9 minutes ago, Choke said:

Must be.

I wonder what the parents think.

they obviously don't have that capability in the first place if they elected to send their kids there

47 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

They trained at St Bernards where Dustbin Fletcher was a student. The school is obviously just helping out a former student's mates in a time of need. Showing a little compassion to the downtrodden.

Dustbin Fletcher went to Essendon Grammar, I think, where his Dad was a phys ed teacher, I think.

I think the Maddens and Danihers( and many other Ess players) attended St Bernard's.

So angry.

So powerless.

1 minute ago, Choke said:

So angry.

So powerless.

Never mind Choke...most of them have fine VFL careers ahead of them !! ....is all good  

1 hour ago, Chris said:

1. Can unused be carried over/ I have never heard that one before.

2. My understanding of the benefit was that it allowed the clubs to front end some contract this year to a greater extent which opened up salary cap space over the next few years depending on how the structure the contracts. The end result is the same where clubs have more money to spend but carrying it over seems illogical and against the whole idea of the cap (this is the AFL though).

1. "The new rule allows clubs who have spent under 100 per cent of the cap in the past two seasons to spend up to a maximum of five per cent over it in 2016". http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-07/clubs-set-to-spend-up-big-under-new-tpp-system

2.  I don't see any practical way clubs could 'front-end' contracts this year as the CAS decision was only made in Jan and the AFL is yet to determine what salary cap relief is given to the 4 affected clubs.  Also, All contracts for this year will have already been signed before the start of the year.

If the AFL doesn't incl the suspended plalyer's salary in each clubs cap the benefit is in future years, hence why the power clubs are 'incensed' about it being used for recruiting. 

41 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

1. "The new rule allows clubs who have spent under 100 per cent of the cap in the past two seasons to spend up to a maximum of five per cent over it in 2016". http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-07/clubs-set-to-spend-up-big-under-new-tpp-system

2.  I don't see any practical way clubs could 'front-end' contracts this year as the CAS decision was only made in Jan and the AFL is yet to determine what salary cap relief is given to the 4 affected clubs.  Also, All contracts for this year will have already been signed before the start of the year.

If the AFL doesn't incl the suspended plalyer's salary in each clubs cap the benefit is in future years, hence why the power clubs are 'incensed' about it being used for recruiting. 

Thanks for the clarification, seems an odd rule given the intent of the cap itself. The club could easily front end contracts, you just do a simple variation with the player to pay them more this year and less next year. Puts cash in the players pockets faster so not many would object. 

I agree it provides benefit in future years, stupidly the more you are paying the cheat and the more cheats on your team the more the benefit!

8 hours ago, pineapple dee said:

They trained at St Bernards where Dustbin Fletcher was a student. The school is obviously just helping out a former student's mates in a time of need. Showing a little compassion to the downtrodden.

Fletcher went to PEGS.

I just read an article on AFL website that says they cannot drug test the players banned for illegal drug use while they are serving their penalty. So they are free to use whatever they like until October? What a ridiculous stance.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-01/banned-players-wont-be-tested-for-illicit-drugs-while-suspended

5 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Fletcher went to PEGS.

 

I just read an article on AFL website that says they cannot drug test the players banned for illegal drug use while they are serving their penalty. So they are free to use whatever they like until October? What a ridiculous stance.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-01/banned-players-wont-be-tested-for-illicit-drugs-while-suspended

stuff the illicit drugs what about ongoing testing for peds

ok scratch that, just read the article. they will be

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Thanks for the clarification, seems an odd rule given the intent of the cap itself. The club could easily front end contracts, you just do a simple variation with the player to pay them more this year and less next year. Puts cash in the players pockets faster so not many would object. 

I feel the rule has merit for clubs like mfc.  Before it we had to pay 100% of the cap meaning players were paid more than their value (I think Mahoney recently said the 'over' payment was 26%, now down to 4%). 

But the other big downside was we couldn't build a war chest to go after FA's or trade in players and fit them into the salary cap.

