I recognise that. But a players scope in the game is not determined while they are still on the list. Most young players could argue that they were looking at a further 10 years in the game, this incident has mentally scarred them causing lasting phsycological damage to go with the loss of potential football earnings..
Can Essendon be presumed innocent? Logic v Demetriou Cage Match
- Thread starter Tombowler
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I recognise that. But a players scope in the game is not determined while they are still on the list. Most young players could argue that they were looking at a further 10 years in the game, this incident has mentally scarred them causing lasting phsycological damage to go with the loss of potential football earnings..
blackshadow
Hall of Famer
I bet the insurers are looking for "loopholes"
The most sensible thing to have happen is have the payments as part of the Essendon salary cap.
This means that it doesn't actually 'cost the AFL' it costs Essendon $40m over the next five years.
They can fill the rest of the list with VFL players for the next five years so they don't go over the salary cap - plus Essendon prohibited from participating in the first three rounds of the national draft naturally.
This means that it doesn't actually 'cost the AFL' it costs Essendon $40m over the next five years.
They can fill the rest of the list with VFL players for the next five years so they don't go over the salary cap - plus Essendon prohibited from participating in the first three rounds of the national draft naturally.
Argued like plaintiff scum. You should seek a job at Slater and Gordon or maybe PM is the job for you.
Honestly I do this sort of thing for a living and have been doing so for about 30 years. Essendon's insurers could be up for a hiding, but indivdual players who are not present day champions being worth $10m. Not.
The largest indivdual award I can think of was Blake. He was a actor who was brain damaged in a MVA. The claim was based on him perharps becoming another Mel Gibson. Big case, I recall that the defence solicitors had an entire room filled with lever arch folders. He was awarded at first instance around $16m or so. This was lowered on appeal. Mostly for loss of potential earnings and care.
The big ticket item in tort cases in Australia is not general damages. The plaintiff's counsel can make as emotive argument as he likes but millions will not be handed out.
Wonder if they have the same insurers as the Catholic Church that insist that all acusations are denied (or maybe that was not conceded).I bet the insurers are looking for "loopholes"
Tombowler
Team Captain
- Mar 25, 2013
- 358
- 345
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Thread starter
- #208
10 million per player is a bit optimistic.. The issue of whether the players contributed by not conducting sufficient due diligence of their own is also important. It could be argued that, being extremely well paid, professionals with independent agents, industry body etc that they were sufficiently sophisticated to reasonably ought to have made their own inquiries and taken steps to protect their careers without reliance on the club. Further that the limited and deficient precautions they did take, proves that they had their suspicions and they fell short in their duty of care to themselves.
That's not to say the players won't deserve damages, just I think they'll rightly or wrongly be very limited. I'd suspect the club would quickly settle though; I suspect settlements won't be 'salary cap' and there could be an outcome that everyone is happy with in terms of dollars without the trouble of litigation.
The AFL, as I've said, needs to worry less about the $ and remember that sponsors only pay because of the fans. An unjust or perceived unjust outcome would cause a massive headache.
Argued like plaintiff scum. You should seek a job at Slater and Gordon or maybe PM is the job for you.
Honestly I do this sort of thing for a living and have been doing so for about 30 years. Essendon's insurers could be up for a hiding, but indivdual players who are not present day champions being worth $10m. Not.
The largest indivdual award I can think of was Blake. He was a actor who was brain damaged in a MVA. The claim was based on him perharps becoming another Mel Gibson. Big case, I recall that the defence solicitors had an entire room filled with lever arch folders. He was awarded at first instance around $16m or so. This was lowered on appeal. Mostly for loss of potential earnings and care.
The big ticket item in tort cases in Australia is not general damages. The plaintiff's counsel can make as emotive argument as he likes but millions will not be handed out.
Geez no need for the scum comment. As you can tell, i'm not a lawyer, just throwing some random figures out there. I know if it were me, and my career had been taken from me and i'd suffered crippling emotional damages as a result, i'd expect to be compensated. Playing league footy in most of these kids situations is a lifelong dream that they have worked for many many years to achieve. It's hard to put a price on though being i lawyer i'm sure you have a better grasp on that than me. The $10m figure was just a random number, you'll notice i was asking the question - $2m, $5m, $10m.
