Player Litigation

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

TerryWallet said:
Imo, none of them will get to Court.

Gillon has already given the heads up that he will contribute AFL money to the pot (as much as it takes) to "look after the players".

Already they will get all but their full wage this year. Plus paid courses have already been mentioned to keep them occupied this year. Whatever else is required in the pot to make the players happy enough to stay outta court will be provided by EFC, with guarantor of the AFL.

They have shown with their bastardry toward Hal Hunter that they will continue to diminish their practically non existent integrity to keep the still plentiful secrets secret.

We'll see if they can pull it off. Shouldn't be too hard. Afterall, it's all back in their own backyard again now.
Click to expand...

Remember there are 17 clubs who will take exception to the AFL just handing over $30m of their money. Its not cut and dried.

And insurers will most likely go hard after the players for their personal culpability.
 
marty36 said:
Only in today's society can you be found guilty of being a drug cheat then benefit financially from being found guilty.
Click to expand...

Some of the fringe players, particularly those that are already delisted etc will probably end up profiting from being a convicted drug cheat if the $$$ talked about are accurate!
 
Timmy from Thomastown said:
Its a bit late now to be entilsting his own counsel. Shoudl have done it two years ago and taken the summertime ban given his reported testimony.

In fact the first person he should be suing is his original lawyer!!
Click to expand...
Or perhaps his player manager for giving him bad advice and failing his duty of care to his client for if Jess knew about the injections and didn't advise his client to get them checked out isn't Jess also to blame?
 
I'm of the opinion (and to be frank, it's based in nothing but my own common sense (which I acknowledge may be a misnomer)), that the players can be guilty of contravening the WADC, have been complicit in their own undoing, but still be eligible for compensation from the football club that put them in this position.

I'm not sure it would be a reasonable argument for Essendon to say to the players that "you've done everything we asked of you, and you've we've done things to you that you didn't ask for, but because YOU contravened the world anti-doping code we're not responsible. We don't hold any responsibility for you doing what we told you to do. So, nah nah na nah nah."

I'm okay with the players suing Essendon. I suspect that the players may not get as much as they would have if they hadn't been complicit, but they still deserve something.
 
Slartibartfast said:
The football public will have every right to be outraged if that happens. Means Joe in the stand gets to pay for Hirds wages, Hirds 1 million French jaunt, Essendons legals etc etc.
Reckon the media would play on that and that Gillion will be looking to keep everything under the table, what's it called.....Hush money, add that to the list.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget a few things

A) Essendon are more than in credit as a result of equalisation. Clubs like yours would be long dead if it wasn't for the WA, SA and big Vic clubs propping you up for the last 30 years. So let's not get too caught up in our outrage

B) Hird expenses are a non issue - everything has been long ago paid for from the club coffers. It's all in our statements.

C) the figures being tossed about in the media are laughable. Damages aren't a punishment. They're about restoring the plaintiffs financial position to what it would have otherwise been. That means any lost wages for 2016 for 22 players (the 12 EFC players are being paid in full), many of which aren't even playing footy, or only playing local. "Reputational" damage doesn't just get a payout, it needs to be properly quantified to satisfy a judge. Does anybody really think this will cost players beyond this year? Star players like Hooker, Hurley etc, the ones with significant future earning potential, won't be able to find employment next year? Clubs will be queuing up and bidding like crazy.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

[QUOTE="Bunk Moreland said:
Let's not forget a few things

A) Essendon are more than in credit as a result of equalisation. Clubs like yours would be long dead if it wasn't for the WA, SA and big Vic clubs propping you up for the last 30 years. So let's not get too caught up in our outrage

B) Hird expenses are a non issue - everything has been long ago paid for from the club coffers. It's all in our statements.

