4 hours ago, Matt Demon said:

Did we ever hear if the remainder of Gus's salary will be included in the cap?

Will be known within a couple of weeks. But word has it they are now introducing principles to determine amount that can be excluded. Some  of which are prior concussions,  length of contract, age.

Basically - if this goes ahead - we will be screwed … again. I’d be surprised if we even got 50% 

 

9 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Will be known within a couple of weeks. But word has it they are now introducing principles to determine amount that can be excluded. Some  of which are prior concussions,  length of contract, age.

Basically - if this goes ahead - we will be screwed … again. I’d be surprised if we even got 50% 

 

Given that this player’s footy career has ended by an AFL medical directive, after an act that the AFL now admits is illegal, I believe we will get full cap relief.

What we won’t and didn't get for half this season, was a replacement player and if it was allowed when Gus was banned, the pick of all eligible players. Anyway that is now water under the bridge.

Edited June 6, 20241 yr by Redleg

7 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Will be known within a couple of weeks. But word has it they are now introducing principles to determine amount that can be excluded. Some  of which are prior concussions,  length of contract, age.

Basically - if this goes ahead - we will be screwed … again. I’d be surprised if we even got 50% 

 

This new principle doesn't exist yet so we should be fully compensated for the money owed to Angus outside of the cap, just like Maynard was allowed to play before they realised it wasn't a football act...

The New law should come into affect at the start of the next season 

2 hours ago, Rednblueriseing said:

This new principle doesn't exist yet so we should be fully compensated for the money owed to Angus outside of the cap, just like Maynard was allowed to play before they realised it wasn't a football act...

The New law should come into affect at the start of the next season 

thats the way I see it, incident occurred before the new rule and shouldn't be applied retrospectively.

10 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Will be known within a couple of weeks. But word has it they are now introducing principles to determine amount that can be excluded. Some  of which are prior concussions,  length of contract, age.

Basically - if this goes ahead - we will be screwed … again. I’d be surprised if we even got 50% 

 

I understand there's an inherent risk signing someone who has had prior concussions to a long term contract but at the same time it would be a little unfair to use some of these rumored provisions against us when the rule wasn't announced at the time. If the new rule was in place when AB was negotiating his contract, would the contract have been any different? Who knows?

No issue with any new rule applying to any future contracts, but there should definitely be a degree of grandfathering here.

 

 

11 hours ago, DubDee said:

I couldn’t give AF what other fans think

I don’t give AF about fans who refuse to turn up. Since I stopped playing footy in 2011 I’ve sat through all of the garbage. 
 

Another clubs fan base isn’t stopping me going.

 

11 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Will be known within a couple of weeks. But word has it they are now introducing principles to determine amount that can be excluded. Some  of which are prior concussions,  length of contract, age.

Basically - if this goes ahead - we will be screwed … again. I’d be surprised if we even got 50% 

If we get screwed I would expect the Pies would similarly.
Nathan Murphy was re-signed in Feb for three more years post this season.
It may have been reported it was only one, but that's not correct.
Nathan has been concussed on at least 10 occasions.
Furthermore, he was tested by the AFL a few weeks before Gus but ruled out some weeks after Gus.

12 minutes ago, M_9 said:

If we get screwed I would expect the Pies would similarly.
Nathan Murphy was re-signed in Feb for three more years post this season.
It may have been reported it was only one, but that's not correct.
Nathan has been concussed on at least 10 occasions.
Furthermore, he was tested by the AFL a few weeks before Gus but ruled out some weeks after Gus.

So they can get the same cap relief the fn scum.

14 hours ago, Left Foot Snap said:

What a load of [censored].

It’s a fact mate. Take your eye patch off and smell the roses. 

3 hours ago, Doug Reemer said:

I don’t give AF about fans who refuse to turn up. Since I stopped playing footy in 2011 I’ve sat through all of the garbage. 
 

Another clubs fan base isn’t stopping me going.

 

I go to as many other games as I can but I have boycotted this match. My feelings might soften next year but I just cannot do it this year. Not good for my head space - it still makes me too upset. 

 

Edited June 7, 20241 yr by jane02

19 minutes ago, jane02 said:

I go to as many other games as I can but I have boycotted this match. My feelings might soften next year but I just cannot do it this year. Not good for my head space - it still makes me too upset. 

 

I am exactly the same.

This is the first ever King/Queen's Birthday match I will miss since I had a uni exam clash with a game about 15 years ago (which I tried getting out of! ha).

