Hird & EFC Smashed by Middleton

[PattoMan99]

Having read the judgement again, it's basically the legal speak equivalent of a judge telling the plaintiff to GAGF. Go Middleton!

 

[Hoochy]

I agree that this, or something very similar, was always the most likely result.

I don't for one minute think that the people giving EFC advice are dills. If fact, EFC had access to some of the brightest minds going around. The only logical conclusion I find is the the club knew full well they were likely heading for a belting but still thought that the cost and the very, very slim chance of a result was worth the fight. Why?

Rich blokes and or companies do not throw money down the toilet without a really good reason. If the advice they got was that their case was 50/50 or even 60/40 against, I could almost accept the argument that it was worth the fight with the view of using a get out of jail card free for the players. Having read a good portion of the decision (btw BobbyCharlton if you are reading this Para 442 is specifically for you), EFC must have known they were on the Titanic and the legal boat was certain to sink. Call me cynical, but I can't see the club dishing out a $1 Mil+ on a useless legal challenge for the players.

What else is in play here? Are the board members themselves at some risk?? All seems very odd.

They have denied everything for that long now, they had no other choice. Probably thinking if we take this to court then the footy fans etc will believe we are innocent and fighting for it.....
Game, set, match ASADA.

 

[Demonalke]

Having read the judgement again, it's basically the legal speak equivalent of a judge telling the plaintiff to GAGF. Go Middleton!

Watched it live at work.
They thought I was weird when I jumped up and started:

 

[FFC_RoyBoys]

The crux of the case lay with Andruska being a reasonable witness. Had Young managed to convince Middo that impugned Andruska was less than reliable then the result would have been a lot closer. Maybe Young was taken in by Hird's charm.

With your earlier comment on why they p$%&ed the money down the gurgler, I am also confused and initially thought it could be board related although others have convinced me this is not a significant risk.

My feeling is that they are trying to dilute the list of players so that a 2 year ban will not cripple the club to field a team (just make it un-winable) and this was there one and only (costly) delaying tactic.

At least the Roy Boys left the field of play with respect.

I too, even only a day or two back thought that the tactic was to delay so a few more players would be off the book - smart business May well still be the case. Unless they now take it to appeal, they have copped a hell of a hiding, and put a sizable portion of their supporter base offside for pretty much nothing in that the running of the SC- ADVP -CAS would take a heck of a lot longer that the delay they managed with this.

Re the Roy Boys - true that. It's funny but I have met Ross Oakley a couple of times - nice enough bloke face to face, years temper the anger and outrage.

 

[BlueWorld]

A good deal of the 34 are no longer at the club and haven't been for some time. They have no company line to toe and owe Essendon nothing, they have only their own interests to represent.

Of the remaining players most were out of contract either last year or this year, many eligible for free agency. If they wished to leave they have the perfect excuse (greater $ offers), and has the hullabaloo over the last couple of weeks has shown, there's no shortage of willing suitors.

So keep writing your horseshit, the reality doesn't support it. Not that reality has any place here.

All the players have attempted to do from the start is cooperate and defend themselves. After 18 months this was an attempt to knock it stone dead. Unfortunately it didn't work. So on it goes. They will either continue that fight or change their strategy and attempt some sort of plea.

Yes the club told them they would get the case thrown out in the Fed court. Trust us....

I'm hearing a large number of Ess players want out. A few have other clubs willing to take them. Others don't.

 

[Magruder]

Yep, it was a complete and utter smack-down. As I stated in posts early in this saga, The Act and the intent of the Act is to grant strong, robust and over-arching powers to ASADA to investigate all possible doping violations.
At the end of the day ASADA was clearly investigating genuine concerns of doping violation. It doesn't matter what that has-been Hardie or any other pretend wannabe says. The intent of the Act is clear, always was clear and remains clear.
This is the part directly quoted by Middleton (which means this is the part that really counts).
It also happens to be the part I quoted early in the piece.
“The CEO (the Respondent to both proceedings) was appointed pursuant to s 20D of the Act, and has the functions set out in s 21 of the Act, which functions include such functions as are conferred by the NAD Scheme (s 21(1)(b)).
The CEO has the power, conferred by s 22 of the Act, “to do all things necessary or convenient to be done for or in connection with the performance of his or her functions”, and is authorised under s 13(1)(f) of the Act and cl 3.27(1) of the NAD Scheme to “investigate possible anti-doping rule violations” (as defined in the NAD Scheme).
The CEO is also authorised by s 13(1)(g) of the Act and cl 4.21 of the NAD Scheme to disclose “non-entry information” obtained during such an investigation to, amongst others, “a sporting administration body”,
Pretty F##ken simple really.

