Player lawsuits could be something that happens to the club. The AFL have deeper pockets though.
Gil and Fitzpatrick Named in Writ -- the saga
- Thread starter Spongebob
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Player lawsuits could be something that happens to the club. The AFL have deeper pockets though.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,831
- 56,200
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #302
It could all happen again...
DapperDon
Custom title:
- Oct 4, 2006
- 32,856
- 52,968
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- PHX Suns, Leeds Utd, Celtics FC
Well if we are stupid enough to do this again then yes, it could happen.
That's a mighty big hypothetical though to get a point across.
DapperDon
Custom title:
- Oct 4, 2006
- 32,856
- 52,968
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- PHX Suns, Leeds Utd, Celtics FC
I'm more talking about sanctions, player lawsuits would be in the background if they did eventuate.
5. Statements about James Hird following reports of his condition
Representation:
On 12 January 2017 a spokesman for the AFL represented that Michael Fitzpatrick had not made a statement to former Essendon football manager Danny
Corcoran to the following effect:
Your mate Hird will never get back into football
it was contained in a statement made by the AFL spokesperson reported by News Limited media organisations, including the Melbourne Herald Sun (the
Herald Sun Article) with the words
“That part of the conversation did not happen”.
Claim:
Michael Fitzpatrick did in fact tell Danny Corcoran words to the effect:
Your mate Hird will never get back into football.
Representation:
On 15 February 2017 Michael Fitzpatrick represented that at the time of Mr Hird having reportedly made a suicide attempt, Mr Hird had been forgiven by the AFL by reason of having served his suspension.
It was contained in a statement made by Michael Fitzpatrick at an AFL media event on 15 February 2017 reportedly in response to a question about whether the AFL had contributed to Mr Hird's condition:
To be frank, I don't quite understand that, to the extent that James was welcomed back to the code in 2015. He coached and I am not sure – from my point of view, he was suspended for a year, he was allowed back into the code, it is a very forgiving code. He had done his time, came back in.
Claim:
At the time of his reported suicide attempt the AFL had not forgiven James Hird.
Statement:
In January 2017 it was reported that James Hird:
(a) had made a suicide attempt; and
(b) was subject to ongoing treatment at a mental health facility;
Mr Hird’s condition was reported extensively by media organisations locally and nationally from on 7 January 2017 onwards.
On 8 February 2017 Gillon McLachlan represented that it was entirely unfair to ask whether the AFL had contributed to Mr Hird’s condition;
Claim
It was not entirely unfair to ask whether the AFL had contributed to Mr Hird's condition, because:
1. In the years prior to Mr Hird’s condition, the AFL engaged in conduct towards Mr Hird that included:
(a) conduct exposing Mr Hird to public vilification;
(b) conduct exposing Mr Hird to social exclusion;
(c) conduct exposing Mr Hird to suffering feelings of distress and/or humiliation; and/or
(d) conduct exposing Mr Hird to public ridicule.
2. There is credible evidence to suggest that conduct of the nature engaged in by the AFL may:
(a) contribute to the occurrence of depression;
(b) contribute to the occurrence of suicidal thoughts;
(c) contribute to the occurrence of suicide attempts; and
(d) contribute to the occurrence of suicide,
in persons exposed to conduct of that nature.
Representation:
On 12 January 2017 a spokesman for the AFL represented that Michael Fitzpatrick had not made a statement to former Essendon football manager Danny
Corcoran to the following effect:
Your mate Hird will never get back into football
it was contained in a statement made by the AFL spokesperson reported by News Limited media organisations, including the Melbourne Herald Sun (the
Herald Sun Article) with the words
“That part of the conversation did not happen”.
Claim:
Michael Fitzpatrick did in fact tell Danny Corcoran words to the effect:
Your mate Hird will never get back into football.
Representation:
On 15 February 2017 Michael Fitzpatrick represented that at the time of Mr Hird having reportedly made a suicide attempt, Mr Hird had been forgiven by the AFL by reason of having served his suspension.
