2 minutes ago, chookrat said:

The AFL should have only allowed top up players on the basis that each replaced player is treated as an UFA at the end of the season. Additionally the club should not be eligible for finals. Imagine if the EFC make the finals as the result of their experienced top up players.

If they make the finals this year I will walk away from the game.

Warning...rated M 

"Video contains dirty words" Miandad.J

 

 

The Bombers need all the help they can get who paid for Paul Roos and Jackson our clubs had plenty of bailouts and know doubt will have more in the future the bombers are on borrowed time once there contract with there insurance company expires who's going to take over that role? No one will insure them , who wants players sticking there hands up in 10 years time saying they have cancer there in deep deep poo.

Bailouts for inept administration running the club into the ground is one thing; bailouts, draft and salary assistance to a club for implementing the largest illegal doping program in Australian history...? That takes the cake.

Happy to show generosity to EFC after their 34 get found out and proven guilty of cheating but what about action against the Bombers for their role in this? We were always led to believe that the previous sanctions were related to governance and that of players were found guilty there would be further ramifications. What happened?

On 30/1/2016 at 6:27 PM, Bonkers said:

The root of the problem begins with running the organisation at the expense of ethics, morals & fairness. The AFL values profit above everything else. How can an organisation be run well into the future if this is the overall objective of its existence. It's only when ethical motives are taken into account & valued at least equally with making a profit that an organisation will be a valuable part of society into the future. 

In my opinion they will continue to sacrifice doing the right thing & put money, TV rights & "growing the game" above all other things.

The following is an extract from a book that I am reading at the moment:

The idea that business should advance the social good has been regaining its proper place in the last decade, helped along by the string of business scandals in recent years. As a case in point, in a 2009 speech James Murdoch, told the audience at the Edinburgh Television Festival that the "only reliable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit". Yet in the wake of the phone hacking scandal at News Corp.'s UK newspaper unit, his sister Elisabeth Murdoch could say to the same audience three years later that her brother "left something out", declaring "profit without purpose is a recipe for disaster." She went on to say, "Personally, I believe one of the biggest lessons of the past year has been the need for any organisation to discuss, affirm & institutionalize a rigorous set of values based on explicit statement of purpose." 

Yet despite this growing consensus, it is probably fair to say that the implicit assumptions in the marketplace are that making money is the main thing in life, that business is fundamentally about accumulating and wielding power, and that maximising profit within legal limits is an end to itself.

Well said, I agree with that. The only thing I would add. What is best for the game? The actual game of a AFL (which is separate to business).

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

Jack, the AFL has already consulted the other clubs on the Brownlow and the result was 16 to retain it and 2 to lose it. I will let you work out who the 2 are .

Essendon & Footscray

53 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Bailouts for inept administration running the club into the ground is one thing; bailouts, draft and salary assistance to a club for implementing the largest illegal doping program in Australian history...? That takes the cake.

Was there any positive tests?

7 minutes ago, Middymalt said:

Was there any positive tests?

I don't know whether to laugh or laugh

 

33 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Essendon & Footscray

? Illogical. efc votes to lose it?

5 minutes ago, sue said:

I don't know whether to laugh or laugh

 

You never answered the post was there? 

I wish Jamar all the best at which ever club gets him, most likely essendon because port is unlikely to get to top up.  I doubt Jamar will do much at Essendon, his last year with us was pretty ordinary and his now another year older. I hope that Spencer can step up and help Gawn, their game together against Geelong last year was pretty damn good from both of them. It would be fantastic if they could both continue to play at that level.

Has there ever been a good AFL CEO?

Demetriou, McLachlan and Wayne Jackson all sucked/suck.  Was Ross Oakley any good?

3 hours ago, chookrat said:

The AFL should have only allowed top up players on the basis that each replaced player is treated as an UFA at the end of the season. Additionally the club should not be eligible for finals. Imagine if the EFC make the finals as the result of their experienced top up players.

Could any player playing for this club be under any due suspicion?

1 hour ago, Middymalt said:

Was there any positive tests?

Are you serious?

1 hour ago, Middymalt said:

Was there any positive tests?

Yes there was and I buried them  in my backyard and if you come up and get em it's gonna cost yu a slab.

1 hour ago, Middymalt said:

You never answered the post was there? 

Because, frankly, your comment isn't worthy of a response.

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

? Illogical. efc votes to lose it?

To be fair they casted their vote just after the arrival of more of the good stuff. Then in line with the traditions of the club, they undertook the shreading of all documents  including the how to vote instructions.

After realising their mistake they are now accusing the AFL of having an agenda to destroy their club. 

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

? Illogical. efc votes to lose it?

I think Red's pulling our legs, Bub.

I'm of the belief the Essendon players won't sue because the AFL will pay them full salaries for the year. The AFL seem so keen to protect and nurture Essendon through this whole episode, and the sycophantic press and that idjit Paul Marsh continue to cast doubt on WADA and say how unfair it is on the poor players.

The "poor" players will be kicking it up on fully expenses paid year long trips overseas "ala" James Hird.

It stinks. 

36 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Because, frankly, your comment isn't worthy of a response.

If there's no positive tests there innocent if they test positive there guilty I have read a few story's on it but I can't recall anyone testing positive I've never seen a horse test negative and lose a race and I've been involved in the breeding industry for 20 years and most you people here drool about it because we've been despicable  for so long I've never seen a sprinter test negative and cop 12 months , there's a couple of lawyers in these threads that probably learnt there craft from Terry Bailey. Saber I know your not an ambulance chaser but there's a few here it's a low occupation but what ever floats your boat.

Doubt we'd want a top-up player that we lose access to at the end of the season anyway.

At the same time, losing 12 players to suspension and having a free-hit at 10, giving them access to one more player than Port Adelaide doesn't make a lot of sense either. Collingwood lost Thomas and Keeffe to suspension and Scharenberg for the year with injury, but weren't given a top-up player. Plenty of teams have lost more than 3 players to injury and didn't require a top up player. Sets a strange precedent.

If they manage to have 12 of their currently listed players suspended, then it should be a case of "unlucky lads, you're in for a rubbish season." Replacing 10 out of 12 missing players with whoever they like so they can "field a competitive side" is mind-boggling.

God damn wine, I was planning on making this a one sentence response.

8 hours ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

Well said, Jack. A technical point though: I am not convinced that Gill ever had the plot in the first place, making it technically impossible to lose it ....

Exactly what I was going to say.

The governance of the AFL is a joke, if it were a normal business they would've gone under long ago. They're just lucky they have a commodity people have an unflinching loyalty to or they'd be in trouble.

I still can't get my head around the 'top ups' system - they have 12 spots on the main list available, they upgrade all of their rookies (4) they then get 10 new players so they have a primary list of 44 instead of 38 and 4 rookies. The maths don't add up - there has been nothing to say that 6 of their top ups are in fact now rookie listed to keep the primary list numbers the same, although this still gives them 2 extra rookie spots on the list.... just doesn't add up

2 minutes ago, jako13 said:

I still can't get my head around the 'top ups system  they 12 spots on the main list, they upgrade all of their rookies (4) they then get 10 new players so they have a primary list of 44 instead of 38 and 4 rookies. The maths don't add up - there has been nothing to say that 6 of their top ups are in fact now rookie listed. To keep the primary list numbers the same

I thought about this too and the conclusion I reached is they must have rejected the option of upgrading rookies in favour of recruiting recently retired delisted players like Stokes, Kelly, Crowley, etc. A "have your cake and eat it too" scenario, which is par the course for this bunch of cheating assholes.