On 24/02/2016 at 01:01, old dee said:

Are you trying to replace dc ?

You have been very sharp this last week or so bb.

I alternate  apparently 

  On 23/02/2016 at 22:16, Lucifer's Hero said:

What continues to astound me is that no high ranking sports authority has taken the AFL to task. 

I long ago gave up any hope of Athletics Australia doing so as David Grace QC is its Chairman (and has also led the players vs AFL/ASADA/WADA/CAS campaigns.

Ditto for the Australian Sports Commission as John Wylie its Chairman is a close mate of Mike Fitzpatrick and was asked by Fitzpatrick to be the go between with Essendon in August 2013.

In short, these terribly incestuos connections have compromised clean sport in this country.

Perhaps, the most troubling of all is the position of John Wylie as the ASC has a big say on funding and sponsorship for sports.  All sports appear to have gone quiet, perhaps 'muzzled' by the fear of losing funding.

So no point expecting politicians or sports administrators to stand up for clean sport.  It is incredibly disappointing that not even IOC reps have spoken out.  eg John Coates, an internationally respected sports administrator, Susie O'Neil also highly regarded etc.

I would imagine a fair bit of sledging will happen at the RIO games in a few months!   I guess our athletes can't complain about 'being tarnished with the same brush' if their sporting bodies are not prepared to stand up and be counted when necessary!

I disagree on John Coates. He is heavily involved in WADA and is Chairman of CAS. He is on record consistently about standing up to drug cheats and along with John Fahey, has consistently said that Essendon should take their medicine if they are found guilty by the international sport tribunals. 

The Olympic sports in Australia are the ones that insist on consistency in drug enforcement. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the individual sports international organisations, particularly the IAAF.

I THINK Coates has done an admirable job in creating as much as possible a drugs free environment for Australian Olympics sports. 

  On 23/02/2016 at 22:48, Chris said:

I have said it before but my membership does not get renewed until Dill comes out and categorically says the AFL support the WADA code and any talk of the AFL leaving the WADA code is ridiculous and not worth the paper it is written on. 

I realise this hurts the club and not really the AFL but I can't bring myself to financially support a league that is effectively allowing people to condone PED use. I think the chance of the AFl walking from the WADA code is very slim but that is not due to the integrity of the WADA code, it is due to the dollars attached from the government. If there weren't any dollars attached Dill would have walked from the WADA code a few years back.

I certainly don't have any real excitement about the season that is about to start which is one we should all be hugely excited about. The thought of all and sundry going on and on about the replacement EFC players and how the club has been through such a hard time etc etc makes me sick. Certainly will not be watching or having anything to do with any EFC game for the year, even when we are playing them. 

 

  On 23/02/2016 at 22:56, beelzebub said:

What really pizzes me off is that finally as a team, as a club we might start getting somewhere and my whole enjoyment of the game is being challenged  by the very corruption of it. 

Would it have actually harmed the'brand' for the AFL to take a hard line ? If anything I think it would have strengthened it. 

But we all know what the AFL stands for

ANOTHER  FISTFUL  of LOOT

The silence of outrage is deafening. Sad.

 

Our anticipated rise has come at an awful time for AFL, and Australian sport in general.

Gil, and DubmItrou before him, have stuffed or beloved game, sold out to big media and to the gambling industry.   If their sponsors say jump, they say how high.

No regards for a fairly run competition at all - as long as the $$$$$$ come in from TV and from gambling, what do they care?

The 'ordinary footy fan' is basically treated as [censored].

 

  On 24/02/2016 at 06:11, Dees2014 said:

I disagree on John Coates. He is heavily involved in WADA and is Chairman of CAS. He is on record consistently about standing up to drug cheats and along with  John Fahey, has consistently said that Essendon should take their medicine if they are found guilty by the international sport tribunals. 

The Olympic sports in Australia are the ones that insist on consistency in drug enforcement. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the individual sports international organisations, particularly the IAAF. 