It was contained in a statement made by Michael Fitzpatrick at an AFL media event on 15 February 2017 reportedly in response to a question about whether the AFL had contributed to Mr Hird's condition:
To be frank, I don't quite understand that, to the extent that James was welcomed back to the code in 2015. He coached and I am not sure – from my point of view, he was suspended for a year, he was allowed back into the code, it is a very forgiving code. He had done his time, came back in.
Claim:
At the time of his reported suicide attempt the AFL had not forgiven James Hird.
Statement:
In January 2017 it was reported that James Hird:
(a) had made a suicide attempt; and
(b) was subject to ongoing treatment at a mental health facility;
Mr Hird’s condition was reported extensively by media organisations locally and nationally from on 7 January 2017 onwards.
On 8 February 2017 Gillon McLachlan represented that it was entirely unfair to ask whether the AFL had contributed to Mr Hird’s condition;
Claim
It was not entirely unfair to ask whether the AFL had contributed to Mr Hird's condition, because:
1. In the years prior to Mr Hird’s condition, the AFL engaged in conduct towards Mr Hird that included:
(a) conduct exposing Mr Hird to public vilification;
(b) conduct exposing Mr Hird to social exclusion;
(c) conduct exposing Mr Hird to suffering feelings of distress and/or humiliation; and/or
(d) conduct exposing Mr Hird to public ridicule.
2. There is credible evidence to suggest that conduct of the nature engaged in by the AFL may:
(a) contribute to the occurrence of depression;
(b) contribute to the occurrence of suicidal thoughts;
(c) contribute to the occurrence of suicide attempts; and
(d) contribute to the occurrence of suicide,
in persons exposed to conduct of that nature.
There's some further claims i'll get to later.
As I said it's all... ahh... interesting.
As I said it's all... ahh... interesting.
Cheers. I was just looking at the bigger picture.
If these claims are proven then it could open up a huge can of worms in relation to the AFL's duty of care to players. Concussion is the first that springs to mind.
Will be interesting to follow these claims.
Yes, it seems far more interesting than a possible class action to refunds membership costs.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,831
- 56,200
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #309
More, that the AFL in the wake of the findings of this hearing - due to revelations being as detrimental for Essendon as the AFL, creating a media-driven narrative in which the AFL tried to protect you but shouldn't have - decides that you lot weren't punished enough, and tries to sanction you further.
Either way, this will be interesting, if only to see if anyone actually has to provide evidence, or if some confidentiality agreements get triggered as a result of proceedings here.
tugga
Hall of Famer
- May 9, 2006
- 35,128
- 68,984
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Tottenham,NY Rangers,Red Sox, SA Spurs
I just want the truth.
So far neither Essendon nor the AFL have given it.
So far neither Essendon nor the AFL have given it.
MaddAdam
Cancelled
10k Posts
Bay 13: Vintage Bay
Podcaster
North Melbourne - North 2012 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2011 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2010 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2009 Player Sponsor
I have been saying for a while that this whol;e thing is far from over and will damage the Bombers for years to come.
I think that’s what will ultimately come of it, if it was successful. When he first launched action, class actions were said to be his ultimate aim. Given he’s a lawyer I’m inclined to agree with that.
He has and will make noise about it being for the good of the game, though I’m not sure what a court could really order to affect this. It could cause the AFL to change it’s ways in future, yes, but I’d bank on it simply becoming even more opaque and served by legal language.
Perhaps I’m cynical.
That's no pet, they're in a relationship!
Found this article from over 2 years ago. Not sure if these claims are still the current claims.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-02/afl-accused-of-deceptive-conduct-during-doping-scandal/6743954
'Mr Taylor claims the AFL continued to offer for sale to the public AFL Silver Memberships which entitled purchasers to preferential rights to secure tickets to matches in the final series – which Essendon was on target to play in.
However, Mr Taylor claims that in June of 2013 the AFL had already determined to exclude Essendon from the finals or at least have points removed in order for them not to qualify, but continued to sell Silver Memberships including to Essendon supporters.
The announcement that Essendon was to be stripped of points and miss the final series was not made until August 2013. Withholding such information is alleged to be in breach of Australian consumer law'
So he is claiming that the outcome was known in June, but they waited until August and they continued to sell AFL Silver Memberships during this period.