I cannot bring myself to attend this game, after what happened last year. 

I have been a paid up members for 25 years, I pay for one of the most expensive memberships every single year, regardless of whether we are winning flags or wooden spoons, and I attend games religiously. 

But I made a decision after our finals exit last year, that I can no longer allow football to impact my life. There has to be other priorities, namely my mental wellbeing.

It's why I am choosing to watch this game from home. Of course if it was our home game I would attend without a second thought, but I refuse to engage with the verbally and emotionally abusive Pies fans. 

 

Edit: and if anyone wants to suggest that I am not a true supporter because I am choosing not to attend this match, they can frankly get [censored]! I challenge them to compete with the number of matches I have attended in my life, including while very unwell, with broken limbs, shortly after a death in the family, and through just about everything else. 

Edited June 7, 20241 yr by Jaded No More

53 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I am exactly the same.

This is the first ever King/Queen's Birthday match I will miss since I had a uni exam clash with a game about 15 years ago (which I tried getting out of! ha).

I cannot bring myself to attend this game, after what happened last year. 

I have been a paid up members for 25 years, I pay for one of the most expensive memberships every single year, regardless of whether we are winning flags or wooden spoons, and I attend games religiously. 

But I made a decision after our finals exit last year, that I can no longer allow football to impact my life. There has to be other priorities, namely my mental wellbeing.

It's why I am choosing to watch this game from home. Of course if it was our home game I would attend without a second thought, but I refuse to engage with the verbally and emotionally abusive Pies fans. 

 

Edit: and if anyone wants to suggest that I am not a true supporter because I am choosing not to attend this match, they can frankly get [censored]! I challenge them to compete with the number of matches I have attended in my life, including while very unwell, with broken limbs, shortly after a death in the family, and through just about everything else. 

Nailed it Jaded.!!!

In the QF last the magpie crowd chanted whilst Gus was yet to wake up. This time they'll give it to the great Steven May.

It will be sickening esp with sniper Maynard (or Duncan Wright as I call him) targetting some poor unfortunate demon left wide open.

See you at the Kangas game.

16 hours ago, Redleg said:

But it’s the truth, it is what happened Mrs. Maynard.

I understand his Mothers’ discomfort, but it is a fact that a players’ career ended after a head knock, caused by her son.

It was early in a final, after he had said during that week that he would make the opposition earn every possession and his opponent had been concussion free for the previous 5 years and was even wearing a helmet.

The bump was delivered by jumping off the ground, bracing with his shoulder and hitting the victim after he had disposed of the ball and was therefore unsuspecting of being smashed into.

They are facts.

PS: I have never thought that Maynard intended to knock Gus out, but rather to make him earn the kick after copping a decent bump and putting some fear into his team mates.

This was so obviously Maynard’s intention which therefore made it suspendable. He “chose to” make him earn it and it went wrong. 
This is how he plays every week.

The AFL 100% put up a deliberately pathetic argument at the tribunal. It was all a sham to save face but protect Collingwood. Absolutely effed.

31 minutes ago, godees said:

This was so obviously Maynard’s intention which therefore made it suspendable. He “chose to” make him earn it and it went wrong. 
This is how he plays every week.

The AFL 100% put up a deliberately pathetic argument at the tribunal. It was all a sham to save face but protect Collingwood. Absolutely effed.

The AFL are a disgusting organization 

their rule parameters are always pliable to suit the latest scenario. 
To allow Maynard to play on with zero consequences should have gone to Court. 
Like others, i am still furious 

3 hours ago, jane02 said:

I go to as many other games as I can but I have boycotted this match. My feelings might soften next year but I just cannot do it this year. Not good for my head space - it still makes me too upset. 

 

Fair enough. But by but not going you’re letting the morons win.

Edited June 7, 20241 yr by Doug Reemer

17 hours ago, Redleg said:

But it’s the truth, it is what happened Mrs. Maynard.

I understand his Mothers’ discomfort, but it is a fact that a players’ career ended after a head knock, caused by her son.

It was early in a final, after he had said during that week that he would make the opposition earn every possession and his opponent had been concussion free for the previous 5 years and was even wearing a helmet.

The bump was delivered by jumping off the ground, bracing with his shoulder and hitting the victim after he had disposed of the ball and was therefore unsuspecting of being smashed into.

They are facts.

PS: I have never thought that Maynard intended to knock Gus out, but rather to make him earn the kick after copping a decent bump and putting some fear into his team mates.

