Nathan Lovett-Murray could launch claim against AFL over Essendon doping saga

[imperial_oz]

Not worth it Financially, club much better target

True but Dank is the more worthwhile target and it would be easier to make a case against him

 

[coryne]

The greater responsibility is irrelevant.

You clowns are basically saying that if Nathan Lovett Murray:

- worked for JJ Klusky Packaging, turnover $50m
- which had a parent organisation called VISY that turned over $500m
- and he had written evidence that concerns were passed onto VISY by JJ Klusky
- and the correct procedures were not followed by VISY

that he'd be stupid to sue VISY.

You guys have really plumbed the depths of stupidity here.

I couldn't care less if NLM sued JJ Klusky Packaging or VISY, the outcome would be the same. JJ's reputation would be in tatters, they would fold and VISY would foot the bill. I am sure you will be backing NLM 100% when he sues VISY and JJ collapses

 

[Armchair Critic]

True but Dank is the more worthwhile target and it would be easier to make a case against him

I think the club would be easy too. Walk into court with a copy of the Ziggy report. The club would settle before it even got close to court

 

[fishardansin]

Not worth it Financially, club much better target

On that logic sue the AFL, as even bigger target.

I agree that the one who may have shafted him is Dank, but we don't know. I think the players should wait till the outcome of the tribunal and then sue the club.

If Dank did give them TB4 when they though it was thymosin, then sue the club for Dank not having proper controls, loss of earnings, loss of reputation and stress.

If the tribunal cant show that TB4 was given to players, but club also can't show it wasn't then sue the club for not being sure about what Dank gave them, loss of reputation. loss of opportunity to play finals and stress.

If tribunal ends up proving that players didn't have anything that they didn't agree to then leave it at that.

 

[coryne]

He's suing McDonalds, not the store he worked for. Even if his store was putting extra caffeine in the coke and hormones in the beef!

The the response by McDonalds would be to shut down the store which was responsible for bring the shit storm onto the company, burn it to the ground and build a car park in its place.


Good times ahead .........

 

[jenny61_99]

Trolling much The_Wookie ?

For starters, how is it stupid / moronic / brainless to instruct your lawyer to focus legal action on the $446m turnover parent organisation rather than the $50m organisation when you have a tripartate agreement between yourself, the football club and the AFL in your employment contract.

That is not stupid, that is smart. The AFL were aware, that has been proven. They didn't step in and do anything, that has been proven.

My lawyers would be instructed to go after the bigger fish. You guys instruct your lawyers however you want.

How is it trolling?

the bigger fish did not inject the players full of prohibited substances. The AFL warned Hird not to use peptides. Vlad issued a warning about sports scientists having too much power and that Doctors shouldn't be sidelined. Asada educates everyone from players to support personnel about their responsibilities under the code. essendon and hird are the ones ultimately responsible for what happened.

 

[Armchair Critic]

On that logic sue the AFL, as even bigger target.

I agree that the one who may have shafted him is Dank, but we don't know. I think the players should wait till the outcome of the tribunal and then sue the club.

If Dank did give them TB4 when they though it was thymosin, then sue the club for Dank not having proper controls, loss of earnings, loss of reputation and stress.

If the tribunal cant show that TB4 was given to players, but club also can't show it wasn't then sue the club for not being sure about what Dank gave them, loss of reputation. loss of opportunity to play finals and stress.

If tribunal ends up proving that players didn't have anything that they didn't agree to then leave it at that.

I think the AFL is no chance. They warned officials and completed target testing and that would show they made an effort to stop the program.

I agree with rest of your post though

 

[Oscarman]

Not only do the AFL have deeper pockets but they are more likely to pay up to keep it out of court and avoid being exposed to scrutiny they will certainly not want.

 

[imperial_oz]

The greater responsibility is irrelevant.

You clowns are basically saying that if Nathan Lovett Murray:

- worked for JJ Klusky Packaging, turnover $50m
- which had a parent organisation called VISY that turned over $500m
- and he had written evidence that concerns were passed onto VISY by JJ Klusky
- and the correct procedures were not followed by VISY

that he'd be stupid to sue VISY.

You guys have really plumbed the depths of stupidity here.

Well are Essendon owned in toto by the AFL? I think not. They are a self owned franchise is my understanding. The members do stuff that the AFL don't like voting the board in. That gives the members control.

Compare that with my club, Fremantle. The club is owned by the WAFC. The members don't even get to observe the AGM let alone make decisions.

Your contention that the AFL didn't follow correct procedures is debatable. What isn't debatable is both EFC and NLM did not follow correct procedures. Ant claim against the AFL would have some might big hurdles to overcome before it even got close to a win by NLM. He may have a better chance if he sued both EFC and AFL in the same action but he would still have the problem of contributory negligence.

 

[DonsRule]

Bugger that! Sue Dank!

I want to see that snake oil salesman give sworn evidence...with a District Court (County Court in Vic) judge leaning over his shoulder casting a jaundiced eye over him. That bloke can't get enough of the karma bus running over him in my view.

I wouldn't trust him even then tbh.

 

[imperial_oz]

I wouldn't trust him even then tbh.

I reckon I'd have more faith in Peter Foster's integrity just quietly but hey that's just my opinion.

 

[andrewb]

How is it trolling?

the bigger fish did not inject the players full of prohibited substances. The AFL warned Hird not to use peptides. Vlad issued a warning about sports scientists having too much power and that Doctors shouldn't be sidelined. Asada educates everyone from players to support personnel about their responsibilities under the code. essendon and hird are the ones ultimately responsible for what happened.

Are you Andrew Demetriou?

Well are Essendon owned in toto by the AFL? I think not. They are a self owned franchise is my understanding. The members do stuff that the AFL don't like voting the board in. That gives the members control.

