Opinion Non-Crows AFL 13: Offseason

[BRL121]

No fault, stand down policy, which is what happened.

If they didn't, it would have been media fodder every day, especially after another weekend where he was booed every time he went for the ball and god help us if someone took a swing at him if he got to close to the crowd. The AFL maade the right call in a tough situation, it was clearly not sustainable to leave him on the field after he was charged by police and had a court date.

Yeah, there needs to be serious consequences for the accuser and friends

There needs to be consistency, whatever the policy. What about the Pickett armed robbery and the Balta assault?

There is a good case for keeping the AFL out of it until the courts have the first say. Otherwise, we get these inconsistent results based on the daily tastes of public opinion, leading to double jeopardy.

 

[Bovo]

There needs to be consistency, whatever the policy. What about the Pickett armed robbery and the Balta assault?

There is a good case for keeping the AFL out of it until the courts have the first say. Otherwise, we get these inconsistent results based on the daily tastes of public opinion, leading to double jeopardy.

I tend to agree. The current process will be discussed no doubt.

 

[Vader]

There needs to be consistency, whatever the policy. What about the Pickett armed robbery and the Balta assault?

There is a good case for keeping the AFL out of it until the courts have the first say. Otherwise, we get these inconsistent results based on the daily tastes of public opinion, leading to double jeopardy.

I agree that we need consistency - but I think staying out of it until the courts have decided is the wrong solution. All players who are charged with serious crimes should be sidelined until their cases are heard.

The problem in this case wasn't that Bruhn was sidelined, it was that the others weren't.

 

[skam85]

Publicly I mean

Not sure they could have with the suppression order

 

[Crow till I die]

He had to be stood down facing rape charges, there is no way he could have taken the field after it got out. Players union is stupid for even suggesting otherwise.

There needs to be big financial compensation here for the damage its done to this guys career and reputations. Having to be forced to sit out of footy for a year..thats a year of playing career he never gets back because of a lie. If it was me i would be looking at every angle and suing for massive money. There has to be the severest consequences for trying to ruin someones life like that

 

[Floating Doughnut]

There needs to be big financial compensation here for the damage its done to this guys career and reputations. Having to be forced to sit out of footy for a year..thats a year of playing career he never gets back because of a lie. If it was me i would be looking at every angle and suing for massive money. There has to be the severest consequences for trying to ruin someones life like that

This is also my take but I tend to agree with spenze that he couldn’t have kept playing, the crowd would have hung him.

From a legal pov who would know ?

The AFL were probably acting in the best interest of the game and Tanner, but the AFL ban is clearly a restraint
of him plying his trade . Seems logical to me he would need to sue the AFL whom would be insured against litigation and the
insurers would need to chase the woman and friend who would assumedly go bankrupt.
Who pays for damages caused ? A civil case would be pointless.
If they are charged does Tanner get a victim of crime payout ?
I’m just angry for the lad that he has had to deal with this at probably the most important time of his life.

 

[Coopers]

I hear what you're saying - but the AFL has already said multiple times that a Tasmanian team isn't viable.

It was the Tasmanian Government under Gutwein who wanted to play politics, knowing a team was popular with voters. They said "we'll build a roofed stadium to get this across the line, if you change your mind."

That was what the AFL agreed to, and now a new government is be trying to go back on it

The thing is - the government isn't the one paying for a money-losing team for the next 50 years (if that's what happens). It's the other AFL clubs that would be paying for that.

I think the team happens, but I think it's also dirty politics to make the AFL the villain in this. They have every right to say "you have to do what we agreed to".

Yeah, but I want Tasmania to have a team.

 

[Mutineer]

People do realise according to the Geelolng Advertiser the lead Police Officer in charge of the investigation (male) stood down because at the time he was the coach of the Cats AFLW team.

He was then replaced by a female Police Officer who then took charge of the investigation.

 

[TRP1996]

Do we know how Wildcard Round flows into the Elimination Finals?

Is it locked in e.g. Winner of 8 v 9 always plays 5th, Winner of 7 v 10 always plays 6th. Because with that scenario, if 10th win, then 6th has an 'easier' match-up than 5th in the EF?

Or does it work so that e.g. 5th plays lowest ranked no matter what (i.e. if 10th win, they play 5th)?

 

[1970crow]

This is also my take but I tend to agree with spenze that he couldn’t have kept playing, the crowd would have hung him.

From a legal pov who would know ?

The AFL were probably acting in the best interest of the game and Tanner, but the AFL ban is clearly a restraint
of him plying his trade . Seems logical to me he would need to sue the AFL whom would be insured against litigation and the
insurers would need to chase the woman and friend who would assumedly go bankrupt.
Who pays for damages caused ? A civil case would be pointless.
If they are charged does Tanner get a victim of crime payout ?
I’m just angry for the lad that he has had to deal with this at probably the most important time of his life.