Re, the AFL, either way, they cop it.
Essendon are not guilty and the supporters of the other 17 clubs crack the shits. Would this turn a significant volume of people away from the game... Absolutely not.
Essendon are guilty and the AFL brand gets a massive whack along with the potential to have to financially assist one of it's biggest assets. If you're Vlad right now, which one are you hoping for?
In terms of the WADA code and what ought to happen to them should they be found to by guilty, i absolutely agree that ultimately it's up to the player to perform their own checks and balances and take full responsibility for their own body.
Based on that, to me, the no fault clause simply shouldn't aply.
But having said that, if you honestly believe that 99% of the football world wouldn't have done exactly the same thing in the same situation then your kidding yourself.
As a young player, you get to the new club and do as your told. You trust that the information that they're providing you is correct.
As a player who's been in the system for 7 or 8 years, similarly, you trust these experts with your body on a daily basis. You trust that they are working with your best interest in mind.
Many players came out immediately after the original announcement stating that they would have done the same thing... I think whilst they must be accountable, they should not be morally blamed as they are the ones who have been crusified in all this.
Nothing nasty meant by it to you. After all you do not work for Slater and Gordon. It was a joke and that was why the
. Some lawyers work on one side of the fence and others on the other side. They like each other about as much as Essendon and Carlton fans do.Nothing nasty meant by it to you. After all you do not work for Slater and Gordon. It was a joke and that was why the
Well i hope your not charging your time when your posting on here to one of your poor clients... hehe.
Tombowler
Team Captain
- Mar 25, 2013
- 358
- 345
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Thread starter
- #213
The players? With a few shrewd exceptions, absolutely. Most i the AFL would have taken the supps the club told them to take and cared wholly and solely for the improved performance and left the legalities to to the doctors. Especially players with less than 7 years. I don't and won't morally blame them one jot, but nonetheless, I think it's not fair to allow them to compete. I was merely explaining the argument that could be made, legally, that it was (again, legally not morally) their own fault. There's an important lesson for all players out of this, and hopefully we will see that reflected in future. As an aside, I think if the players were of the sort that might be easily pressured via extreme youth and risk of fairly imminent delistment, legal responsibility in terms of suing Essendon might go in favour of the player due to unconscionable conduct by Essendon.
The club, on the other hand, must wear the full moral responsibility, if the allegations are true, for
-cheating
-risking the careers of the players
-putting the credibility of the game at stake
-behaving dishonestly, deceptively and evasively after the fact.
I don't know what the answer re: the players is but I feel it warrants suspension. All power to them if they can squeeze some money out of the club, I just don't think it's appropriate to let them play unimpinged if they've taken banned substances.
Tombowler
Team Captain
- Mar 25, 2013
- 358
- 345
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Thread starter
- #215
Nothing nasty meant by it to you. After all you do not work for Slater and Gordon. It was a joke and that was why the
Having, regrettably, worked in plaintiff law I can confirm the scum remarks veracity. Having said that, insurers fighting dogs prey only slightly less on human misery; they do have the distinct advantage of not advertising on late-night television though...
I love how the OP uses the claim that the AFL is a multi-million dollar business as a waver to any "rights" - yet does not make note of the fact that Essendon itself, whilst a club, is also a multi-million dollar business in it's own right, and a fair share of the business that is the AFL.
Innocent until proven guilty. We're in the 21st century, not the 5th.
Innocent until proven guilty. We're in the 21st century, not the 5th.
PieBeast
Brownlow Medallist
There's nothing that will make Essendon look innocent in public eyes.
Tombowler
Team Captain
- Mar 25, 2013
- 358
- 345
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Thread starter
- #219
You make the exact excuse that so many complain about, Essendon receiving kid-gloved treatment because they are a hugely profitable club.
Essendon's market share of the AFL supporters and sponsors should be utterly irrelevant in the sanction and investigation. Sadly, by Demetriou rushing to strap on the knee-pads to shore up the sponsors resolve, we see that's not the case.
Ben the Gooner
Stand by Hird
tl;dr but try looking up what presumption of innocence is champ
- Status
