sue

I agree with all that. As for 'alcohol mates'certainly it is not explicit like some gambling ads, but any product which shows happy groups of people, totally unrelated to the actual product, is manipulating the you'll be happy with lots of mates and sexy women if you drink this stuff line.

If there is a liquor ad code that expressly forbids suggesting "you'll have more mates or sexy girlfriends if you drink A" then it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance, to misquote Hamlet.

Agree. But I go a step further. Why do they need to be advertised? Have you ever seen a beer ad that actually gives you any evidence as to why brand A is better than the rest other than suggesting you'll have more mates or sexy girlfriends if you drink A. What a waste. At least the gambling companies offer slightly different products whose differences can be explained in an ad (though they still largely rely on the mates/girlfriends motivation. Perhaps a better word is manipulation).

At first I thought that was funny. Then I realised that they were probably already planning that. And are now [censored] off that he current scandal will put a stop to it.

Can you be sure the votes are all in sealed envelopes? These charges increase my suspicion that that isn't the case. Might also explain the ludicrous appeals in the Cripps case.

Doubtless true, and those posters may have been wrong. But being wrong about the sincerity of his message is not even a possibilty if he didn't make the appropriate farewell message in the first place.

Sadly the amount has overwhelmed the number, particularly in the last year or so. (Good luck critiquing that sentence.)

I don't recall selling my soul old dee. More like my having had it extracted by Voldemort.

It is totally inappropriate for anyone to reveal private matters affecting a player's choice, though reasonable speculation should be acceptable on a site like this. A number of posters have complained that if he knew he was going it would have been better for the club if he left last year and have stuck into him for not doing that. That is why I asked if those who imply they know the personal reasons could state that those reasons didn't arise till this year. If they only arose this year, that should shut those complainers up totally. Not that they have much of a leg to stand on anyway.

Do you know when did this legitimate reason arise ? During the last 12 months?

It's OK if there are private reasons to account for some of this. Some people have hinted that they know what they are. To mollify those who are annoyed Jackon didn't go earlier, could those people in the know say if these private reasons only arose this year?

If he can't get to WA and doesn't go to North I'd prefer him to sit out rather than play a year at Melbourne. That would be disruptive in all sorts of ways. (But a deal will be done is much more likely.)

Surely if it comes down to Jackson not being able to get to WA he won't go to North. He'd re-sign with Melbourne (except in a fit of pique). Not that I think he will end up in that siutation.

Wrong meaning of confidential. When you are asked to tell your story and told that the review is confidential, it doesn't mean your are gagged forever telling your story anywhere else. It means the reviewer won't release you details. Who would ever agree to make a complaint on the condition they can't tell anyone else - especially if they had no confidence it wouldn't be swept under the carpet.

In other ways it doesn't. It adds credibility to the indigenous families' claims since it is independent evidence of his controlling behaviour. The degree, extent and nature of the controlling behaviour in the case of indigenous players can still raise the question of racism.

Whoops. Typo made that post obscure. Last word was meant to be “reply”.

Interesting that the ABC says they were offered more time to respond to the allegations but didn’t really.

I'm taking out futures on pop-corn.

Listen to the other coaches post-season reviews and your head will probably feel just as bad.

Appropriate.

Of course an investigation has to consider all sides and try to establish the truth as far as possible. But repeatedly saying that in order to refute assumptions by other posters that there is likely to be a serious case to answer, smells slightly to me. If 3 or 5 people said that they saw me breaking into your house, I think most people would think there is likely to be something in the charge and await proceedings.

True. What I meant by 'may not end well for anyone' was that the complainants may refuse to enter into such a process and so there may be no resolution.

The difficulty is greater than that I fear. My first thought when the AFL said it would investigate was "Will these people really want to go through this all again in a more public way, especially if some smooth-talking lawyer gets to cross-examine them". Now maybe the AFL review won't go that way, but if it does I suspect this will not end well for anyone.

That makes sense

It would be interesting following the court cases of those crying foul, arguing they felt sick (COVID??) and had to leave.