Lucifers Hero

It seems the numbers are very 'rubbery'!!! Some just don't make sense eg MFC profit of $.562m on Rev of $44.5 while CFC figures are $.850 on $66.2m. Carlton $2.7 loss on $54.1m. As the core costs of running a football club are the same eg Sal cap, # of coaches/support staff etc you have to wonder what creative accounting the 'power' clubs are doing to make such small profits/big losses. I'm not even sure the AFL has mandated accounting policies, practices and formats...at least none that are apparent whenever I have looked at comparing financial reports from clubs' annual reports. It would help if we could compare 'apples with apples'. But I fear the AFL is quite happy to have a certain opaqueness in club financials - it enables them to use their financial discretion without other clubs/club supporters saying: 'what about me'?! That is just another ?mark on how the AFL operate.

Another voice in the wilderness calling out the AFL's weakness: http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/02/08/afl-commission-lacks-courage-counts/ "Both times, the AFL will have consulted with other people who have clear conflicts of interest. Watson with his own medal and the other clubs preventing a competitive advantage to teams losing players through suspension...It’s time the AFL and the commission develop enough conviction in their thoughts to back themselves to make the right decisions without weight added from people on the outside." Shame the more serious mainstream media don't say the same. Credit to Greg Healy for speaking his mind. He seems the only one: Gerard Whateley is sitting quietly on the sidelines. Patrick Smith is writing puff pieces about membership numbers and Caro is still on holidays. She is one of the very few who does, at times, take aim at the AFL...I'm hoping when she returns that she will be a voice for the good.

The groundwork is being laid to defer AFL decision on Jobe's Brownlow: http://www.theroar.com.au/2016/02/08/afl-delays-decision-on-watsons-brownlow/ The article says if Jobe joins in the proposed appeal the AFL will delay the decision. No surprise, I guess the AFL has little choice there. It would be very telling if Jobe does not join in an appeal!

If we ever had any doubt about the AFL leaking to the press: "I was utterly dismayed to learn of the blatant backgrounding to journalists by the AFL in an attempt to discredit me" From the woman who was the target of Dusty's attention. http://www.theage.com.au/national/afls-dustin-martin-said-sorry-so-why-does-the-victim-feel-betrayed-20160204-gmlbrd.html#ixzz3zW0AweVL The woman would know about AFL 'backgrounding to journalists' as she works for Channel 7. Also, the article relates some fairly low acts by the AFL investigators (who would have been acting under Gil's instructions 'guidance') eg: 'During her dealings with some officials she felt pressured to downplay the event and says she was told details of Martin's private life that were, frankly, none of her business. So those who were trying to protect Martin, actually betrayed him.' The investigators showed no respect at all for Dusty nor the woman. I mention this not to reopen discussion of that incident (has been done to death elsewhere) but to highlight the AFL's callous, stop at nothing approach to people. They were both victims of the AFL's pathological need for 'brand protection'!! To think that Gil is a member of 'Male Champions for Change'! What a mockery, he should resign that post. Won't happen of course - further evidence of so much of his work being mere 'window dressing'.

I'm wonder about this. In the extremely unlikely event the appeal is upheld it would mean a CAS rehearing could not consider it de novo. This would throw into doubt the calling of witnesses and possibly require the panel to stick to the AFL Tribunal case of 'links in the chain'. Even if the latter wasn't a requirement in the new hearing the players would strongly object to the 'threads in the rope' approach...something they failed to do last time, with fatal consequences for the player's case. WADA would be in a really tough spot to make their case under those circumstances. I'm with beezlebub...if there is an 'appeal' it won't get as far as the Swiss Federal Court.

Thanks WJ. Is it correct to conclude that Chip LG's comment: "The (appeal) case before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court pits Australian contractual law against a guiding principle of the World Anti-Doping Code. The case will turn on a fine legal point; whether the changes to the 2015 AFL anti-doping code were procedural or substantial." means that the appeal will be against the conclusions in para 114, precedents notwithstanding?

49! Really! I swear I thought he was in his 60's...he certainly looks it!

For what it is worth I wonder if the result was any different if CAS only reviewed the decision of the AFL Tribunal ie it wasn't 'de novo' at all. From what I can tell there was no new material as evidence. Players and an expert or two were called as witnesses. But the damning evidence of no player noting on their ASADA testing forms of substances given, was presented to the AFL Tribunal. But ASADA did not make a song and dance about it (...maybe they didn't trust the AFL Tribunal and knew it was their trump card should it get to CAS) but at least covered the bases to make sure it wasn't rejected as 'new' evidence. The major differences between the AFL Tribunal and the CAS hearing appear to be: - CAS called witnesses: One expert who testified the chemical makeup of what Alvi compounded had a 97% fit to that of TB4. Or was that 99%, I don't recall. It called 7 players as witnesses. The player interviews were already submitted as evidence. So was their call to testify new evidence? If the expert's testimony is eliminated it leaves 15 of the 16 'threads in a rope' in tact. - WADA relied on a 'threads in a rope' rather than 'links in the chain' approach to which the players counsel did not object at the beginning nor at the end of the hearing. - CAS placed a higher bar on 'comfortable' satisfaction' than the AFL Tribunal which is its right. So the players may find it a tough task to prove it was, in fact 'de novo'!! Hopefully, the appeal won't get past first base...btw it has not been lodged...they have till Wed and may yet see the light and not go ahead with this charade. Players no longer profess innocence. It is now: 'you went about it the wrong way'. Spare me!

