Search results for query: *

I just wish all work places would introduce such a policy. If you think you might test positive to a drug/alcohol test they send you to a doctor to get a pee test and if you fail the Doc gives a get out of 'jail free card' unable to work certificate, rather than just being sacked as happens for...

Sorry to intrude but couldn't help but lol when Dunstall said Hipwood and Daniher had 'Frypan hands'.

Just legalize all drugs and it's fixed, easy peasy.

So the club doc says 'so and so' can't play this week but I can't tell you why. And the coach and club can't add 1+1? I call bullshit. Either the doc lies to the club about the reason or the club lies to the public about an injury, either way the supporters and punters are getting screwed.

Well I never, drugs and gambling coverups affecting sporting outcomes; I'm flabbergasted.

Are there any mods on this board at all?

I do love how people who don't live in Tasmania are telling us how absurd our broader objections are. I want a team, I want a stadium 2hrs away from where I live but I'm a realist. Many don't and that's a fact.

Yep got me there by the hair on a bee's dick, pyrrhic victory to you. :)

Did you even read my post? I said I'm pro stadium. Please stop being so oppositional defiant if you can. All I said is I understand those who feel it's a waste of money when families are living in tents, unable to see a doctor or have to choose between food and rent. I can tell you don't fit...

Yes I think those more punitive aspects of the contract will be waved by the AFL, if not explicitly then in the course of events. The fines for late completion of the construction for example will never be levied and if there are blowouts the AFL will find a way to help massage them and not...

AFL sues a state government? I know they have deep pockets but really? What a terrible look if the AFL went after a state for putting the broader population first. Every state government and even federal would be up in arms and treat the AFL's future contracts with great caution. I imagine all...

Agree about the size but better to have a full smaller stadium against a half full larger one, there will be many games against sides who have few supporters that turn up even at home let alone flying away. There is no way it will cost 750M, all projects blow out, but at least it will be legacy...

I guess the Lambie crew will hold the Libs to ransom over everything needed to pass through parliament. The Jacks will get some wins in their preferred vectors of health, housing, cost of living etc and JR will get his stadium. Doesn't really matter the state is going to fall into massive debt...

When you look at all the stadium carry on in Queensland for the "two dollar shop" Olympics things seem to be going very smoothly here in comparison ;)

Pretty sure all those things go on in Hobart now, without a roofed stadium but agree to disagree.

I was quoting the show but misheard (hearing is poor after 30 years in a noisy environment), they actually said hundreds of millions, but still a bit over I guess ;) Still hate the idea of playing in a bubble, will be a disadvantage everywhere but home. Will always be a handicap until most...

On the Midweek Tackle on Fox they had a segment 'roof or no roof'. They all agreed that the easiest way for the AFL to compromise is to let the roof go. Apparently, a club official has said it's a no brainier to forgo the roof and save $300M. Perhaps it could be placed in the 'to be commenced...

So you don't have another account here and your first instinct as a new poster and a Collingwood supporter is to rush to the Tasmanian board, post lots of negative things about the new stadium in the name of discussion? Seems legit.

It's kind of interesting that this supposed account of a Collingwood supporter, started just a week ago has more than 3/4's of it's posts in this thread, all against the new stadium. Why use an Alt? Just post under your normal account. Unless you are just trolling.

Agree to disagree. I was pointing out that many of those groups listed could just come light, fly down, hire equipment, perform and head back. If we don't start somewhere we will get nowhere.

What I find difficult to understand from his evidence is exactly what kind of acts will be hard to attract? Taylor Swift, Cold play, Beyonce? Probably not. But there are many, many excellent acts who don't need jumbo jets full of gear and hundreds of roadies to perform. In this instance I site...

I wonder what grounds for appeal they have? If it's on a technicality of law that could end very badly, culturally speaking.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2023/sep/15/some-australians-seem-more-outraged-by-accusations-of-racism-than-by-racism-itself Title says it all really.

Indeed I guess, interesting though in this case their expectation was they are. Just trusting to the league to have their backs? I hope the clubs are making this quite clear. Obviously some players would probably prefer to take out their own indemnity insurance if they knew any acquired brain...

WOW, just read this. I wonder how many amateur players know they are NOT covered for brain injuries in the typical club insurance policies. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-13/zac-stanton-head-trauma-afl-sport-insurance/102264176

Objection!

No they need to modify to survive, look at Association Football were leagues in the UK are moving to banning heading the ball during training to decrease th incidents of head blows; and that's a non-contact sport.

The real problem here is liability insurance and it's costs. If the industry deems the sport is at a high risk of bringing large payouts the levies will go through the roof. Now the AFL itself can probably absorb such oncosts but can state and local leagues?

You can't actually remove duty of care simply by acknowledging the risks, it doesn't work like that.

It's all a load of bio as far as I'm concerned.