How many people would have bought AFL memberships during this 2 month period? Maybe a couple of hundred? And how many were just to get access to Essendon finals? 20 or 30? AFL Silver Membership allows access to up to 40 games during the H&A season and weeks 1+2 of finals at the G and Etihad. You have to pay full price for prelim and no chance of a GF ticket if the Bombers made it. Why would you pay $400 plus joining fee in June/July just to save $50 a ticket in weeks 1+2 finals? The AFL makes it clear that there is no guarantee there will even be finals at the G or Etihad, let alone which teams might be playing. It was also pretty clear that there was massive question marks hanging over the Bombers' season, purchasing would be at your own risk. If people could show they purchased a membership during this period and didn't use it for other games or other finals then they might have a case but I doubt there would be a single person in that category. This seems to be a rather frivolous claim.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-02/afl-accused-of-deceptive-conduct-during-doping-scandal/6743954
'Mr Taylor claims the AFL continued to offer for sale to the public AFL Silver Memberships which entitled purchasers to preferential rights to secure tickets to matches in the final series – which Essendon was on target to play in.
However, Mr Taylor claims that in June of 2013 the AFL had already determined to exclude Essendon from the finals or at least have points removed in order for them not to qualify, but continued to sell Silver Memberships including to Essendon supporters.
The announcement that Essendon was to be stripped of points and miss the final series was not made until August 2013. Withholding such information is alleged to be in breach of Australian consumer law'
So he is claiming that the outcome was known in June, but they waited until August and they continued to sell AFL Silver Memberships during this period.
How many people would have bought AFL memberships during this 2 month period? Maybe a couple of hundred? And how many were just to get access to Essendon finals? 20 or 30? AFL Silver Membership allows access to up to 40 games during the H&A season and weeks 1+2 of finals at the G and Etihad. You have to pay full price for prelim and no chance of a GF ticket if the Bombers made it. Why would you pay $400 plus joining fee in June/July just to save $50 a ticket in weeks 1+2 finals? The AFL makes it clear that there is no guarantee there will even be finals at the G or Etihad, let alone which teams might be playing. It was also pretty clear that there was massive question marks hanging over the Bombers' season, purchasing would be at your own risk. If people could show they purchased a membership during this period and didn't use it for other games or other finals then they might have a case but I doubt there would be a single person in that category. This seems to be a rather frivolous claim.
To me the player welfare claims is the real big ticket item and where the potential windfall is.
He’ll seek to wind it back from June. Fire as many shots as possible at the biggest target (the AFL) and hope they look to settle, etc.
That’s true, I hadn’t considered much of that. I assume the players financials settlements and agreements protected against that, though I’m not legally aware enough to know if that’s the case.
It does claim that the AFL was concerned enough in 2012 to send EFC players samples to Germany for testing, yet did so without notifying the players of the testing or their concerns. That’s not gonna play well if proven.
I am a cynic and I believe that's only what this is about. A huge windfall if the AFL is found to have "significantly contributed to the exposure of players to risks to their health and safety from the Essendon Supplements Program".
Yes he seems to be using a scatter gun approach.
But winding it back from June would weaken his AFL Membership claim even further because the earlier you go the more unknown the make up of the finals becomes. If this is still part of his claim it would seem to be rather frivolous, and frivolous claims don't go down well with judges.
Plaintiff claims
(A) Declarations that by making the representations, Gillon McLachlan, Michael Fitzpatrick and the AFL engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria)
(B) Injunctions against each Defendant pursuant to section 232(1) of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria), requiring them jointly to publish corrective advertising in respect of each of their respective contraventions of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria).
(C) Costs
(D) Such further or other orders as the Court deems just.
(A) Declarations that by making the representations, Gillon McLachlan, Michael Fitzpatrick and the AFL engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria)
(B) Injunctions against each Defendant pursuant to section 232(1) of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria), requiring them jointly to publish corrective advertising in respect of each of their respective contraventions of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Victoria).
(C) Costs
(D) Such further or other orders as the Court deems just.