He intended to hurt Gus,... I don't think anyone could 'intentionally' try and knock out another player.

But to your other points, I agree that the topic would be uncomfortable, but if he was involved in a car accident where someone was injured or killed.  What would she say then?  
I also don't think people who do cowardly king hits, are intending to kill people when their heads hit the ground either, but actions have consequence, and yeah based on my original view that he intended to physically hurt Gus,... sorry Mrs Maynard, your child ended the football career of one of his 'friends'. You and your son will have to live with that fact.

I’m sick to death of all this Maynard stuff & the excuses of certain supporters, harden up & get to the game if you can, the season is on the line, we need all the support we can get. Imagine how good it will be when we win!!!

1 hour ago, godees said:

The AFL 100% put up a deliberately pathetic argument at the tribunal. It was all a sham to save face but protect Collingwood. Absolutely effed.

I can't believe that Adrian Anderson, the same guy that managed to get off Charlie Cameron for being a 'good bloke' handled out case so poorly. It was a disgrace, and I'm still disgusted like you are. 

3 hours ago, Ouch! said:

I can't believe that Adrian Anderson, the same guy that managed to get off Charlie Cameron for being a 'good bloke' handled out case so poorly. It was a disgrace, and I'm still disgusted like you are. 

Our club was found wanting on the night and in the aftermath.

 

It’s part of the reason I haven’t renewed my membership. 
 

letting Collingwood control the narrative from quarter time was absolutely ineptitude of the highest order 

3 hours ago, Billy said:

I’m sick to death of all this Maynard stuff & the excuses of certain supporters, harden up & get to the game if you can, the season is on the line, we need all the support we can get. Imagine how good it will be when we win!!!

I get this but I believed at the time (and still do) that losing Brayshaw at that stage of that game cost us the premiership. And now our window looks close to closed to me. Not to mention the implications for Brayshaw himself. It was pretty consequential.

12 hours ago, godees said:

I get this but I believed at the time (and still do) that losing Brayshaw at that stage of that game cost us the premiership. And now our window looks close to closed to me. Not to mention the implications for Brayshaw himself. It was pretty consequential.

Agreed. No bump and we go close to a flag, and have an a grade player this year

Bump and no flag and no player and the filth get a flag.

There is no karma in footy.

6 minutes ago, biggestred said:

There is no karma in footy.

Sometimes it just takes time to come around. 

I often think abouts Watts being mauled in a tackle in his first possession in 2009 then kicking the sealer against the filth in 2017.

I would love to see Gus present the next premiership cup, especially if they beat the filth and the [censored] was still playing, that would be some good, sweet karma there.

17 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Our club was found wanting on the night and in the aftermath.

It’s part of the reason I haven’t renewed my membership. 
letting Collingwood control the narrative from quarter time was absolutely ineptitude of the highest order 

Hmmm, each to their own, but I believe the AFL and AA let down Angus and the MFC on that night. So not sure why that moment caused you to hold back on your membership to the MFC.  

The AFL all but admitted that this needed to be made an illegal action by banning it this year. But they absolutely squibbed that night, the MFC didn't really have much more that they could do, only the AFL could appeal, but again that can only be done on an error in judgement. AA presented a pathetic case. AFL didn't want to detract from their finals series and were not prepared to take on the Pies upon appeal... 

Edited June 8, 20241 yr by Ouch!

17 hours ago, Superunknown said:

Our club was found wanting on the night and in the aftermath.

 

It’s part of the reason I haven’t renewed my membership. 
 

letting Collingwood control the narrative from quarter time was absolutely ineptitude of the highest order 

If you haven't renewed then you're not really a supporter. Looks you got tested and folded. 

3 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

If you haven't renewed then you're not really a supporter. Looks you got tested and folded. 

What a load of [censored]. There's lots of reasons why people might not financially support the club, especially these days, but it doesn't mean they don't love the dees any less.

I myself see my family's financial memberships as a charity contribution (esp. over the 2010's decade and my paid up wife rarely ever comes). Does that make my fam. any less of a supporter? Does anyone who doesn't get down to watch training any less of a supporter? If you don't get to every single Melbourne based game, home or away, does that make you any less of a supporter?

8 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

What a load of [censored]. There's lots of reasons why people might not financially support the club, especially these days, but it doesn't mean they don't love the dees any less.

I think the comment was more in regards to that this tribunal decision and the MFC role in how it played out was the decision that was cited for not signing up again.  Agree there are a lot of reasons, but that was the reason that was specified.