Essendon players could sue

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
SugarCoat

SugarCoat

Club Legend
Suspended
Sep 27, 2014
1,471
1,086
AFL Club
Collingwood

Log in to remove this ad.

Satan said:
Dank under oath could make a few people squirm
Click to expand...
why the qualifier "under oath"?

I think swearing on a book that you will tell the truth, means jack. For starters, you can lie when you are swearing in, when you are swearing the lie, conscious you intend to obfuscate and misdirect. Then there is the actual lying when you submit your suite of answers which are lies.

I doubt you will get anything out of Dank that is not self-serving. He will not make himself look bad, nor incriminate himself. He will manage to explain away any question no matter how incredible the response is, and he will wear his straightface visage. The physiognomy in oompa loompa hue.

Dank under oath is a zero.

The other thing no one thinks of, how much value would a player be on the stand, like Dank, they are not going to incriminate themselves willinging, and they are the plaintiff.

So this will not go to trial, there will be negotiated settlements that never see trial, because the players will not want to concede the complicity they have, they just wish to be paid more for their own bad decisions. A little like Hird. Run the program, be financially compensated for the program. Up is Down. Toorak is Tullamarine. This does not make sense, both the last sentence, and this entire embroglio.
 
vjknight said:
considering every single one of them is unemployable post football, it could be juicy settlements.
Click to expand...
why unemployable? their reputations aint stained when they go out into the regular workforce and be 9-5ers like the rest of us mere mortals. And those with careers still, will have a few years for the public to forget. So, this is a non-issue.
 
blackcat said:
why unemployable? their reputations aint stained when they go out into the regular workforce and be 9-5ers like the rest of us mere mortals. And those with careers still, will have a few years for the public to forget. So, this is a non-issue.
Click to expand...

apologies. let me change that to marketable. no mcdonalds promos for them.
 
blackcat said:
why the qualifier "under oath"?

I think swearing on a book that you will tell the truth, means jack. For starters, you can lie when you are swearing in, when you are swearing the lie, conscious you intend to obfuscate and misdirect. Then there is the actual lying when you submit your suite of answers which are lies.

I doubt you will get anything out of Dank that is not self-serving. He will not make himself look bad, nor incriminate himself. He will manage to explain away any question no matter how incredible the response is, and he will wear his straightface visage. The physiognomy in oompa loompa hue.

Dank under oath is a zero.

The other thing no one thinks of, how much value would a player be on the stand, like Dank, they are not going to incriminate themselves willinging, and they are the plaintiff.

So this will not go to trial, there will be negotiated settlements that never see trial, because the players will not want to concede the complicity they have, they just wish to be paid more for their own bad decisions. A little like Hird. Run the program, be financially compensated for the program. Up is Down. Toorak is Tullamarine. This does not make sense, both the last sentence, and this entire embroglio.
Click to expand...
So in essence, lies.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Argy said:
Definitely sounds like it. I wonder what the Hird/EFC defence will be? "The players had a responsibility to check for themselves"? Contributory negligence?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but the protracted argument in getting to this point is only going to get more so in reaching a conclusion. I hear mens rea been thrown around a lot now.
 
blackcat said:
why the qualifier "under oath"?

I think swearing on a book that you will tell the truth, means jack. For starters, you can lie when you are swearing in, when you are swearing the lie, conscious you intend to obfuscate and misdirect. Then there is the actual lying when you submit your suite of answers which are lies.

I doubt you will get anything out of Dank that is not self-serving. He will not make himself look bad, nor incriminate himself. He will manage to explain away any question no matter how incredible the response is, and he will wear his straightface visage. The physiognomy in oompa loompa hue.

Dank under oath is a zero.

The other thing no one thinks of, how much value would a player be on the stand, like Dank, they are not going to incriminate themselves willinging, and they are the plaintiff.

So this will not go to trial, there will be negotiated settlements that never see trial, because the players will not want to concede the complicity they have, they just wish to be paid more for their own bad decisions. A little like Hird. Run the program, be financially compensated for the program. Up is Down. Toorak is Tullamarine. This does not make sense, both the last sentence, and this entire embroglio.
Click to expand...

Super post

I can't believe after two years people on either side still think this bloke can or will produce anything for them.

He's full of s**t and will never say what he knows
 
Last edited:
blackcat said:
why the qualifier "under oath"?

I think swearing on a book that you will tell the truth, means jack. For starters, you can lie when you are swearing in, when you are swearing the lie, conscious you intend to obfuscate and misdirect. Then there is the actual lying when you submit your suite of answers which are lies.

I doubt you will get anything out of Dank that is not self-serving. He will not make himself look bad, nor incriminate himself. He will manage to explain away any question no matter how incredible the response is, and he will wear his straightface visage. The physiognomy in oompa loompa hue.

Dank under oath is a zero.

The other thing no one thinks of, how much value would a player be on the stand, like Dank, they are not going to incriminate themselves willinging, and they are the plaintiff.

So this will not go to trial, there will be negotiated settlements that never see trial, because the players will not want to concede the complicity they have, they just wish to be paid more for their own bad decisions. A little like Hird. Run the program, be financially compensated for the program. Up is Down. Toorak is Tullamarine. This does not make sense, both the last sentence, and this entire embroglio.
Click to expand...


Absolutely correct. Dank's main game now is avoiding handcuffs.

If players get done, there will be quite a few people trying to make sure he ends up wearing them.
 
Bluesince62 said:
If the players cop a plea it may be Hird suing the players for impugning his character.
Click to expand...
His character. I've never seen a slide like this. I look at the courageous captain that got his face smashed and hardly flinched then this guy. Blindsided by the character.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
765
Satan
Satan
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top