3 hours ago, YesitwasaWin4theAges said:

How can a club extend a players contract if he was under an extensive concussion measurement program?

Murphy had 1 year to run extend out to 3 years. Knowing he wouldn't play again would love to know what sort of a pay rise they gave him to strengthen their bargaining power for a comp pick.

Very negligent of Collingwood and the AFL for allowing this to happen effectively ticking off on it to futher their case for compensation.

Very suspicious activity allowed to happen and the AFL and turned a blind eye to it all.

Not really, it is nothing but good form from them. Exactly the same as when we extended Jake Melksham to recover from his knee.

I hate Collingwood, but kudos to them for this. Looking after their people. 

Edited April 16, 20241 yr by Left Foot Snap

Just saw an interview with Nathan Murphy in his Hawthorn cafe.

Is it just coincidence that the cafe is called Whiplash?

Looks like the salary cap issue is close to being resolved. Not the greatest result for us but it could have been worse

AFL clubs will be able to exclude from the salary cap a larger percentage of the wage of a player medically retired due to concussion in the initial years following their retirement than they would be in any later years of an outstanding contract under the soon-to-be-finalised “Brayshaw Ruling”.

It means long-term contracts that extend beyond five years could carry greater risks for clubs if they lose a player to concussion early on in their deal.....

 

One club boss, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak freely, suggested the ruling could mean a high percentage of the payments due in the first year or two after a player’s retirement sits outside the cap, then 50 per cent is included in years three and four, and then a greater percentage after the fourth season.

This would mean clubs signing players to long contracts would need to consider the risk of concussion in their dealings with player managers, just as they may if there was a history of other injuries.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/there-s-salary-cap-relief-in-brayshaw-ruling-but-more-risk-attached-to-long-term-deals-20240424-p5fm7h.html

Hamish Brayshaw’s open letter to the AFL

1 minute ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Hamish Brayshaw’s open letter to the AFL

i don't really get the "legitimate football action" argument as some infallible excuse

a smother is a legitimate football action ,,, but then so to is a bump a legitimate football action

however a reckless football action is not.  a reckless bump or smother resulting in high contact/impact are equally not excusable by just claiming them as a football action

this football action narrative is just irrelevant rubbish

Here here…

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i don't really get the "legitimate football action" argument as some infallible excuse

a smother is a legitimate football action ,,, but then so to is a bump a legitimate football action

however a reckless football action is not.  a reckless bump or smother resulting in high contact/impact are equally not excusable by just claiming them as a football action

this football action narrative is just irrelevant rubbish

I put Hamish saying that down to Hamish not wanting to be sued for libel.  Tough to prove in court that it wasn't a football action, though many of us are sure it wasn't.

I know if I was a KC I would have approached Angus and taken Maynard to court for assault and damages pro bono.

49 minutes ago, sue said:

I put Hamish saying that down to Hamish not wanting to be sued for libel.  Tough to prove in court that it wasn't a football action, though many of us are sure it wasn't.

I think you can somehow prove it.

If you bring a proper physics specialist, not like the clown they brought in front of the MRO, you can determine if the action was realistic, i.e. if you can justify the attempt to smother.

Then you have incriminating evidence with interviews where the player said he would be physical at the game.

Hamish says while writing this letter he’d put aside what happened to Gus. The idea being it’s an objective view. But that doesn’t apply beyond the letter… 

We love your brother too, Hamish. 💕 

6 minutes ago, ElDiablo14 said:

I think you can somehow prove it.

If you bring a proper physics specialist, not like the clown they brought in front of the MRO, you can determine if the action was realistic, i.e. if you can justify the attempt to smother.

Then you have incriminating evidence with interviews where the player said he would be physical at the game.

Possibly, but would you want to take the risk of losing and being up for damages? Even if you win you may not get your expenses paid. 

1 hour ago, WalkingCivilWar said:

Hamish Brayshaw’s open letter to the AFL

Filth Supporters are still laughing about it. 
Never Forget….

I can relate to a lot of what Hamish says here. My love for footy isn’t what it used to be.

The AFL played its hand last year with Angus’ incident, and showed us they would always value money and popularity, over justice and equity. If you tear that social contract too deeply you can never earn back peoples belief.

Now I just watch the footy and laugh at how much of it is like WWE. Commentators essentially deciding tribunal matters on the fly during games, the way the schedule is constructed, and then this weeks literal wrestling kayfabe with Sam Taylor calling Sydney out - obviously instructed by the AFL to create some faux tension for the media.

The AFL has jumped the shark. It pushed its version of reality so far in its own direction that I can’t unsee it’s illusions now.

1 minute ago, The heart beats true said:

I can relate to a lot of what Hamish says here. My love for footy isn’t what it used to be.

The AFL played its hand last year with Angus’ incident, and showed us they would always value money and popularity, over justice and equity. If you tear that social contract too deeply you can never earn back peoples belief.