I THINK Coates has done an admirable job in creating as much as possible a drugs free environment for Australian Olympics sports. 

I am very aware of Coates and Fahey's positions on sporting bodies and their respective position on drugs in sport.  And I was not talking about Olympic sports or standing up to drug cheats, or the IAAF.

You completely missed my point which was about not taking the AFL to task over its handling of EFC and players and how the incestuous relationships among key players are compromising.

essendon lawyer on way to court

  On 25/02/2016 at 01:28, daisycutter said:

essendon lawyer on way to court

and on his way back

Players lawyer taunting the CAS

  On 25/02/2016 at 01:42, ManDee said:

Players lawyer taunting the CAS

Um, which one is which? I predict the bull won't be as long for this world as the (stupid) guy in the blue t-shirt.

We might find after the Olympic Sports Holiday in Rio for Officials that these people get kicked out any way, because our results there from my point of view are going to be abysmal. To be frank I'm amazed Wylie and Grace are still in jobs after their performances recently.

afl integrity team

Here the AFL's Ethics Committee

  On 25/02/2016 at 03:28, daisycutter said:

afl integrity team

Here is the last time they found someone with integrity in the VFL/AFL.

 

Read yesterday the senate enquiry will not go ahead. 

John Madigan is the fella who said "submarines are the spaceships of the ocean" on Q&A last year wasn't he?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/port-adelaide-melbourne-st-kilda-western-bulldogs-could-benefit-from-salary-cap-concession-on-exbombers/news-story/90698df596a7cfc7384cb9e76b679aa5

Quotes:

"Leading AFL clubs are incensed that the salaries of five suspended former Essendon players are likely to sit outside the salary caps of their new homes". 

Sydney, Richmond, Hawthorn and Collingwood are among the clubs concerned that this salary cap exemption would create an opportunity for those four clubs to use the space for recruiting"

"...The league has indicated that more than half the players’ salaries will fall outside the cap — an outcome that has riled rival clubs, which are hoping to overturn the AFL’s initial ruling".

The AFL's initial ruling is based on the fact that the 5 clubs will not be paying the salary so should not be in the cap.  Sound logic to me.

While the salary cap concession doesn't benefit mfc much, in principle I feel it is poor sportsmanship by those clubs to take this heavy handed stand.  This is especially so after (by all accounts vehement) opposition to allowing 'top up' players like EFC. 

It would be good to for the AFL to be decisive, show some leadership and not buckle to the pressure from powerful clubs. 

  On 29/02/2016 at 19:59, Lucifer's Hero said:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/port-adelaide-melbourne-st-kilda-western-bulldogs-could-benefit-from-salary-cap-concession-on-exbombers/news-story/90698df596a7cfc7384cb9e76b679aa5

Quotes:

"Leading AFL clubs are incensed that the salaries of five suspended former Essendon players are likely to sit outside the salary caps of their new homes". 

Sydney, Richmond, Hawthorn and Collingwood are among the clubs concerned that this salary cap exemption would create an opportunity for those four clubs to use the space for recruiting"

"...The league has indicated that more than half the players’ salaries will fall outside the cap — an outcome that has riled rival clubs, which are hoping to overturn the AFL’s initial ruling".

The AFL's initial ruling is based on the fact that the 5 clubs will not be paying the salary so should not be in the cap.  Sound logic to me.

While the salary cap concession doesn't benefit mfc much, in principle I feel it is poor sportsmanship by those clubs to take this heavy handed stand.  This is especially so after (by all accounts vehement) opposition to allowing 'top up' players like EFC. 

It would be good to for the AFL to be decisive, show some leadership and not buckle to the pressure from powerful clubs. 

Those spoiled clubs trying to get their own way on everything. The clubs with former Essendon players suspended weren't allowed to top up their lists with a single rookie while the Bombers were given ten top ups, salary cap relief and the ability to benefit from a high draft pick after a season where a dozen of their players are missing.

