sue

Those figures are pleasantly surprising given there are relatively so few MFC supporters to vote (and even we seem to be somewhat split on the matter) and that the supporters of other clubs who you'd think were most likely to vote on any issue would be the most rabid in support of their own club.

No one is saying a PP will solve our problems. But obviously the more talent and trading opportunities the better. The main argument against a PP is that it might breed complacency thinking that a PP will solve all our problems. Even If anyone in the club and the players thought that was the case in the past, sure they cannot believe it any longer. Further, I don't think there is any evidence that the fix-it-ourselves/self-sufficiency argument is strong - certainly not on the timescale we need to stay viable. When you have been as bad as us, it is time to accept a blow to your pride. So I think there is no good argument against going for a PP. We should be countering arguments against it made by journos and other clubs rather than thinking up reasons to support them. As for Emma Quayle - journos sometimes play to their audience. Almost all of her readers are not MFC supporters and they would rarely think of what is good for the overall competition - rather they see any other club getting a leg up as a disadvantage for theirs. I cannot recall anyone arguing when PP's were given out in the past to C'wood and the Hawks that there is no need to do so because their lists had a pile of players who would probably become stars. It has to be based mainly on past performance to have any semblance of objectivity rather than gazing into a crystal ball. You could mount an argument that it may also make sense to consider glaring holes in a team a poorly performing team, eg. we don't have a forward line.

I don't deny that the press conference was political. I did refer to 'devious motives'. I just think Abbott is playing the same game of trying to score political points. And the worry is that this is a prelude to the making it go away as Little has called for. Personally I think sweeping this under the carpet while scoring political points would be far more serious than any stunt or over-reaction the previous government may have made. This is a case where exaggerating the problem for political purposes is far less damaging than sweeping it under the carpet for political purposes. Let's just hope it doesn't happen.

Correct. Abbott is just playing his usual politics - any excuse to put the boot into the opposition to deflect from his numerous broken promises. Regardless of whatever devious political motives the Labor party may have had at the time, he and we should await the outcome to see just how black or white the blackest day was. The real worry here is that his remarks may indicate that Little's 'circuit breaker' may be getting activated. That would indeed be a black day for sport (and independent process).

Nasher - Obviously a time will come when they should be welcomed back into the fold. Just not yet.

I don't often agree with J Kennett, but at least he sees what a %^#% Little is. I wonder how widespread that view is amongst the boards/ presidents of other clubs.

Little is disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. No interest in what is good for the game or the players. Whatever it takes - to get off .

I see that Little wants to make it all go away with the help of the Sports Minister and that the govt is thinking of an enquiry into ASADA and the previous govts's involvement with it. Typical of Abbott and co to launch enquiries to blacken the previous govt as if they were still fighting the election. But that may well be Essendung's best hope of getting off.

I only wish we could trade some of those footy commentators.

Little speaks: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-13/essendon-chairman-says-another-game-being-played-asada-probe/5669312

If we can't bring injured players back through the 2's in the normal way a club would operate because of that, we need to do something about Casey.

Memory not was it was, or ever was, but wasn't the ASADA act (or whatever it is called) changed to give them coercive powers after all this began? If so how could the players answers differ from when the AFL applied the thumbscrews?

god knows why they would be so desperate to be in the finals this year. How many goals would the Hawks beat them by? I guess there are always flukes, but outside the top 4 such flukes are a long bet.

According to that Chris K? twitter feed, the Essendung lawyer has just said they are not seeking to prevent a future investigation. So they are content to clobber the AFL and ASADA just to delay things and heap up legal fees. Gotta admire them.

It's says something about our usual footy journos that it takes a newcomer to write a sensible article. I'm getting sick of journos, including that bloke on ABC radio national who seem to think that any deficiencies on the part of ASADA or the AFL are somehow excuses for Essendon's outrageous behaviour.

thanks

I'm no defender of AD, but leaving aside his mistake in not calling 17 other clubs as well to cover his bum when seeking to help Essendon (and AFL), what exactly is the nature of his non-innocence? Genuine question.

I think it matters (though I don't know if there was a speaker phone). If it was not, then it is pretty close to hearsay for Hird to state AD said something isn't it? If it was a speaker phone then whether or not it was a 'meeting' might depend on the nature of Hird being involved. I have been at plenty of speaker phone meetings where it was clear it was pre-arranged that I was at the 'meeting'. I have been at some where it was "by the way, Sue is listening too" and maybe talking too but not pre-arranged, and some where I listened but the people at the other end weren't told I was there. I'd say in all but the last I was at a meeting. Gosh, I'm lost now; why are we discussing the definition of a meeting...........? Essendon is doing my brain in.

Agree. But isn't the issue here did AD break the confidentiality of ASADA/AFP etc.? Dunno how that helps Essendon even if he did. Still mildly interested to know if Hird claimed AD stated ASADA were after you, or AD just said you are likely to be in the firing line given all the rumours circulating. I hate to disagree with Redleg's learned judgement but I reckon parties on a speaker phone are at a meeting. Was there a speaker phone though?

Isn't it a 'meeting' if it was on speaker-phone?

The Age reports He (Hird) was present at the meeting with Andrew Demetriou and David Evans in which Evans was told the club was under suspicion of doping. But was he asked where the suspicion was coming from - ASADA or just the general AFL rumour mill?

What these cretins at Essendon don't seem to understand is that when a criminal gets off on a mere technicality, (sensible) society says 'bugger, but that is the price we have to pay for keeping our legal/police system kosher'. But the reputation of the criminal is down the gurgler. As will be Essendon's.

Two quotes from the Age: Essendon wants to use 'covert secret transcript' as evidence in case, court hears Both appear to me to be confessions of guilt. Basically, let us off on these technicalities or we will be proved guilty. Mr Young said that a finding against his client could "effectively destroy its business". David Grace QC, representing the 34 players, said his clients were in an "invidious position" because they were contractually obliged to answer questions put to them by investigators and without being given the privilege to not answer questions through self-incrimination.

Just because Essendon requested something that they now claim was 'illegal' doesn't ruin the case that it was illegal. But to my non-salesman brain, I'd think they are skating on thin ice if they claim there is a significant difference between a joint investigation and one where one party assists the other. How much assistance does one party have to give to the other before it is joint in all but name anyway.

Doesn't that mean that the Hawks would struggle with precise kicking down left right side of park ? Not much sign of that.