Further claims: Part A
1 The AFL is one of Australia’s most important sporting and cultural institutions, having regard to:
(a) its status as the peak administrator of organised competitions of Australia’s only indigenous sporting code, Australian rules football;
(b) the AFL’s self-description in its constitutional documents and other materials as the “custodian” of Australian rules football;
(c) the number of Australians—stated by the AFL to be 7 million—that attend games of the peak professional competition conducted by the AFL (the AFL Competition);
(d) the number of Australians—stated by the AFL to be 700,000—who are members of clubs participating in the AFL Competition;
(e) the number of men, women and children—stated by the AFL to be 800,000— who participate in games of Australian rules football in competitions organised under the aegis of the AFL or its affiliates;
(f) the breadth and depth of the AFL’s presence in print, digital, radio and television media;
(g) the breadth and depth of the offerings to the public of AFL owned or licensed consumer goods and services;
(h) the breadth and depth of the AFL’s advertising, marketing and public relations activities;
(i) the observation in Victoria since 2015 of a public holiday on the eve of the Grand Final which concludes the AFL Premiership Season.
2 The AFL receives direct and indirect Federal and State government financial assistance amounting annually to tens of millions of dollars, including a complete exemption from having to pay corporations tax on its earnings, which in financial year 2015 were $494 million.
3 The AFL:
(a) is expected by the Australian public to observe certain community standards;
(b) has promulgated rules and policies that purport to reflect community standards, including on the topics of violence, unlawful discrimination, sexual harassment, bullying and abuse;
(c) has promulgated certain of such rules and policies in response to the expression of public opprobrium;
(d) is regularly questioned by journalists on the AFL’s observation of its rules and policies, and of community expectations.
4 The AFL attaches great importance to marketing and public relations, as reflected by:
(a) its maintenance of an in-house media department employing a large number of people;
(b) its cultivation of close connections with media outlets and journalists and broadcasters;
(c) its actions in having provided journalists with information, favourable to the public relations purposes of the AFL, in respect of which the AFL was bound
by obligations of confidentiality;
(d) its actions in threatening or penalising journalists and broadcasters who have displeased the AFL in their coverage of it.
1 The AFL is one of Australia’s most important sporting and cultural institutions, having regard to:
(a) its status as the peak administrator of organised competitions of Australia’s only indigenous sporting code, Australian rules football;
(b) the AFL’s self-description in its constitutional documents and other materials as the “custodian” of Australian rules football;
(c) the number of Australians—stated by the AFL to be 7 million—that attend games of the peak professional competition conducted by the AFL (the AFL Competition);
(d) the number of Australians—stated by the AFL to be 700,000—who are members of clubs participating in the AFL Competition;
(e) the number of men, women and children—stated by the AFL to be 800,000— who participate in games of Australian rules football in competitions organised under the aegis of the AFL or its affiliates;
(f) the breadth and depth of the AFL’s presence in print, digital, radio and television media;
(g) the breadth and depth of the offerings to the public of AFL owned or licensed consumer goods and services;
(h) the breadth and depth of the AFL’s advertising, marketing and public relations activities;
(i) the observation in Victoria since 2015 of a public holiday on the eve of the Grand Final which concludes the AFL Premiership Season.
2 The AFL receives direct and indirect Federal and State government financial assistance amounting annually to tens of millions of dollars, including a complete exemption from having to pay corporations tax on its earnings, which in financial year 2015 were $494 million.
3 The AFL:
(a) is expected by the Australian public to observe certain community standards;
(b) has promulgated rules and policies that purport to reflect community standards, including on the topics of violence, unlawful discrimination, sexual harassment, bullying and abuse;
(c) has promulgated certain of such rules and policies in response to the expression of public opprobrium;
(d) is regularly questioned by journalists on the AFL’s observation of its rules and policies, and of community expectations.
4 The AFL attaches great importance to marketing and public relations, as reflected by:
(a) its maintenance of an in-house media department employing a large number of people;
(b) its cultivation of close connections with media outlets and journalists and broadcasters;
(c) its actions in having provided journalists with information, favourable to the public relations purposes of the AFL, in respect of which the AFL was bound
by obligations of confidentiality;
(d) its actions in threatening or penalising journalists and broadcasters who have displeased the AFL in their coverage of it.