C) the figures being tossed about in the media are laughable. Damages aren't a punishment. They're about restoring the plaintiffs financial position to what it would have otherwise been. That means any lost wages for 2016 for 22 players (the 12 EFC players are being paid in full), many of which aren't even playing footy, or only playing local. "Reputational" damage doesn't just get a payout, it needs to be properly quantified to satisfy a judge. Does anybody really think this will cost players beyond this year? Star players like Hooker, Hurley etc, the ones with significant future earning potential, won't be able to find employment next year? Clubs will be queuing up and bidding like crazy.
Click to expand...
Yes, we have not quite been the powerhouse were were in the fifties, bad management. Not Illegal management.
Any way you look at it, does not matter even if your bills are up to date , any expenditure due to your drug campaign was an unplanned expenditure which is now going/has been footed by everyone.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Let's not forget a few things

A) Essendon are more than in credit as a result of equalisation. Clubs like yours would be long dead if it wasn't for the WA, SA and big Vic clubs propping you up for the last 30 years. So let's not get too caught up in our outrage

B) Hird expenses are a non issue - everything has been long ago paid for from the club coffers. It's all in our statements.

C) the figures being tossed about in the media are laughable. Damages aren't a punishment. They're about restoring the plaintiffs financial position to what it would have otherwise been. That means any lost wages for 2016 for 22 players (the 12 EFC players are being paid in full), many of which aren't even playing footy, or only playing local. "Reputational" damage doesn't just get a payout, it needs to be properly quantified to satisfy a judge. Does anybody really think this will cost players beyond this year? Star players like Hooker, Hurley etc, the ones with significant future earning potential, won't be able to find employment next year? Clubs will be queuing up and bidding like crazy.
Click to expand...

on reputational damage, I agree it will have no impact on their footballing career, mightbe applicable they can demonstrate loss of earnings from sponsorship and endorsements, so its not across the board, likesof Watson maybe, others not so much
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Nobody's benefitting. The ignorance of how this area of the law actually works is staggering.

"They were mean to me. Give me $5m!" Ah no, that's not how things work.
Click to expand...
As a side note Bunk if any player sues the club do you think it would be possible for them to come back and play for the club?
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Nobody's benefitting. The ignorance of how this area of the law actually works is staggering.

"They were mean to me. Give me $5m!" Ah no, that's not how things work.
Click to expand...
This is correct. The fact that the players have been wronged does not give an automatic entitlement to compensation and the numbers being thrown around by player agents and the media are speculative at best, delusional at worst. There are no grounds for punitive damages here. The players will need to prove that as a result of negligence (which will almost be impossible to defend against) or breach of contract, players have suffered economic loss. For the AFL listed players who will be paid in full, they are unlikely to have any loss unless they can prove that their future earning capacity has been affected. For someone like Heppell or Hurley for example that is very unlikely. For someone like Watson or Mcveigh at the end of their career, perhaps.

Those with potentially the best claims are those outside the AFL system (like Lovett-Murray) though their earning capacity is by no means high or guaranteed in the long term in any event.

There is a lot of talk about 'pain and suffering.' To sue for pain and suffering a player must establish that they have suffered personal injury beyond a threshold determined by legislation. I have seen nothing to suggest a player has suffered a physical injury as a result of the club's negligence. The psychological threshold is higher and a player must establish that they have suffered a recognised psychiatric illness (stress does not count) as a result of the club's negligence and that their loss is as a result of the injury (not as a result of something else such as the suspension). I think it is dubious that many if any players will have grounds to sue for personal injury and pain and suffering. The media coverage on this is entirely naive and misconceived.

Presuming insurers cover the claims, they will know that there is not a strong defence to liability and the quantum of any claims is likely to be the main issue in dispute. That said insurers - who will likely have conduct of claims - will not be concerned with Essendon's or the AFL's PR or brand considerations, but rather their own bottom line. While they will probably look to settle matters out of court to keep costs down - especially given Essendon's clear liability - they will not overpay greedy or delusional players, player agents or players association. They will make commercial offers of settlement and if rejected, they will proceed.

Let's not forget - the players do not want this going to court any more than essendon or the AFL. This week is the first time damning facts have been printed about the players which is staggering given the coverage over the last 3 years. If any matter goes to court players will be cross-examined about why they did not disclose the program on asada forms, what drug education they receive, what they were given, what they were told etc. Senior players such as Watson and Hille have already been criticised for their unimpressive evidence by CAS. A competent counsel will make it very uncomfortable for any player giving evidence. I know I would love the chance to cross-examine any footballer or essendon official in any way involved in this matter. The whole matter is clouded by secrecy and dishonesty and we are not dealing with geniuses here.

