Bluey's Dad

lol I think you're onto something here Mono, perhaps you have unearthed the AFL's secret plan. By 2020, all clubs will be allocated draft picks according to their TV ratings. Then of course fiddle with it a bit for the franchise teams, and we're done!

I think the fact that Fitzy was taken by the Hawks, and Vickery is talked about as an option (by some) really indicates how hard it is to fill that ruck/forward role. If we don't find anyone to fill it, I think going with someone who's a 'better backup' option than Spencer is where we'll end up. For me, that's Zac Clarke right now, although he's clearly not ideal. Not many options right now. It forces us into the same position of Watts doing the chop out ruck like this year, but it also gives us another year of King's development as well as hopefully shaking loose a better option from the lower leagues or another side.

wow, never even noticed the background! nice pickup! lol

Yeah there are a few around here who don't get it. I wrote a post a while back in response to a poster who didn't get it, and it was well liked by a lot of demonlanders, I think most of this community is actually in the right place regarding this issue, with only a few stragglers: I disagree that it's getting worse. My experience as been that overall, society's getting better at it. A few loud voices on some internet forums does not a majority make. Just look at this thread. No one's having a go at Lyon because of his condition, just some non-favourable remarks mostly to do with his media performance. Edit: just saw in that Mitch Clark thread that you responded to my post back then Stuie! I probably didn't need to relink.

woah woah woah. Are you telling me Phillip K Dick's novel has been made into a TV series? Is it at all loyal or has it just been turned into a crappy 'what if the Nazis won' thing? Also OZ is brilliant. Despite some pretty outlandish storylines, it keeps pretty grounded and the characters are just so well written and acted. I can't say enough good things about it. I think I might pop it back on my re-watch list, after I finally get around to Luke Cage and Stranger Things (both Netflix shows). While I'm on Netflix, I highly recommend Jessica Jones. Some people will be turned off by it being a Marvel property, but it works as a single season run in its own right. I probably am little biased though as David Tennant plays the villain. I watched it right after Dr Who, so it added a lot to the unsettling mood after watching him as the Doctor, then as a sexual abuser. Just on Amazon, if it comes to Australia, do you know how much of the catalogue we'll get access to?

lol, Saty's onto it! @Satyriconhome why no scooter avatar?

North Melbourne stand on principle and do not have pokies venues. It costs them, but they do it. But yeah other than that, I can't think of any clubs taking a proper moral stance on anything.

Nah, he looks better in the rain. As the 11th doctor later said about the 10th doctor 'I had vanity issues at the time'.

David Tennant I grabbed it from the 'Sad Dr Who' gif, in the midst of our horrible performances a while back: He's also the sexiest man alive, and has convinced me that one's sexuality isn't binary, but rather sits somewhere on a sliding scale... More proof (don't worry, SFW): http://imgur.com/gallery/4NYep Edit: He also happens to be one of the best actors around, IMHO

Dr Turf's daughter says 4 years on FB. Gets posted on DL. Another FB fan page says 4 years. As much as I want to believe it, it feels like there's an echo chamber here.

The talent pool shallows yet again.

I'm stealing this one.

Yep, I should have written 'payments by insurer/'penalty' payment by EFC/benefactor'. I think my theory still stands, just the source of the payments needed more elaboration, as you correctly pointed out. I think jnr was actually agreeing with you.

lol, you're a funny man Abe.

Yeah, but they've done it in a 'gap year', between the fall of Hawthorn and the rise of GWS. Our 'proper' finals run is still probably a few years yet, right when GWS will be at their peak. Not to discount the Bullies fantastic achievement, just saying that timing has helped

He's dragging the decision out until after CAS look at the appeal, which is hilarious when you think about it, because the appeal is based on a jurisdiction issue. Thier CAS appeal is basically "The AFL tribunal cleared us, CAS has no right to override without it going through an AFL appeal first (I think?), therefore we are innocent". The appeal has nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence, it's entirely technical. So even if the appeal is somehow upheld, he'd be keeping his medal on the basis of a technicality - that ASADA took their appeal straight to CAS, bypassing a lengthy (and likely unnecessary) appeal to be heard by the AFL tribunal. Great way to keep the Charlie eh?

On this we can agree.

