I might have missed it posted elsewhere, but the 7 weeks Webster got would have been just par for the Dog.

2 minutes ago, DEE fence said:

I might have missed it posted elsewhere, but the 7 weeks Webster got would have been just par for the Dog.

Oh he’s not a dog, M. It’s like when Andrew Gaff landed that blow that saw Andy Brayshaw eating through a straw for three months. Ie., an otherwise fair and  clean player, hitherto with a clean copybook, who had an isolated brain-fade. 

If this were another era I’d be making sure the run through on KB had a large caricature of Gus with the words Never Forgive Never Forget writ large alongside it.  Hand drawn and painted of course, not a big photocopied picture. 

On 27/02/2024 at 11:46, Demon17 said:

With you on this feeling.

This Forum is providing some level of catharsis to enable us to vent, but I have noted on here other aspects to feel better. Such as the Duncan Wright incident and what I believe will be , or now is, Maynard's legacy for life. Thug.  Where's Rod grinter when we need him.

I love the Dees still, but hate about everyone else associated with the game in positions to have a microphone and opinions, top of the list being the AFL funnily enough for denial of justice to Gus.

Collingwood fans and behaviour after the Act is on another level altogether for hatred however which is why I will boycott KB this season, being a Pies home game.

 

I think Kings birthday will be a lively affair and I don't necessarily mean on the ground.

Days of old where revenge would have been swift, on dog acts on the footy field, have long past for the better of our game. I would hate to watch any of our boys try too physically seek revenge on that f…ker, a waste of energy and it means their not concentrating on what our team does best, play good footy. I’d like to see no acknowledgement of that f…ker at all from our boys, no hand shake and only a cold stare into him, and of course within the rules of play make him feel the anger we Demons have of his dog act on Gus. ANYBODY who’s played footy knows that hit WAS with intent. Geez I hate that team.

4 minutes ago, Flemo56 said:

Days of old where revenge would have been swift, on dog acts on the footy field, have long past for the better of our game. I would hate to watch any of our boys try too physically seek revenge on that f…ker, a waste of energy and it means their not concentrating on what our team does best, play good footy. I’d like to see no acknowledgement of that f…ker at all from our boys, no hand shake and only a cold stare into him, and of course within the rules of play make him feel the anger we Demons have of his dog act on Gus. ANYBODY who’s played footy knows that hit WAS with intent. Geez I hate that team.

Very wise words 

14 minutes ago, Flemo56 said:

Days of old where revenge would have been swift, on dog acts on the footy field, have long past for the better of our game. I would hate to watch any of our boys try too physically seek revenge on that f…ker, a waste of energy and it means their not concentrating on what our team does best, play good footy. I’d like to see no acknowledgement of that f…ker at all from our boys, no hand shake and only a cold stare into him, and of course within the rules of play make him feel the anger we Demons have of his dog act on Gus. ANYBODY who’s played footy knows that hit WAS with intent. Geez I hate that team.

Did any of the Demons' players shake the hand of that POS after the final? 

 

 

 

 

I'll never forget that little interview Gus gave to Gary Lyon in the rooms after the 2021 flag win.  Where he acknowledged everyone so beautifully. This is for everyone!

It was probably the highlight of the day for me. When the win really hit home.

Glad he'll be working at the club into the future.

Hopefully Gus will get a well earned lap of honour next week before the game

 

 

it seems the insight is 'no one has any idea how this is going to work and it's pretty messy'?

Perhaps the Pies should be forced to pay his contract out of their cap. 

24 minutes ago, sydneydee said:

Perhaps the Pies should be forced to pay his contract out of their cap. 

Actually that’s a good idea. Place the financial responsibility on the offenders club. Medical expenses, payouts, legal fees and every other associated costs. 

31 minutes ago, sydneydee said:

Perhaps the Pies should be forced to pay his contract out of their cap. 

If Maynard had been suspended I would've definitely said this should be the case. Sadly as the AFL ticked it off as "nothing to see here" they get another pass.

Most fans I come across are of the opinion that we shouldn't be forced to pay out his full contract under the cap, with those saying we should pointing to extremely different cases (players with one year to run on their contracts, clear risk in signing them with injury issues). Us not paying it under the cap sets a very dangerous precedent and I would say the PA in particular should be getting involved to encourage it be outside the cap, otherwise it will make clubs far less interested in doing long term contracts.

What really gets me annoyed is when people say "oh that's what you get for signing a player with concussion issues", Gus hadn't had concussion issues for a very long time, bearing in mind he was regularly checked by experts.

On 07/03/2024 at 08:24, Flemo56 said:

Days of old where revenge would have been swift, on dog acts on the footy field, have long past for the better of our game. I would hate to watch any of our boys try too physically seek revenge on that f…ker, a waste of energy and it means their not concentrating on what our team does best, play good footy. I’d like to see no acknowledgement of that f…ker at all from our boys, no hand shake and only a cold stare into him, and of course within the rules of play make him feel the anger we Demons have of his dog act on Gus. ANYBODY who’s played footy knows that hit WAS with intent. Geez I hate that team.

