No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[Jeff Spicoli]

Heh, come to my work. And replace 'a few' with 'majority of co-workers and everyone else'.

i dont work at the moment per se so can't relate but me and my flat mate who also doesn't work at the moment per se both go for essendon so we're usually get on like house on fire, in fact only time we ever fought once was when our flat nearly did burn on fire because he blackout drunk* and left ciggie burnin on carpet / also if he ever touches me fruit 'n nut then we'll blue

*could have been me

 

[Doss]

...righto!

 

[84859300]

* so we're usually get on like house on fire....
* when our flat nearly did burn on fire

Oh, the ironing

 

[byronstjames]

Does anyone seriously believe that Little would be negotiating on behalf of the players? Without their consent?

Sounds more to me like Gill proposed an idea, Little said he'd take it back to the club, and it was overwhelmingly rejected.

I don't believe for one minute that the club would do anything of the sort without full and complete permission from the players, past and present.

 

[DonsRule]

Nice move by Gil.. purely designed to put a wedge between club and playing group.. it is a deal that should have been given directly to the AFLPA.. and thus the players.

Little has put his foot right into the trap on this one.

Actually. I think Gill got exposed.

AFLPA would not have leaked this.

Yeah Little cops some heat. But shows Gill up for trying to deal with is the AFL way. From someone who claims he wants to be more transparent.

 

[cymarak]

But shows Gill up for trying to deal with is the AFL way. From someone who claims he wants to be more transparent.

Gill saying he wants to be more transparent is like someone saying 'I want to exercise more, eat better and be healthier. But not just yet.'

 

[westking]

Does anyone seriously believe that Little would be negotiating on behalf of the players? Without their consent?

Sounds more to me like Gill proposed an idea, Little said he'd take it back to the club, and it was overwhelmingly rejected.

I don't believe for one minute that the club would do anything of the sort without full and complete permission from the players, past and present.

I concur with this summary.
I also suspect, like many here, it was really an ASADA proposal funnelled through the AFL.
I tend to think Little was a little blackmailed again, with what who knows.
They (AFL , ASADA and the htb) are getting really desperate.
And gee Gil just keeps looking and acting badly doesn't he?
Gil's short comings are getting exposed daily almost.
I cant see him lasting long at this rate.
A clean out at AFL house is what is really needed here.

 

[Ben the Gooner]

A clean out at AFL house is what is really needed here.

Salt the ****ing earth.

 

[Stopher]

A clean out at AFL house is what is really needed here.

How does this actually come about? A majority of the clubs vote against them, I presume? One could start to see why they prop up the smaller clubs so much now. A bit like FIFA now saying a vote from the Faroe Islands carries the exact same weight as a vote from Spain or Germany. Good ol' Sepplon Blatter.

 

[Go_Blues!]

Does anyone seriously believe that Little would be negotiating on behalf of the players? Without their consent?

Sounds more to me like Gill proposed an idea, Little said he'd take it back to the club, and it was overwhelmingly rejected.

I don't believe for one minute that the club would do anything of the sort without full and complete permission from the players, past and present.

I agree with this but I really don't see what any of this has to do with the Essendon board insofar as I would have thought that the individual players and only the players could accept or reject an offer. Further, I don't understand all of this deal making. ASADA, and as a signatory, the AFL, have a process to follow. Show Cause notices, Register of findings etc. So where does the code contemplate deals getting made and why.

On one hand, if you guys were offered an off-season ban in exchange for a guilty plea, pragmatism says you should take it. On the other hand, this entirely murky, back-room investigation needs to be exposed for what it is. Also, either PED's were taken or they were not. If they were then clearly an off-season ban in grossly inadequate. If they were not taken then any ban, even off-season is grossly unfair. I do think that the associated stigma that will come from an admission of guilt will be entirely unfair to all of the players.

I think after subjecting all football supporters to this shameful mess over the past 18 months, the least ASADA and the AFL could do is follow their own process and deliver appropriate penalties given the evidence that they have or admit they have none, explain how they were politically manipulated and ask for additional funding or something to get some more competent management in place.