When I skimmed the judgement this arvo I stopped at this exact point and thought wtf is this case about? All things necessary...

 

[TTRRAAVVIISS]

Again, if there was even a reasonable bit of a chance I would have no problem with that at all. I have read about 40% of the decision and it is quite disturbing how contemptuous (in polite legalese) Justice Middleton is in his decision.
The likes of Neil Young QC don't make rookie mistakes when advising clients. Maybe it is just late at night, but the certainty and finality of the reasoning left me with a big wtf was that really all about.

They did it mostly to delay show cause notices so EFC and players could play finals if they made it and stop sponsers and players from jumping ship. Commercial and economic reasons.

Im shocked out how "bewildered" EFC are at losing. Civil jurisdiction is not going to side with an applicant so devious as EFC.

The asada act is so deliberately broad in its power that EFC never stood a chance. This fained "shock" at losing reminds me of the press conference that started this whole mess. Its absurd.

What we can draw from EFC's reaction is either they actually believe their own BS (unlikely) or their legal counsel is happy to massively exagerate their chances of winning (maybe) to get paid some coin or its all an act to protect commercial and club interests (bingo).

Its disgusting they keep saying its "for the players".

Ryder has clearly woke up and smelt the roses.

This smoke and mirrors is all about protecting the board and club from future legal action from players.

 

[BlueWorld]

The afl punished us for taking performance enhancing drugs because they knew we had. They could not say that as we would not let them and threatened to not sign deal and we would sue. AFL really just wanted us out of finals and they got that they were happy enough.

They didn't want you out of finals for poor governance.

 

[rose jam]

The whole thing was a disaster, trying to suppress the truth on a technicality when this is routine process for ASADA.
Now the EFC have to face the truth that they went on an experimental drug campaign, don't know what players were given, and have ruined a club for a decade as well as supporters who on e loved their hero.

 

[BlueWorld]

I don't for one minute think that the people giving EFC advice are dills. If fact, EFC had access to some of the brightest minds going around. The only logical conclusion I find is the the club knew full well they were likely heading for a belting but still thought that the cost and the very, very slim chance of a result was worth the fight. Why?

Rich blokes and or companies do not throw money down the toilet without a really good reason. If the advice they got was that their case was 50/50 or even 60/40 against, I could almost accept the argument that it was worth the fight with the view of using a get out of jail card free for the players. Having read a good portion of the decision (btw BobbyCharlton if you are reading this Para 442 is specifically for you), EFC must have known they were on the Titanic and the legal boat was certain to sink. Call me cynical, but I can't see the club dishing out a $1 Mil+ on a useless legal challenge for the players.

What else is in play here? Are the board members themselves at some risk?? All seems very odd.

The impression I got was that they really did think they would succeed.

 

[BlueWorld]

read the quote. Its not that hard to guess at his opinion on the matter, without him outright saying it.

(may have been)"systemic violations"

The bracketed words are most important- may have been. I wouldn't take that as definite.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

it was the episode where Ed & Derm talked about themselves for 80% of the time.

Could you be more specific please?

 

[SwampRat]

A question - given EFC is effectively "owned" by its members and that the board made some interesting financial decisions in this legal pursuit (which now includes ASADA's costs liability) and also re-hiring Hird (also the paid study vacation?) when there was a very high possibility this outcome would arise and they could certainly have delayed it until after this decision, is it possible for some disgruntled members to sue the Board? Of course they would have to show that it was financially inappropriate of the Board to expend members funds in that way. This also presumes that those financial outlays were partly met by general club funds and not fully covered by specific donations for those purposes. Given the exceptional nature of all these events was there a members meeting to get approval for each of these Board actions? After all, the club's money is not the Board's money, it is the members and the Board must always act in the best interests of the Members and the organisation.

Generally, no. Very rarely do the courts allow people to "pierce the corporate veil" and allow directors to be sued. Simply having a difference of opinion in what is in the best interests of the club will not allow directors to be sued.

 

[Pusswah]

Richard Ings piped up to whiteant ASADA again yet?

 

[The Casey Cat]

I agree that this, or something very similar, was always the most likely result.

I don't for one minute think that the people giving EFC advice are dills. If fact, EFC had access to some of the brightest minds going around. The only logical conclusion I find is the the club knew full well they were likely heading for a belting but still thought that the cost and the very, very slim chance of a result was worth the fight. Why?

