felixdacat

I have never seen that video before that is pure gold!

I like this idea as long as Tulip remains throughout

?

Quite simply if they (the board) sack him they would need to step down as they extended his contract. As a board they live by their decision and they die by their decision to extend. Little and his board had nailed their colours to Hird's mast from the start. The move by Little to get the article out saying the board would call for EFC members to decide Hird's fate, is another example of the current Board trying not to make a decision that effectively signs their own marching orders. From a governance standpoint its seems strange move to call for a members vote on a coach. Members vote for the Board to be their representatives and steer the strategic direction of the club. It reeks of desperation and stubbornness not to make the call which needed to be made due to misplaced loyalty and passion to Hird. I thought AFL was a team sport?

Actually its "uniqueness" IMO is irrelevant as the EFC board does not have to prove anything as they could terminate his contract at any time. Most private employment contract have a clause which states either parties can terminate the contract sure they would have to pay him out of the contract but as I say they are not a poor club would it matter? I just question your assertion that he would have a case for damages and loss of future income. If this was possible then why the hell haven't other coaches fought for them or been awarded them McCartney, McKenna, Voss, Neeld, Harvey, Ratten and Knights all coaches who have been sacked by clubs early then their contract end date and with no other reason then the board thought that someone else would be better. The similarities between Hird and these other coaches is that they all were sacked prior to their contract ending. Every coach sacked before their contract ended could have argued that the sacking damaged their reputation and that they have lost future earnings. Also If he is suffering financially why would he risk going down civil case as that is a risk that could cost him more, he certainly would not be able to put a claim through Fair Work. Trying to prove that EFC has ruined his reputation by sacking him as senior coach would be hard to win. I actually think the cheapest way is to hope the tribunal hand out bans as then they can sack him with out any qualms. They could probably terminate the contract with a smaller payout due to the bans also.

So why does this not occur more often, there are examples of coaches getting sacked every year for doing a lot less then Hirdy. The board can sack the coach any time they wish they could sack him tomorrow and say they wanted to go in a different direction with a new coach, sure they will have to pay out his contract but breach of contract, damage to reputation and loss of future earnings is a bit of a stretch. If you are aware of similar cases being won by AFL coaches where they have sued for damage to reputation and loss of future earnings etc I would love to hear about them.

I reckon the AFL will hold its nerve over this and provide significant bans to players. My reasons for it are partly based in the fact that is this is the logical result if they remain true to their process. Alternatively a lot of my reasoning also is based on hope and gut feel. Whilst I don't really hold a lot of confidence in my hope I hold a lot of confidence I my gut feel on this matter. If I am wrong I am going to have to punish my guts with a bottle of scotch. So either I win yay

The 33rd or 34th pic

Great shots as usual Just one query who is the guy with the big ball bags?

Good luck with your future endeavours Dom

Thanks for the reports ppl. Trying to keep a lid on it and curb my enthusiasm as its only pre-season but its great to hear what's happening on the track.

I wonder how he will go having Chris Scott coaching him. The Scott brothers seem like quite intense coaches even more so when players are not performing to the required level. Good Luck Bleasey ?

Some possible spanners for him maybe Dank was given a SCN in March 2014 ASADA summons Stephen Dank as Hird talk in this his lawyer indicates he will most likely ignore it. Due to them having no Jurisdiction over him. The NAD Scheme states ASADA can release information NAD 4.22 if (a) ASADA: (i) considers the publication to be in the public interest; or (b) any of the following apply: (iv) no sporting tribunal has jurisdiction to conduct a hearing process in relation to the finding concerning the information; and © (iii) the athlete or support person has not applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the decision within the applicable time frame. IMO If Dank ignored the SCN and he was put on the RoF. Then if he did not appeal ASADA may be able to disclose the information.

Good Luck Neeldy I wish him all the best in the future

Just the thought of any D'Lander taking the reins at AFL house fill me with mirth imagine the havoc they could wreak against all our opposition. I reckon the Essendon SAGA would have been sorted and we could get compensation for the not Tanking. Hawthorn and Collingwood would play all their games Twighlight on a Sunday.

Mods love the name change for the thread

I apologies if you were serious rpfc but that post cracked me up. I even though of inventing a new acronym NTFF! - Now thats Fckn Funny!. I might even take it for a spin on Twitter with #NTFF! Oh and love the idea of raising the age where do I sign?

Short Answer No. They tried to gain an advantage with multiple injections of an alleged banned substance. Substance aside having weekly injection for a sustained period of time during the season itself is cause for atomic alarm bells. I have little respect for them and I will leave the leniency for the AFL, ASADA and WADA. If it was tongue in cheek then

He will play again Jack Trengove will come back from this set back and he will be awesome.

Lucifer just out of curiosity where did you read about ASADA being unable to use the ACC evidence? I had not heard that before.

I wouldn't. Because in 12 months time when we de-list him we won't get anything for him and he would have cost us money which would be better spent elsewhere. For example younger player 22-26 from the rookie draft who could add to our depth and be able to be developed. Also we save ourselves getting another parting salvo from this towering intellect that cost us another couple million $'s. Although if i was being spiteful we could sign him, not play him and then delist him, with an exit interview that goes something like "You don't have to be Blind Freddy, to think that we would have played you in the team!"

Thanks Its Time. Although it interesting in the statement from the AFLPA CEO he highlights the differing burden of proof between the ADRVP and the AFL's Anti-Doping Tribunal and also the request to expedite the process so the presumably the Players can argue at the AFL Tribunal. This would mean any provisional suspensions would come into place prior to to the AFL Tribunal Hearing. I guess they must be confident that they have a strong defence case at the tribunal. After this you may as well flip a coin as its up to the AFL. I wonder whether they really value their much lauded Integrity of the game or not. If the AFL really wanted to shorten the process they would hope their tribunal hands out bans to players and they put into action Essendon's Team B 2015. Sure it may seem harsh and they may have been duped but there is a warning at the front of the AFL Doping Policy and it states "It is the responsibility of each Player to ensure that he does not use or administer prohibited substances or prohibited methods, whether or not included as examples." All the literature and training they receive from the AFL, AFLPA, ASADA and 34 players still think they did not do anything wrong by getting weekly injections at a location away from the club and its officials. Sorry this smacks of stupidity and it should not be rewarded or excused.

Interesting article in particular the provisional suspensions http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/key-steps-in-asadas-investigation-into-the-essendon-supplements-scandal-20141023-11akoy.html Quote: Provisional suspension Once the infraction notice is issued, the players are provisionally suspended and the "ban clock" begins. This is less relevant in the off-season. The AFL code mentions Provisional Suspension in it's Anti-Doping Policy Section 12.5a but I am unclear when it begins and when it can cease. Can any of the more learned D'Landers provide some clarity?

OMG you have got to be kidding right. Talk about death by a thousand cuts. Please Oh Please can we not do this. If I have to go another 12 months of debate of will he wont he....

I am trying to work out where the hell our "4rd" best midfielder fits. Somewhere between 3st and 5nd I reckon. Any Hoo Interesting debate My gripe with Brock is that its pretty poor form to come out in public and slag off your former team especially when your playing for an opposition team. Most players save it for a tell all biography when they retire. I wouldn't have him back on the team as I dont think there is a role for him that viney, cross, or pig dog are not already performing in. How much depth would you need for his type and role?