Over soon?Seems to be the case.
Xavier Campbell on Bomber Radio said it would all be completed by no later than July. So to me there is going to be a lot of mutually accepted outcomes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Over soon?Seems to be the case.
Xavier Campbell on Bomber Radio said it would all be completed by no later than July. So to me there is going to be a lot of mutually accepted outcomes.
You know, we are actually in an unprecedented position here. We could settle out of court with our players, negotiate deals and pay our players outside of the salary cap! How awesome is that! When life gives you lemons, make lemonade and then throw it at a Carlton supporter.And if he does then you know that his claims were bullshit because if he was trulyhurt to this extent then he wouldn't step foot in the clubs premises again.
Usually insurance doesn't cover "illegal" acts, perhaps this applies clubs giving to players drugs not approved for human use?
Does this mean that EFC may have to pay out of its own pocket? Oh oh?
Perspective needed here as well.
It amounts to the loss of personal and professional earnings for 12 months. Safe to say that $1 million is the maximum he will get.
But, the club won't actually pay directly - it's insurers will.
Usually insurance doesn't cover "illegal" acts, perhaps this applies clubs giving to players drugs not approved for human use?
Does this mean that EFC may have to pay out of its own pocket? Oh oh?
Whom then catches it and mixes up a lovely cocktail.You know, we are actually in an unprecedented position here. We could settle out of court with our players, negotiate deals and pay our players outside of the salary cap! How awesome is that! When life gives you lemons, make lemonade and then throw it at a Carlton supporter.
I think the compensation will come from EFC, AFL and insurers. Insurers may very well have a limit on the cover, so I would imagine the rest would then come from EFC and AFL of it exceeds the limit.Perspective needed here as well.
It amounts to the loss of personal and professional earnings for 12 months. Safe to say that $1 million is the maximum he will get.
But, the club won't actually pay directly - it's insurers will.
Which makes for an interesting question of who knew what when.Insurance companies don't cover intentionally illegal, do cover negligent acts that may be illegal.
What Essendon (and most involved in this) say then eventually do are usually two completely different things.Heppell might still go back to Essendon. Essendon have said they will accept him either way
Which makes for an interesting question of who knew what when.
Dank (Voldermort) I suspect holds all the aces with this question.
Even if Dank did it intentionally still likely negligence on behalf of EFC to allow it to happen. Pretty much have to prove that EFC senior management or board were the ones intending the action
The "CLUB" is an inanimate object. It's a thing. It can't do diddly squat. The people that RUN the club, however....
You really are very gullible.Big call… but this may be my favourite HTB cage thread ever.
It has a nice mix of genuinely funny jokes… along with several enlightening discoveries of the kind you make every time you enter the HTB.
Such as supposed experts who didn’t even know that professional liability insurance existed – that insurance that basically every business on the planet has.
Rolled gold in here.
The afl would heavily scrutinise it. Thats the same as a player from richmonds for example being "employed" by jeep as a sales rep as second job for an anual salary of 200k
The WADA comment was more to say that they charged Heppell not the EFC. They see Heppell as the guilty party. As such he takes a huge part of the blame. The AFL hasn't officially blamed Essendon for giving him the drugs.WADA cant charge EFC, agree about the AFL but haven't they already basically said that the governance charges penalty's took this into account?
Also getting back to your earlier comment why not sue them for assault? Just because cant prove criminal assault does not prevent you from suing for assault with the lower burden (OJ Simpson style). Might not call it assault but go along the lines of we got injected with something that we told otherwise.
Yep - no doubt. But as I noted above that is really a question of who knew, what they knew and when.
I would have thought that the "Financials are ready" email / text is one that would still haunt at least one rich bloke.
edit - further comment:
It cannot be possible that Dank has survived any meaningful attempt by EFC to discover what was administered to their players by a simple oversight. imho the only logical conclusion is that he has enough solid info to sink them and or a board member forever.
Which begs the question : why hasn't Dank dropped said people and club in the shit?Yep - no doubt. But as I noted above that is really a question of who knew, what they knew and when.
I would have thought that the "Financials are ready" email / text is one that would still haunt at least one rich bloke.
edit - further comment:
It cannot be possible that Dank has survived any meaningful attempt by EFC to discover what was administered to their players by a simple oversight. imho the only logical conclusion is that he has enough solid info to sink them and or a board member forever.
The WADA comment was more to say that they charged Heppell not the EFC. They see Heppell as the guilty party. As such he takes a huge part of the blame. The AFL hasn't officially blamed Essendon for giving him the drugs.
The problem with this sorry saga is that it won't go away. For the next 20 years there is going to be a cloud over the club and players until it is 100% known what they were injected with.
I can see any illness/conditions potentially developed by players post retirement will see the club and their injection program again in focus.
A 'disaster' is an understatement.
Which begs the question : why hasn't Dank dropped said people and club in the shit?
What does he have to lose? He will never work in AFL again and he is seemingly up to his eyeballs in debt with ongoing court cases that must be very stressful.
Even if Dank did it intentionally still likely negligence on behalf of EFC to allow it to happen. Pretty much have to prove that EFC senior management or board were the ones intending the action
Yes, but it is Bock and Melbourne in his firing line why not Hird, Evans, (regarding the "financials") and EFC?He's starting to.
Ask Bock what's he feeling after this week, or the NRL missing 5 after his defemation case.