 

[Doss]

A clean out at AFL house is what is really needed here

Can't see that happening.

It's a self perpetuating, self serving industry.

 

[Sockeye]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...d-angers-players/story-fnca0u4y-1227037924119

If this article is true Essendon should be going straight to Judge Middleton. He made it quite clear that nothing was to happen until he made his finding. This is a blatant attempt to pervert his court.

 

[Go_Blues!]

Can't see that happening.

It's a self perpetuating, self serving industry.

I don't even think a clean out is required. I think they need a new constitution and a mandate that dictates who they serve and how. Right now they appear, as you say, to be entirely self-serving or at the very least, running their own agenda that they have taken the liberty not to share with anyone.

 

[DonsRule]

I agree with this but I really don't see what any of this has to do with the Essendon board insofar as I would have thought that the individual players and only the players could accept or reject an offer. Further, I don't understand all of this deal making. ASADA, and as a signatory, the AFL, have a process to follow. Show Cause notices, Register of findings etc. So where does the code contemplate deals getting made and why.

On one hand, if you guys were offered an off-season ban in exchange for a guilty plea, pragmatism says you should take it. On the other hand, this entirely murky, back-room investigation needs to be exposed for what it is. Also, either PED's were taken or they were not. If they were then clearly an off-season ban in grossly inadequate. If they were not taken then any ban, even off-season is grossly unfair. I do think that the associated stigma that will come from an admission of guilt will be entirely unfair to all of the players.

I think after subjecting all football supporters to this shameful mess over the past 18 months, the least ASADA and the AFL could do is follow their own process and deliver appropriate penalties given the evidence that they have or admit they have none, explain how they were politically manipulated and ask for additional funding or something to get some more competent management in place.

IMO, ASADA are driving the sanction still via the AFL because Middleton would not be impressed if they targeted players.

Gill: There is no new offer. I was talking to Ben this morning.
Ben: There is no active offer on the table for Essendon players
Gill: I did not offer any deal to Essendon we just talked about stuff

Gill proposes to Little the voluntary sanction subject to the court case (Roy masters come on down,maybe). Tell the club board.
Board rejects.

Ben acts surprised he did not know there wre negociations betweeen Essendon and the AFL on sanctions..

 

[scottmclaren]

How does this actually come about? A majority of the clubs vote against them, I presume? One could start to see why they prop up the smaller clubs so much now. A bit like FIFA now saying a vote from the Faroe Islands carries the exact same weight as a vote from Spain or Germany. Good ol' Sepplon Blatter.

If Gill is forced out within the next 12 months then there will be pressure on Fitzpatrick and the rest of the commission.

I think many underestimate the implications of the illegal investigation.

 

[rumply]

I don't even think a clean out is required. I think they need a new constitution and a mandate that dictates who they serve and how. Right now they appear, as you say, to be entirely self-serving or at the very least, running their own agenda that they have taken the liberty not to share with anyone.

All these bodies by their very nature are open to deal making, corruption, nepotism/jobs for the boys etc etc etc, just look at the ICC, IOC, FIFA - the bigger they get the worse it is.

AFL should be resurrected with fixed terms in all senior & board positions - Jeff Kennett (despite himself) set a perfect example when as Hawks pres he declared the term he would serve, 6 years or whatever it was, & then moved on to bring new blood into the role.

 

[Go_Blues!]

IMO, ASADA are driving the sanction still via the AFL because Middleton would not be impressed if they targeted players.

Gill: There is no new offer. I was talking to Ben this morning.
Ben: There is no active offer on the table for Essendon players
Gill: I did not offer any deal to Essendon we just talked about stuff

Gill proposes to Little the voluntary sanction subject to the court case (Roy masters come on down,maybe). Tell the club board.
Board rejects.

Ben acts surprised he did not know there wre negociations betweeen Essendon and the AFL on sanctions..