Now I just watch the footy and laugh at how much of it is like WWE. Commentators essentially deciding tribunal matters on the fly during games, the way the schedule is constructed, and then this weeks literal wrestling kayfabe with Sam Taylor calling Sydney out - obviously instructed by the AFL to create some faux tension for the media.

The AFL has jumped the shark. It pushed its version of reality so far in its own direction that I can’t unsee it’s illusions now.

They learned from the Yanks that's for sure.

23 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Filth Supporters are still laughing about it. 
Never Forget….

You should have seen the abuse and anger I copped from a mature, otherwise very sensible Pies fan, when we were discussing the incident.

I said after Maynard got off, that the AFL will 100% outlaw that the next year and he then continued with the abuse and anger. 

8 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I can relate to a lot of what Hamish says here. My love for footy isn’t what it used to be.

The AFL played its hand last year with Angus’ incident, and showed us they would always value money and popularity, over justice and equity. If you tear that social contract too deeply you can never earn back peoples belief.

Now I just watch the footy and laugh at how much of it is like WWE. Commentators essentially deciding tribunal matters on the fly during games, the way the schedule is constructed, and then this weeks literal wrestling kayfabe with Sam Taylor calling Sydney out - obviously instructed by the AFL to create some faux tension for the media.

The AFL has jumped the shark. It pushed its version of reality so far in its own direction that I can’t unsee it’s illusions now.

Gladiatorial Entertainment 

I despise the AFL, but i HATE the Filth even more….

6 minutes ago, Redleg said:

You should have seen the abuse and anger I copped from a mature, otherwise very sensible Pies fan, when we were discussing the incident.

I said after Maynard got off, that the AFL will 100% outlaw that the next year and he then continued with the abuse and anger. 

“Very sensible Pies Fan” there is the first problem. 
Yes it was all Angus’ fault to them…

Revenge is Best, Served Cold…..😡

17 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

“Very sensible Pies Fan” there is the first problem. 
Yes it was all Angus’ fault to them…

Revenge is Best, Served Cold…..😡

I still think Eddie's behaviour in the restaurant after Maynard got off was disgusting.

Would love the opportunity to remind him, that he cheered for a bloke getting off at the tribunal, for ending another bloke's footy career and permanently injuring him.

He makes it very hard for me to watch Footy Classified on a Wednesday night, when he hosts, as he inserts the Pies into every topic. It is simply pathetic.

We are not even allowed to change Presidents at Board Level, without being constantly hounded to death by a particular journalist.

27 minutes ago, Redleg said:

You should have seen the abuse and anger I copped from a mature, otherwise very sensible Pies fan, when we were discussing the incident.

I said after Maynard got off, that the AFL will 100% outlaw that the next year and he then continued with the abuse and anger. 

I've had similar debates with people Red, i asked a mate to find me another instance where a guy has sprinted from 50 meters way, left the ground and knocked someone out in an attempt to "spoil" the ball. Naturally he couldn't outside of some very ordinary looking incidents from decades ago. 

I do believe Maynard wasn't intending to knock Gus out, rather to make a physical statement early in a big final, but he made the decision and it's had massive consequences for Gus and he should have been suspended. 

3 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

I've had similar debates with people Red, i asked a mate to find me another instance where a guy has sprinted from 50 meters way, left the ground and knocked someone out in an attempt to "spoil" the ball. Naturally he couldn't outside of some very ordinary looking incidents from decades ago. 

I do believe Maynard wasn't intending to knock Gus out, rather to make a physical statement early in a big final, but he made the decision and it's had massive consequences for Gus and he should have been suspended. 

Exactly, it's like someone deciding to drive under the influence. You may not want to hurt people but if you decide to drive when you are not in the condition to do so, then you are liable of any injuries.

12 minutes ago, Dwight Schrute said:

 

I do believe Maynard wasn't intending to knock Gus out, rather to make a physical statement early in a big final, but he made the decision and it's had massive consequences for Gus and he should have been suspended. 

I think Maynard had every intention of taking Angus out. The Ball had left the area. 
he executed the Move and connected 100% to the head….😡

just a thug act. always was a thug, always will be

collingwood legend

33 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I think Maynard had every intention of taking Angus out. The Ball had left the area. 
he executed the Move and connected 100% to the head….😡

Just call out Maynard for what/who he is.

The Duncan Wright of the 2000's. Forever has the legacy of forcing Gus to retire.

 

44 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I think Maynard had every intention of taking Angus out. The Ball had left the area. 
he executed the Move and connected 100% to the head….😡

I am really curious to see how Kings Birthday plays out, i do hope Maynard gets some sort of attention for no other reason than to see the paper tough guy go to water infront of the footy world

1 minute ago, Dwight Schrute said:

I am really curious to see how Kings Birthday plays out, i do hope Maynard gets some sort of attention for no other reason than to see the paper tough guy go to water infront of the footy world

He's lucky that he plays on the opposite end of the ground to May. Not so lucky that Viney is only a mere 50m away.