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/essendon-players-to-fight-on-against-cas-judgment/news-story/9893d062863029eedb3b153f5ab052e9 According to ChipLG the players did raise the question of CAS's right to hear the case 'de novo' before it considered the evidence: "An objection to CAS hearing the case de novo, or anew, was raised in lengthy pre-hearing submissions by the players and dismissed by CAS in a single-page letter. In its judgment, CAS noted that its principal task was not to review the merits of previous decisions but to determine for itself whether an athlete had doped". I couldn't find a copy of that letter on line to see what it says. I guess it comes down to the basic role of CAS: To review a previous decision or decide for itself! Even Chip acknowledges it is a highly technical area: "The case before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court pits Australian contractual law against a guiding principle of the World Anti-Doping Code. The case will turn on a fine legal point; whether the changes to the 2015 AFL anti-doping code were procedural or substantial." The downside of this is that the saga re Jobe's brownlow will go on for another year...the AFL won't take it from him while an appeal is pending. Maybe they hope we will all forget about it.

Neil Mitchell interviewed Michele Cowan the other day: http://www.3aw.com.au/news/melbourne-coach-michelle-cowan-speaks-with-neil-mitchell-on-3aw-mornings-20160204-gmlbsz.html The track goes for 8+minutes so here are the main points I heard: - Mitchell’s first up question: ‘When can we have a flag?’ - Her role is to work with 1st and 2nd year players and help identify leaders - Very glowing of Peter Jackson: …the most forward thinking man she has met and a remarkable leader - Mitchell asked if her role was player skills or motivation. Answer: both - PJ made the call re a part-time role. She couldn’t do it full-time due to a young family. He rang her and said: 'how can we make this happen'. I recall that as a very similar question that PJ asked Roos several times until we eventually landed him! - Roos empowers his coaches and is very encouraging of her which helps earn player respect. - Mitchell question: …Can you get inside Jack Watts’ head and turn him into the player he should be!! Her response: He is very different now from what she has seen in the last few years. - Mitchell tongue-in-cheek question …Can you stop LH from running around in circles and hand balling to the opposition? I thought Michele spoke very well and sound a fairly relaxed, quietly confident person. She will be valuable at the club. Don’t think she will take any rubbish from the players or anyone else for that matter!

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-05/afls-topup-call-doesnt-make-sense-says-power?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News Finally someone in football land gets it and is prepared to speak up against the AFL, albeit in a small way. Port CEO says: '"Let me throw this one at you, I'm assuming all clubs said no, and I don't know that, but can you imagine what Eddie (Maguire) would have said had this ruling come down against Collingwood, there would have been hell to pay," he said..."There was a consultation process with all the other clubs ... we felt it was a unique situation that required AFL leadership - make a call and get on with it, one way or another.' I would imagine Eddie would have been one of the 'stridently opposed'! And this: 'He (Keith Thomas) also said Port won't pay Ryder or Monfries at all and they were last paid in January.' You have to wonder why StK has been carrying on about who is paying Carlise when the players are not allowed to be payed. I feel for the players not been paid especially those like Ryder who has a young family. But I believe rules need to be upheld something there has been precious little of throughout this sad and sorry saga.

This is the Age piece on top-ups: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-drugs-saga-other-clubs-with-banned-former-essendon-players-cant-replace-them-20160205-gmmzo7.html Quote: "The AFL canvassed the remaining AFL clubs for their view of the bid by the four clubs to be given access to replacements. The clubs varied from the stridently opposed to those who didn't care". Who do they fear: a resurgent Bulldogs, a knocking-on-finals-door Port. Certainly not us nor the Saints! Realistically, top ups won't make much difference to results and the AFL were always going to say 'no'. So I think it is very poor sportsmanship for some clubs to 'stridently oppose' the idea. What sticks in my craw is the hypocrisy of those clubs. They sit quietly while the cheats prosper from AFL largess then squeal when clubs who have wallowed at the bottom of the ladder for the best part of the last 5 years ask for help.

I just heard Chip LG speak and he said the appeal is not based on the evidence or the decision. They are appealing on a technicality - jurisdiction and CAS's right to hear the case 'de novo'. So even if they win it won't clear their names. If they really believed they were innocent they would appeal the decision and the evidence. It is the same Hird's/EFC challenge in the Fed court on a technicality ie the legality of the AFL and ASADA doing a 'joint' investigation. It was (and Hird's later appeal) emphatically turned down. I'm a bit over their attempts to use 'the law' to get out of accepting their guilt as if technicalities will erase the taint of being cheats. Let's hope the player appeal is thrown out of the Swiss court just as emphatically as Hird/EFC in the Fed court!!

Always good to get some inside info. Thanks. Let us know if you pick up any other info around the traps.