Further claims: Part B
1 The Essendon Supplements Program and the subsequent Joint Investigation and Disciplinary Proceedings has generated intense and sustained media interest and public scrutiny since details of the Essendon Supplements Program first became public in February 2013.
2 The AFL, during the period spanning the calendar years 2013 to 2016 (both years inclusive):
(a) held media conferences featuring both its Chairman and its Chief Executive Officer of the time to:
(i) announce in February 2013 the opening of the Joint Investigation;
(ii) announce in August 2013 the outcome of the Disciplinary Proceedings;
(iii) respond in January 2016 to the outcome of anti-doping proceedings;
(b) on numerous occasions presented its Chief Executive Officer to media to be interviewed on matters relating to the Joint Investigation and Disciplinary Proceedings, and subsequent anti-doping proceedings, including by way of attending radio and television interviews;
(c) held concerns about the impact of the controversies surrounding the Essendon Supplements Program, and the Joint Investigation and Disciplinary Proceedings, on:
(i) the AFL’s financial performance and
(ii) the AFL’s brand;
(d) leaked confidential information, including a copy of the Interim Report, to journalists or media organisations for purposes that included getting outcomes from the Disciplinary Proceedings that the AFL wanted;
(e) has been confronted by persistent questioning from journalists over the conduct of the AFL and its officers in relation to the Joint Investigation and the Disciplinary Proceedings.
1 The Essendon Supplements Program and the subsequent Joint Investigation and Disciplinary Proceedings has generated intense and sustained media interest and public scrutiny since details of the Essendon Supplements Program first became public in February 2013.
2 The AFL, during the period spanning the calendar years 2013 to 2016 (both years inclusive):
(a) held media conferences featuring both its Chairman and its Chief Executive Officer of the time to:
(i) announce in February 2013 the opening of the Joint Investigation;
(ii) announce in August 2013 the outcome of the Disciplinary Proceedings;
(iii) respond in January 2016 to the outcome of anti-doping proceedings;
(b) on numerous occasions presented its Chief Executive Officer to media to be interviewed on matters relating to the Joint Investigation and Disciplinary Proceedings, and subsequent anti-doping proceedings, including by way of attending radio and television interviews;
(c) held concerns about the impact of the controversies surrounding the Essendon Supplements Program, and the Joint Investigation and Disciplinary Proceedings, on:
(i) the AFL’s financial performance and
(ii) the AFL’s brand;
(d) leaked confidential information, including a copy of the Interim Report, to journalists or media organisations for purposes that included getting outcomes from the Disciplinary Proceedings that the AFL wanted;
(e) has been confronted by persistent questioning from journalists over the conduct of the AFL and its officers in relation to the Joint Investigation and the Disciplinary Proceedings.
DapperDon
Custom title:
- Oct 4, 2006
- 32,856
- 52,968
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- PHX Suns, Leeds Utd, Celtics FC
Doesn't matter what our official story was, we still got the punishments.
Further claims: Part C
1 On 7 January 2017 it was publicly reported in numerous media outlets that James Hird had been hospitalised following what was reported to have been an attempted suicide. Subsequent media reports indicated that Mr Hird had been transferred from hospital to a mental health facility.
2 The media reporting around Mr Hird’s reported attempted suicide generated significant concern in the community.
3 Subsequent media reporting covered allegations that Mr Hird had been the victim of bullying and victimisation by the AFL.
4 A significant body of empirical evidence supports a causal link between bullying and suicide, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts, among other serious adverse mental health effects.
5 Bullying is a serious problem in Australia, and a matter of serious concern to the community.
1 On 7 January 2017 it was publicly reported in numerous media outlets that James Hird had been hospitalised following what was reported to have been an attempted suicide. Subsequent media reports indicated that Mr Hird had been transferred from hospital to a mental health facility.
2 The media reporting around Mr Hird’s reported attempted suicide generated significant concern in the community.
3 Subsequent media reporting covered allegations that Mr Hird had been the victim of bullying and victimisation by the AFL.
4 A significant body of empirical evidence supports a causal link between bullying and suicide, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts, among other serious adverse mental health effects.
5 Bullying is a serious problem in Australia, and a matter of serious concern to the community.