All clubs have to work to the sal cap rules but the 'power' clubs have facilities, success, marquis games, big crowds etc to entice players but mfc can't (at least not yet) so we need the flexibility to have some chance of getting players we want.  Also, we (as other clubs) can now stash some cap space away for when a good young player is coming out of contract and reward them.  Hard to do if it has been 'spent'. 

So generally I am ok with the rule. 

I appreciate that it's not on-topic, but mention of St Bernards allows me to relate the story (from BF) of my mate big Bill Schwarzenberg, a premiership ruckman in the 60's:

Bill used to dish out a few cheapies whenever he got the opportunity. In his last game, playing against Uni Blues, Bill belted some bloke. Thuggery of the highest order. Half a dozen Uni blokes wanted a piece of him and charged at him. Time for some quick thinking. As the umpire was nearby giving a free kick, Billy grabbed the umpire around the neck like a hostage yelling out "any of yous touch me, the umpy cops it". 
 

1 hour ago, M_9 said:

I appreciate that it's not on-topic, but mention of St Bernards allows me to relate the story (from BF) of my mate big Bill Schwarzenberg, a premiership ruckman in the 60's:

Bill used to dish out a few cheapies whenever he got the opportunity. In his last game, playing against Uni Blues, Bill belted some bloke. Thuggery of the highest order. Half a dozen Uni blokes wanted a piece of him and charged at him. Time for some quick thinking. As the umpire was nearby giving a free kick, Billy grabbed the umpire around the neck like a hostage yelling out "any of yous touch me, the umpy cops it". 
 

delightful chap 

3 hours ago, M_9 said:

I appreciate that it's not on-topic, but mention of St Bernards allows me to relate the story (from BF) of my mate big Bill Schwarzenberg, a premiership ruckman in the 60's:

Bill used to dish out a few cheapies whenever he got the opportunity. In his last game, playing against Uni Blues, Bill belted some bloke. Thuggery of the highest order. Half a dozen Uni blokes wanted a piece of him and charged at him. Time for some quick thinking. As the umpire was nearby giving a free kick, Billy grabbed the umpire around the neck like a hostage yelling out "any of yous touch me, the umpy cops it". 
 

I still think he will have a good shot at playing AFL foofball for Essendon as he would just fit right in to their culture 

5 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I feel the rule has merit for clubs like mfc.  Before it we had to pay 100% of the cap meaning players were paid more than their value (I think Mahoney recently said the 'over' payment was 26%, now down to 4%). 

But the other big downside was we couldn't build a war chest to go after FA's or trade in players and fit them into the salary cap.

All clubs have to work to the sal cap rules but the 'power' clubs have facilities, success, marquis games, big crowds etc to entice players but mfc can't (at least not yet) so we need the flexibility to have some chance of getting players we want.  Also, we (as other clubs) can now stash some cap space away for when a good young player is coming out of contract and reward them.  Hard to do if it has been 'spent'. 

So generally I am ok with the rule. 

Sorry to quote my own post.  But here is a really good article explaining the advantages to the affected clubs of the extra sal cap from suspended players.  Written by none other than the outstanding journalist Emma Quayle http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/silver-lining-emerges-for-clubs-with-suspended-exessendon-recruits-20160301-gn7ne6.html

On a side note:  Eddie is so so hypocritical at being incensed if the AFL give the sal cap relief?  I bet they are getting the sal cap benefit from not paying their 2 players serving ASADA suspensions - for 2 years.  Eddie - what is good for the goose is good for the gander!! 

You had me at Eddie is so hypocritical

My suggestion to Eddie is that before he sticks his nose in other clubs' business he should make sure that his own players are drug free and toilet trained.

54 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

My suggestion to Eddie is that before he sticks his nose in other clubs' business he should make sure that his own players are drug free and toilet trained.

More chance of the former than the latter ... or maybe I'm thinking of the supporters.

Article in the Hun saying Prismall is still employed by the dogs and has AFL approval to do so. Under the WADA code his employment fits in a grey area. The AFL have said they are in talks with ASADA about if it is allowed. 

