Lucifers Hero

I'm not saying he's as good as Cripps. We will be lucky if that's true. But I think he's much different to Cripps despite the similarities. Maybe a cleaner Dane Swan or a slower Dangerfield. There's a bit of Luke Parker about him and a bit of Robbie Gray.

Good comparisons and a real compliment to the kid.

Dangerfield, Parker and Gray were 'Big Fish' we went really hard for pre trade.

We missed out on all so now we will grow our own: Oliver!!

...along with Brayshaw, Viney, Petracca, Hogan, Weidman etc etc etc etc

Let the good times role!

Ok, it is all potential but I am enjoying the post trade morning!!

i actually just went to Footy Wire to compare their stats in regards to averages that are related to the inside mid role, i.e contested possession etc.

Both players have played 50 games, pretty much- Vimey 49, Tyson 50. And Their stats are actually almost identical with each player "one uping" here and there by a decimal point. So to be honest as much as i like to argue the point, i think i will have to call it a draw. They are both as good as an inside mid as one another.

Love the gif!

The difference between Tyson and Viney (love both) is that Viney has serious hurt factor.

Probably more so than anyone in the league atmo so no slight on Tyson.

Viney leaves ops bloodied and bruised wondering what just happened! With no 'beg your pardons'!

Not bad for a 'little' guy...with plenty of attitude!

And, Stretch and ANB played together since kiddie days.

Then there is Tom and Oscar.

Coincidence, I reckon but bodes well for mateship and team morale!

Weideman on SEN:

-His grandfather and Barassi are great mates

-His family is delighted about going to the Dees

-Had spoken to Melb a few times over the months and knew we would take him!!

-Delighted he is playing with Jesse...and who wouldn't be!!!!

Daisy Pearce #31 - Grimesy definitely dethroned

Yes, Grimes and Dawes out of the calendar.

Not surprised at all.

Another sign they are on notice.

Their positions in the Leadership Group could also be in jeopardy!

Heard Worsfold interviewed just now...sound very much like they will take a tall at 4 or 5. Could mean Weidman will be gone by 7.

Just browsed thru the calendar and saw some new calendar faces: Gawn, Brayshaw, Hogan, Pearce, and Garlett.

And, Brayshaw and Hogan grace the cover; the do look mighty fine!

All the new faces made their mark on the season in their own way so good to see them included.

Especially good to see the Club continue to support women's football, by including Daisy.

Good article on Oliver here.

States how we met him at his home after the draft camp and that we were a lot nicer club to talk to than Essendon who ripped into him.

What a bunch of flogs!

Suck on these apples Essenscum.-

Melbourne considers Clayton Oliver with first pick: Plays like Ollie Wines

Oliver won me with this comment: “I do pride myself on being competitive. I always have ever since I was little. I just see the ball and want to get the ball. I always want to win. I never want to lose,” Oliver told Fox Footy...“I think they (Melbourne) like my inside work, my clean hands, work at the stoppages and competitiveness.”

I like the maturity in that...proud of his strengths and nothing egotistical about it!

The words underlined would be music to Jesse's ears...he made similar competitive comments after the RS award.

With that attitude Oliver will fit in nicely with the commitment our your brigade have made to winning.

For too long it was ok for our players to accept losing/floggings.

Can't help but think there is a new breed in Demon town!

An interesting tidbit from Emma:

"the Dees organised a late meeting with Wayne Milera in Adelaide on Monday. Could he go here or at pick 7?"

She is pretty good at sassing out these little pearls just to give us more to think about!

And, from Callum Twomey:

"The Dees are set to meet Francis on Tuesday just hours before their first choice shapes the early proceedings of the AFL's revamped draft night."

OK, a bit more last minute manoeuvering!!

Here is the official announcement. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2015-11-23/melbourne-announces-financial-profit

Looks like we received an extra $1.2m from the AFL which went straight to Football spending. It went into player development and TPP.

Player development I'm sure we would all agree is a very worthy cause!

2016 will be a big year!

On field for obvious reasons.

Off field we will need to renew AHG and other sponsors and get our membership #'s up.

It will take a leap of faith by sponsors and members to 'sign up' before the on field runs are on the board (ie wins)!

Overall we are tracking well and PJ staying will make a big difference, especially to sponsors.

Shane Charter continues to wade around in mirky ponds!:

"The self-styled biochemist known as "Dr Ageless", Shane Charter, appears to have shrugged off the Essendon supplements scandal and is pursuing a new business venture — chasing more than $11 million hidden in offshore tax havens by notorious conman Peter Foster".

Maybe Oliver is a late bolter only to the media and football watchers!!

In a recent interview Taylor said we have a scout (whose name I have forgotten) who watches players from under12 onwards!!!