Yep I take your point, likely not the insurer but the EFC or benefactor. That's a false equivalency. A budget is not a salary cap, a budget applies only to one business, where a salary cap applies to all clubs. All businesses in a sector don't sit down and decide (or are told by a regulator) that they cannot exceed X dollars in total salaries because otherwise it gives an advantage to 'richer' businesses. They pay what they want and they set their own budget, and varies from company to company. A salary cap is imposed on all clubs as an equalisation measure, and is uniform, with obvious conflicted concessions to some clubs because of location.

That's right. And it is essentially the problem. As DC said, the AFL have actually acknowledged this and said they will look over the agreements to ensure they don't think any rorting takes place. So even the AFL think there is scope for circumventing the salary cap via, as you say, external civil proceedings. I'va, the issue isn't whether the players have legitimate civil claims and end up getting massive payouts. The issue is if EFC artificially inflates those payouts in order to reduce paying that player under their salary cap. (just picking numbers here to illustrate the point, nothing behind them): Scenario 1 Player X settles with the EFC's insurer for $1m. Player X plays for the EFC and is paid $250k per annum for 2 years, total $500k. Player X receives a total of $1.5m, EFC pays $500k under the salary cap. No worries, player X has waived his right to sue the EFC in a civil court and been paid a settlement instead. Totally legit and no issue at all. Scenario 2: Player X settles with the EFC's insurer for $1.3m Player X plays for the EFC for $100k per annum for 2 years, total $200k. Player X receives a total of $1,5m, EFC pays $200k under salary cap. That's subverting the salary cap, and that's what the AFL is afraid of, hence their decision to check the payouts. The mechanism by which the EFC convinces the insurer to pay the extra money is in question. Whether is by somehow tanking the negotiations or feeding players additional leverage, I don't know. Ultimately it doesn't matter, the scope for circumventing the cap exists. My initial post was simply asking if the AFL intended to oversee these payouts in order to ensure no rorting occurs. DC answered that question.

Beat me to it jnr, lol.

Yeah, I totally remember the last time I asked for a raise and my boss said "Sorry mate, the salary cap is already maxed this year. I tell you what, take your normal pay this year and next year we can fit in triple because I'm planning on firing some people. But then the year after that it'll need to reduce to close to nothing because I have to bring in some defectors from another company and they won't move for cheap." Football players are not 'normal' employees. They can't even get income protection insurance like normal workers because their occupation is too risky (and short term), and are covered instead by some AFLPA scheme from memory.

My god, I hadn't considered this. I don't think I could produce enough vomit to do my feelings justice.

And it sounds to me as though you're giving them the benefit of the doubt because Jobe is your mate. To attend to your points: Timing: People have been saying the players should have disclosed the thymo ever since that evidence was brought to light. This only happened when CAS heard that evidence and it was reported on. This was last year I think. So this is hardly a new point, and not a stance one could have taken anyway until that evidence was heard. This evidence to me, nullifies the 'players as victims' narrative, which didn't happen until much later in the story (ie CAS, not the ASADA investigation and subsequent AFL ruling). Morality: If your argument is that you can only make a moral judgement when you have direct physical experience with a matter, then almost no moral or ethical debate could take place on any topic. Tribalism: I don't deny that people may be biased towards Essendon players because they barrack for other teams, but if arguments are presented logically and with evidence, they can be considered and discussed. To discount a poster's opinion because of their football team is absurd. Every person who's weighed in on this follows Essendon or an opposition team. You evaluate their bias based on their posts or discussions, there's no other way to do it, otherwise the debate isn't had at all. And I think it's a debate that needs to be had because of the inconsistencies of the way the media has treated these men. Response: Chose not to respond if you wish, your call. Hal Hunter: The Hunter example shows that players were treated differently. Heppell says he knows what he took. Hunter, not only says he doesn't know, but attempted to sue to get medical records. I don't for a second doubt that there was manipulation of the players. But don't think that excuses them entirely from the blame. I'm not out on a player witch hunt here. I'm essentially saying 2 things: 1 - The players are partially culpable, as evidenced by their ASADA disclosures 2 - The media treatment of them is sickeningly soft (actually this applies to the EFC too, the media has been very soft on the club).