Jump to content

sue

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,457

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by sue

  1. sue
    OD, I am, like all our supporters fully aware of how crap we have been. That's no reason to throw judgement out the window and be overly-negative about every rumour and speculation and to do so with such gusto and relish. That might be an emotional response, but I doubt whether it does any good for the readers of this forum or for the club. I also doubt it is useful therapy for the writers.
  2. sue
    Very true. But certain Demonland members will use any development whatsoever in our club or in any other club, to put the boot into our club. And when there aren't any new actual developments , they can use rumours and speculation, which are legion, to do the same. Just look at almost any thread.
  3. sue
    A question re Dank and ASADA's new powers: If Dank confesses to feeding players illegal (sports-illegal) supplements, is he opening himself up to any criminal charge or to non-criminal legal action by players or whoever? Can he dump players in it without risk to himself?
  4. sue

    Voss Sacked

    sue replied to bing181's topic in Melbourne Demons

    Probably just hoping that if he mentions another old timer, someone will put his name forward in return,
  5. sue
    Or you could look it as giving Clisby some taste of success rather than the beltings he'll probably see in the seniors over the coming weeks.
  6. sue
    At least the thugs appeal has been turned down and it's now 4 weeks. from the MFC website: The club decided on Tuesday morning to contest it, but then opted to accept the three-match penalty, meaning Clisby will miss the rest of the AFL season. But by accepting the three-match penalty, he will now have a greater chance to play in the VFL finals, hence why the decision was reversed.
  7. sue
    Why are posters so certain there is no other footage? The MFC have explained why they decided to not challenge, apparently after some wavering on the issue. You may not like the explanation, but it is not unreasonable. The decision doesn't prove some incapacity to stand up for the club. I suspect our challenge ratio is not much worse than other clubs. Anyone have the data?
  8. sue
    Sorry to be off topic too, but OldDee does remind me of Marvin the Robot, though I'm not sure of his cranial capacity.
  9. sue
    I don't think it is as clear cut as you make out. How did they prove Lees intended to use it? Maybe he bought if for a mate or his dog. It came down to a balance of probabilities about his intent, with the conclusion that he did intend to use it himself. There may be Essendon evidence which is comparable to Lees' purchase, and then intent may be relevant to the Essendon case. We'll see. Perhaps.
  10. sue
    It's not clear from the AFL site what extra penalty Clisby risks by not accepting the 3 weeks. May be an ideal time to stand up to the inconsistent bunch at the MRP.
  11. sue
    It looks very much like a situation where we know you did it but we can't prove it individually (unless someone produces records or someone spills the beans). So how do you punish the players? You make them play for no points for the next x years.
  12. sue
    Typical of the AFL. A bit of push and shove with unfortunate consequences has a similar penalty to deliberately kicking someone in the face.
  13. sue
    You ought to have a closer look at the video. He was kicked in the face with the most force that someone can muster in that position. (Someone with muscles, not most of us keyboard warriors). Lucky he didn't take an eye out. Anyway, well done to the AFL for giving him at least 3. On past performances, I wouldn't have been too surprised if they failed to do anything. I wonder where the borderline between reckless and deliberate is though. Perhaps it was recklessly deliberate :>) Those TV commentators hardly noticed. I wonder how many replays and comments would have been made if one of our guys kicked Ablett in the face like that? (rhetorical question)
  14. sue
    Old Dee, perhaps you miss my point. I know no amount of whinging will change things. I make the point that remembrance of past injuries can help bind a group together. So no, I don't think we should get over it. We should use it (as supporters, it won't have any effect on the players, in fact better to not remind them of it). Seems to me a bit facile saying 'get over it' - easy to say, easy to do, but better to make use of it instead to build the mongrel culture so many on here bemoan we lack, including I think you.
  15. sue
    http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-12/dons-may-be-scapegoats Does anyone recall Mathews saying we were scapegoats in the tanking saga? It's easy for some to say "move on, it's history". Maybe remembrance of past wrongs is what binds groups into the tough unit that the same some bemoan we aren't.
  16. sue
    Did anyone ask him what he meant by that? All AFL players, even 'soft' ones, risk their bodies playing footy. So perhaps we are to conclude that they risked them in some special way, eg. playing with strange substances of unknown long-term effect?
  17. sue
    Oh, the irony.
  18. sue
    Looking at Bomberblitz (schadenfreude central) there seems to be a bit of weariness developing, even a desire for a bit of quiet euthanasia.
  19. sue
    I enjoy your consistency. You say "The only reason idiots like CS were spared" and then in reply to Redleg offering other more credible reasons, you say 'Who knows'. I now know I shouldn't take you hyperbole too seriously in future and won't bite. You just want to put the boot into CS & CC and defend C Wilson at every opportunity. I can understand the former but not the latter.
  20. sue
    Whatever you think of CS, CC etc etc, Wilson's methods are diabolical. Just because she was clobbering people you wanted clobbered, does not make her a good journalist. I will happily wait for her to go after someone you like and see what you say then.
  21. sue
    The same issue arises in general law. If you take a swing at someone and they fall over and don't hit their head, you will be charged with assault. If by unlucky chance the head of the guy you hit lands on something hard and he dies, you will be up for manslaughter. Same action, different result, different charge. A difficult issue, but in the case of the AFL I htink it is simpler. The game requires and sanctions 'assault', so they should judge only on intent and degree of reckless force, not outcome (except to the extent it reveals degree of force).
  22. sue
    Dank?
  23. sue
    I expect you are right. I can't see how the drug saga is only 4 times in $ as damaging to the AFL as the 'MFC didn't tanked' saga was. But this is the ever consistent AFL so $2m wouldn't surprise me.
  24. sue
    We got fined $500K for 'not tanking' which everyone knows several other clubs didn't do either. This is way more serious than that. It would be ridiculous if Essendon's fine for the far more serious drug mess was not very much higher. But we know how inconsistent the AFL is all the way from random umpire decisions up to AD.
  25. sue
    Clearly Essendon as a club will have to be whacked by the AFL regardless of whether the players get off, so what do people feel will be the likely penalty? What will be the balance between points, bans on non-players and fines for 'bringing the game into disrepute' and not looking after layers welfare? As for fines, if the MFC was fined $500K for 'not tanking' (when several other teams also didn't tank), I'd say at least $10M for Essendon's sins. But I bet it will be the minimum number above $500K the AFL think they can get away with. Any thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...