Player Litigation

[mxett]

You make it sound so crude.

It is a "Non-Disclosure Agreement". Or more likely a clause that the player waives further right to action in exchange for $x.

cant say Id be opposed to the players being paid out by the AFL and not Essendon

 

[KeSter]

It depends if the AFL feels it is on top of the food chain.

If it feels there is a body able to punish it for the actions of administrators acting for the AFL then they may want to keep any arrangements made, notices given, warnings provided etc quiet.

Especially if there is an election coming up, tough on corruption etc etc.

You mean like a corruption watch dog? WOOF!

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Could you explain the consequences of the players talking? They already have the maximum ban, and the staff involved in the saga are already gone. What else will talk result in?

Who told the players not to tell Reid? Was there any involvement from the board?

 

[Throw]

It wasn't 'negligence', that's the AFL's and media narrative. It was cheating.

CAS made it official.

It was negligence as far as the players' cause of action against the club is concerned.

 

[Throw]

Just out of interest.

What about the players that weren't involved in the doping program and weren't able to get a game ahead of those that were? What if they were de-listed as a result? Is there grounds for them to sue the club?

highly unlikely, although it's an interesting question. Effectively you're asking about what's called "remoteness" from the negligent act- like how far down the chain does it go before people can no longer hold Essendon accountable for the loss caused by Essendon's negligence. The case they teach at law school involved someone setting fireworks off at a train station, which triggered a series of events down the platform, which although direct consequences of the fireworks going off, were also kind of chance and bad luck... eg people bowled over by people running in fear from hearing the explosion.

We know the bombers players are right in the thick of it, effectively injured directly by the firework. There's a clear duty of care owed by an employer to an employee. Other people further down the platform have tougher cases to prove, but still a potential cause of action, although perhaps their loss/injury might not be worth the effort of pursuing particularly when their prospects of success much reduced due to the remoteness. Someone at the end of the platform who scratched their knee wouldn't bother lawyering up.

I think an interesting question is the other clubs who lost to Essendon in 2012. Why don't they get the four points retrospectively? would winning those points have been the difference between 9th and finals/new members/new sponsors? Players who missed out on the Brownlow... players who would have won the 3 points in a brownlow game had Jobe not won the 3 points that game. Could go forever.

 

[Malifice]

cant say Id be opposed to the players being paid out by the AFL and not Essendon

I have no doubt the AFL will cough a fair bit up on EFCs behalf.

Said this a while back when Little was going after the AFL (before the other club presidents got involved and the AFL released the charge sheet). The AFL have at every step of the process tried to look after Essendon (from Vlad tipping them off, to negotiating with ASADA for reduced penalties for the players, to not penalising them for doping now that the guilty verdict has come back etc). Dont bite the hand that feeds you and all that.

Gillon has come out and said its the AFLs priority to look after Essendon. Theyre mindful what 1 million and the loss of draft picks did to us 15 years back (and we're still not fully over it). A strong or at the very least a competitive Essendon is good for the competition.

I reckon the insurers have put forward a settlement figure, and the AFL are weighing up how much of the exess damages on top of that they are prepared to pay. The AFLPA are weighing in as well to get as much as they can.

Worst case for Esseondon is if the players actually go after the club in court. The AFL doesnt want this (and the EFC certainly dont want this as it puts them in the unenviable position of blaming the players for contributory negligence to limit liability - not a good look).

At present, the players have a strong case and the upper hand in negotiations, with very wealthy parties in the AFL and EFC to go after (both with a vested intrest to make this go away via settlement).

30 million sounds about right.

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

Could you explain the consequences of the players talking? They already have the maximum ban, and the staff involved in the saga are already gone. What else will talk result in?

Currently Essendon has many thousands of fans who still believe that they did nothing wrong. Even you, though you concede that it's very likely the doping occurred, are struggling to realise that the players were at least somewhat complicit in what went on.

You guys have invested in a fairy tale sold to you by your club, former coach and even the players.

