Robbo reporting Essendon to appeal

[The Sultan]

It's quite pleasing to have so many enemies teaming up to mock a common enemy as they burn and writhing on the ground

 

[BlueWorld]

Says Stephen D(w)ank as Manly go the way of Port and lolnorf;

About as certain as Essendon winning the appeal.

 

[Nate_MX]

It's quite pleasing to have so many enemies teaming up to mock a common enemy as they burn and writhing on the ground

But but but I thought we were all friends

 

[SwampRat]

Quite the opposite in fact. They are just desperate to stop a process which will lead to the players suing the hell out of them.

They're not going to have any money left by the time players get to sue them.

 

[SwampRat]

FFS someone overthrow Little already. This is getting pathetic.

I don't know your club's make-up or constitution, but you might be able to get a petition of enough members to call a Special Meeting and vote the prick out.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Taken from the Essendon board. Cannot believe this...

Amazing stupidity at a very high level.


P.s. Remove the username of the poster quoted. There's rules against posting from team boards.

 

[Bailey01]

Ffs just accept the sanctions, it is only gonna further damage their reputations.

 

[SwampRat]

From the Essendon constitution...
http://www.essendonfc.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/Essendon/Images/EssendonFC-Constitution-Dec-11.pdf

Section 39 deals with requests by the members to call a general meeting.



Good luck getting 50% of the members.

That's only if the club does not hold the meeting after a lawful request under the Act, which (I believe) is 5% of members. It would be quite extraordinary for the club to ignore that request. There might even be penalties for the directors for failing to do so.

 

[adelaidecrows]

A player attempting to invoke the duty of care clause could short circuit any appeal. It would take it down a different path making any appeal inconsequential to a large degree.

It depends on whether Essendon try and put injunctions on that clause due to nothing being proved. This will at least force trades rather than the players just walking out and Essendon getting nothing back.

 

[SwampRat]

That is generally why people appeal... unusual to appeal something you're happy with...

No, people appeal because they they believe there was an error in the judgement. Just because you don't like the outcome, doesn't mean it's wise to appeal.

 

[Tiger_man322]

Amazing stupidity at a very high level.


P.s. Remove the username of the poster quoted. There's rules against posting from team boards.

Cheers mate. All cleared up

 

[Reykjavik]

Right. And we'll tie the comp up in a decade of litigation determining the exercise of those rights were invalid. Doesn't matter if we win or not. By the time the High Court decides in about 5 years the comp is dead.

“We will not capitulate – no, never! We may be destroyed, but if we are, we shall drag a world with us – a world in flames.”
- Adolf Hitler

 

[I am Jack]

James Hird has brought more disrepute down on the AFL than Ben Cousins ever did, and yet their punishments currently remain equal. I know the AFL are waiting for ASADA's next move, but they really should kick Hird out of the system for good.

Then Hird would sue even further - and maybe even have grounds for unfair dismissal.
The AFL is doing the right thing by letting this process play out.
Little will eventually remove Hird, because Little isn't directly involved in this saga, so when the masses eventually turn - he can cut his losses.
And the masses will eventually turn, they are starting to already. Paddy Ryder was once Hird's biggest fan.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Get ready for four years for the muppets that are following him, png bombers sounds good

 

[SunshineBoy]

um, is there really a 70+ post thread in 90 minutes full of outrage, pitchforks and burning crosses based on... a Robbo comment on the radio?

Srs?

Welcome back, how are you feeling today still believe it's a storm in a teacup?

 

[SwampRat]

Or someone with a *diploma in legal studies.



*not gonna forget that one soon.

I watched Matlock in a bar last night, the sound wasn't on, but I think I got the gist of it.

 

[gab213]

Who would have thought the mention of a simple sms could evolve into such a complex discussion?

 

[spenze]

Then Hird would sue even further - and maybe even have grounds for unfair dismissal.
The AFL is doing the right thing by letting this process play out.
Little will eventually remove Hird, because Little isn't directly involved in this saga, so when the masses eventually turn - he can cut his losses.
And the masses will eventually turn, they are starting to already. Paddy Ryder was once Hird's biggest fan.

You know the end is nigh when Robbo writes an article holding Hird to account over what happened at the club

 

[PattoMan99]

No, people appeal because they they believe there was an error in the judgement. Just because you don't like the outcome, doesn't mean it's wise to appeal.

You've got to say he pretty much summed up the Essendon altitude throughout this whole saga.

 

[Oneiros]

So let's get this clear. The judge was emphatic that Essendon had no case after looking at all the evidence for a month. Now you are saying an appeal will not in any way appear to be a slight on the judge? If it's about a point of law you are still inferring the judge got that very point of law very wrong and is thus incompetent.

I don't care about what it may be, I am saying what it will appear to all and sundry.

We're talking about the impersonal court of law here, not a high school social clique. The right to conduct an appeal is enshrined in recognition of even competent judges to be liable to human fallibility, so it'd be a pretty piss-poor judge to take offence.

 

[Suit]

On a 'particular' board, Churchill quotes are now being used as propaganda supporting the 'stand-our-ground'/'fight to the death' cause. Such as:

"Never give in – never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

The use of Churchill's words in such an emotive and irrational way, only serves to stifle the voice of reason and induce primitive responses.

Conveniently, this Churchill quote was not posted;

"There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away."
​

 

[Tigerland]

More then anything else in this saga I want to understand Stephen Dank...

Although he didn't speak, I think Dank turning up to the courtroom for the decision on Friday say a hell of a lot about the man.

Even Essendon apologists were baffled by that.

It was OK in Dank's world though. The alternate universe one.

His thought process and actions should send shivers down the spines of everyone connected to Essendon.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

We're talking about the impersonal court of law here, not a high school social clique. The right to conduct an appeal is enshrined in recognition of even competent judges to be liable to human fallibility, so it'd be a pretty piss-poor judge to take offence.

I'm not saying the judge would take offence. I am saying most lay people in Australia will be scratching their heads wondering what he did for the last month if he came up with such an emphatic conclusion which, in turn, is then overturned. You know, the guy in the street, who will then say next time there is a case involving Justice Middleton "Oh he is that hopeless judge that missed the point of law in the Essendon case despite looking at the evidence for over a month!".

So in summary, an appeal is unlikely to happen and even more unlikely to be successful. Why you say? As a legal eagle said in todays papers....

"Findings of fact cannot generally be overturned on appeal. This is because the trial judge is in the best position to assess the demeanour of witnesses. Appeal judges only review the paperwork and do not get to see the witnesses again."

"True it is, conclusions based on inferences [say, from documents] are more susceptible to challenge. However, appeal courts are generally at pains to support the decision of the judge below.

"Indeed, the task of an appellant to overturn a judgment cannot be overstated. It is very hard. There must generally be a clear error of law for an appeal court to find that one of their colleagues was mistaken in approach."

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Caro's been asking the question publicly for 1.5 years now- Where on Earth are Hird, and to a lesser extent, the EFC, getting their advice from?

 

[upnsmoke]

They're not going to have any money left by the time players get to sue them.

Thats the plan I think.

use up the funds and reduce the clubs value fighting a ridiculous fight so at the end when the inevitable arrives, players cant sue for much...
Then they re-register "North Essendon" as a new club, which the players cannot touch.