Maybe, but I just don't think that either the AFL nor ASADA are that organised. I think more likely is that Gil was laying awake one night, dreamed up some great idea about how the players could serve voluntary sentences, thought he would run it by his mate Paul Little who told him to piss off.

Also, that Australian article is false. In the first paragraph it states that this deal is off the table as soon as Middleton hands down his findings. Clearly this is untrue since the players could elect to voluntarily stand down in leu of findings at any point they want. Ahmed Saad did this but clearly under very different circumstances.

 

[byronstjames]

If Gill is forced out within the next 12 months then there will be pressure on Fitzpatrick and the rest of the commission.

I think many underestimate the implications of the illegal investigation.

This is one reason why they can't just drop the SC notices. They're essentially admitting, both the AFL and ASADA, that this whole thing has been one giant **** up. This opens them both up to some MASSIVE questions. ASADA don't really have anywhere to run and hide, as it seems a Royal Commission is all but inevitable, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the AFL will do everything within their power to try to come out the end with the appearance of, "Nothing to see here. We've got it all under control".

I am looking forward to the communication specialist's angle on this.

 

[Go_Blues!]

This is one reason why they can't just drop the SC notices. They're essentially admitting, both the AFL and ASADA, that this whole thing has been one giant **** up. This opens them both up to some MASSIVE questions. ASADA don't really have anywhere to run and hide, as it seems a Royal Commission is all but inevitable, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the AFL will do everything within their power to try to come out the end with the appearance of, "Nothing to see here. We've got it all under control".

I am looking forward to the communication specialist's angle on this.

There wont be a Royal Commission. Parliamentary Enquiry but no Royal Commission.

 

[baz_machine]

There wont be a Royal Commission. Parliamentary Enquiry but no Royal Commission.

Royal Commissions go for about $50 million a pop.

No chance.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I don't even think a clean out is required. I think they need a new constitution and a mandate that dictates who they serve and how. Right now they appear, as you say, to be entirely self-serving or at the very least, running their own agenda that they have taken the liberty not to share with anyone.

It needs this and a clean out IMO.

 

[DonsRule]

Maybe, but I just don't think that either the AFL nor ASADA are that organised. I think more likely is that Gil was laying awake one night, dreamed up some great idea about how the players could serve voluntary sentences, thought he would run it by his mate Paul Little who told him to piss off.

Also, that Australian article is false. In the first paragraph it states that this deal is off the table as soon as Middleton hands down his findings. Clearly this is untrue since the players could elect to voluntarily stand down in leu of findings at any point they want. Ahmed Saad did this but clearly under very different circumstances.

Well, if Middleton knocks out the SCN but doesn't stop ASADA from reissuing them ?

I think Gill is far more organized with these things than most suspect.

Gill was the one who wanted Essendon to self report.(Saying they know the drugs we were using, Brett will be here soon)

Gill had his hands all over this investigation (court docs)

Master implied there was a sanctioin proposed as long as it was before the court case ended. It was denied by all.

I dn't think ASADA could risk negociating with players if they turned around and make issue with it to Middleton.

Gillion I want to sell 1 million finals tickets McLaughlin

 

[lysp]

Some Freedom of information stuff released.

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/afl_asada_joint_investigation_fr#incoming-2470

From a quick look at those 10 documents.

It looks like most (if not all) were all previously released as part of the federal court discovery process. I had a flick through all the documents provided on the fed court website and most of these look very familiar - so looks like they released all that is currently in public domain and not much more.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

Not sure if anyone has asked it, but McDipshit said on Offsiders that he wants to know if Essendon players were doped. Key word here: WANTS.

How can you issue SCN if you don't even know if they did. I thought you had to have some proof they did before you issue SCN (I mean I know there is no rule), but surely you don't go on fishing expeditions if you don't even have conclusive evidence.

 

[kfc1]

Some Freedom of information stuff released.

https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/afl_asada_joint_investigation_fr#incoming-2470

Anything in there that isn't in the court docs? FOI can be so frustrating sometimes.