News Emma Grant files lawsuit against Collingwood over concussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Give me one example of how Collingwood may have been negligent? Or more if you have some.
She was injured and had 3 weeks off before returning.
Forced to play?

So you're answering my question with a question. Thanks.
 
So you're answering my question with a question. Thanks.
I've stated my point several times.
Clubs employ experts to deal with these concussion injuries.
She played because she felt right to go.
The club played her after she was cleared by club doctors.
I want to see what she has to say on Collingwood being negligent.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I want to see what she has to say on Collingwood being negligent.

It'd be nice if this was your only position, instead of accusing her of being a money grubber and telling us that you just can't believe a modern AFL club (including Essendon, I'm sure) can be in any way negligent.
 
It'd be nice if this was your only position, instead of accusing her of being a money grubber and telling us that you just can't believe a modern AFL club (including Essendon, I'm sure) can be in any way negligent.
Essendon was a special case. Absolute disgrace what happened there.
Clubs have procedures for concussion type injuries.
We need to hear her story and my opinions are just opinions at the moment.
I trust our club followed these procedures.
No one is forced to play ever.
 
hopefully judges rule you knowingly participated in a sport that has a high risk of concussion and accepted the risks
The issue at hand would be how the injury was managed, and what care was afforded her in the recovery from the injury, rather then the injury itself. So I would assume the argument will be made on how she was treated for.
 
Essendon was a special case. Absolute disgrace what happened there.
Clubs have procedures for concussion type injuries.
We need to hear her story and my opinions are just opinions at the moment.
I trust our club followed these procedures.
No one is forced to play ever.

And Collingwood was a special case (e.g. Do Better). And maybe Hawthorn.

Putting the reasonableness of your faith aside, your absolute trust in the club shouldn't necessitate the demonisation of the complainant.

It just feeds into the bile of those who love an occasion to bitch about the AFLW.
 
I guess all we can truly do is wait and see with what happens, I'd hope that the club would have handled this well and given her the right care she needed and deserved. But, I am not going to blindly say we did the best job if there's no evidence to say it was or wasn't.

I'd hope whatever happens with the case, she's in a good place and has a happy and healthy life. If we were in the wrong I definitely hope that the club will do a far better job in the future.
 
Go and have another cry like you did several days ago with your goodbyes to us. Weak individual that you are.

A second reply? Thanks. I did abstain for a week. Deserved a sayonara. But I do bow down to your online toughness.

I am guessing you aren’t getting what is being so clearly revealed by your uninformed position on this matter?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
A second reply? Thanks. I did abstain for a week. Deserved a sayonara. But I do bow down to your online toughness.

I am guessing you aren’t getting what is being so clearly revealed by your uninformed position on this matter?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Sounds like you are also experiencing some doubt, that he isn't really Jesus at all.
 
A second reply? Thanks. I did abstain for a week. Deserved a sayonara. But I do bow down to your online toughness.

I am guessing you aren’t getting what is being so clearly revealed by your uninformed position on this matter?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
I have no agenda on Emma. Just can't see the club not offering her the medical support needed.
Ultimately she played on after a few weeks off.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I have no agenda on Emma. Just can't see the club not offering her the medical support needed.
Ultimately she played on after a few weeks off.

You called her a money grubber!

You don't think that this suggests a determination to discredit her as a person, as well as her claim?
 
You called her a money grubber!

You don't think that this suggests a determination to discredit her as a person, as well as her claim?
Free medical care is all that should be provided to players provided the doctors are doing their jobs.
Not huge payouts.
Otherwise don't play football.
 
Free medical care is all that should be provided to players provided the doctors are doing their jobs.
Not huge payouts.
Otherwise don't play football.

This point has a number of problems, not least that it is irrelevant to the point being discussed.

The claim that you have 'no agenda' can't be reconciled to the fact that you called her a money grubber.

I don't think you're a particularly honest person to talk with, so no need to reply.
 
Free medical care is all that should be provided to players provided the doctors are doing their jobs.
Not huge payouts.
Otherwise don't play football.
But the care provided should also be decent care. It seems she feels like they could have done a lot better, though without seeing what went on its hard to say what care was given. But seems she believes it wasnt the best of care that she should've got.
 
Looking back, money grab was your wording.

Right now your position is uninformed. Give it a rest.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Taken out of context as lawyers often do. This is what I said.

I also don't have enough info on Emma to know more.
It just sounds like a money grab to me, or Collingwood and other footy clubs just don't give a feck. Dunno
 
The issue at hand would be how the injury was managed, and what care was afforded her in the recovery from the injury, rather then the injury itself. So I would assume the argument will be made on how she was treated for.
When it comes to concussions, I've never understood why it's a mandatory 12 day break. I don't believe there is any research to show that after suffering a concussion, 12 days is the optimum break. I have read 4 weeks is more appropriate. So, why don't we make it a mandatory 4 weeks? I wonder how the players would react to that? It would be half a season in the AFLW.

I'm not disputing players' welfare, and I do believe the AFL should be contributing a % of revenue into a 'welfare' trust for the support of ex-players to assist in situations like this. However, 12 days between games is insufficient. And players need to accept possibly being forced to watch for 28 days, because the AFL has a duty to do all it can to protect the welfare of the player (and they should accept it), and of course, it's own future liabilities.
 
When it comes to concussions, I've never understood why it's a mandatory 12 day break. I don't believe there is any research to show that after suffering a concussion, 12 days is the optimum break. I have read 4 weeks is more appropriate. So, why don't we make it a mandatory 4 weeks? I wonder how the players would react to that? It would be half a season in the AFLW.

I'm not disputing players' welfare, and I do believe the AFL should be contributing a % of revenue into a 'welfare' trust for the support of ex-players to assist in situations like this. However, 12 days between games is insufficient. And players need to accept possibly being forced to watch for 28 days, because the AFL has a duty to do all it can to protect the welfare of the player (and they should accept it), and of course, it's own future liabilities.

The afl does have an injury and hardship fund. As for the amount of days, yep, a head scratcher.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
When it comes to concussions, I've never understood why it's a mandatory 12 day break. I don't believe there is any research to show that after suffering a concussion, 12 days is the optimum break. I have read 4 weeks is more appropriate. So, why don't we make it a mandatory 4 weeks? I wonder how the players would react to that? It would be half a season in the AFLW.

I'm not disputing players' welfare, and I do believe the AFL should be contributing a % of revenue into a 'welfare' trust for the support of ex-players to assist in situations like this. However, 12 days between games is insufficient. And players need to accept possibly being forced to watch for 28 days, because the AFL has a duty to do all it can to protect the welfare of the player (and they should accept it), and of course, it's own future liabilities.
I'd really be keen to know where they got the 12 days from, like if there was some solid study done to determine this would be a good time period for them to recover or not? I'm far from an expert on the whole thing, as well as concussions and the lasting affects and the affects of 4 weeks opposed to 12 days, but to me 12 days seemed rather short considering the time period for hamstrings to recover, and other injuries. I'd have thought a head injry wouldlve been longer?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top