daisycutter

that's what the newspaper said, however i don't think that was his full-time job, but just rather a task assigned to him as an extra. either temporarily or for longer. But you'd have to ask hawthorn for further clarity. nevertheless a few months later they advertise a full time vacancy for welfare/development manager

we wish 🤣

i'm yet to find out if the gfg is still mandatory for all reserved seat options.....as it was last year i buy an extra 2 tickets for grandkids and i'll be [censored] if i will pay an extra $298 x 3 on top of a reserved seat charge the gfg doesn't even pay for a seat at the gf, just the option. i think the gfg is a bit of a rort for all the clubs. they have lots of other options to decide priority levels for members.

don't seem to have had a dedicated one early 2014 p.s. this was shortly after a certain player departed

how come tassie is not on the list 🤢

maybe they could add james hird to the panel then? lots of practical dealings with player welfare.

sorry, i didn't mean to imply that particular action would be a trick i could have worded that better.

once the lawyers get involved they will be making lots of demands on the panel. like for example insisting the complainants be re-questioned/interrogated in the lawyers presence with them able to ask questions in the interests of natural justice etc. and all the other tricks they are good at. i think it will be very difficult for the panel to wrap it up quickly unless any evidence unearthed is quite unequivocal we will just have to wait and see. i doubt though the panel will be giving any official blow by blow summaries along the way. the media of course will be digging furiously and i'd expect some leaks happening.

as the accusations are quite serious and the implications for the accused quite extensive, i'd expect there would be a lot of serious lawyering up. I don't think this will be resolved as quick as many think, assuming of course it is contested

of course, especially in a non court situation like this. but we are getting into too much speculation which i'm trying hard to avoid

yes, sometimes a second hand testimony may can carry some weight especially where it is close in time to the event it all depends, but it is not as good as first hand testimony. even first hand testimony is usually subject to corroboration and or interpretation

ok....then that would be a hearsay witness as distinct from a firsthand witness

you need to reword that, swyl. it's not clear what you mean

must seem a bit like a local derby, clint 😆

bad case of stage fright can understand how suns beat swans

link? or copy/paste

didn't expect to get a lesson on greek mythology on demonland 😂

but dodoro is certainly "a drain"....... as is essendon

yes, a sizable number would and many of those would see it as some form of redemption and sainthood

i'm sure the journo is smart enough to know he hasn't got nearly all the "facts" yet and certainly not all the context. he's dug up some allegations that he has no reason yet to doubt and gone with it. he's done nothing wrong and got a good scoop. i'm sure he realises there will be many more twists and turns to come and he'll have many more stories to publish. no need to read anymore than that into it.

fair enough in mcdonalds case i was just talking generally about players having ops post-season to clean up injuries they've been carrying and playing through don't get me wrong, i'd love to get a good run-down from the club of all the players having post season ops, but it seems fairly common practice we only find out much later

i never said he didn't believe them (i don't even know) but what I did say is that it is irrelevant in the scheme of things. I don't just believe a story is true just because i think the reporter "probably" thinks it is true.

what the reporter "thought" is really irrelevant and besides you or i don't actually know what he thought. It was a story....full stop. now, if he had said in the article that he personally thought their story was true, legal would probably have told him to remove that statement.

i don't think there was much legal risk when you are just reporting on accusations by others. as long as he can prove the accusations were made (e.g. audio etc) that would suffice. the reporter wasn't writing a personal opinion piece and by technically (even if contrived) offering a right of reply he covers himself further. the legal approval to print in no way is an indication that any of the accusations are accurate