daisycutter

of course, if they didn't inform them of the accusations i would agree it's not procedural fairness. however, they might claim they just flicked those procedures (wrt the accused) to the afl integrity unit when they realised they were out of their depth and competence. but what are these "recommendations based on the findings" you talk about? also what are these "findings" you claim the hfc reached. I understood they made no findings (other than they had a problem)

i think dill's problem with the dorks is he is mad that they took on a process without predicting the outcome, hence tarnishing the afl, which is something he'd never do. it's the old "never ask a question if you don't know the answer" or can't keep it in-house.

except it's not so simple. the 3 accused no longer worked for the hfc so they had no hold over them. the 3 accused would have no obligation to give their side of the story to a private club review. i can well imagine what a lawyer would advise them. it's understandable given the serious accusations that hfc did not have the expertise to handle them and handballed to the afl who have a special integrity department on which the clubs rely. the afl was stupid enough to take it on board directly when they should have advised the accusations should be taken to the hrc or worksafe or somewhere else more applicable to a legal process.

well uncle. they were crafty words emanating from gill the teflon dill .... need i say anymore? he could have easily said no adverse or non-adverse findings were made

correct

i'd love to get the carpet cleaning contract at afl house. would keep me gainfully employed for decades

drip, drip. 64K mark passed 64,036

for an investigation that completed before it really started, i'd be curious what the combined legal fees (for all parties - afl, hfc, complainants and accused) added up to over the 8 months. It must be multiple millions. and all for what, so far? and how many more for any follow on actions? just really curious.

egg/chicken horse/cart you just don't know rjay, so you'd be best served keeping your opinions to yourself

will be interesting to see how hawthorn fare in the money grant issue, especially given their current on-the-nose situation

yes, od. sadly i feel obliged to switch to what you have been saying for a long time i had previously held a lot of optimism, and thought the glass was at least half full now .......?

good luck now trying to get gov money for a complete expensive new development time for a plan b?

correct. people get this wrong repeatedly we were never offered olympic park what was on offer was the glasshouse and gosch's paddock

anyone who forgets to wear his mouthguard deserves to be booed ... only fair

given we are on a 10 year austerity budget now, i don't see any state gov money materialising in the near/mid term we are stuffed i'd say, with respect to a new all in one home current scenario to continue with only minor improvements

is there any way to buy standing room? or do all the standing room slots stay empty?

i want the lincoln lawyer!

brilliant tactic to confuse flogmantle. 3 brownlow votes on sat for clarrie.

is he getting out before richmond do their truth-telling inquiry?

all richmond staff were sent an email to attend a compulsory meeting tomorrow that's basically how it got out and morris got a tip

hmmm ... 3v years older than moses

maybe he could take over christian's job?

ch9 news said club expected him to miss 1 game don't shoot the messenger.

except ... that's not true

i hope we can at least come up with an in-game plan b sick of not seeing any radical mid -game changes, just all the predictable, repetitive plays even when not obviously working