The AFL or their insurers have no way to sue the person who made the false claim. The AFL deliberately acted knowing the claims hadn’t been tested in court, that’s 100% on them.

 

[Scorpus]

I agree that we need consistency - but I think staying out of it until the courts have decided is the wrong solution. All players who are charged with serious crimes should be sidelined until their cases are heard.

The problem in this case wasn't that Bruhn was sidelined, it was that the others weren't.

He still would have been paid as well. It's now over to his legal team to sue the liars that have potentially cost him future earnings

 

[Crow till I die]

The AFL or their insurers have no way to sue the person who made the false claim. The AFL deliberately acted knowing the claims hadn’t been tested in court, that’s 100% on them.

I wonder if it would end up playing out as follows re recovering costs, compensation and criminal blame

1. Bruhn camp sues the AFL for a whole raft of things - loss of ability to play. loss of potential future earnings etc etc and that is then in the hands of the AFL insurers to come to a settlement

2. The AFL insurers then seek a civil claim against he people who brought the false claim to court to recover costs as the AFL themselves are an affected party in all this

3. The Bruhn camp press charges against the people who fabricated claims against him and his friend would do the same thing.

In the end, the people that lied to try and get Bruhn in big trouble need to be held to full account and pay a heavy price for it. Bruhn needs to be financially compensated for a whole raft of grievances. The AFL insurers will no doubt then seek to recover costs against the people that fabricated the whole thing

 

[BRL121]

I wonder if it would end up playing out as follows re recovering costs, compensation and criminal blame

1. Bruhn camp sues the AFL for a whole raft of things - loss of ability to play. loss of potential future earnings etc etc and that is then in the hands of the AFL insurers to come to a settlement

2. The AFL insurers then seek a civil claim against he people who brought the false claim to court to recover costs as the AFL themselves are an affected party in all this

3. The Bruhn camp press charges against the people who fabricated claims against him and his friend would do the same thing.

In the end, the people that lied to try and get Bruhn in big trouble need to be held to full account and pay a heavy price for it. Bruhn needs to be financially compensated for a whole raft of grievances. The AFL insurers will no doubt then seek to recover costs against the people that fabricated the whole thing

The cops have already paid his costs.

 

[crows dude]

Do we know how Wildcard Round flows into the Elimination Finals?

Is it locked in e.g. Winner of 8 v 9 always plays 5th, Winner of 7 v 10 always plays 6th. Because with that scenario, if 10th win, then 6th has an 'easier' match-up than 5th in the EF?

Or does it work so that e.g. 5th plays lowest ranked no matter what (i.e. if 10th win, they play 5th)?

Highest Ranked winner finishes 7th and lowest Ranked winner finishes 8th.

 

[Crow till I die]

The cops have already paid his costs.

Not just his out of pocket costs, but the big ones - the loss of future earnings etc. That could roll well into the millions when all is accounted for

 

[jackster83]

Not just his out of pocket costs, but the big ones - the loss of future earnings etc. That could roll well into the millions when all is accounted for

Yep. His contract would likely have things like match payments, bonuses based on B&F votes, other KPI's, etc.

 

[Crow till I die]

Yep. His contract would likely have things like match payments, bonuses based on B&F votes, other KPI's, etc.

Extras may also be on top of that, what if he had played this year and won the Brownlow - what sort of extra future earnings are there in that, so many things will need to be worked out and if I was him,. I'd be that angry at whats happened I would be getting my legal team to go for every last dollar before i turned my attention back to pushing criminal charges against those who fabricated the rape claim.

 

[jenny61_99]

2 games of footy in an empty weekend is argument enough. The extra money earned by the game is purely a bonus. Extra fan engagement by adding 2 teams in round 25 is a minor benefit too. And all it’s cost is 7th and 8th losing a week off pre-finals. Benefits outweigh the costs.

Re the “logic” question, it’s obvious if you put your thinking hat on. Doing this has no bearing at all on the start or concluding date of the season, it fits into the current structure. What you suggested doesn’t.

That said, I’ve got no problem with the AFL scheduling all teams on that weekend playing for the better draft pick. Scorpus jokingly said 17v18 for pick 1. Is happily see it extended to 15v16 for 3 etc etc. But it won’t happen as it’s also the launch of AFLW and they won’t want to take too much away.

AFLW started before finals bye this season.

 

[Bovo]

I agree that we need consistency - but I think staying out of it until the courts have decided is the wrong solution. All players who are charged with serious crimes should be sidelined until their cases are heard.

