Rumour Girls on Coke

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

So many better thread titles that this.

For example:

Two girls one cop
This news came hot off the press sorry!

I got not one but two Duran Duran gags out of the title though, so not all bad
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

They play for free ?

And can do whatever they want without penalty?
Uh no, they play for the salary outlined in their contracts, which lasted for 6 months until recently.

That means they weren't employed by the AFL (and, yes, therefore not bound by their rules) for the other 6 months of the year, which renders an illicit drugs policy useless.
 
Uh no, they play for the salary outlined in their contracts, which lasted for 6 months until recently.

That means they weren't employed by the AFL (and, yes, therefore not bound by their rules) for the other 6 months of the year, which renders an illicit drugs policy useless.

Except the AFL is free to refuse to hire them next time around so its a moot point.
 
So the AFL has to hire them?
...preeeetty obvious that players can't be punished by the AFL for things that arise outside the terms of their contract. I'm not sure what you're struggling to understand about that.

Clearly you're confused because you're framing the question as if it applies to the two Sydney players, when it doesn't. They were/are on 12-month contracts now, which is why the AFL were able to punish them.
 
...preeeetty obvious that players can't be punished by the AFL for things that arise outside the terms of their contract. I'm not sure what you're struggling to understand about that.

Clearly you're confused because you're framing the question as if it applies to the two Sydney players, when it doesn't. They were/are on 12-month contracts now, which is why the AFL were able to punish them.

Clearly you are incapable of seeing that if they are out of contract then they would need a new contract in order to play again.

Which the AFL has control over. And would be able to dictate terms.

I mean its not hard... for most. But obviously not all.
 
It's good that the pay gap has closed far enough that they can now afford to join their male counterparts in this.
This should be celebrated if investigation shows that that their CFLW salary funded "God's way of telling you that you have to much money" (Urban Dictionary). At the very least, the celebrity association would could have contributed to procurement. I say this with acknowledgement that blow can donate its way a blonde or two in the average night club.

Either way, in the upset of the round:

JJ Cale / Clapton Cocaine 0, Goldfrapp Ride a White Horse 2.
 
Clearly you are incapable of seeing that if they are out of contract then they would need a new contract in order to play again.

Which the AFL has control over. And would be able to dictate terms.
Wrong again. Contracts were for the period from November to May, and the sign-and-trade period always took place during that stretch. This still leaves six months for re-signed players to go away and do whatever they want.

Believe it or not, having a future job with an employee already locked in doesn't entitle the employee to drug test you for six months before your contract starts.

The only way the AFL can get those players to follow the illicit drugs policy ("dictate terms") is by having 12-month contracts with year-round testing and support. They haven't done all this for AFLW yet because it's expensive.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top