beelzebub

and who's fault is that Red ? 2 years minus the served time. put them back on deck around august 17. Fine by me

And if we don't see him in 17 either....how's his value then ?

Its changing. Just the AFL can't keep up !

Like the ad DC...not overnight. ..but it will happen .

Yes we will DC

Technically maybe. Effectively no The AFL is forever cuckolded.

No need to ( hold breath) Hird's been in the scope since day dot. But there's a path to tread.

I'd be surprised if the Australian situation hasn't primed Wada as to how to deal with broader 'problems'

Macca et all. Its a process. It's a new road as such. Nothing anywhere has this breadth or depth. It pushed Asada to the brink. The players are the first step. When they are Done with them and established the platform of evidence then the "staff" is next. The protagonists are the true targets. In time...one step then another.

0fficially sanctioned provisional suspensions are deducted from penalties. I still stand by my reading of the suspensions. No point at present as they aren't under infraction notices.

( not sure if serious )

You've got it Bad eh

Much like you i initially thought as Bin....surely.. But given the advice and actions they pursued you have to think they didn't

you cant take another provisonal...thats a furphy Im affraid. There has been a finding.. Now there's an appeal. Only up to the orignal tribunal would suspensions have counted. Melksham has been at training

Goody and Macca might be the Saleman...but they arent issuing the RWC or registration. CAS and the AFL are.

As I think it was Dees2014 who suggested it might be a stretch too far to warrant much being thrown at Goody ( if any ) that he might come away unscathed...might ( that's called luck ) Melksham reminds me of buying a Ute with no reg and no rwc but the salesman assures me its a good working goer Why would I not be looking at the other utes available with better underwriting ?

someone gets it

The first item...if found guilty is the club accountable ? Not accountable of their guilt but given they were both taken with prior knowledge of the events surrounding the EFC you would have to ask how prudent such hirings were. the second.. what nonsense. This supposes that the club was oblivious , that such findings only came to the fore AFTER they coming aboard the club. That timeline is clearly erroneous. That's life ? really ? It strikes many here that some things are actually avoidable. The Darling analogy is indeed Darling. We first offer up what had happened and known outcomes then sugar it with speculation about what hasn't ? With Melksham we are certainly aware of much. He IS of the 34, His future does indeed lay in the hands of CAS. This is nothing about what might occur. This is about what has and how it's to be adjudged and subsequently penalised.

Interesting how the various perceive things and as such assign a value. A dam has been shown to have some measurable defects. These defects may or may not be of a type to cause critical failure ( read dam bursting ) A critical risk analysis is taken to evaluate the danger. In such an event there will be crews looking at the very faults to see what are the likely outcomes and what steps can be taken ( if any ) to remedy. Other personnel will be poring over the original designs to establish whether or not in hindsight ( and greater knowledge ) there existed any error of design or a failure to cater to potential instances with sufficient accuracy Then there will come the Spin Doctors who will want to spread calm and reassure all that all steps are being taken and they are in no immediate danger. Differing views will come about from this. Those of the operators of the Dam, as they are liable. Those of the Engineers?designers as they too are liable. There are those at/on the dam who might be rightly a little concerned all of a sudden. There are those down stream from any likely breach whose concern levels will be higher than all. It's the same event and there are any number of perspectives and resulting concerns and opinions. Interesting...Demonland...Interesting

Chris I did acknowledge the nature of Mleksham.. My point was the two elements seem to get bundled as though one

I cant agree with this. Taking Melksham is actually a high risk.. Why. He was drafted not when he only faced the AFL tribunal. He was drafted when on a list before CAS as part of the appeal by WADA. Whilst there is a possibility he may not be found guilty, as that iIS a legitimate outcome , in all probability he will. They all will. Otherwise WADA wont have gone the distance.. If/when found guilty the idea of but a handful of games as penalty is fanboy speak. There's NO precedent for a light smack given the offence and shenanigans leading up to it.. There , to me are two separate aspects which in the main have been lobbed together incorrectly. There is the risk of his selection coming to little. That comes about should he be rubbed out. Gain from Melksham, zero Then there's the caliber of contribution he may or may not present by playing. He might be ok, he might be a relative dud. This only becomes apparent should he be cleared. The risk is about him playing. The probability is not good for him.

I would suggest Milkshake was put up for consideration by Goodwin...and the others also deliberated upon it. Ie No Goodwin...he (m) wouldn't be with us.

Do you really think we would have taken Milkshake had not Goodwin been on board ? Yes it was a club decision... and thats the club-line. I dont for one minute believe Milkshake would have been on our radar if Goody hadn't been on board and about to take the helm. I dont believe everything at face value H_T. Its called footy speak...and Roos has his own dialect.

he might have been bending the truth a bit eh ?

Im not panicked at all Stuie... you're being inventive. Your'e taking the straw path of adding to an argument as though to give it weight. Im not panicked because I dont give a flying f whether Milkshake ever dons our jumper in battle..Hes irrelevant to our future in the grand schemes of things. Why would one panic about nothing. Im not panicked by whether Goodwin coaches or not..i really don't care. He does/he does'nt..whatever. My point all along...one you plainly are incapable of understanding was its not clever to pick your fruit from the rotten barrel.. You might get a a good one..or you might get a Goodwin !! We ONLY took Milkshake because of Goodwin. Melbourne will exist quite happily without either or both Milkshake or Goody.. It will have been a great waste of time efforts and resources should things work out for the worse. But please continue your 'Nothing has happened yet " rhetoric...it's amusing You do understand the connotations of "YET " By the way what IS happening is CAS are deciding the future of the 34.;... thats HAPPENING mate...that a reality..that's a FACT !! The next fact to follow will be the decision, and associated penalty. So please again, as you wont answer this will you..what will YOU do then ??