The AFL commission would make itself irrelevant if it caved in to the other clubs over this.

 

 

Sydney....Where COLA reigned supreme for how long, Richmond whose players must be on first names basis with Plod, Hawthorn who preach equality then undermine it at every opportunity and Collingwood a club that seems wanting to argue everything !!

Me thinks they doth protest too much !

The AFL commission was formed to take decision making away from the clubs. Because they showed they could not make decisions on any basis than their own short term interests.

Is the commish going to listen to this latest bleating? As if one year's exemption is going to affect the recruiting strategy. We can't run out and get another player AND fit Milkshake in next year's cap.

Just recently, instead of making a decision on top-ups, the commish ran to the clubs. "What do YOU think???"

The first time we wanted to play the Tiges on Anzac eve, Gil went running to Eddie for his blessing and benefaction. (Eddie quashed it. Thankfully the commish saw the light next time around.)

  On 29/02/2016 at 19:59, Lucifer's Hero said:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/port-adelaide-melbourne-st-kilda-western-bulldogs-could-benefit-from-salary-cap-concession-on-exbombers/news-story/90698df596a7cfc7384cb9e76b679aa5

Quotes:

"Leading AFL clubs are incensed that the salaries of five suspended former Essendon players are likely to sit outside the salary caps of their new homes". 

Sydney, Richmond, Hawthorn and Collingwood are among the clubs concerned that this salary cap exemption would create an opportunity for those four clubs to use the space for recruiting"

"...The league has indicated that more than half the players’ salaries will fall outside the cap — an outcome that has riled rival clubs, which are hoping to overturn the AFL’s initial ruling".

The AFL's initial ruling is based on the fact that the 5 clubs will not be paying the salary so should not be in the cap.  Sound logic to me.

While the salary cap concession doesn't benefit mfc much, in principle I feel it is poor sportsmanship by those clubs to take this heavy handed stand.  This is especially so after (by all accounts vehement) opposition to allowing 'top up' players like EFC. 

It would be good to for the AFL to be decisive, show some leadership and not buckle to the pressure from powerful clubs. 

It would also be totally uncharacteristic, in fact a precedent.  

AFL - decisive, leadership, even handed - dream on.  

  On 29/02/2016 at 19:59, Lucifer's Hero said:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/port-adelaide-melbourne-st-kilda-western-bulldogs-could-benefit-from-salary-cap-concession-on-exbombers/news-story/90698df596a7cfc7384cb9e76b679aa5

Quotes:

"Leading AFL clubs are incensed that the salaries of five suspended former Essendon players are likely to sit outside the salary caps of their new homes". 

Sydney, Richmond, Hawthorn and Collingwood are among the clubs concerned that this salary cap exemption would create an opportunity for those four clubs to use the space for recruiting"

"...The league has indicated that more than half the players’ salaries will fall outside the cap — an outcome that has riled rival clubs, which are hoping to overturn the AFL’s initial ruling".

The AFL's initial ruling is based on the fact that the 5 clubs will not be paying the salary so should not be in the cap.  Sound logic to me.

While the salary cap concession doesn't benefit mfc much, in principle I feel it is poor sportsmanship by those clubs to take this heavy handed stand.  This is especially so after (by all accounts vehement) opposition to allowing 'top up' players like EFC. 

It would be good to for the AFL to be decisive, show some leadership and not buckle to the pressure from powerful clubs. 

 

I'm still waiting for the clubs to take a heavy handed stand with, you know, the actual drug cheating club.

Where's the outrage and condemnation?

Oh right, it's Essendon, better keep quiet.

How on earth does it help recruitment when their salaries go straight back into the cap come November?!

  On 29/02/2016 at 19:59, Lucifer's Hero said:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/port-adelaide-melbourne-st-kilda-western-bulldogs-could-benefit-from-salary-cap-concession-on-exbombers/news-story/90698df596a7cfc7384cb9e76b679aa5

Quotes:

"Leading AFL clubs are incensed that the salaries of five suspended former Essendon players are likely to sit outside the salary caps of their new homes". 

