3 hours ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Harsh but true Bizkit, What the players did to cover it up was disgraceful

Yes, and now they're being penalised for it. But once those penalties have been served, they deserve the same opportunities as all of us, or at the very least, the benefit of the doubt.

36 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

nasher, it's is very easy to rationalise almost anything (go on bomberblitz) and easy to find a siver-lining in every dark cloud. we now have to live with the mistake and i hope we can salvage some good out of it

but none of that should distract from the fact that the decision to trade for milkshake with a low 2nd rounder and a good salary, was, in the conditions of a pending wada appeal, a bad decision. a snafu

Okay. Your position is that because the player is going to miss one season out of the four he is contracted for, and for no other reason whatsoever, the entire decision to trade him in was bad. Is that correct? A yes or no will do.

Edit: I'm not trying to be a tool here in case it comes across that way. Your position just makes no logical sense to me and I am trying to flesh it out.

Ess should pay his contract for this year

42 minutes ago, stuie said:

Spot. On.

Melbourne Coach Paul Roos said: “Jake was recruited to our Club for the long term."

 

That's revisionist speak for we fukked up.

1 minute ago, biggestred said:

Ess should pay his contract for this year

Nobody will be paying him this year.

21 minutes ago, biggestred said:

Ess should pay his contract for this year

 

19 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Nobody will be paying him this year.

Someone should pay him...Essendon are paying 'their' players - whether this is just those still on their list or not I don't know...I suspect it is.

It would be wrong if all 34 players are not treated the same.  The AFL said today any payments to players by Ess would be within their TPP. 

However, if we are 'morally' obliged by the AFL to pay Melksham it should NOT be in our TPP in my opinion.  From a cash flow and profit perspective I think there is a strong case for the non-ess affected clubs to request the AFL to pay the salary.  Port, Bulldogs, StK and us are the poorest clubs in the league and can least afford to throw away a few hundred thousands of dollars.

Edit: "...Bombers chief executive Xavier Campbell confirmed the banned players would be paid during their suspensions.  "They will be paid by the club. We'll have to work within the confines of the WADA code and we'll work closely with the AFL and we've had discussions to that effect," Campbell said.  http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-12/manifestly-unfair-bombers-hit-at-cas-verdict?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

 

Edited January 12, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Well, this isn't great, and would we have done this deal if we knew he would miss a quarter of his contract?

That's hard to say. I take solace in the issue being a broad one with Essendon, Port, and St Kilda dealing with more headaches than us...

And just like we can't ignore that this is a massive setback for our player, it doesn't give a final determination on that trade either.

How history sees this trade is a few years from being written definitively.

Hasn't started well though...

If they work WITHIN  the WADA code the players can not be paid

 Again the EFC wants to intepret things their way.

They still don't get it. Probably never will.

Edited January 12, 20169 yr by beelzebub

23 minutes ago, Nasher said:

Okay. Your position is that because the player is going to miss one season out of the four he is contracted for, and for no other reason whatsoever, the entire decision to trade him in was bad. Is that correct? A yes or no will do.

Edit: I'm not trying to be a tool here in case it comes across that way. Your position just makes no logical sense to me and I am trying to flesh it out.

no

if you can be bothered trawling through the trade period threads you will see i was one of the first posters to suggest this trade was too risky.

ask yourself this. if you could make the choice now in retrospect would you still make the trade? if your answer is no, then the trade was a mistake. whether we can now salvage something out of this is an entirely different proposition (and is also something very subjective)

seems the bombers will be paying their players during the suspension

so what is the case with milkshake? i presume he too will now be payed, but by who?

if by us then that is $400k straight down the drain. or if you want to average it out he will effectively cost $533k pa for 3 years. he'd better be better than good

Edited January 12, 20169 yr by daisycutter

Just now, daisycutter said:

seems the bombers will be paying their players during the suspension

so what is the case with milkshake? i presume he too will now be payed, but by who?

if by us then that is $400k dtraight down the drain. or if you want to average it out he will effectively cost $533k pa for 3 years. he'd better be better than good

We took the chance dc and now we have to pay the piper.

Of course if he is wonderful in 2017 we will not care.

That is the nature of the football supporter.

The ends justifies  the means.

33 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 

Someone should pay him...Essendon are paying 'their' players - whether this is just those still on their list or not I don't know...I suspect it is.

It would be wrong if all 34 players are not treated the same.  The AFL said today any payments to players by Ess would be within their TPP. 

However, if we are 'morally' obliged by the AFL to pay Melksham it should NOT be in our TPP in my opinion.  From a cash flow and profit perspective I think there is a strong case for the non-ess affected clubs to request the AFL to pay the salary.  Port, Bulldogs, StK and us are the poorest clubs in the league and can least afford to throw away a few hundred thousands of dollars.

Edit: "...Bombers chief executive Xavier Campbell confirmed the banned players would be paid during their suspensions.  "They will be paid by the club. We'll have to work within the confines of the WADA code and we'll work closely with the AFL and we've had discussions to that effect," Campbell said.  http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-12/manifestly-unfair-bombers-hit-at-cas-verdict?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

 

Interesting how does all of this work with the salary cap?

 

As for us missing Jake I see this as a future pick that would have been nice if he could play this year, I don't think too many people are upset NOW with us trading a pick for a Jesse Hogan who could not play with us in that draft year. Sadly Jesse also spent the next year out but he will hopefully still be worth the price paid. I trust Jake maybe a similar type player. Yes we gave up an early pick for a kid that probably would not have played much this year anyway and who could have any sort of future. We at least have some knowledge of Jake's capabilities. A year off from all of this crap will have him champing at the bit to play for us. Disappointing but it just gives another player a chance to step up and claim a regular spot in our side.

