THE BOMBERS' SWISS ADVENTURE

[darkhorse72 1,906]

estimated costs to the club on this saga...about minimum $35m  obviously their insurance picks up a lot.  Also turd lost his court case about his insurance covering his legal fees, he's gotta pay them himself.  

 

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-saga-heres-how-much-the-supplements-scandal-has-cost--so-far-20160503-gol90t.html

[pineapple dee 2,892]

19 hours ago, Wadda We Sing said:

Can you sue your wife?

He cant sue his wife. She's got the notes about the whole affair. ( I should say the supplements affair )

[John Crow Batty 8,861]

2 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

He cant sue his wife. She's got the notes about the whole affair. ( I should say the supplements affair )

He can always divorce his lawyer.

[pineapple dee 2,892]

One thing that James has maintained through this whole business is the beautiful hair. I just want to touch it !!

[faultydet 7,594]

55 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

One thing that James has maintained through this whole business is the beautiful hair. I just want to touch it !!

I just want to punch what's below it.

[biggestred 5,015]

Article in the hun today quoting gil about how hard a decision it will be to take jobes medal away...

 

The guys an idiot

[SaberFang 7,151]

10 hours ago, Darkhorse72 said:

estimated costs to the club on this saga...about minimum $35m  obviously their insurance picks up a lot.  Also turd lost his court case about his insurance covering his legal fees, he's gotta pay them himself.  

I thought that "mystery benefactor" picked up the tab on ASADA's legal bills, and Hird was just greedily trying to get the money back in his pocket regardless?

[Chris 2,892]

6 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

I thought that "mystery benefactor" picked up the tab on ASADA's legal bills, and Hird was just greedily trying to get the money back in his pocket regardless?

The Little benefactor picked up the costs for the first court case. Hird thought his appeal would be covered by insurance (I wish I could find an insurance company to cover me starting legal proceedings, I would sue heaps of people just for fun!) so he took the insurer to court for not covering the costs of the appeal.

[Cards13 9,117]

43 minutes ago, Chris said:

The Little benefactor picked up the costs for the first court case. Hird thought his appeal would be covered by insurance (I wish I could find an insurance company to cover me starting legal proceedings, I would sue heaps of people just for fun!) so he took the insurer to court for not covering the costs of the appeal.

I would assume he has incurred even more costs by taking Chubb to court to pay for his other costs?

[daisycutter 29,604]

1 hour ago, Cards13 said:

I would assume he has incurred even more costs by taking Chubb to court to pay for his other costs?

yes, he will have to pay his lawyer and chubb's legal fees 

[Cards13 9,117]

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yes, he will have to pay his lawyer and chubb's legal fees 

ha!

[old dee 23,781]

I am 99% confident I tread in the HUN today that the judge said in the decision that Hird presented no evidence to support his action.

Very Strange

[Chris 2,892]

14 minutes ago, old dee said:

I am 99% confident I tread in the HUN today that the judge said in the decision that Hird presented no evidence to support his action.

Very Strange

It is the Essendon way, when ASADA and WADA produce lots of evidence they say there is none, yet when James produces none I am sure they will say there is heaps. Still no sign of any records for anything though

 

[grazman 7,407]

1 hour ago, old dee said:

I am 99% confident I tread in the HUN today that the judge said in the decision that Hird presented no evidence to support his action.

Very Strange

Presented plenty of stuff - just that the judge didn't regard it as evidence supporting his claims. Annoying to have people with legal training dismiss your carefully concocted narrative so arbitrarily.  I'm sure Tania would have helped him with his submission though -if they're still talking that is.

[John Crow Batty 8,861]

Apparently he failed/refused to present the transcripts of the questions/answers he felt forced to answer at the joint ASADA/AFL investigation. Being forced the indignity to answer those questions was a central part of his argument that he was defending himself and thus covered by the insurance. There must have been some hot stuff and bus tire marks there that he felt could not enter the public domain. 

Edited May 4, 2016 by america de cali

[Red and Bluebeard 2,083]

2 hours ago, old dee said:

I am 99% confident I tread in the HUN today that the judge said in the decision that Hird presented no evidence to support his action.

Very Strange

No doubt Hird can only hope to tread as carefully as you do, OD ... it sounds like for him, tread is preceded only ever by "Barge in where angels fear to" 

[daisycutter 29,604]

8 minutes ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

No doubt Hird can only hope to tread as carefully as you do, OD ... it sounds like for him, tread is preceded only ever by "Barge in where angels fear to" 

 tread, is that like tmac or trex, r&b?

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,693]

6 hours ago, biggestred said:

Article in the hun today quoting gil about how hard a decision it will be to take jobes medal away...

 

The guys an idiot

Disagree. McLachlan has to say it's a difficult decision to protect his reputation whichever way the decision goes. There will be complaints whatever decision is made so to say it was a "hard decision" insulates the Commission and McLachlan from criticism.

(Actually, to clarify, he may be an idiot, but this particular statement is not idiotic).

Edited May 4, 2016 by La Dee-vina Comedia
Added last sentence

[biggestred 5,015]

No, he needs to say that "until the appeal is over jobe will keep his medal. If the appeal fails the afl will have no choice other than to strip jobe of his medal as he gained it whilst being part of an unregulated and unsupervised illegal supplement regime".

[Red and Bluebeard 2,083]

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

 tread, is that like tmac or trex, r&b?

More like those than Phil Read, not to mention fread and fwrite .... 

[Lucifers Hero 39,600]

Gil has shown how weak he is by saying he will abstain from voting on Jobe and the medal claiming need to be seen as being independent.

Seems a cop out to me so he can maintain his self image (er, delusion) of being fair...no, no blood on his pure hands!

Edited May 4, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[Willmoy1947 4,081]

 

20 hours ago, Darkhorse72 said:

estimated costs to the club on this saga...about minimum $35m  obviously their insurance picks up a lot.  Also turd lost his court case about his insurance covering his legal fees, he's gotta pay them himself.  

 

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-saga-heres-how-much-the-supplements-scandal-has-cost--so-far-20160503-gol90t.html

Must admit that the item that saddened me the most from the Age's list was the miserly token $200,000 by work cover. This was the most important finding and would have angered a lot of honest people in an Australian industry that has propelled itself to the bottom of  the spittoon.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,083]

55 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Gil has shown how weak he is by saying he will abstain from voting on Jobe and the medal claiming need to be seen as being independent.

Seems a cop out to me so he can maintain his self image (er, delusion) of being fair...no, no blood on his pure hands!

Independent in this context meaning " fence- sitting dork".

[jnrmac 20,055]

On 5/3/2016 at 10:07 AM, Chris said:

As predicted by most James Hird has lost his legal case against Chubb and now has to pay a legal bill of around $640,000. Maybe he should be suing his lawyers for the abysmal advice he has received throughout the whole saga!

She's already taken him for more than half of what they had together.....

[jnrmac 20,055]

21 hours ago, Darkhorse72 said:

estimated costs to the club on this saga...about minimum $35m  obviously their insurance picks up a lot.  

I'm not sure that's right. When you act negligently/fraudulently or illegally you may not be covered. Maybe that's what the Swiss case is about. The current judgement is scathing on the club and if I was the insurance cpy I'd be saying the club has breached its obligations to act legally. Ergo 'we are not responsible for payment'

Interesting to hear the views of any insurance lawyers out there....