I get the sentiment and common sense of this post.

I would suggest however that the one in question gets tackled much harder than usual and three times as much.

On 07/03/2024 at 06:29, Rab D Nesbitt said:

If this were another era I’d be making sure the run through on KB had a large caricature of Gus with the words Never Forgive Never Forget writ large alongside it.  Hand drawn and painted of course, not a big photocopied picture. 

My feeling are Maynard should be the run through.

24 minutes ago, Pates said:

If Maynard had been suspended I would've definitely said this should be the case. Sadly as the AFL ticked it off as "nothing to see here" they get another pass.

Most fans I come across are of the opinion that we shouldn't be forced to pay out his full contract under the cap, with those saying we should pointing to extremely different cases (players with one year to run on their contracts, clear risk in signing them with injury issues). Us not paying it under the cap sets a very dangerous precedent and I would say the PA in particular should be getting involved to encourage it be outside the cap, otherwise it will make clubs far less interested in doing long term contracts.

What really gets me annoyed is when people say "oh that's what you get for signing a player with concussion issues", Gus hadn't had concussion issues for a very long time, bearing in mind he was regularly checked by experts.

The AFL did nothing of the sort. The AFL sent it to the tribunal when the MRO didnt want to. The AFL wasn't happy with the Turbinal result and have since changed the rules. Apart from appealing the decision the AFL did everything they could to get Maynard suspended.  And when I say AFL I assume it was Laura Kane behind it all.

7 minutes ago, BangBnagBang said:

The AFL did nothing of the sort. The AFL sent it to the tribunal when the MRO didnt want to. The AFL wasn't happy with the Turbinal result and have since changed the rules. Apart from appealing the decision the AFL did everything they could to get Maynard suspended.  And when I say AFL I assume it was Laura Kane behind it all.

Fair point, the tribunal is an seperate body. Still reckon the AFL should have appealed it to at the very least make a strong point that they were not happy with their decision.

2 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Actually that’s a good idea. Place the financial responsibility on the offenders club. Medical expenses, payouts, legal fees and every other associated costs. 

From a legal standpoint that might be a good place to start, Like a show cause why not, perhaps just at the moment from an exploratory position. Maybe a letter to the AFL at the same time.

The AFL like to use a "please explain" when it suits them..

I’m still confused by the language and the vastly different descriptions of exactly how Gus’s ‘retirement’ panned out.

Was it a forced retirement where the AFL said that he had to be medically retired, or was it completely Brayshaw’s decision?

I have heard both of these scenarios described in the media.  If it was the AFL’s call, then he should be paid entirely outside of the cap.

 

8 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

I’m still confused by the language and the vastly different descriptions of exactly how Gus’s ‘retirement’ panned out.

Was it a forced retirement where the AFL said that he had to be medically retired, or was it completely Brayshaw’s decision?

I have heard both of these scenarios described in the media.  If it was the AFL’s call, then he should be paid entirely outside of the cap.

 

From Gus' interview, I thought the specialist advised him to stop playing.

8 hours ago, Pates said:

Fair point, the tribunal is an seperate body. Still reckon the AFL should have appealed it to at the very least make a strong point that they were not happy with their decision.

Yes indeed it was gutless to overturn The MRO but not go the full way. Notice how she ducked and served with the really hard questions from Garry  Lyon on the punch by Hewlett . Also nothing to report on her WWide tour for DRS improvements as none have appeared yet! 

Honeymoon period over and time for tough answers and actions. Claimed all the ticks about zero round but there were a couple of obvious cons now being offered. Not sure any one can take Chris Scott about fairness in the AFL as his Cats generally get their way in the fixture re home games etc. 

Salty really as if he was jealous also. 

On 27/02/2024 at 13:14, dino rover said:

Guys he didn’t have to retire because of one concussion but because of a history of them.

As deplorable avoidable and unpunished as the Maynard incident was it alone isn’t the reason for retirement.

No he would have still been playing Dino. You are wrong. 
it’s the evidence from his neurological team that delivered the differing conclusion of some small signs after his KO in the QF. 

That  is the defining to force his resignation. 

Re. Brayshaw’s payout;

”Fellow AFL 360 co-host Mark Robinson called for the funds to be taken from inside Melbourne’s salary cap.”

And then he goes on to qualify that with;

“My gut feel is if you sign someone to a long-term deal – I don’t want to be flippant about this but unless someone passes or literally can’t play football beyond circumstances it should go in the cap.”

ummm is being forced to medically retire pretty much exactly “can’t play football beyond circumstances”?

 

the Slobinator really Knows how to push my buttons.