The problem in this case wasn't that Bruhn was sidelined, it was that the others weren't.

You think? I see a season out of the game for a non injury is a punishment and the fact he was totally innocent meant the AFL decision now has to be scrutinised

 

[Vader]

You think? I see a season out of the game for a non injury is a punishment and the fact he was totally innocent meant the AFL decision now has to be scrutinised

There is NO WAY the AFL can justify having a player running around with rape charges hanging over his head. Similarly, they shouldn't be allowing players with any other serious charges to be playing, until the matters have been resolved (one way or another).

The fact that Bruhn has now been comprehensively proven innocent, and that the whole thing was concocted by others, opens up the possibility of legal action against those who lied in an attempt to frame him. I hope he takes them to the cleaners.

... but for all that, the AFL took the only action that was open to them. What's unfortunate is that they failed to take similar action against Pickett and Balta.

 

[Bovo]

There is NO WAY the AFL can justify having a player running around with rape charges hanging over his head. Similarly, they shouldn't be allowing players with any other serious charges to be playing, until the matters have been resolved (one way or another).

The fact that Bruhn has now been comprehensively proven innocent, and that the whole thing was concocted by others, opens up the possibility of legal action against those who lied in an attempt to frame him. I hope he takes them to the cleaners.

... but for all that, the AFL took the only action that was open to them. What's unfortunate is that they failed to take similar action against Pickett and Balta.

If the AFL says to all potential charges that they will deal with a certain offence based on the results of said charges, are they really doing the wrong thing? If they are doing it to protect a player from persecution, then it’s a discussion with AFL, player and the club surely, but an absolute ruling no matter what is unfair

 

[Mostyn]

Extras may also be on top of that, what if he had played this year and won the Brownlow - what sort of extra future earnings are there in that, so many things will need to be worked out and if I was him,. I'd be that angry at whats happened I would be getting my legal team to go for every last dollar before i turned my attention back to pushing criminal charges against those who fabricated the rape claim.

I don't believe that is how future earnings are calculated. It can't just be what "could" happen, but things that are provable and measurable.

As a matter of fact, I'm not sure there's any evidence he could offer that his future earnings have been definitively damaged. His contract with Geelong remains the same. I think it could only be for lost earnings in 2025.

A horrible situation though.

 

[Mostyn]

I wonder if it would end up playing out as follows re recovering costs, compensation and criminal blame

1. Bruhn camp sues the AFL for a whole raft of things - loss of ability to play. loss of potential future earnings etc etc and that is then in the hands of the AFL insurers to come to a settlement

2. The AFL insurers then seek a civil claim against he people who brought the false claim to court to recover costs as the AFL themselves are an affected party in all this

3. The Bruhn camp press charges against the people who fabricated claims against him and his friend would do the same thing.

In the end, the people that lied to try and get Bruhn in big trouble need to be held to full account and pay a heavy price for it. Bruhn needs to be financially compensated for a whole raft of grievances. The AFL insurers will no doubt then seek to recover costs against the people that fabricated the whole thing

There's close to no chance that he'd see any money from the AFL. Their lawyers would have been all over this before they made a decision.

 

[Vader]

If the AFL says to all potential charges that they will deal with a certain offence based on the results of said charges, are they really doing the wrong thing? If they are doing it to protect a player from persecution, then it’s a discussion with AFL, player and the club surely, but an absolute ruling no matter what is unfair

It's as much about protecting the competition as it is about protecting the player, and this should only apply after a player has been charged with a serious offence.

Yes, it may turn out to be unfair if the player is subsequently acquitted. The alternative is infinitely worse - allowing a player who is subsequently found guilty to continue playing.

If the matter is resolved in the player's favour, then they can take legal action against those who wrongly accused them.

 

[Bovo]

It's as much about protecting the competition as it is about protecting the player, and this should only apply after a player has been charged with a serious offence.

Yes, it may turn out to be unfair if the player is subsequently acquitted. The alternative is infinitely worse - allowing a player who is subsequently found guilty to continue playing.

If the matter is resolved in the player's favour, then they can take legal action against those who wrongly accused them.

Maybe we are saying the same thing different ways? “infinitely worse - allowing a player who is subsequently found guilty to continue playing.” Continue playing after being found guilty seems a no brainer. The issue here is the period where a verdict is still being decided. Leave of absence for mental health for accused player also makes sense, but when a player feels they are being unfairly disciplined for something they didn’t do is murky waters. Surely player who professes their innocence and then has it proven they were innocent doesn’t need the mental anguish of having a punishment from the AFL ”just in case”

I’m having a hard time figuring out my own beliefs on this one.