iv'a worn smith

Then what do you mean by "the AFL have form here"? "Brown Bag donations" and harking back to the Judd, Visy issue. A world of difference to legally sanctioned compensation payments.

Now it's the AFL who are complicit in compensation payments and the level of those payments?

Sorry, you're just plain wrong. It is a civil matter, which seeks compensation through the employer's insurer for damages. You are right on one thing, the insurer is paying out to avoid litigation. Insurers are renowned for stalling the potential for payouts. Therefore, it would suggest in this case, that insurance company has had legal advice that if they tried to stonewall compensation, on behalf of the insured, it may buy time, but would ultimately cost a lot more if litigation was to occur. Surely you are not implying that if a monetary award for damages is granted, then the employees' salary should be discounted commensurately?

Precisely. This is a civil matter, whereby the player's seek compensation through their employer's insurer. It has no correlation to salary caps. It's analogous to workers compo.

No sure how you can think a civil compensation matter has anything to do with AFL sanctioned salary caps. Totally separate matters.

Really? Is that all he is saying? Well spray me black and call me a panther!!!!!

WADA is a travesty and was proven to be so, when CAS stepped in.

From Matt Harvey - Lecturer in Law - Victoria University

And you are privy to the evidence which was led in the hearing?

Correct

Welcome back Jake. Looking forward to your contribution to the MFC in season 2017.

It is not a Court of Law and is not bound by codified jurisprudence.

OK, guess I better give up my day job. Maybe I could become a bio chemist.

Not at all, - but thank you for your factual statement. What I am saying is, I am not privy to all the evidence. Unlike a Court of Law, the merits review is not bound by the legal principle of beyond a reasonable doubt, rather, it rules on probability. And for the last time, these players' 'employer' has been found guilty of legal breaches.

No I'm not. I am stating fact. You are extrapolating the facts

Court, but it does not have Judicial power. It operates under a Code of Procedural Rules, not legislated Regulation and is not subject to the same procedural fairness rules, which a Court of Law would be. The following sets out the nature of its 'power'

CAS aint a Court. The rule of Law does not apply to CAS. Once again, it is the EFC that has been found guilty, by a jurisdiction, with a legislative framework to follow, which is legally binding, that it failed in its obligations, under OH&S Law. Your assertion just goes to show how far off track this debate can get.

No, it is a way of avoiding civil action which would cost considerably more. The EFC insurers are doing all the work.

Must be. I just can't fathom what the 'reason' is

I am not privy to the evidence. All I do know is that the EFC have already been found to be in breach of OH&S Law and are in the process of settling compensation claims, made by their 'employees', out of court.

Disagree. I say Saty brings some sanity to what has often become an hysterical debate on this forum. Presenting conjecture as fact is always fraught.

Just listened to the 360 interview for the first time. Slobbo must have something on someone in senior management at the Hun and Fox, to get the gigs he does. Fair dinkum, the guy is at best cringeworthy. Goodwin did remarkably well given the banality of the questions which were thrown at him. If it were me being interviewed I would be forced to ask the question are you for real mate?

Which doesn't alway bode well in a work environment. Could be a recipe for disaster. Fingers crossed.

This says it all.

Yes Eddy and what was your record after that. All downhill? Buckley is coaching for his career in 2017. Goody is not.