Heppell suing Essendon

Remove this Banner Ad

Would have thought that since the players never called the WADA hotline, spoke to club doctor, spoke to any doctor regarding what they had taken would make them culpable too as they had been educated that this is what they needed to do.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

mxett said:
It doesnt add up to you because youre clearly stupid

The players are being compensated for the entire fiasco and the finding, irrespective of their guilt
Click to expand...

But why are Essendon the ones paying it?

They know they didn't give the players anything banned or harmful, and the players believe that too.

Why are the players ripping $30m out of the joint if they don't believe the club did anything wrong?


And as a member, why are you not pissed off with them for it?
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
But why are Essendon the ones paying it?

They know they didn't give the players anything banned or harmful, and the players believe that too.

Why are the players ripping $30m out of the joint if they don't believe the club did anything wrong?


And as a member, why are you not pissed off with them for it?
Click to expand...
because whether the club believe that or not is irrelevant. The players have been found guilty due to mistakes made by the club, so they are entitled to compensation
 
Muggs said:
Is it EFC paying it or Liberty, their (and the AFL's) insurance company for this matter?
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Can't see Liberty just rolling over and handing over $34M, especially when Doise says he didn't do anything wrong. Don't think EFC have a say anymore.
 
The players would have lodged a claim against against both Essendon and AFL. The Essendon and AFL would have notify their insurers that there is a claim against them.

If claims falls under the scope of the insurances policies, the insurer will then appoint legal consel to defend their client. It the insurers decision whether the case is settled or goes to court.

I personally believe if the insurer believe there is a claim under the policy, they will settle out court as would be cheaper for them.

The James Hird only end up in court because the insurers knew he had no case under the policy wording. The policy only cover defence costs and Hird legal cost were not defence and such there was no cover under the policy.
 
http://m.theage.com.au/afl/essendon...ndependent-health-checks-20160524-gp2i6x.html
Past and present Essendon players seeking compensation from the club as a result of anti-doping bans are preparing to undergo independent mental and physical checks.

Players will be spoken to by psychologists over the impact the saga, now into its fourth year, has had on them and their families, as their legal teams front the Bombers and lawyers from Herbert Smith Freehills.
It's believed the Bombers have already questioned how much reputation some players have lost, with lawyers representing the players claiming this has been significant.

How the compensation will be paid also remains a point of interest. Damages over loss of income will be taxed but damages for pain and suffering are likely to be tax free.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sector 7G said:
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Can't see Liberty just rolling over and handing over $34M, especially when Doise says he didn't do anything wrong. Don't think EFC have a say anymore.
Click to expand...

WhiteCat said:
If claims falls under the scope of the insurances policies, the insurer will then appoint legal consel to defend their client. It the insurers decision whether the case is settled or goes to court.

I personally believe if the insurer believe there is a claim under the policy, they will settle out court as would be cheaper for them.
Click to expand...

Agree the insurance company is going to make things interesting, not sure though it be cheaper though for them to settle out of court.

Think the main sticking point be the Contributory negligence split. Can see ithe insurance company trying to shift this more the players way, more so than what the EFC and the players would agree to. Publicly at least EFC seems to be taking the blame and players very little. Insurance company would likely take the opposite view to reduce payouts.

While insurance company's will often settle to court to reduce total costs they not afraid to risk court if they feel that's cheaper.

Have visions of EFC reaching an agreement with the players, going to the insurance company who goes, ok that's the total amount what % are we paying? , EFC/players all of it, insurance company going no. Forcing the EFC to either pay some themselves or players accept some responsibility or go to court.
 
Muggs said:
Agree the insurance company is going to make things interesting, not sure though it be cheaper though for them to settle out of court.

While insurance company's will often settle to court to reduce total costs they not afraid to risk court if they feel that's cheaper.
Click to expand...
Agree with this - it's the bottom line that will determine the insurers' response. Insurers hate paying lawyers fees and will always look to settle unless it looks like a floodgates situation (eg that mental health travel case last year) which will open up a new area of claims. While the potential legal fees for 34 cases will be significant, there's unlikely to ever be another case like this one (that's already cost $35m apparently) so a low floodgates potential. The indications are that the insurer will look to settle.
 
