If the players are being paid, it's harder for them to demonstrate "loss" and thus harder to launch court action against the EFC.

The Essendon club will certainly want to pay the players in full ... for a variety of reasons.

The main 2 reasons being that the club was obviously complicit with regards to the "supplements" injection régime ... so, they are almost duty bound to pay the players in full ... the other main reason is the one that you outlined TF.

Also, they'll want the players to return after their bans so paying them becomes imperative for that outcome to come to fruition.

However, if they are unable or stopped from paying their players then that's when things could easily turn very ugly. It may well get ugly even if they are all paid in full ... there are so many consequences in the aftermath of this saga.

Does anyone know what the actual ruling is (with regards to payment) or is it an arbitrary decision? I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

 

Interesting article on Lovett-murray.  While he's getting his own lawyer, the in itself it no the interesting bit:  its one piece of information I find interesting.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-drug-ban-banned-bomber-nathan-lovettmurray-enlists-own-counsel-20160116-gm77zj.html

"One agent has suggested the overall compensation bid may be for more than $30 million. Bombers' chairman Lindsay Tanner has said the club has insurance to help guard against any hefty pay out, should that eventuate."

The insurance company, a few questions.  What was the premium and excess and would it now turn around and say that the actions of the club were illegal and therefore we won't cover you?  As insurance companies love their clauses and guilty verdict points to activities by the club that could be found in breach of a policy.

 

 

 

The Essendon club will certainly want to pay the players in full ... for a variety of reasons.

The main 2 reasons being that the club was obviously complicit with regards to the "supplements" injection régime ... so, they are almost duty bound to pay the players in full ... the other main reason is the one that you outlined TF.

Also, they'll want the players to return after their bans so paying them becomes imperative for that outcome to come to fruition.

However, if they are unable or stopped from paying their players then that's when things could easily turn very ugly. It may well get ugly even if they are all paid in full ... there are so many consequences in the aftermath of this saga.

Does anyone know what the actual ruling is (with regards to payment) or is it an arbitrary decision? I suppose we'll find out soon enough.

 

Didn't the AFL allow Hird to be paid for the year of his suspension through some loophole?

AFLPA have said law suits will follow but are very very keen to settle out of court.  They know it can take years for a hearing and a court decision before players see any money. 

Also, while the players have a case on failure of duty of care as evidenced by the worksafe EFC guilty plea, their case may not be so strong on loss of reputation and loss of earnings given they gave their consent and that CAS found them guilty. Even on failure of duty of care players will need to show that they have suffered some damage/loss and while they have suffered mentally they haven't (yet) physically. 

For all the noise about suing, players won't want those principles tested in court; the AFL want the saga to go away;  EFC don't want anymore dirty laundry aired in public; WADA doesn't allow payment while suspended but players want their coin.  A dilemma, yes?

Well, no! 

I believe they will settle out of court asap and player 2016 contract payments will be invisibly rolled into the negotiated settlement.  Confidentiality agreements will be signed and who knows there may even be a 'hush money' component to the settlement so 'no talk' clauses can be included.  All part of the horse trading to quickly get money into players hands asap and to silence everyone! 

Will there be a player who cannot be bought and who takes his chances in court?  I suspect the AFL going after Hal Hunter for costs, was a strategically timed warning across the bow to any player wanting to break away. 

Players will be 'paid' (and it will all be swept under the carpet). 

But players will not get their reputations back. 

Edited January 16, 20169 yr by Lucifer's Hero

 

PJ was the man who was in charge when Knights was coach and then gave him the 3 year extension. Only for Turd to shuffle in the back door on him.

And Knights was shafted by the then board. He went to them the year before he was sacked and told them the plan, which involved moving on some old players, having a hard year so, but doing so for the long term. The board agrees to this in full knowledge of the pain to come. When the pain hit they reneged. 

 

And Knights was shafted by the then board. He went to them the year before he was sacked and told them the plan, which involved moving on some old players, having a hard year so, but doing so for the long term. The board agrees to this in full knowledge of the pain to come. When the pain hit they reneged. 

I find it funny all the Dons mates I have laughed or said what a bad move it was in getting PJ mainly based on the Knights scenario when that has ended so well for us and so poorly for them.

 

 

PJ was the man who was in charge when Knights was coach and then gave him the 3 year extension. Only for Turd to shuffle in the back door on him.

