He doesn't do himself any favours with the long greasy hair and moustache.

I mean, really kid. At least try.

Lol. Not sure he's trying to become a model.

Despite his detractors, I actually think he'll become a very good player. He won't be in Hogan's class, but his attributes just make him so dangerous if it clicks for him mentally.

If he can clean up his kicking he'll be valuable for them in a Travis Cloke kind of way.

He did kick 4 goals in their last final IIRC.

If he can clean up his kicking he'll be valuable for them in a Travis Cloke kind of way.

He did kick 4 goals in their last final IIRC.

Hard to defend too, if you don't have Jack Fitzpatrick.

On the plus side, I think this is the definition of " a head for radio" young Joe will have a nice career in the Media if footy doesn't work out.

And to think i am actually related to this nuffy via family..

[censored] sad affair

If that's the case, it's a bit of a strange decision. I wonder what that says about our ability to attract players of any standard to the club, given we have to take such a risk on a bloke who isn't exactly a B grader.

Big risk, but presumably it's being taken into consideration. It's not as if it's not out in the open.

Big risk, but presumably it's being taken into consideration. It's not as if it's not out in the open.

Considering recruiting a player who has had two knee recos - higher risk he might break down and miss a year.

Considering recruiting a player with a potential ban hanging over him - higher risk he might cop a ban and miss a year.

Risk reward balance in both cases, just a little more unusual than what the recruiting team would normally consider, but the risk outcome of being unavailable is the same. And hopefully a trade value discount to go with the risk part in Melbourne's favour.

I don't want to have to hear Luke Darcy say 'He's had a few amateur bouts in his time' or 'He's quite handy with the gloves, BT' every MFC game i watch for the next 8 years.

Edited September 26, 20159 yr by Brayshaw Self

Big risk, but presumably it's being taken into consideration. It's not as if it's not out in the open.

Still don't understand why we are taking the risk for a player like him. Ryder & Carlisle even Crameri are very good players probably worth the risk. He's not in that class

Risk reward balance in both cases ...

But payment situation not the same. In theory if you're banned/suspended, you don't (can't?) get paid, but if you're injured you still get paid, including match payments.

But payment situation not the same. In theory if you're banned/suspended, you don't (can't?) get paid, but if you're injured you still get paid, including match payments.

It would be different in that respect.

Wouldn't think the player payment angle would be of much concern to the club if we recruit him and he gets banned. Would just free up some dollars to bank for future years or direct to pre-payments for other players.

If he does come, it could achieve the extraordinary result of having me possibly reconsider my great hopes that WADA have a crushing success in November

If he does come, it could achieve the extraordinary result of having me possibly reconsider my great hopes that WADA have a crushing success in November

not mine

If..rather when, he is pinged i for one will be interested in how the club explains its foolhardness.

Not sure any manager worth their keep would agree to a contract clause relating to any non payment or penalising a player for the outcome of the WADA investigation

Not sure any manager worth their keep would agree to a contract clause relating to any non payment or penalising a player for the outcome of the WADA investigation

I'm not an expert and hopefully someone out there knows, but quite possibly it would be part of the WADA rules that a player isn't paid if banned. It doesn't really make sense that you are banned, but still paid anyway.

If you can still be paid during a WADA imposed ban, WADA please ban me from work!

I'm not an expert and hopefully someone out there knows, but quite possibly it would be part of the WADA rules that a player isn't paid if banned. It doesn't really make sense that you are banned, but still paid anyway.

If you can still be paid during a WADA imposed ban, WADA please ban me from work!

Unless you are Sir James Hird ($1Million holiday in France)!

Be a massive MelkShambles when he gets banned for two years.

Enjoy, I'm off to seal my driveway.

Im pretty sure AFL will cover teams if any of the ex=Essendon players are banned

if Melksham was banned for example, we would be able to pluck a player from the state leagues to take the empty spot on the list, and the AFL would cover the replacement players contract and also Melkshams contract for the time of his ban

But it defeats the purpose surely.

Ostensibly you're trading for a capable player and paying that at trade values.

What you end up with is a 2nd rate substitute and you've lost out at trade.

This just has dumb dumb dumb stamped all over it.

Be a massive MelkShambles when he gets banned for two years.

Enjoy, I'm off to seal my driveway.

Livin the dream Ethan!

Unless you are Sir James Hird ($1Million holiday in France)!

yep, & where would that $M 1,000,000.00_____ go, maybe that was spent in France ? on property? or such?

.... Nice` little earner, spent over there in France`...

People think this would be a leap of faith in the players not getting banned?

What about Port with Ryder? The teams chasing Carlisle?

The AFL must have the inside word, but be unable to release it publicly.

The Afl is the inside word prosiding over its tribunial who issue the penalty, in gillins words the players have gone through enough so no suspension required . What a joke .

I'm not an expert and hopefully someone out there knows, but quite possibly it would be part of the WADA rules that a player isn't paid if banned. It doesn't really make sense that you are banned, but still paid anyway.

I can't find anything in the WADA rules that cover a team situation where players have long-term contracts. I know that in cycling, if you're banned, you aren't paid by your team. Maybe someone else has clear info.

At the very least, he would lose match payments (as in the Crowley case), and if the contract is mainly built around match payments, then we don't leave ourselves with too much of a financial millstone.

As for bans, I've always thought that they'd be banned. 2 years, but a reduction for no significant fault, probably down to 18 months, perhaps 12 months. But they've already served 6 months or so, and it also depends on what's currently happening. It's the off-season again, so have these players restarted their provisional bans, just in case?

IOW, if he only received a 12 month ban, he could be available from early next season. If it's 18 months, he would miss next season, and be ready to go when Goodwin takes over. Also, on returning from a ban, you can return to (team) training 2 months before the end of the ban.

As I understand it ...

I can't find anything in the WADA rules that cover a team situation where players have long-term contracts. I know that in cycling, if you're banned, you aren't paid by your team. Maybe someone else has clear info..

As for bans, I've always thought that they'd be banned. 2 years, but a reduction for no significant fault, probably down to 18 months, perhaps 12 months. But they've already served 6 months or so, and it also depends on what's currently happening. It's the off-season again, so have these players restarted their provisional bans, just in case?

IOW, if he only received a 12 month ban, he could be available from early next season. If it's 18 months, he would miss next season, and be ready to go when Goodwin takes over. Also, on returning from a ban, you can return to (team) training 2 months before the end of the ban.

As I understand it ...

Good points Bing. Hadn't thought about the previous provisional 6mths. Would be mad not tn take it again straight after last round. I have same thoughts about ban plus I reckon they'll take into account exceptional delays. So they could well be ready by start of the season. Taking the provisional now is a bizarre one as it counts as ban time although apparently they can still train with the club. Didn't they do that last summer. So no real loss. Just can't compete

Theyll on all likelihood get 2 years reduced to 18

Anyone on that list is out for 2016

Why bring any on board ? esp if theyre only so-so

Im pretty sure AFL will cover teams if any of the ex=Essendon players are banned

if Melksham was banned for example, we would be able to pluck a player from the state leagues to take the empty spot on the list, and the AFL would cover the replacement players contract and also Melkshams contract for the time of his ban

And I'm pretty sure you simply made that up.

I don't want to have to hear Luke Darcy say 'He's had a few amateur bouts in his time' or 'He's quite handy with the gloves, BT' every MFC game i watch for the next 8 years.

Just turn the wR$*@$@kers off. If it is not Milkshake, they will talk utter rubbish about something else.