Bombers lawyers prevented from sitting in the tribunal

[Tiger Toffee]

Can't sack Hird until enough members have signed up (and neglected to opt out of paying extra) to pay for his payout.

If the direct debits have gone through then the money is there, remember their $50 donate to the fight plan con last year, how do think they found the million for Hird, $50 x 20,000 direct debits who don't opt out = $1million payout.

 

[Tiger2709]

You not very bright?
ASADA have not handed over all their evidence, so as ASADA put forward an argument in the hearing the lawyers check out its veracity and prepare a rebuttal.

The Essendon lawyers, but they aren't representing the players?

 

[Tiger2709]

I will be signing up again regardless - you don't deserve to be a supporter in the good times if you don't support in the bad times imo. Must be why I support Liverpool

As a Liverpool and Richmond supporter I support that.

 

[Laphroaig]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-15/essendon-barred-from-attending-asada-hearing/5969192

Makes sense now - when he says "our legal teams are there" he's referring to the players' legal teams.
I retract my apology to Big Sim

That seems to be the consensus. The players are part of "us"

That's the problem. Not getting into you personally on this, but I've long felt this part stinks to high heaven. And of all participants the AFLPA is the worst. The AFLPA should be the voice of player interest ONLY, but instead have happily jumped on board and actively participated and facilitated the Club's near total control over the players' legal advice.

The Club's interests and the players interests are not the same thing, and there's a massive conflict of interest problem in the assumption that they can be allowed even to overlap - let alone be spoken of as one and the same.

Football Clubs routinely spout "loyalty" about players they want to keep, and flick players they don't want without a qualm. Only a fool would assume their behavior would be any less one directional in this scenario.

 

[Chameleon75]

That's the problem. Not getting into you personally on this, but I've long felt this part stinks to high heaven. And of all participants the AFLPA is the worst. The AFLPA should be the voice of player interest ONLY, but instead have happily jumped on board and actively participated and facilitated the Club's near total control over the players' legal advice.

The Club's interests and the players interests are not the same thing, and there's a massive conflict of interest problem in the assumption that they can be allowed even to overlap - let alone be spoken of as one and the same.

Football Clubs routinely spout "loyalty" about players they want to keep, and flick players they don't want without a qualm. Only a fool would assume their behavior would be any less one directional in this scenario.

↑ this

 

[the conch]

Yet he is still claiming them as "ours"?

I can't see how the players benefit from EFC being involved/bank-rolling their personal representation on these individual charges.

IF found guilty, then the s**t-fight starts on who was responsible and degree of responsiblilty between EFC and the players (and possibly the AFL judging by Lovett-Murray' first foray).

At that time it becomes a 3-way shootout at 30 paces with legal teams - and it looks like the players will be in the worst position, as EFC have had paid for legal representation up to that point; and the AFL has (I'm guessing) considerable information from it's own investigations + ASADA's + possibly even from the original ACC investigation?

And then we might get some truth about what really happened.

 

[the conch]

As a Liverpool and Richmond supporter I support that.

As a doggies supporter I second that.

 

[piesaregreat]

That's the problem. Not getting into you personally on this, but I've long felt this part stinks to high heaven. And of all participants the AFLPA is the worst. The AFLPA should be the voice of player interest ONLY, but instead have happily jumped on board and actively participated and facilitated the Club's near total control over the players' legal advice.

The Club's interests and the players interests are not the same thing, and there's a massive conflict of interest problem in the assumption that they can be allowed even to overlap - let alone be spoken of as one and the same.

Football Clubs routinely spout "loyalty" about players they want to keep, and flick players they don't want without a qualm. Only a fool would assume their behavior would be any less one directional in this scenario.

While I agree that it appears to be a massive conflict of interest between the club and players there is one explanation that covers it.
The players knew about the doping embraced it and have actively attempted to cover up all evidence. The player instigated doping and encouraged the club through its officials to embrace a systemic doping regime.

 

[Gigantor]

While I agree that it appears to be a massive conflict of interest between the club and players there is one explanation that covers it.
The players knew about the doping embraced it and have actively attempted to cover up all evidence. The player instigated doping and encouraged the club through its officials to embrace a systemic doping regime.

I'm sure Laphroaig will embrace this, ahem, unique perspective.

 

[Albert Ross]

While I agree that it appears to be a massive conflict of interest between the club and players there is one explanation that covers it.
The players knew about the doping embraced it and have actively attempted to cover up all evidence. The player instigated doping and encouraged the club through its officials to embrace a systemic doping regime.

There is another simpler explanation. Dollars. Would you prefer to pay for your own lawyer out of your own pocket or have someone pay, on your behalf, a Dumpling Shop full of them including QCs?

If you were fussy the conflict of interest here is that the AFLPA is defending players who are in effect accused of cheating the other players. Any action on their part that might seem to allow or excuse doping actually places the health of their members at risk.

 

[piesaregreat]

Money is always an issue
Getting someone else to pay for it is beneficial
However the conflict of interest still exists as you stated.
My theory eliminates the conflict as both club and players are involved from the beginning and knowingly cheated
And the missing records probably include players recommending various PEDs

 

[Spongebob]

The lawyer perception or real conflict could be clarified.

I would think it revolves around who chose and contracted the lawyers and how they are paid.

If chosen, contracted and briefed by the union and essendon reimburses the union, I have no concern.

If essendon has any direct involvement at any step, then I worry about potential conflict.

As to the union representing members, that is what unions have to do. It is not unusual in a dispute that the interests of different members do not coincide.

 

[NikkiNoo]

The lawyer perception or real conflict could be clarified.

I would think it revolves around who chose and contracted the lawyers and how they are paid.

If chosen, contracted and briefed by the union and essendon reimburses the union, I have no concern.

If essendon has any direct involvement at any step, then I worry about potential conflict.

As to the union representing members, that is what unions have to do. It is not unusual in a dispute that the interests of different members do not coincide.

This is pretty much spot on, but where it has become clouded is that Essendon continually refer to the player's lawyers as 'our' lawyers instead. They might want to present a united front, but it has caused the general public to believe that the lawyers are dancing to the tune of the club and not the players. Essendon need to state that they are the player's lawyers, not the club's. I think from memory that the club had chosen the lawyers first and then the AFLPA became involved. Hence why most of us are side eying the situation with the players representation.

 

[SunshineBoy]

To be honest I see this a massive win in the courts for essendon, the afl and Asada have both been hit for 6

 

[jenny61_99]

To be honest I see this a massive win in the courts for essendon, the afl and Asada have both been hit for 6

Not sure if serious.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

There is another simpler explanation. Dollars. Would you prefer to pay for your own lawyer out of your own pocket or have someone pay, on your behalf, a Dumpling Shop full of them including QCs?

If you were fussy the conflict of interest here is that the AFLPA is defending players who are in effect accused of cheating the other players. Any action on their part that might seem to allow or excuse doping actually places the health of their members at risk.

Thanks - I had over-looked that angle.

 

[Gigantor]

To be honest I see this a massive win in the courts for essendon, the afl and Asada have both been hit for 6

Can the shineyarsed public servants recover?