Ultimately I expect there will be litigation arising from this but nowhere near the figures being bandied about. And it is in the interests of the players, club and afl to resolve this out of court and out of sight. But insurers won't settle out of court for an unreasonable amount.

If any players are greedy or delusional, they will find themselves in the same boat as James hird - fighting a losing and expensive battle in the courts against an insurer opponent with much deeper pockets, much less to lose and much more prudent and commercial advisers.

Provided the players finally receive - and accept - sensible advice this should all get resolved outside of court for nowhere near the amounts being thrown around.
 
Last edited:
Billyc said:
This is correct. The fact that the players have been wronged does not give an automatic entitlement to compensation and the the numbers being thrown around by player agents and the media are speculative at best, delusional at worst. There are no grounds for punitive damages here. The players will need to prove that as a result of negligence (which will almost be impossible to defend against) or breach of contract, players have suffered economic loss. For the listed players who will be paid in full, they are unlikely to have any loss unless they can prove that their future earning capacity has been affected. For someone like Heppell or Hurley that is very unlikely. For someone like Watson or Mcveigh, perhaps.

Those with potentially the best claims are those outside the AFL system though their earning capacity is by no means high or guaranteed in the long term in any event.

There is a lot of talk about 'pain and suffering.' To sue for pain and suffering a player must establish that they have suffered personal injury beyond a threshold determined by legislation. I have seen nothing to suggest a player has suffered a physical injury. The psychological threshold is higher and a player must establish that they have suffered a recognised psychiatric illness (stress does not count) as a result of the club's negligence and that their loss is as a result of the injury (not as a result of something else such as the suspension) I think it is dubious that many if any players will have grounds to sue for personal injury and pain and suffering. The media coverage on this is misconceived.

Presuming insurers cover the claims, they will know that there is not a strong defence to liability and the quantum of any claims is likely to be the main issue in dispute. That said insurers - who will likely have conduct of claims - will not be concerned with Essendon's or the Afls PR considerations, but rather their own bottom line. While they will probably look to settle matters to keep costs down - especially given Essendon's clear liability - they will not overpay greedy or delusional players, player agents or players association.

Let's not forget - the players do not want this going to court any more than essendon or the afl. If it goes to court players will be cross-examined about why they did not disclose the program on asada forms, what drug education they receive etc. A competent counsel will make it very uncomfortable for any player giving evidence. I know I would love the chance to cross-examine any footballer or essendon official in any way involved in this matter.

Ultimately I expect there will be litigation arising from this but nowhere near the figure being bandied about. And it is in the interests of the players, club and afl to resolve this out of court and out of sight. But insurers won't settle out of court for an unreasonable amount.

If players are greedy or delusional, they will find themselves in the same boat as James hird - fighting a losing and expensive in the courts against an insurer opponent with much deeper pockets, much less to lose and much more prudent and commercial advisers.
Click to expand...
I would have thought if they could prove that they were told the drugs were legal that they could go for a loss of earnings like NMN. Yes, they would have to show specific medical damage to claim, I still think that is likely say for a player whose main income stream came directly from football. The mental harm could be significant.
Obviously someone going down that track will know thatthere trump card is the fact that Essendon will not want any extra info getting into the public domain which would bring about a settlement.
 
Players like the EFC and the AFL may not want to go near a court but it may become apparent the only way the players will get money is by going to court and dumping on the EFC. What the consent forms actually say could be important. If anything says ASADA/WADA compliant it will hurt the EFC. The workcover convictions will hurt. The CAS findings will hurt the other way.

Players like Hurley will have a hard time establishing financial/reputation damages. Players who are planning post football coaching careers may have it easier.
Be sad if Spike gets the big payout.

What the actual insurance policy is will be very important. Trying to get money from insurance companies will be a long and expensive task.
Probably cheaper, quicker and easier to dump on the EFC and AFL till they give you money to go away.
 
