48 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

I think Red's pulling our legs, Bub.

Sorry Jack...my humour is lacking re efc

9 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 .

If this is true (and i have no reason to doubt) it is a disgrace. 

 

All clubs and players in the competition should be condemning the Essendon players as drug cheats. I don't mind sympathy or olive branches but that doesn't mean they should be tarred with the brush. 

 

Either all of the industry has been brainwashed or the other clubs were undertaking similar "beyond the line" programs and just didn't get caught (thus the sympathy).

How can the AFL give the medal for the best and fairest player go to a player found guilty of taking drugs, this defies common sense and logic. Taking a vote on it shows a total lack of leadership and ownership by the AFL who will be looking to use the opinions of other clubs to sanction their dishonesty.

24 minutes ago, deanox said:

If this is true (and i have no reason to doubt) it is a disgrace. 

 

All clubs and players in the competition should be condemning the Essendon players as drug cheats. I don't mind sympathy or olive branches but that doesn't mean they should be tarred with the brush. 

 

Either all of the industry has been brainwashed or the other clubs were undertaking similar "beyond the line" programs and just didn't get caught (thus the sympathy).

Sorry Deanox, it was a joke. The 2 clubs would have been Tigers and Hawks, who would get the Brownlow, if Jobe lost it.

5 minutes ago, Deecisive said:

How can the AFL give the medal for the best and fairest player go to a player found guilty of taking drugs, this defies common sense and logic. Taking a vote on it shows a total lack of leadership and ownership by the AFL who will be looking to use the opinions of other clubs to sanction their dishonesty.

They obviously can't if they want to retain any shred of integrity, but I've a feeling the reason for their delay tactic announcing any decision was straight from any slimy politician's playbook: wait for the opportune Friday afternoon (right before round 1, probably) to announce something hugely unpopular with the public (ie. allowing him to keep the medal), because the masses are too busy focusing on other things.

1 hour ago, jako13 said:

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

They're only allowed 40 players on the active playing list at any one time. Effectively they can upgrade a player from outside the list ahead of one of their rookies if they choose to do so. Ridiculous as it sounds.

9 hours ago, Redleg said:

Sorry Deanox, it was a joke. The 2 clubs would have been Tigers and Hawks, who would get the Brownlow, if Jobe lost it.

Given that there's some debate about whether the 2012 Brownlow should even go to the next highest voters if Jobe lost it or returned it, I'm not sure that scenario is valid. The matter should in my view be handled by the AFL Commission without consultation of the clubs but if they are asked to vote, then it should be on the merits only and not because one of your players stand to win the Brownlow as a result of the vote. 

There's only one reason why the decision on the Brownlow can be delayed and that is because there is a right to appeal against the CAS decision which runs out on 10 February and, as long as that right exists, it would not be appropriate for the decision to be made.

Angry Hinkley hopes AFL will relax list concession rules after CAS verdict

Quote

He also expressed frustration that a week after the ruling was made, the Power were no closer to knowing the fine detail of what their two suspended players can or can't do beyond not being able to play or train.

Hinkley said it was disappointing that contingency plans had not being made to ensure everyone at the affected clubs knew the exact conditions accompanying the suspensions. 

"We still don't know what we can or can't do with the boys. You would have thought there would be some planning go into what that looked like [and] what the consequences might be to a guilty verdict," Hinkley said.

"And a week on from today you still can't quite be clear. Yes we know they can't compete. Yes we know they can't train, but we haven't got any further detail from that."

Depending on the conditions attached to the suspension Ryder might, for example, be involved in the club's indigenous programs.

So minutes after the verdict was handed down, the AFL announce concession rules for Essendon, but a week later they were yet to advise clubs on the parameters for the banned players.

If that's not an example of money taking priority over anything and everything, even player welfare, then I don't know what is.

Integrity in the AFL has been a joke for some time, but it is clear that integrity and AFL are now mutually exclusive.

Quote

Hinkley said it was disappointing that contingency plans had not being made to ensure everyone at the affected clubs knew the exact conditions accompanying the suspensions. 

If we needed any further evidence that the AFL is incompetent as well as corrupt, this is it.  Any company of the AFL's size which did not work out its responses to every possible CAS outcome, however thought to be unlikely, is beyond incompetent.  They should all be sacked.

14 hours ago, Petraccattack said:

Has there ever been a good AFL CEO?

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

Ask any Fitzroy supporter. Then run as fast as you can.

The AFL are so corrupt now. 

It's all Betting and TV now. 

I belive the fans will fight back for our game, but it will take some time. 

Essendrug being propped up with players from outside being "injected" onto their list is a disgrace. 

The AFL as an organisation needs to be taken down. Otherwise they will kill the game. 

 

But, but but he got the the price of pies down !!!!

The simple fact that there was no contingency  plan for the Essendrug 34 being suspended for a year is proof he should go.

From the first press conference on it was obvious they were making plans on the run.

The fact they seem to have given little credence to this possibility beggars belief. 

It is chukka season old chaps.....can't expect the grinning one to be too fussed about the leather ball game off season eh what.

39 minutes ago, old dee said:

The simple fact that there was no contingency  plan for the Essendrug 34 being suspended for a year is proof he should go.

From the first press conference on it was obvious they were making plans on the run.

The fact they seem to have given little crederence to this possibility beggars belief. 

Absolutely OD. If the AFL was a company, if the shareholders hadn't sacked the lot of them well before this, they certainly would now.

Seeing Fitzpatrick on my tv at the tennis last night made me turn it off.

Top-ups should either apply to all clubs affected by the Essendon suspensions or none of them. Pretty simple really.

If you can go outside the rules to help one club because of the situation, what is the reason for the same courtesy not being extended to the other clubs affected by the CAS decision?

8 minutes ago, Carlos Danger said:

Top-ups should either apply to all clubs affected by the Essendon suspensions or none of them. Pretty simple really.

If you can go outside the rules to help one club because of the situation, what is the reason for the same courtesy not being extended to the other clubs affected by the CAS decision?

any attempt to use logic will be meaningless to the afl (unless you have very deep pockets)

Can someone be considered the fairest and the best after they had been convicted of taking a banned substances in the year they won the award? 

1 hour ago, DemonFrog said:

Can someone be considered the fairest and the best after they had been convicted of taking a banned substances in the year they won the award? 

yes, but only in the afl

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

yes, but only in the afl

Then IMO they need to have a few more awards so the night can truly capture the spirit of the AFL

• The most injections in a single season
• The biggest [censored] award
• Brownlow (without taking illegal substances)
• Brownlow (cheaters award)
• The most TV Rights revenue by an AFL official
• Life membership to the boys club
• We found someone with Integrity in the AFL (then we fired them) Award
• Free gifts to the AFL club with the most suspended players due to taking banned substances

23 minutes ago, DemonFrog said:

minor edit:

• Downlow (cheaters award)

 

What about the award for Most Failed Appeals in an Anti-Doping Investigation?

34 minutes ago, DemonFrog said:

Then IMO they need to have a few more awards so the night can truly capture the spirit of the AFL

• The most injections in a single season
• The biggest [censored] award
• Brownlow (without taking illegal substances)
• Brownlow (cheaters award)
• The most TV Rights revenue by an AFL official
• Life membership to the boys club
• We found someone with Integrity in the AFL (then we fired them) Award
• Free gifts to the AFL club with the most suspended players due to taking banned substances

froggy, all great ideas. you should forward them to the tv execs for approval who will then "pull the strings"

28 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

What about the award for Most Failed Appeals in an Anti-Doping Investigation?

Lol