Just another example of AFL land thumbing their nose at the whole code, apparently with AFL approval!

Is anyone else really disappointed and embarrased by this whole debacle?

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Article in the Hun saying Prismall is still employed by the dogs and has AFL approval to do so. Under the WADA code his employment fits in a grey area. The AFL have said they are in talks with ASADA about if it is allowed. 

Just another example of AFL land thumbing their nose at the whole code, apparently with AFL approval!

Is anyone else really disappointed and embarrased by this whole debacle?

My hand is raised

If it's true that Prismall is still working at the Bulldogs with the AFL's permission then it's not only regrettable but a clear indicator of the AFL's arrogance and its contempt for the WADA Code. The rules simply don't allow it.

10 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

If it's true that Prismall is still working at the Bulldogs with the AFL's permission then it's not only regrettable but a clear indicator of the AFL's arrogance and its contempt for the WADA Code. The rules simply don't allow it.

You would think it would also seriously rile the feathers of the other 16 no longer playing at AFL clubs.  They are the 'forgotten ones' in this whole mess. 

If the AFL get an exemption for Prismall surely the 16 must get the same as they are no longer on big AFL type $ and are simply trying to carve out a living for their families.  All the attention is on the 17 still at AFL clubs but the plight of the others is just as important. 

For mine, they should all stick to the rules and serve the suspension.  But if one gets an exemption so should the other 16!

Francis on SEN had a go at the AFL and AFL people who have been thumbing there nose at the ruling. Basically stop moaning about stop poking your finger in CAS/WADA/ASADA eye and get on with it. Sack up and leave the code or man up on the decision and abide by it.

Sheedy another who doesn't get it.

 

Sheedy also took a swipe at WADA.

“It’s forced upon them by an organisation obviously that’s out of Europe, who don’t really know a lot about AFL.

“Their job is really to get back and sort out Russia for the Olympics.”

2 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

If it's true that Prismall is still working at the Bulldogs with the AFL's permission then it's not only regrettable but a clear indicator of the AFL's arrogance and its contempt for the WADA Code. The rules simply don't allow it.

If this IS the case  it can't be left undealt with. This is not just the AFL but Gordon  in particular  thumbing his nose.....it needs wiping !!

1 hour ago, Cards13 said:

Francis on SEN had a go at the AFL and AFL people who have been thumbing there nose at the ruling. Basically stop moaning about stop poking your finger in CAS/WADA/ASADA eye and get on with it. Sack up and leave the code or man up on the decision and abide by it.

Sheedy another who doesn't get it.

 

Sheedy also took a swipe at WADA.

“It’s forced upon them by an organisation obviously that’s out of Europe, who don’t really know a lot about AFL.

“Their job is really to get back and sort out Russia for the Olympics.”

Sheedy is a shlt stirrer from way back. Here he's attempting to stay relevant to the 21st century and now he's back in the Bombers fold hes obviously milking it for what he can.

Parasite

11 hours ago, Chris said:

Article in the Hun saying Prismall is still employed by the dogs and has AFL approval to do so. Under the WADA code his employment fits in a grey area. The AFL have said they are in talks with ASADA about if it is allowed. 

Just another example of AFL land thumbing their nose at the whole code, apparently with AFL approval!

Is anyone else really disappointed and embarrased by this whole debacle?

If it is a grey area and there are genuine discussions about what he can and can't do, I don't have a problem with Prismall still working. But, if in the end it is determined he cannot work then his suspension has to start from the day that he stops working, not from the start date for everyone else.

11 hours ago, Chris said:

Article in the Hun saying Prismall is still employed by the dogs and has AFL approval to do so. Under the WADA code his employment fits in a grey area. The AFL have said they are in talks with ASADA about if it is allowed. 

Just another example of AFL land thumbing their nose at the whole code, apparently with AFL approval!

Is anyone else really disappointed and embarrased by this whole debacle?

This needs sorting out. ASADA needs to find its measure and have a crack back, or else be seen as cuckolded