Taylor would also have the benefit of scouts for underage players from his days at Collingwood.

So Taylor has been watching him (and other draftees) for a very long time.

If Taylor takes Oliver @ 3 he will have a damn good reason.

And, it won't be because Oliver is suddenly making the headlines!

I for one won't be doubting Taylor's choice.

We won't have a "linebreaker", but Viney, Petracca, Brayshaw and Oliver all have decent speed. Harmes, Stretch and especially Hunt have good speed.

I've always liked speed, but it in reality it's the last and probably least important ingredient. I can think of premiership teams that didn't have a Lewis Jetta, Brad Hill or Isaac Smith. It's nice to have it, but you're not going to compromise more important elements to manufacture it.

In addition to those 3 it could be why we have Ben Kennedy. Pies had a few like him - Elliot, Fasolo etc so BK couldn't get a game.

Also, we need fast brains/thinkers just as much as fast legs as in Sam Mitchel type fast brain/thinker.

Have no idea who we should take but happy for any that have A1 level 'footy smarts'/decision making/fast brains.

Do we seriously suggest that with the Essendon players under oath, the club locked out of proceedings, and therefore the intimidation factor gone (although I do admit the players association is a constant presence and they appear to be in the Pay of Hird and Little), that there will not be at least some of the players who tell it as it was, particularly those at the periphery. They have already courageously started to emerge, positioning themselves for the pay day in front of them.

Essendon in the face of the CAS/WADA force will not be able to resist the wall falling down, and I have no doubt at least some of the players will have told the truth about what happened to CAS. You only need one or two, and the whole edifice crumbles.....

It is absurd to even think let alone say that some players would not tell the truth under oath, in a court of law!

If this is what your "distinguished and credible circles who are close to this whole process" are telling you then one has to wonder about their judgement.

You are suggesting perjury!

Do you or your credible circles truly believe some players would commit such a crime!!

And I'm not sure where you suddenly get the 'intimidation factor' from?

What evidence over nearly 3 years is that of this?

Apparently, 6 players testified.

It is highly probable some if not most of the 6 are ex players at other clubs or no longer playing.

What do they have to fear? And from whom?

Their loyalties would be to the law, themselves, their families and to a lesser extent their club; certainly not EFC, AFL AFLPA.

And would WADA really call witnesses whose testimony they couldn't rely on? They are smarter than that!

I find it hard to buy the 'intimidation factor' assumption.

By the way did the 'key witnesses' (Charter, Alvi etc) whom earlier in the week you were certain would be subpoenaed, appear at CAS this week?

Were subpoenas issued?

WADA can't compel them to attend. That was already established in the Supreme Court earlier in the year when ASADA tried to subpoena Charters. So fact they aren't there means nothing.

This case starts from scratch.

Earlier it was the Victorian Supreme Court that denied the subpoenas. This appeal is in NSW.

The previous subpoenas were requested under the Arbitration Act. which was deemed to not apply.

Whole different ball game this time.

I was shocked Richmond didn't go for Garlett.. One thing they were lacking was a good crumbing forward player.

Good point...this year they learnt from their mistake and went after Yarran. The difference:

Garlett - pick # - who knows...

Yarran - pick # 19

It will never cease to amaze me the bargain Garlett was for us.

His comments echo the good vibe coming from our young brigade.

I know 'words are cheap' etc but good attitudes are infectious and I have a sense this team will work for each other on and off the field.

A long, long time since players worked for each other.

Can't wait to see Jeff kick 50 and watch our team develop!

The ball is their court...they are the only ones that can make their premiership dream come true!!

As I understand it witnesses for CAS are under oath (unlike at the AFL Tribunal).

One of the players called as a witness was Jobe Watson.

He strikes me as an honest person who has led his team thru this saga with grit.

I can't imagine he would not tell the truth.

Looks like the players fronted up to give evidence to CAS: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-players-give-evidence-at-court-of-arbitration-for-sport-hearing-20151119-gl3cty.html

No news of other witnesses appearing.

If Charter, Alvi et al weren't called to appear WADA had a good reason not to.

Would suggest confidence in their case.

Jesus Christ, no Schwab wasn't the best CEO and he had some wacky ideas, but he loves the club and his heart is in the right place.

Absurd and completely disrespectful to compare him to Scully.

Agreed!

I was Schwabs biggest critic for a long time...and knew we couldn't move forward with him at the helm.

But he deserves great kudos for the respect and love he has shown the club by staying silent and keeping his distance.

It takes a big man to do this. He does not deserve any whacks on this forum anymore.

Am delighted PJ has signed up. He believes!!

It is important to sponsors to see PJ stay, especially as Roos will go.