Not 100% sure, but I think PJ was also a victim of the Hird coup.

Edited January 16, 20169 yr by america de cali

 

Didn't the AFL allow Hird to be paid for the year of his suspension through some loophole?

Yes.

 

Interesting article on Lovett-murray.  While he's getting his own lawyer, the in itself it no the interesting bit:  its one piece of information I find interesting.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-drug-ban-banned-bomber-nathan-lovettmurray-enlists-own-counsel-20160116-gm77zj.html

"One agent has suggested the overall compensation bid may be for more than $30 million. Bombers' chairman Lindsay Tanner has said the club has insurance to help guard against any hefty pay out, should that eventuate."

The insurance company, a few questions.  What was the premium and excess and would it now turn around and say that the actions of the club were illegal and therefore we won't cover you?  As insurance companies love their clauses and guilty verdict points to activities by the club that could be found in breach of a policy.

 

 

I'd like to know what the policy limit is. It would have already taken a battering.

 

Didn't the AFL allow Hird to be paid for the year of his suspension through some loophole?

not sure it was a loophole, more the threat of going to court and dragging the afl over the coals i thought

Edited January 16, 20169 yr by daisycutter
spellink

 

I'd like to know what the policy limit is. It would have already taken a battering.

Sadly, it can be assumed the AFL will play the 'insurer of last resort' role in this sad and sorry saga.

Some would say that is appropriate as they are 'an employer' and could/would be included in any suit brought by the players.  I would actually like to see the players test this in court.  They won't - they might lose and anyway everyone just wants it to go away.

For mine, I would like to see the AFL fight any claim against it.  I am sick of them wasting any more money on EFC while so many other clubs are awash in red ink and struggle to have decent facilities etc.  But it won't happen...the broom and carpet are waiting!

 

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tim-lane-cas-decision-gives-cause-for-comfort-20160116-gm7axr.html

 

The comments Lane highlights again from the previous ASADA head about the AFL just re-emphasise the majority of thought on the AFL brand at this point.

 

http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tim-lane-cas-decision-gives-cause-for-comfort-20160116-gm7axr.html

The comments Lane highlights again from the previous ASADA head about the AFL just re-emphasise the majority of thought on the AFL brand at this point.

From the article:

"Claims the AFL sought a pragmatic early solution to the Essendon drama in the first half of 2013 were denied by CEO Gillon McLachlan on Tuesday night's AFL 360. Yet Aurora Andruska, the CEO of the Australian Anti-Doping Authority through the first 15 months of the saga, is on record as saying: "Their [the AFL's] objectives and ASADA's objectives are almost at odds with each other's. They are about protecting their business, protecting their brand." Andruska, it should be pointed out, was specifically lauded by Justice John Middleton of the Federal Court, in September 2014, as a "truthful witness".

I can't get behind The Australian's paywall but Chip Le Grand also took up this issue in an article yesterday.  He documents how Gil went to Canberra and the 'deal' they wanted. He was quite dismissive of Gil's denials on AFL360 and flippant references to Andruska's notes as 'just bits of paper', even tho they were accepted in court and he knows it!

Looks like Gil can also play fast and loose with the truth.

Just on the issue of payments to players, as I've said somewhere on Demonland previously, we shouldn't be thinking of the players being paid a weekly wage. It is quite possible that the players will not be getting cash in the bank accounts during the period of suspension but they might nevertheless be paid either through pre-payments (front loading) prior to the CAS decision and "make up" payments post the period of suspension so that they are not out of pocket. This would be consistent with the AFL saying that the players' pay would still be counted for the club's TPP  for 2016. Another possibility is that the club pays the money into a trust fund or an escrow account (using those terms loosely) so the players still get the money - they just have to wait for their suspensions to be over.

In summary, they may not receive any money during the period of suspension but they may still get everything owing to them under their contracts.

 

Just on the issue of payments to players, as I've said somewhere on Demonland previously, we shouldn't be thinking of the players being paid a weekly wage. It is quite possible that the players will not be getting cash in the bank accounts during the period of suspension but they might nevertheless be paid either through pre-payments (front loading) prior to the CAS decision and "make up" payments post the period of suspension so that they are not out of pocket. This would be consistent with the AFL saying that the players' pay would still be counted for the club's TPP  for 2016. Another possibility is that the club pays the money into a trust fund or an escrow account (using those terms loosely) so the players still get the money - they just have to wait for their suspensions to be over.

