Player Watch # 6: Joe Daniher - Welcome back 2 goals on Good Friday - 19/4

Lore

Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Posts
12,797
Likes
15,207
AFL Club
Essendon
Moderator #5,276
I thought that was for any extra cash they might get, but at the end of the day I don't think Joe or the AFL would let people literally pay the fine for him. Giving it to charity on his behalf sort of softens the blow I suppose, money that otherwise wouldn't have gone to charity will now as a result of the rough conduct. I like the first two ideas more than the club's debt though. There isn't a lot of warm and fuzzies about paying down debt. :p
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Whispering_Jack

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Posts
9,525
Likes
11,940
Location
Essington
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Crystal Palace FC, Tomato Atheism
I thought that was for any extra cash they might get, but at the end of the day I don't think Joe or the AFL would let people literally pay the fine for him. Giving it to charity on his behalf sort of softens the blow I suppose, money that otherwise wouldn't have gone to charity will now as a result of the rough conduct. I like the first two ideas more than the club's debt though. There isn't a lot of warm and fuzzies about paying down debt. :p
Actually that's what it says but I doubt that he can get the money to Joey or the Club. I actually used to work with the organiser (well he worked under me) so I should set him straight lol
 

Stopher

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Posts
8,855
Likes
13,244
Location
Gippsland
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
I liked Jimmy Bartel's suggestion of separating 'football acts' (spoils, tackles, bumps) that may slide beyond the boundaries of fairness, from 'non-football acts' (punching, tripping etc) and that the non-football ones carry a heavier penalty. Yes, it's not black and white to do something like this, but at least it is a step in the right direction. It actually ties in somewhat with a suggestion Dunstall made that ANY action deemed a strike carries a minimum 1-week penalty. I don't mind it, in theory. It'd need some tweaking though.

It's just frustrating that Joe's slightly over-zealous (if that!) tackle was actually given more punishment than Cunnington's cheap shot to the guts. Joe actually got a free paid against him as well as the fine, while Cunnington only copped a fine, despite it being a worse act. Zaka must be still shaking his head in disbelief at how he was singled out.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Killer_Mike

Premiership Player
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Posts
3,693
Likes
3,992
Location
Ghetto Extraordinary
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Arsenal,Knicks,Victory
yeah but what's the significance of his 79th game that they'd choose to publish those stats now?
Not sure mate.

Probably just lots of Bomber articles leading up to dreamtime game.

I doubt it's anything more sinister than media selling newspapers.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Posts
59,847
Likes
61,045
Location
Down the rabbit hole
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Fatebringer
yeah but what's the significance of his 79th game that they'd choose to publish those stats now?
You're looking at it upside down. They're not writing it because of the 79 games. They only mention 79 games because that's when they are writing the article
 
Top Bottom