What happens when the scales are taken from your eyes and the unpalatable truth becomes clear? You can no longer deny the guilt and complicity when the players are giving evidence that Dank and Hird told them they were only being a bit naughty in a grey area of the WADA code created by a supposed loophole... Or whatever the truth actually is, maybe I'm still being generous.

I'd think that the club, particularly, and the AFL also, would spend a significant amount of money to maintain the delusions about stitch-ups, duping and biased CAS panels, and keep you guys buying your memberships and turning up to games.

 

[jenny61_99]

I have no doubt the AFL will cough a fair bit up on EFCs behalf.

Said this a while back when Little was going after the AFL (before the other club presidents got involved and the AFL released the charge sheet). The AFL have at every step of the process tried to look after Essendon (from Vlad tipping them off, to negotiating with ASADA for reduced penalties for the players, to not penalising them for doping now that the guilty verdict has come back etc). Dont bite the hand that feeds you and all that.

Gillon has come out and said its the AFLs priority to look after Essendon. Theyre mindful what 1 million and the loss of draft picks did to us 15 years back (and we're still not fully over it). A strong or at the very least a competitive Essendon is good for the competition.

I reckon the insurers have put forward a settlement figure, and the AFL are weighing up how much of the exess damages on top of that they are prepared to pay. The AFLPA are weighing in as well to get as much as they can.

Worst case for Esseondon is if the players actually go after the club in court. The AFL doesnt want this (and the EFC certainly dont want this as it puts them in the unenviable position of blaming the players for contributory negligence to limit liability - not a good look).

At present, the players have a strong case and the upper hand in negotiations, with very wealthy parties in the AFL and EFC to go after (both with a vested intrest to make this go away via settlement).

30 million sounds about right.

30 million into 34? Will it be enough?

 

[Malifice]

30 million into 34? Will it be enough?

Many of them arent playing anymore, so will struggle to demonstrate substantial lost earnings or earnings opportunity going forward, and most of those that are playing are already getting paid by the club. There is also the issue of contributory negligence on behalf of the players. They did sign those consent forms after all.

Match day payments are around 3.5k per game. 25 games x 15 players = 1.3 million off the bat just for this year alone. They'll probably have to pony up on the 5 blokes at other clubs salaries (around another 2.5 million). Players can argue loss of future earnings (playing deals, sponsorship deals, media roles, coaching) with marquee players getting proportionally higher damages (to account for the smear on their names/ reputational loss - which is a big deal for an athlete, the effect of the saga for the past few years, and the impact of having a year off the game and out of the system on future years). Pain and suffering/ general damages get added on as as well. A year out of sport for a profesional footballer is a substantial chunk of his career. Jobe also has to put a price on the Brownlow. Finally there is the question of any health risks that may manifest down the track. They'll want (at a minimum) a fund set up in trust to cover the possibility of future compensation for any health complications later on.

They'll put forward a figure at the very upper end of what a court will award if the matter gets litigated; arguably even more than what a court would award. That might sound weird, but you need to consider the fact the EFC would have to weigh up the severe reputational damage to the club if legal proceedings from the players go ahead against the club. In other words, the club has to factor in how much it wants to cough up in order to avoid a legal case launched against it by the players that could destroy player morale and the clubs reputation for decades. It would be a terrible look and could lead to a player revolt and destroying the clubs reputation (even more than it already has) among the industry (i.e. players).

Also as to other costs, 10 top up players are not cheap. Minimum playing contracts wouldnt have cut it (these blokes probably already have jobs paying more than minimum AFL player wage). Around the 200k each plus match day payments sounds about right. I wouldnt be surprised if the AFL is probably footing this bill as part of its bail out though. Loss of gate takings at home games (and the hit to the merchandise department) this year will also be pretty severe you would assume. Tack on the legal costs, fines, and the payouts to sacked staff, plus the increased insurance premiums and this saga will cost the EFC in the vicinity of 50 million (spread out among the club, AFL and insurers).

As for reputational damage, well that speaks for itself.