In summary, they may not receive any money during the period of suspension but they may still get everything owing to them under their contracts.

yes, i had thought something similar.

this would probably be in essendon's interest for the 12 remaining players at essendon

but what about the other 22 scattered elsewhere (excluding those retired and not working in the afl empire)

i'm not sure mfc, dogs, port, saints etc would necessarily be happy with arrangement at their cost. surely there would be an expectation that essendon should bear those costs?

 

Didn't the AFL allow Hird to be paid for the year of his suspension through some loophole?

When an individual athlete has been rubbed out for PED use we generally haven't known or even bothered to find out if that athlete ends up getting paid by whoever pays them.

Many of these athletes who have been rubbed out have major sponsors in place and/or endorsement deals but I guess it's taken for granted that they can't compete for prizemoney because they are banned.

For these footballers their main source of income is the salary that they receive from the EFC ... regardless, they'll probably find a loophole (if needed) and they'll all end up getting paid.

Where it's different are those 17 players who are no longer playing AFL footy ... if any of them are getting paid in the leagues that they might play for then that money may not be as forthcoming. Not sure that the clubs in the minor leagues would be so accommodating (the Lovett-Murray situation being a case in point) So, as a consequence of that, these 17 players may be more likely to take legal action.

Also, what about the 5 players at the other AFL clubs? (including our club) ... do those clubs have the same obligation to pay these banned players? As a gesture of goodwill they might do so but it's certainly a different scenario to the Essendon one.

Offloading players (as the EFC seemed to do) might come at a price ... there's always a catch.

 

Edited January 17, 20169 yr by Macca

 

From the article:

"Claims the AFL sought a pragmatic early solution to the Essendon drama in the first half of 2013 were denied by CEO Gillon McLachlan on Tuesday night's AFL 360. Yet Aurora Andruska, the CEO of the Australian Anti-Doping Authority through the first 15 months of the saga, is on record as saying: "Their [the AFL's] objectives and ASADA's objectives are almost at odds with each other's. They are about protecting their business, protecting their brand." Andruska, it should be pointed out, was specifically lauded by Justice John Middleton of the Federal Court, in September 2014, as a "truthful witness".

I can't get behind The Australian's paywall but Chip Le Grand also took up this issue in an article yesterday.  He documents how Gil went to Canberra and the 'deal' they wanted. He was quite dismissive of Gil's denials on AFL360 and flippant references to Andruska's notes as 'just bits of paper', even tho they were accepted in court and he knows it!

Looks like Gil can also play fast and loose with the truth.

Interesting. Was not aware of that...

 

Looks like Gil can also play fast and loose with the truth.

gee luci, you like going out on a limb don't you? lol

Geez it sounds like doc reid may not have been all innocent. But Lovett-Murray gets 10 injections in one hit and doesnt seem to ask more questions. 10 injections would be very painful. In fact Lovett-Murray seems to be the more outspoken one and I guess he loses his coaching gig. But geez they are still quick to blame everyone else. 

 

Geez it sounds like doc reid may not have been all innocent. But Lovett-Murray gets 10 injections in one hit and doesnt seem to ask more questions. 10 injections would be very painful. In fact Lovett-Murray seems to be the more outspoken one and I guess he loses his coaching gig. But geez they are still quick to blame everyone else. 

Just finished reading that article now. 

How can Doc Reid say he knew nothing and still he keeps both jobs today!!

 

It would only be fair if the AFL supports Lovett-Murray in some way like they plan to do for those still playing.  Will be interesting to see if fair is in the AFL's vocabulary.

 

Just finished reading that article now. 

How can Doc Reid say he knew nothing and still he keeps both jobs today!!

 

Link?

 

Link?

Sorry mate i read it via actual paper and print. I would never pay Rupert anything!!

 

Sorry mate i read it via actual paper and print. I would never pay Rupert anything!!

Me either!

As an antidote to the Essendrug crap it's nice to read something positive - Max Bailey volunteering to work with the Masai in Tanzania for 12 months with Future Warriors. Good on him and I hope he gets heaps of support. Tomic and Kyrgios take note.