The risk was sponsors would see us as a rookie club again if both of them went next year.

PJ staying gives the continuity sponsors want to see.

PJ is crucial to re-signing AHG etc next year.

In short, he is crucial to our future!

I think there are two types of new evidence being spoken about and it would help to clear it up.

From my understanding the two types are:

1 - Evidence which was not presented at the last hearing as it was not available, or could not be reasonably known at the last hearing. This could be results of tests performed since the hearing etc.

2 - Evidence that was not presented at the last hearing but could have been reasonably known (so would be new evidence to the hearing but not new in that it was not known). This could be emails or documents that were not presented.

The rules treat these differently.New evidence type 1 is admissible no matter what, new evidence type two is not automatically admissible but can be presented if the panel choose to hear it, they may also choose not to, it is up to them.

You might have to point out the Rule that covers the type 2 evidence as I could only find Rule 57 in bb's CAS link

Not doubting your distinctions and conclusions...just would like to get the whole picture.

Cheers,

Discretion... Its not absolute. Itll depend on what the panel wants to understand. Here we have CAS who DO want to get to the bottom of it as opposed the AFL who wanted it all shoved in the the cupboard

Theres nothing to say you CANT....It will be taken upon its merit and relevance. This I feel has been misconstrued...and of course no guessing by whom.

Much I would say rests ( even in worst case scenario ) to the idea of "reasonably" Nothing that Essendon has done performs to the ideal of reasonably

Hey, bb...I am your side!! I was simply answering your previous post...

I always said 'new' evidence can be presented and it is up to the panel to accept it...yes on its merit and relevance and whatever other criterias they generally use. Rule 57 however, is silent on what the criterias for acceptance by the Panel

interesting

however, as this case is being run as a new trial rather than an appeal trial, does this make a difference re rule 57bb?

My understanding is (and I'm not a legal person) that appeals to CAS are always run as 'de novo' ie a 'new trial' so not sure there is a distinction between 'appeal trial' and 'new trial'. In which case Rule 57 applies.

A general comment: This panel is the creme de la creme of CAS panelists, ultra professional and very experienced. I doubt they will let either party play games and will apply Rules (incl Rule 57) as intended and as they have been applied in other cases.

WADA lawyers will know what they have to do to get 'new' evidence accepted.

Rule 57 bb. "The Panel has discretion to exclude evidence presented by the parties if it was available to them or could reasonably have been discovered by them before the challenged decision was rendered. Articles R44.2 and R44.3 shall also apply".

So any 'new' (ie newly available) evidence can help WADA's cause for a 'comfortable satisfaction' decision, IF the CAS panel admit it.

You can bet the players lawyer's will go hell for leather and challenge 'new' evidence, using Rule 57.

I'm not sure on what grounds you're making the assertions you are LH.

It's a completely new hearing, starting from zero, so there's neither new or old evidence. It's all just evidence. While its an appeal, they don't refer back to the original hearing in any way, shape or form.

As for the question of "their interpretation of comfortably satisfied", this goes to the essence of the appeal:

There is no interpretation of "comfortably satisfied". The legal guidelines as to what it entails are clearly laid out. The appeal is not because the evidence wasn't there in the first case, it's because that yardstick of what "comfortably satisfied" entails was not correctly applied.

1. On 'new' and 'old' evidence:

Even tho this appeal starts from zero, parties can only use evidence that was available as at the time of AFL Tribunal ie using your words they can only use 'old' evidence but if it was unavailable at the time of the Tribunal it is 'new' evidence.

There appears to be 'new' evidence in relation to 'abnormally high' levels on tests of TB4 for two players.

CAS will need to form a view on the admissibility of any 'new' evidence.

2. On 'comfortably satisfied':

I think we are saying the same thing but your wording is more precise than mine.

If WADA intended to subpoena witnesses surely they would have by now, to allow time for appeals.

As bb said if 'witnesses' were subpoenaed it would have been leaked somewhere.

Also, I assume an appeal would need to be published in the daily 'business of the Court' in whichever jurisdiction an appeal was lodged.

I doubt the CAS hearing would start if subpoenas were still pending. (It started today and will end within a week).

So either WADA don't need the witnesses (or can't rely on their testimony) or thought subpoenas would fail or the witnesses will willingly appear.

It seems most unlikely any of the key players will appear before CAS.

Today's tally: 20,206 up about 750 in a week! Half way to our goal!

I'm guessing most of the increase is processing the 'early bird' (Oct 31) memberships.

It will interesting to see if last week's new logo campaign gives the tally a decent lift in the next few weeks.

The closest comparison I can find to similar date last year is: 20,509 on the 26th of Nov.