Billyc said:
This is correct. The fact that the players have been wronged does not give an automatic entitlement to compensation and the the numbers being thrown around by player agents and the media are speculative at best, delusional at worst. There are no grounds for punitive damages here. The players will need to prove that as a result of negligence (which will almost be impossible to defend against) or breach of contract, players have suffered economic loss. For the listed players who will be paid in full, they are unlikely to have any loss unless they can prove that their future earning capacity has been affected. For someone like Heppell or Hurley that is very unlikely. For someone like Watson or Mcveigh, perhaps.

Those with potentially the best claims are those outside the AFL system though their earning capacity is by no means high or guaranteed in the long term in any event.

There is a lot of talk about 'pain and suffering.' To sue for pain and suffering a player must establish that they have suffered personal injury beyond a threshold determined by legislation. I have seen nothing to suggest a player has suffered a physical injury. The psychological threshold is higher and a player must establish that they have suffered a recognised psychiatric illness (stress does not count) as a result of the club's negligence and that their loss is as a result of the injury (not as a result of something else such as the suspension) I think it is dubious that many if any players will have grounds to sue for personal injury and pain and suffering. The media coverage on this is misconceived.

Presuming insurers cover the claims, they will know that there is not a strong defence to liability and the quantum of any claims is likely to be the main issue in dispute. That said insurers - who will likely have conduct of claims - will not be concerned with Essendon's or the Afls PR considerations, but rather their own bottom line. While they will probably look to settle matters to keep costs down - especially given Essendon's clear liability - they will not overpay greedy or delusional players, player agents or players association.

Let's not forget - the players do not want this going to court any more than essendon or the afl. If it goes to court players will be cross-examined about why they did not disclose the program on asada forms, what drug education they receive etc. A competent counsel will make it very uncomfortable for any player giving evidence. I know I would love the chance to cross-examine any footballer or essendon official in any way involved in this matter.

Ultimately I expect there will be litigation arising from this but nowhere near the figure being bandied about. And it is in the interests of the players, club and afl to resolve this out of court and out of sight. But insurers won't settle out of court for an unreasonable amount.

If players are greedy or delusional, they will find themselves in the same boat as James hird - fighting a losing and expensive in the courts against an insurer opponent with much deeper pockets, much less to lose and much more prudent and commercial advisers.
Click to expand...


Yep. Good post.

Unfortunately, i very much doubt we are ever gonna see anyone actually get to Court. Maybe Hal, if he is serious, and gets some backing.

But does it really matter anymore to the public anyway, to get this into Court?

The EFC, and everyone involved, could hardly be anymore guilty than they already are in the public's eye after the CAS verdict.

The cover-up was bloody hard yakka...3 years of toil....but it has failed dismally.

All that is left is for a bit of compensation to whoever can extract it, and a few last hopeless flails from the guilty partys.
 
piesaregreat said:
I wonder how the 17 other clubs are viewing Gils promises of money and support.
Suspect Brisbane and the doggies may be ropable.
I doubt the insurance companies are going to sit back and watch the AFL and the EFC promise $millions of the insurance companies money.
Click to expand...

This could be a far bigger issue than realised; insurance companies don't like to lose money, period. The premiums for AFL sports, even local clubs, could soar if this blows back on the insurance industry.
 
TerryWallet said:
Yep. Good post.

Unfortunately, i very much doubt we are ever gonna see anyone actually get to Court. Maybe Hal, if he is serious, and gets some backing.

But does it really matter anymore to the public anyway, to get this into Court?

The EFC, and everyone involved, could hardly be anymore guilty than they already are in the public's eye after the CAS verdict.

The cover-up was bloody hard yakka...3 years of toil....but it has failed dismally.

All that is left is for a bit of compensation to whoever can extract it, and a few last hopeless flails from the guilty partys.
Click to expand...

After the players are paid off as were The Weapon , Alavi and Dr Ageless , who is left that could drop efc in the shite ?
Obviously Dank holds all the aces and you wouldn't think a little blackmail is beneath him.
And what of Albert , although he has already sucked plenty out of the club who knows what his mental state is atm and what insanity he is capable of .
There are many others that would hold varying degrees of information ,
Oh what a mess ... will it ever truly be over ??
 
I think Peter Jess is hoping EFC/AFL blink first and pay some $$$$ before it gets to Court. Classic ambulance chasing. The players are going to get paid for 2016 so I can't see where the loss to be compensated is?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Litigation

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top