My understanding of the Code is that once banned you are NOT entitled to payments as a player. None. That is PART of the punishment.

Happy to be corrected.

11 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

My understanding of the Code is that once banned you are NOT entitled to payments as a player. None. That is PART of the punishment.

Happy to be corrected.

I was surprised too bb

But Gil the pie man said words to the effect of " the current suspend player payments will have to be included in the EFC total player cap for 2016 but they would increase the cap  for the make up players"

 

25 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

My understanding of the Code is that once banned you are NOT entitled to payments as a player. None. That is PART of the punishment.

Happy to be corrected.

This is EFC bb!  You know those guys that think themselves above the law and will bend the rules to suit themselves!. 

Any idea where to find the Code that talks to player payments while suspended?

I think we can cover Jake. We are allowed to bring up a rookie and its not like he has been with us for a few years dominated and he is a midfileder. At the monument its going ok. We arent losinga jones or a vince. I think its worse for stkilda who have Carlisle, the dogs who have a tall key forward and even Port who lose Ryder as there ruckman. 

He will be a new recruit for us next year and hope he comes back better for it. 

2 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

I think we can cover Jake. We are allowed to bring up a rookie and its not like he has been with us for a few years dominated and he is a midfileder. At the monument its going ok. We arent losinga jones or a vince. I think its worse for stkilda who have Carlisle, the dogs who have a tall key forward and even Port who lose Ryder as there ruckman. 

He will be a new recruit for us next year and hope he comes back better for it. 

Port loses Monfries as well. 

I won't be cheering Melksham when he takes the field in 2017.

I'm extremely disappointed that we have a convicted drug cheat on our list, and would prefer that the club find a way to delist him out of principle.

I don't care that it'd mean we made a loss on the trade. This is bigger than that.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

no

if you can be bothered trawling through the trade period threads you will see i was one of the first posters to suggest this trade was too risky.

ask yourself this. if you could make the choice now in retrospect would you still make the trade? if your answer is no, then the trade was a mistake. whether we can now salvage something out of this is an entirely different proposition (and is also something very subjective)

My answer is a non-commital "I dunno". It sucks, no doubt, but he still has a truckload of time to redeem himself. If we were talking a life ban I might see your point.

Ask yourself this: if Melksham has a spectacular 2017 and 2018 for the MFC, was the decision to trade still a bad one?

How about if we did the trade at the end of 2016 or 2017 (ie after the ban is served)? Assuming we paid the same price, would that be better? If so, why?

1 minute ago, Nasher said:

My answer is a non-commital "I dunno". It sucks, no doubt, but he still has a truckload of time to redeem himself. If we were talking a life ban I might see your point.

Ask yourself this: if Melksham has a spectacular 2017 and 2018 for the MFC, was the decision to trade still a bad one?

How about if we did the trade at the end of 2016 or 2017 (ie after the ban is served)? Assuming we paid the same price, would that be better? If so, why?

I don't want to hijak your conversation with dc nasher, but for mine, even if Melksham turns out to be the next Ablett Jnr I think it was the wrong decision.

He's a drug cheat. He doesn't deserve to wear the red and blue.

5 minutes ago, Choke said:

I don't want to hijak your conversation with dc nasher, but for mine, even if Melksham turns out to be the next Ablett Jnr I think it was the wrong decision.

He's a drug cheat. He doesn't deserve to wear the red and blue.

I can understand a stance of principles Choke, though I don't think it's quite as black and white as "drug cheat".

DC et al seem to me to think it's the one year ban that makes a difference. I can't understand that at all.

8 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I can understand a stance of principles Choke, though I don't think it's quite as black and white as "drug cheat".

DC et al seem to me to think it's the one year ban that makes a difference. I can't understand that at all.

it's not the one year ban that makes a difference as to whether or not he's a drug cheat - it's the 'guilty' finding.

1 minute ago, DemonAndrew said:

it's not the one year ban that makes a difference as to whether or not he's a drug cheat - it's the 'guilty' finding.

That hasn't been contended by any of the people I've been having this debate with. If that's the case then I've been arguing against the wrong point. dc?

Just now, Nasher said:

I can understand a stance of principles Choke, though I don't think it's quite as black and white as "drug cheat".

DC et al seem to me to think it's the one year ban that makes a difference. I can't understand that at all.

don't misrepresent me nasher.

i always thought he was guilty and i always thought there was a good chance (not guaranteed) that cas would find so. Given that i also thought the price paid (pick number plus salary quoted) and the risk of suspension hanging over him (plus my doubts on his playing ability) made the decision too risky, given our change in list management and our need to make each post a winner in trade/draft period. As it has turned out i think today's decision by cas has only reinforced my initial thoughts during trade/draft period

it's just my opinion and i don't take any gratification over the way it has turned out.

as to what may happen in the future i'm not that interested at the moment in speculative guesswork and self rationalisation

I am not worried about Melksham as we escaped lighter compared with the Saints and PA who gifted Esendon first round picks and now lose potentially key players, whereas they they could have drafted Parish etc.

l am concerned however that the AFL are doing everything in their power to minimise any adverse effect on Essendon. It is ludicrous that the AFL are manipulating their own rules to allow the players to continue to be paid whilst sitting out the year, a decision completely contrary to the spirit of the court ruling. Of ourse this comes as no surprise when you consider that EFC paid Hird a $M to holiday in France.

Finally, I am astounded that the AFL will further compensate EFC by enabling them to recruit ten "top-up" players in addition to promoting their five rookies. The ten players concerned will obviously be at the expense of VFL Clubs and other leagues who stand to lose what are their best players at the onset of the season through no fault of their own.

l think that the penalties imposed on the 34 should be just that : Penalties! That the EFC is also damaged is how it should be as it was them (and Hird) who initiated the drug regime, not the players themselves.