Sydney, Richmond, Hawthorn and Collingwood are among the clubs concerned that this salary cap exemption would create an opportunity for those four clubs to use the space for recruiting"

"...The league has indicated that more than half the players’ salaries will fall outside the cap — an outcome that has riled rival clubs, which are hoping to overturn the AFL’s initial ruling".

The AFL's initial ruling is based on the fact that the 5 clubs will not be paying the salary so should not be in the cap.  Sound logic to me.

While the salary cap concession doesn't benefit mfc much, in principle I feel it is poor sportsmanship by those clubs to take this heavy handed stand.  This is especially so after (by all accounts vehement) opposition to allowing 'top up' players like EFC. 

It would be good to for the AFL to be decisive, show some leadership and not buckle to the pressure from powerful clubs. 

There's a lot about this whole saga I don't understand, but how exactly would such an opportunity arise? The suspensions, and therefore presumably the ban on salary payments, ends before the next round of recruitments begin. I confess to not understanding this argument at all.

  On 29/02/2016 at 19:59, Lucifer's Hero said:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/port-adelaide-melbourne-st-kilda-western-bulldogs-could-benefit-from-salary-cap-concession-on-exbombers/news-story/90698df596a7cfc7384cb9e76b679aa5

Quotes:

"Leading AFL clubs are incensed that the salaries of five suspended former Essendon players are likely to sit outside the salary caps of their new homes". 

Sydney, Richmond, Hawthorn and Collingwood are among the clubs concerned that this salary cap exemption would create an opportunity for those four clubs to use the space for recruiting"

"...The league has indicated that more than half the players’ salaries will fall outside the cap — an outcome that has riled rival clubs, which are hoping to overturn the AFL’s initial ruling".

The AFL's initial ruling is based on the fact that the 5 clubs will not be paying the salary so should not be in the cap.  Sound logic to me.

While the salary cap concession doesn't benefit mfc much, in principle I feel it is poor sportsmanship by those clubs to take this heavy handed stand.  This is especially so after (by all accounts vehement) opposition to allowing 'top up' players like EFC. 

It would be good to for the AFL to be decisive, show some leadership and not buckle to the pressure from powerful clubs. 

Now I might be a little dim, but isn't recruiting finished for this period.

I would think any salary cap relief is really no relief at all and when we get into the cut and thrust of drafting at the end of this season then the players salaries will be back in the mix for the relevant clubs.

  On 29/02/2016 at 21:58, SaberFang said:

How on earth does it help recruitment when their salaries go straight back into the cap come November?!

 

  On 29/02/2016 at 21:59, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

There's a lot about this whole saga I don't understand, but how exactly would such an opportunity arise? The suspensions, and therefore presumably the ban on salary payments, ends before the next round of recruitments begin. I confess to not understanding this argument at all.

Its to do with unused sal cap being carried over to the next year or two as clubs do not have to pay 100% of cap each and every year.

Edits: I think there are limits to how far a club can go (maybe 95%) and over how many years a club can miss the 100%, to avoid clubs building great war chests in their sal caps.

As I understand it suspended efc player salaries are in their cap but salaries of top-up players are not.

  On 29/02/2016 at 22:00, Lucifer's Hero said:

 

Its to do with unused sal cap being carried over to the next year or two as clubs do not have to pay 100% of cap each and every year.

Thanks Lucifer. I didn't reaslise that unused salary cap could be carried over. Now I understand the argument...I just have to decide now whether I disagree with it.

  On 29/02/2016 at 21:58, Choke said:

 

I'm still waiting for the clubs to take a heavy handed stand with, you know, the actual drug cheating club.

Where's the outrage and condemnation?

Oh right, it's Essendon, better keep quiet.

funnu ...they get up in arms and chest beat about MONEY.....  but DRUGS ....shhhhhhhhh !!!    disgusting