Had a browse on bfessendon to see the reaction to the appeal and noticed this from none other than out occasional interloper, 'Lance Uppercut': "...And yeah, I've been pretty open about the fact I think the CAS probably came to the right decision, but got there in a very strange way..." He hasn't been back to DL since the CAS decision but kudos to him for taking the suspensions on the chin.

Good article - gives Misson update on some rehab players and some insight on how we will approach the NAB games. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-02-05/well-attack-nab-challenge-misson This bit from Misson is especially good: “Jack Trengove is coming towards the end of his rehab. He’s been doing a lot of work – and a lot of football work – in the last couple of weeks and he’s probably a week and a half away from joining in with the group. We feel like we’ve got his load pretty right. More importantly, he’s feeling really confident in that foot and he’s looking forward to joining in with the group – and the group’s looking forward to having him.”...Misson.

Good point. Lets hope not. The impression I had is not all 34 will appeal...read all about it in The Australian tomorrow!! Chip LG scoop.

Oh No!!! SEN have just announced the players WILL appeal. God knows on what grounds! If they lose they will get a year and maybe 2 EFC insurers to pay for appeal. Essendon insurers set to fund appeal to Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland As I said in an earlier post - easy to appeal when it someone else's money!

Thanks for the clarification...should have thought of that...all lawyers are 'street smart'

Peter Jess's 'thought bubbles' are going to get him into strife: "Essendon doctor Bruce Reid has also taken umbrage with the report, and is believed to have threatened defamation action". http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-saga-nathan-lovettmurray-reported-to-be-lodging-an-appeal-against-cas-verdict-20160204-gmm8fb.html 'Marsh also took a swipe at Jess, who earlier had said he hoped the players association would help fund an appeal against the CAS verdict. Marsh said his association had not funded any of the 34 players' legal bills so far during the supplements saga and would not change that policy. "Peter's comments probably show how disconnected he is to actually what's happening here with the 34 players," Marsh said'. For a lawyer Jess doesn't seem to have a lot of 'street smarts'. He needs to heed the the old 'engage brain before mouth' principle

An update: I was just listening to SEN and a comment from Paul Marsh of the AFLPA answered my question above about EFC funding appeals. He said the AFLPA won't be funding anything and are in discussions with EFC to fund appeals if any. He went on to say if Peter Jess believes the AFLPA will fund his appeal for NLM it shows 'how disconnected' he really is from the process. Peter Jess seems to come out with a new thought bubble each day...it is losing him more credibility each day.

You are so right TedF! Machiavellism in the extreme! For the part above that is highlighted: that sounds like MFC's predicament of recent years and some to come...the AFL determined to maintain the status quo: Fete the rich and powerful regardless of their crimes and shackle the weak. I despair at the state of the game and the connivance of the people supposedly 'managing' it.

The appeal costs being borne by ALFPA means it is being paid for by the AFL (who 100% fund it). As a fan I am outraged the AFL using monies that should go to clubs or game development elsewhere for this futile exercise. If all AFL players funded their union (the AFLPA) then they would be complaining loudly. As long as it is other people's money ie the AFL's no-one says anything. If Essendon is supposedly supporting all 34 players why is it not funding appeals, I wonder. A rhetorical question, I know but that is where the funding responsibility really lies. WJ, do you have any idea why other clubs are not up in arms about all the favours the AFL is giving EFC?

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/essendon-topups-gold-coast-suns-coach-rodney-eade-says-affected-clubs-shouldnt-sign-replacements/news-story/3ec9ac1fb727b8697f1866a810c1a117 Quote: "If the four affected clubs are granted permission to sign top-up players, Essendon will have to hasten its signing process with four new clubs on the prowl for state league talent...Alternatively, it is believed the AFL has canvassed a potential mini-draft which would eliminate the possibility of a bidding war between two or more clubs over a player". This smacks of the AFL stalling further so that EFC get all the players they want first! I don't care if we get a top-up or not and I doubt the club will be too fussed either way. But this is farce on farce! As Healey said: just make a decision, Gil! Footnote: apologies for bold font for some reason I can't get rid of it on this post

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/banned-bombers-consider-split-ahead-of-compo-bid-20160203-gmkv19.html Extracts: A group of between 10 and 15 are weighing up whether to link with renowned sports lawyer Tony Nolan QC and personal injury law barrister Gavin Coldwell. Lawyer Chris Pollard is part of the team put together by player agent Peter Jess: Former Bomber Nathan Lovett-Murray has signed, while Dyson Heppell, Dustin Fletcher, Jake Melksham, Mark McVeigh and Jake Carlisle are among those understood to be in serious discussions. Skipper Jobe Watson could also yet link with Nolan although, as part of a group of players managed by Elite Sports Properties, he may remain with Slater and Gordon, the AFLPA's preferred lawyers. Two former Bombers – Bulldogs Stewart Crameri and Brent Prismall – had engaged independent lawyers earlier in the saga. This is going to go on for years if they don't all settle out of court. At least they have the good sense to forget about the injunction. You would think this makes an appeal futile since by the time it is heard their suspension would be over.