La Dee-vina Comedia

I can't see the problem with the "Essendon 34" organising their own training. If the AFLPA wants to be involved, so what? I don't see how this in any way is an avenue "to get around the CAS decision". Once these players (and ex-players) have served their penalty they are entitled to resume their careers if they want. One of the prerequisites for continuing AFL careers will be that the players must be fit. What's wrong with them working together to stay fit?

I suspect Stockholm Syndrome might kick in for those still at Windy Hill. If that's the case, they may end up with an unbelievably strong willed team in 2017 trying to right what they consider to be a wrong imposed upon them. And an earlier poster (perhaps more than one) criticised the AFL for keeping Essendon in the 2016 competition and not playing a 17 team competition. Keep in mind that the AFL has a contract with its broadcasters to deliver 9 games a week (other than the bye week and finals). Pretty hard to do that with 17 teams.

I thought he was being put out with the other rubbish for recycling...

Seems more like a structural, rather than personal, arrangement. If you look at radio across the country, dual (or more) hosting seems more common in breakfast and drive than other timeslots. I assume revenues are higher in breakfast and drive, so minimal expense is put into the other timeslots. Hence, single operators between 9 and 4 pm.

I can't believe no-one has yet gone with "Exit Dawes".

Were you one of them, Satyr?

Just on the issue of payments to players, as I've said somewhere on Demonland previously, we shouldn't be thinking of the players being paid a weekly wage. It is quite possible that the players will not be getting cash in the bank accounts during the period of suspension but they might nevertheless be paid either through pre-payments (front loading) prior to the CAS decision and "make up" payments post the period of suspension so that they are not out of pocket. This would be consistent with the AFL saying that the players' pay would still be counted for the club's TPP for 2016. Another possibility is that the club pays the money into a trust fund or an escrow account (using those terms loosely) so the players still get the money - they just have to wait for their suspensions to be over. In summary, they may not receive any money during the period of suspension but they may still get everything owing to them under their contracts.

dc, I'm making no assumptions at all. The point I was making is that IF there is no other context to make it clear, I'm not sure that I would automatically realise that an "injection" is a "supplement". But I don't know the context.

Depending on the way the question is phrased, I'm not sure if I was player being asked the question that I would have automatically assumed that an "injection" is the same thing as a "supplement". I would have thought supplements come in other forms taken orally, such as powders, tablets and muesli bars. Having said that, I haven't heard any player say that was the case for them.

Just saw this ad on Twitter. The one on the left looks suspicious... Re-imagine your company logo, starting at $5. Tap here to start: http://lp.fiverr.com/logo-fb/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=TW_USUKAUCA_Cate-Logo_Desktop_M_DA0301 …

Thanks Wayne. Outstanding work.

Hard to imagine Cross extending his playing career by one year to play with a team widely tipped to struggle and give up the start of what could be a very successful second career.

The one bit about the punishment I don't understand (and this goes for everyone, not just Melksham and the other 33), is the complete separation from the club. I can accept not training with the other players and not being around the clubrooms. But I'd like to see the penalty make an exception for club-supported and funded mandatory counselling. I expect many young professional sportsmen to struggle without being able to pursue their profession. I fear that someone somewhere who is the subject of a ban of this type will take some form of horrific action against themselves or someone else. Apart from anything else, the counselling should enable players in denial to come to grips with what they've done wrong. I realise that counselling can be externally provided. But I think it would be more effective if organised by the club as it reminds the player that he or she hasn't been truly forgotten.

Not to be confused with St Stephen who had rocks in his head.

Because of Essendon's dilemma/recent history or just because you don't like our ex-players playing with someone else? If it's the former, I think the Essendon of today is quite different to the one of 2012-2015. For a start, most of the people on the coaching and admin side implicated in the problem have gone (and any that haven't, including Board members should go). And all of the players he'd be playing with, by definition, are clean.

That grass looks like Astroturf. (cue Joe Namath...or maybe someone else)

Caveat emptor. All trades, except Monfries, were made after the potential for suspensions if found guilty were known. While the Monfries trade was prior to the supplements program becoming public knowledge, it would be difficult to prove that Essendon allowed the trade to proceed with the knowledge that he may later be suspended. After all, they have always claimed that they thought they were doing nothing wrong.

From Twitter: AFL ‏@AFL 31m31 minutes ago Managers of the 34 suspended players met with the AFLPA yesterday to get an initial picture of the ramifications. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-13/managers-of-banned-players-in-hastily-arranged-meeting-with-aflpa … Given it appears to be the blind leading the blind, I'm not sure if anyone there could actually see the picture.

OMG. Stuie and C&B are at it again. Guys, give it a rest. (If I were a moderator, it's what I'd be making you do involuntarily.)

I think the Royal Commission into Trade Unions might have provided the names of a few. CFMEU comes to mind, although in that instance the dependency appears to have been reversed.

Apart from Zaharakis, do we know that these players "opted out"? Isn't it also possible that they were involved in the regime but there was no evidence of them being injected with illegal substances, hence no infraction notices? Given Hal Hunter is one of the 12 listed and he's taking action against the club, it would suggest to me he's an example of one who was injected and therefore didn't "opt out".

Actually, the Lloyd view is complimentary. If Melksham is "depth" we must have a better team than I thought we had. I don't think there would be too many arguments here that he's a lot better as a depth player than Bail, McKenzie, Riley, or even Matt Jones and Terlich.

Thanks Barney.

And even then you might want to get some independent verification.

Can someone please make clear what the penalty against Melksham means with respect to the following: is he allowed at the club's rooms (eg, gym) when the rest of the team or club officials are not there? is he allowed to see any of the club's officials (eg, physio, dietitian, etc) away from the club rooms? can he maintain fitness by playing in any other football competition other than the AFL or VFL? can he maintain fitness by playing any other non-football competition (eg, basketball) if he's good enough to do so? PS: And can Stuie, SWYL, C&B etc, take it outside and stop hijacking this thread.