sue

Probably Little's exit is tied to their AGM timetable or some such, but why now? Why not wait a couple of months till the CAS decision is made. Then either Little retires in a blaze of innocent glory or the club can let the new broom come in and clean up the mess by blaming the past. By doing it now Tanner is almost tied to spouting the sort of guff he has.

Do you know something about the CAS outcome the rest of us don't OD?

Demonland Logic 101: 1. Some players chosen by the full-time staff at the club turn out to be failures 2. Some Demonland posters said those players were useless right from the start Therefore, Demonland posters always know better than the staff at the club. Let's move on.

A lot of emotional positions taken in this thread recently based on few facts. As I see it there are so many things we don't know that cutting wrists or potting the club or otherwise is just fanciful. (Some of the many) things we don't know: 1. what is in Milkshake's contract 2. what assurances about compensation for clubs which take potentially rubbed out players has the AFL made 3. how the club evaluated the possibility of losing Milkshake vs the benefits of getting him long term. Maybe they see a lot more in him than those on here who think he was not worth the risk or the trade. Just guessing but I think Mandee's view as medium reward medium to high risk is probably nearest the pin. Not a key player, so in short, nothing for us to lose sleep over. And not enough justification for potting the club. As for Goodwin, I suspect the probability of him being targeted is low. But I can't see that it is zero. So if I wanted to lose sleep (I don't), I'd focus my angst there. And we can only guess what the club did about due diligence in appointing him taking into account risks vs benefits, plan B etc.

Redleg, I think we all know that none of the coaches etc are part of the current proceedings. But do you know that if the players are found guilty there will be no further action against the staff? I'm not so sure.

Agree. Also we outsiders have no idea what assurances the AFL has given clubs as to compensation if a club takes a player who gets rubbed out - we might just get another fringe player who may turn out to be a Vanders. If you want to worry, focus on Goodwin's position.

You have to work hard to find ambiguity in those words IMO, especially given what follows. And yes, there is a natural tendency for Demonlanders to believe worse of other clubs than ours, but the major difference with the tanking was that it 'was something out of nothing' especially if you add the word 'unusual' after 'nothing'.

If the AFL Tribunal missed that obvious hole in the player's interviews they aren't the legal whizz-kids some would have us believe they are. Edit to add: Or perhaps the evidence of those interviews wasn't presented by ASADA - either because they didn't know or were incompetent. If they didn't know that's not a great sign either.

Knowing Essendons' chutzpah, they will ask for a bulk discount on the basis of the large number of players involved.

Fun to poke fun at old'Gil. But if he doesn't have a plan, he just as well clear his desk now because he will be sacked and the AFL sued by Fox and Ten. My only worry is that they might have a plan but it may not be equitable and adjusted on the fly to suit big clubs. Which club did Monfries go to? (Sorry, I take little notice of non-MFC news)?

Correct. A club would trust the AFL more than EFC. But would a club really believe the AFL had inside knowledge on the penalties sufficient to take a tainted player with no concerns. I think not. I think it is far more likely that the AFL has offered some sort of compensation to any club brave enough to spread the pain from EFC in 2016. The AFL must have a plan how to run EFC in 2016 if a swathe of players are rubbed out. Maybe it would be a variant of that.

It is a transcript of a Hird ASADA interview I heard on ABC radio.

Before the draft many posters were saying the club must have had a player in mind when manoeuvering to get the #3. Has the club said that CO was part of the plan, or did we just #3 regardless?

Does anyone know what time the draft acually starts? I can't find out from the AFL web pages - they won't tell me presumably because they want me to watch a whole lot of bilge first.

I know nothing, but I was intrigued that Hogan muttered to the press about drafting someone to play alongside him. Maybe he was stepping out of line, but won't it be embarrasing for him when we don't do what he says? So maybe he was following orders. But then we aren't leaking are we? Confused.....

Agree. But on a dreary afternoon I wouldn't have minded watching a replay. No sign of that unless you have Fox.

It would be interesting to add an option of "no idea, just praying the club gets it right".

But why don't we even hear reports of who has gone into the court etc?

Well that explains the lack of leaks as well.

Since we hear nothing about what is going on I presume the CAS proceedings are in camera?

They may not But they may want to remain mates with other players who aren't taking a hard line with EFC.

If a player was planning to sue, then dropping EFC in it at CAS might be a wise financial investment to help their future case. May not be such a good social investment though.

To slightly misquote an old song: Keep your hands off it Don't you dare touch it You know it won't belong to you

I think there is a smallish probability that OD's tram ticket, wet or dry, will be stuck on a baseball bat. We'll see.

I guess that is part of the vague words that constitute the charge. However I would have thought injecting god knows what is more than "failing to provide a safe environment" etc. If I stab you I don't get charged with failing to provide a safe environment, though unlike the EFC players, you probably didn't consent to it. But if I help you commit suicide, I don't get charged with failing to provide a safe environment. I guess this is all Worksafe jargon though.