Rich blokes and or companies do not throw money down the toilet without a really good reason. If the advice they got was that their case was 50/50 or even 60/40 against, I could almost accept the argument that it was worth the fight with the view of using a get out of jail card free for the players. Having read a good portion of the decision (btw BobbyCharlton if you are reading this Para 442 is specifically for you), EFC must have known they were on the Titanic and the legal boat was certain to sink. Call me cynical, but I can't see the club dishing out a $1 Mil+ on a useless legal challenge for the players.

What else is in play here? Are the board members themselves at some risk?? All seems very odd.

All very reasonable questions part of a very reasonable position to take . What you're forgetting is James Hird is involved and far as James Hird thinks, James Hird hasn't (and therefore the players and club) done anything wrong...

 

[scon]

Hirdy told me the judicial system was for Little rich people winning and riding roughshod over justice and process.
Even Danky said the judgement was ridiculous.

 

[vjknight]

The bracketed words are most important- may have been. I wouldn't take that as definite.

again true - but then why even mention it ?

like product placement in a hit tv series - its there for a reason.

 

[MaddAdam]

Martin Hardie the ultra joke.

 

[the conch]

I forget where, but I remember reading EFC have insurance covering 90% of the costs if they avoid conviction. like all reports on this though, I'd take it with a grain of salt

Dr Larkins wrote this in one of his columns but you may have heard it otherways.

 

[dazbroncos]

How long before the hand comes out to the AFL for assistance….
We need priority picks….

Go Catters

 

[vjknight]

patrick smith on hird.........

In his affidavit to the Federal Court he stated: “I believe that if show-cause notices are issued to current or former Essendon players by ASADA, this would give rise to immeasurable and irremediable damage to my reputation, my earning capacity as an AFL coach and my business interests external to Essendon and the AFL.” Now the show-causes stand, that sentence in his affidavit is a letter of resignation. Put it in an envelope, write attention Essendon chairman Paul Little and it would be official.

If Hird does not resign, then the Essendon board should sack him. They have no alternative. No sport, never mind a club, could continue to employ a coach who has 34 players under his control in 2012 in breach of the nation’s anti-doping laws. Hird did not want the players given banned drugs, in fact warned about it. But as coach he did not ensure that it did not happen. He was too trusting or too cavalier. Either way he failed in his duty of care to players placed in his care by the club.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...f-this-firestorm/story-e6frg7uo-1227064634480

 

[Turnsole]

all the guys from the recruit

Brilliant!

 

[threesixpio]

They did it mostly to delay show cause notices so EFC and players could play finals if they made it and stop sponsers and players from jumping ship. Commercial and economic reasons.

Im shocked out how "bewildered" EFC are at losing. Civil jurisdiction is not going to side with an applicant so devious as EFC.

The asada act is so deliberately broad in its power that EFC never stood a chance. This fained "shock" at losing reminds me of the press conference that started this whole mess. Its absurd.

What we can draw from EFC's reaction is either they actually believe their own BS (unlikely) or their legal counsel is happy to massively exagerate their chances of winning (maybe) to get paid some coin or its all an act to protect commercial and club interests (bingo).

Its disgusting they keep saying its "for the players".

Ryder has clearly woke up and smelt the roses.

This smoke and mirrors is all about protecting the board and club from future legal action from players.

Great post

 

[SBYM]

What does Fogdog have to say about the ruling?

Something something. Sit tight!!!!!!!

 

[nineteen eighty]

You have to ask questions about the competence of the EFC board.

How can it justify the $5m so far on legal and PR expenses? It's strategy took a u-tun when Little took over, and the Board have sanctioned it.

It was the same Board that sanctioned the strategy developed by David Evans. That approach, developed in conjunction with Gillon McLachlan, clearly had the most significant chance of succeeding (which in EFC terms, quite simply, means limiting the damage).

EFC members have seen $5m pi$$ed against the wall. Do they even care?

When Carlton cheated the cap and was fined, the members came after the Board. EFC members seem lame, and malleable. Little clearly doesn't factor their membership dues into account when considering his duty to them.

We know that governance was a smokescreen to hide the negligent activities of Hird & Co, but the governance issues now are just as bad.

Time for EFC members with a conscience to roll this Board.

Mate the alternative is for EFC to admit there was a PED program in place and then get sued by 30+ players. What do you think the sum will be that they will be suing for? Conservative estimate in the vicinity of $40m - $50m.

EFC have had no choice in any of this? It's been a pain in the arse and has dragged this on for a long time. Wearing a commercial hat though as opposed to a footy fan, they had to do what they did and will continue to deny. And they may well still appeal.

The club is in a whole world of hurt as things stand today. Things will only get much worse if they admit to anything.