes ago, Elusive Tunbridge said:

I thought the possibility of a twelve-month suspension figured in the decision to offer Melksham four years rather than three.  Trying to read the minds of the notoriously closed-mouthed Melbourne FD.

So few seem to understand this.

 

1 hour ago, Elusive Tunbridge said:

I thought the possibility of a twelve-month suspension figured in the decision to offer Melksham four years rather than three.  Trying to read the minds of the notoriously closed-mouthed Melbourne FD.

i suppose that is why a club official at the agm, when asked this, said "at worst" we would expect he would only be unavailable for a few weeks but if you want to believe they were prepared for a one season suspension, then go ahead, 

 

25 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i suppose that is why a club official at the agm, when asked this, said "at worst" we would expect he would only be unavailable for a few weeks but if you want to believe they were prepared for a one season suspension, then go ahead, 

 

And if you want to believe Roos, Viney, Mahoney, McCartney (formerly of Essendon), Goodwin (formerly of Essendon) & Jackson (formerly of Essendon) didn't consider every possible outcome then go ahead....

 

i'm sure they did consider all possibilities......and came to the conclusion that a couple of weeks was "worst case"

because...............that is what was stated

Practically no one in the football world expected the outcome. How was it considered then ?

Quite frankly even our club is talking revisionist rubbish. To think otherwise ?.....we'll 

 

Edited January 26, 20169 yr by beelzebub

Excuse my ignorance but is Jake getting paid by us this year? I assume the Essendon 12 are as they are getting salary cap relief.

Does not seem right 

5 minutes ago, fndee said:

Excuse my ignorance but is Jake getting paid by us this year? I assume the Essendon 12 are as they are getting salary cap relief.

Does not seem right 

Players suspended by WADA are supposed to be unpaid, though I'm sure clubs will find a way to pay them.

it was reported a while back that the afl are considering this and if allowed, how much. also who should play suspended players at other clubs if payment allowed

as is typical afl, nothing publicly stated since nor has tame media raised it lately

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i suppose that is why a club official at the agm, when asked this, said "at worst" we would expect he would only be unavailable for a few weeks but if you want to believe they were prepared for a one season suspension, then go ahead, 

 

If you want to believe a club official at the AGM, back at you.

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

i'm sure they did consider all possibilities......and came to the conclusion that a couple of weeks was "worst case"

because...............that is what was stated

Right, and Frost will only be out 4-6, Scully is staying with the Dees, and Neeld has the full backing of the club....

Seriously, go over those names again, Roos, Viney, Mahoney, McCartney (formerly of Essendon), Goodwin (formerly of Essendon) & Jackson (formerly of Essendon).

Especially that last name, does he strike you as the sort of bloke to not plan for worst possible outcome?

But no, "Daisycutter" from Demonland heard a random "official from the club" on the night when the board gets elected say it would be a few weeks, and now knows better than PJ whose usual football business strategy is apparently "nah mate she'll be right, coupla weeks"....

Naive.

 

Irony

lol stuie. 

i'll just let you and et dig that hole a little deeper. no more info for now

3 hours ago, Good Times Grimes said:

Players suspended by WADA are supposed to be unpaid, though I'm sure clubs will find a way to pay them.

The main talk is that the players will sue Essendon and be "paid" that way.

 

12 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

lol stuie. 

i'll just let you and et dig that hole a little deeper. no more info for now

"Info"?..... Right.... A nameless club official who you, and apparently no one else, heard commenting on something beyond their control at the AGM... Ok champ.

Tell you what, write to PJ and ask him why it wasn't only a "few weeks" like you were promised, and if he replies with "sorry DC, we didn't even think it could possibly ever be more than a couple of weeks for taking banned substances when every other player banned has copped at least a year" then I will apologize.

 

53 minutes ago, stuie said:

The main talk is that the players will sue Essendon and be "paid" that way.

 

And because the AFL are super kind to convicted drug cheats, every top up player in Essendon's list will be outside the salary cap! Certainly makes things easy.

I understand the players wanting to sue (I think they knew what they were doing but suing equates to money) but surely that makes the relationship with the club untenable. Very hard for players to return, well it would be in any other workplace.

1 hour ago, stuie said:

"Info"?..... Right.... A nameless club official who you, and apparently no one else, heard commenting on something beyond their control at the AGM... Ok champ.

Tell you what, write to PJ and ask him why it wasn't only a "few weeks" like you were promised, and if he replies with "sorry DC, we didn't even think it could possibly ever be more than a couple of weeks for taking banned substances when every other player banned has copped at least a year" then I will apologize.

 

I'm sure DC heard exactly what he said.   The worst case scenario from corporate lawyers is rarely the actual worst case scenario.  "Surprised at the outcome" is the most overused phrase and that's what the advice is actually designed for; the official line.

All the top end, including PJ, would've made their own private judgements and expectations.

Interesting thought from the Hun that the Melksham ban could possibly save Grimes' career....

"With Jake Melksham suspended for the 2016 season due to the CAS guilty verdict, there’s a golden opportunity for Grimes to regain the faith of Demons supporters at half-back. At his best, the 26-year-old is a courageous defender who can break games open off half-back. We saw that consistently during Grimes’ career-best 2012 season, but injury and inconsistency have plagued the former captain over the past three years. Out of contract at season’s end, Grimes will be seeking a convincing, consistent year to ensure he earns another deal with the Dees."

2016 Blowtorch

 

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Interesting thought from the Hun that the Melksham ban could possibly save Grimes' career....

"With Jake Melksham suspended for the 2016 season due to the CAS guilty verdict, there’s a golden opportunity for Grimes to regain the faith of Demons supporters at half-back. At his best, the 26-year-old is a courageous defender who can break games open off half-back. We saw that consistently during Grimes’ career-best 2012 season, but injury and inconsistency have plagued the former captain over the past three years. Out of contract at season’s end, Grimes will be seeking a convincing, consistent year to ensure he earns another deal with the Dees."

2016 Blowtorch

 

Grimes breaking games open? I must have forgotten those ones.

1 minute ago, Night Crawler said:

Grimes breaking games open? I must have forgotten those ones.

They did say "at best".....

 

2 minutes ago, stuie said:

They did say "at best".....

 

Yep, but my memories of Grimes best were being able to read the play well and shutting down incoming attacks whilst knowing when to run off his man and provide an option. 

His best is good enough and would certainly make him best 22 in most teams. But I would never ever describe Grimes as a player who could break games open. Its simply not his thing. Happy for others to disagree. Maybe after 10 years of losing my brain has altered my memories.

However, I do agree that Melksham leaving gives him a chance. I said after we picked up Bugg that Grimes should see the writing in the wall and request a trade.

I really hope he can get back to his best because he is Melbourne through and through, but I dont have much room for 1 paced, average disposal, poor decision maker in my best 22.

Milkshake on the shelf leaves a spot.

Could be anyone grabbing it. I'll be interested to see who does.

3 minutes ago, Night Crawler said:

Yep, but my memories of Grimes best were being able to read the play well and shutting down incoming attacks whilst knowing when to run off his man and provide an option. 

His best is good enough and would certainly make him best 22 in most teams. But I would never ever describe Grimes as a player who could break games open. Its simply not his thing. Happy for others to disagree. Maybe after 10 years of losing my brain has altered my memories.

However, I do agree that Melksham leaving gives him a chance. I said after we picked up Bugg that Grimes should see the writing in the wall and request a trade.

I really hope he can get back to his best because he is Melbourne through and through, but I dont have much room for 1 paced, average disposal, poor decision maker in my best 22.

Completely agree.