Compare that with my club, Fremantle. The club is owned by the WAFC. The members don't even get to observe the AGM let alone make decisions.

Your contention that the AFL didn't follow correct procedures is debatable. What isn't debatable is both EFC and NLM did not follow correct procedures. Ant claim against the AFL would have some might big hurdles to overcome before it even got close to a win by NLM. He may have a better chance if he sued both EFC and AFL in the same action but he would still have the problem of contributory negligence.

Players' employment contracts are between them, the AFL and their club. If you're launching legal action, you go after the bigger fish. To do otherwise would be moronic, but you just keep telling yourself that Lovett Murray is an idiot if it helps you to sleep at night.

 

[Akka76]

He hasn't been in the paper for a while either. Does he have many current players in his stable?

Mark Bresciano and maybe Josh Kennedy (Jess still gets money from players transferred from Carlton Soccer Club)

 

[imperial_oz]

Are you Andrew Demetriou?



Players' employment contracts are between them, the AFL and their club. If you're launching legal action, you go after the bigger fish. To do otherwise would be moronic, but you just keep telling yourself that Lovett Murray is an idiot if it helps you to sleep at night.

How about just responding to the points I raised and leave out the abuse. I responded to your rather inflammatory post in a reasonable fashion and expect you to do the same.

Perhaps you could explain why you think you can sue the AFL for Essendon's actions when the AFL doesn't own Essendon. You can't just sue somebody because they have deeper pockets.

 

[Argy]

How about just responding to the points I raised and leave out the abuse. I responded to your rather inflammatory post in a reasonable fashion and expect you to do the same.

Perhaps you could explain why you think you can sue the AFL for Essendon's actions when the AFL doesn't own Essendon. You can't just sue somebody because they have deeper pockets.

What is the contractual arrangement between the AFL and EFC?

I imagine NLM suing the AFL for the shortcomings of EFC would be like an East German swimmer suing the Olympic committee.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Do the Essendon players have a brain between any of them. Let's sue the AFL and not the club. Even the herald Sun is in blame shifting mode now for when the players go down. Comedy central

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...ndon-doping-saga/story-fni5f6kv-1227158919835

If the players are looking to take legal action pretty sure it'll be against whoever their lawyers advise.

To claim they don't have a brain because you don't agree is ridiculous, I think their legal teams are closer and more educated than you re this.

 

[imperial_oz]

What is the contractual arrangement between the AFL and EFC?

I imagine NLM suing the AFL for the shortcomings of EFC would be like an East German swimmer suing the Olympic committee.

I'm not 100% sure. I was comparing it to a franchise kind of relationship but it may be even less than that. It may be strictly contractual. ie AFL issues a licence to EFC and the contract for that licence covers EFC adopting AFL rules and processes. I'm pretty sure its not an ownership relationship as that would give the AFL full control over the running of the club and we know they don't have that level of control.

 

[imperial_oz]

If the players are looking to take legal action pretty sure it'll be against whoever their lawyers advise.

To claim they don't have a brain because you don't agree is ridiculous, I think their legal teams are closer and more educated than you re this.

True but it wasn't his lawyer making the comments it was his manager. Google is telling me he is an accountant not a lawyer.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

True but it wasn't his lawyer making the comments it was his manager. Google is telling me he is an accountant not a lawyer.

My point is relating to the OPs bullshit, not Jess'.

Accusing Essendon players of not having a brain.

Regarding legal moves they'll be advised by their lawyers, like everybody else is.

Ridiculous trolling.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

ASADA's lawyers argued (Federal court) that the players main employer was the AFL, not teh club.

Contractually yes. Governance wise ... perhaps not.

A little like a labour hire worker being hired out to a host employer. Labour hire company has obligations to provide a general induction and assess host employers for safety procedures and workplace environment before sending workers their way, but the host employer has the obligation to do site specific training and ensure procedures are followed.

The AFL provide anti-doping seminars and an anti-doping code to club and players.

 

[DonsRule]

Contractually yes. Governance wise ... perhaps not.

A little like a labour hire worker being hired out to a host employer. Labour hire company has obligations to provide a general induction and assess host employers for safety procedures and workplace environment before sending workers their way, but the host employer has the obligation to do site specific training and ensure procedures are followed.

The AFL provide anti-doping seminars and an anti-doping code to club and players.

As I said further down.

If I gave my impression, I'd say the club employes them.


But, you'd have to look more at the contracts etc involved.

 

[Satan]

I think the club would be easy too. Walk into court with a copy of the Ziggy report. The club would settle before it even got close to court

They have history,dean says hi

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

As I said further down.

If I gave my impression, I'd say the club employes them.


But, you'd have to look more at the contracts etc involved.

I was more commenting on the appearance of AFL being the employer when it suits but not when it comes to liability. It can be an issue in the labour hire area sometimes. Rake in the money, take little responsibility. There were claims early in the piece that the AFL had not provided enough information to educate clubs, but that code and the odd seminar probably save them on that front.

 

[DonsRule]

I was more commenting on the appearance of AFL being the employer when it suits but not when it comes to liability. It can be an issue in the labour hire area sometimes. Rake in the money, take little responsibility. There were claims early in the piece that the AFL had not provided enough information to educate clubs, but that code and the odd seminar probably save them on that front.

Ah, gotcha makes sense now.

 

[mxett]

Charter supplied Hird during his playing days. This is as good as from from the horses mouth. Take, consume do with this tid bit what you will Bomber fans.

If we are going to start slinging mud fearlessly might as well throw it at all clubs and players with ties to Charter, Dank and Robinson, ie, Geelong, Carlton, Suns, Melbourne, Lions........