That article does indicate that they want some evidence of the damage caused.

Interesting.


I'll be a bit surprised if it does end up being as simple as I've been told this will be.

Essendon might be cool with splashing their members' hard earned around - but an insurance company might not be so frivolous.
 
coryne said:
Again how players can claim significant damage to reputation, as well as physical and mental pain and suffering, yet return to the club which caused this damage is ridiculous ......
Click to expand...
It is a strange situation. My wife frequently throws sharp objects at me, and on more than one occasion I have woken up with a pillow being pressed hard over my face. I still trudge home each day after work. However, my last food tester died so am looking for a replacement. Strange days.
 
coryne said:
Again how players can claim significant damage to reputation, as well as physical and mental pain and suffering, yet return to the club which caused this damage is ridiculous ......
Click to expand...

22 + players wont be going to EFC next year..

Could also mean a reduction in payouts for those that do compared to those that don't.
 
gavaniacono said:
It is a strange situation. My wife frequently throws sharp objects at me, and on more than one occasion I have woken up with a pillow being pressed hard over my face. I still trudge home each day after work. However, my last food tester died so am looking for a replacement. Strange days.
Click to expand...

Maybe you shouldn't have told your wife about your life insurance policy.....
 
coryne said:
Again how players can claim significant damage to reputation, as well as physical and mental pain and suffering, yet return to the club which caused this damage is ridiculous ......
Click to expand...
Have you not noticed the administrative changes at Essendon since 2012?
 
sameolds33 said:
Agree with this - it's the bottom line that will determine the insurers' response. Insurers hate paying lawyers fees and will always look to settle unless it looks like a floodgates situation (eg that mental health travel case last year) which will open up a new area of claims. While the potential legal fees for 34 cases will be significant, there's unlikely to ever be another case like this one (that's already cost $35m apparently) so a low floodgates potential. The indications are that the insurer will look to settle.
Click to expand...

Agree with this but there are two reasons for insurance companies not to settle - floodgates is one reason, being treated like a open cheque book is the second reason...it's this second reason that might force this to court. Don't think it will but with some of the commentary that is being made public by both sides not ruling this out.
 
Muggs said:
Agree with this but there are two reasons for insurance companies not to settle - floodgates is one reason, being treated like a open cheque book is the second reason...it's this second reason that might force this to court. Don't think it will but with some of the commentary that is being made public by both sides not ruling this out.
Click to expand...
Oh, there'll be lots of negotiating about quantum which is what we're hearing about now but insurers won't go to court to argue quantum of damages. They would rather settle for a higher amount than incur litigation costs (in fact potential litigation costs are commonly factored into the settlement sum because it represents a saving to both sides.)
 
sameolds33 said:
Oh, there'll be lots of negotiating about quantum which is what we're hearing about now but insurers won't go to court to argue quantum of damages. They would rather settle for a higher amount than incur litigation costs (in fact potential litigation costs are commonly factored into the settlement sum because it represents a saving to both sides.)
Click to expand...

What if they decide to argue that the players weren't deceived?

What if they argue that the AFL and the club provided ample drug and PED education that they shouldn't take anything without knowing exactly what it is?

And what if they argue that a form saying 'thymosin' on it isn't sufficient, based on the extensive education they'd received from the club?

What if they argue that each player, under the legislation, have a duty of care to protect colleagues from unsafe situations at the workplace - and that each player neglected that duty of care?

And finally, what if they argue that guys like Heppell and McVeigh would never have got the cushy paid media roles had they not been suspended? So in effect, they aren't really missing out on much dough anyway as a result?


There's plenty for the insurance company to question in regards to the 'poor, brave' players. I'm shocked that Essendon members aren't asking the exact same questions before they get fleeced by the players who seem to want it both ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
710
Satan
Satan
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top