Heppell suing Essendon

Remove this Banner Ad

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...

Generally agree, and this is what happens the vast majority of times, but not a 100% of the time, there is the odd case that does go to court, or at least proceedings start, over amount.

Come's back to the good old Cost vs Benefit and risk analysis - know of a case where a professional firm was being sued by a client, client was banking on the firms professional indemnity insurance to cave in and settle and made a rather ambient claim. Insurer went to court over the amount after negotiations stalled. Admittedly case was withdrawn before judgement but at a significantly lower amount than being asked for, and lower than what the insurer would have settled for before the court case started, due mainly to legal costs incurred.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
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.
Click to expand...
The insurer will not make these arguments because the insurer doesn't want to incur unnecessary costs asking questions which are irrelevant to its bottom line, which is how much it needs to pay out. The questions the insurer will ask is whether there is a valid claim, how much is it for and what is the least it can settle it for in the quickest way (time being money). In most cases, the insurer will go in low, the players will go in high and the parties will meet somewhere in the middle, sooner rather than later.
 
sameolds33 said:
The insurer will not make these arguments because the insurer doesn't want to incur unnecessary costs asking questions which are irrelevant to its bottom line, which is how much it needs to pay out. The questions the insurer will ask is whether there is a valid claim, how much is it for and what is the least it can settle it for in the quickest way (time being money). In most cases, the insurer will go in low, the players will go in high and the parties will meet somewhere in the middle, sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

Well derrrr.


The arguments I posted, would determine whether or not there is infact a valid claim.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sameolds33 said:
The insurer will not make these arguments because the insurer doesn't want to incur unnecessary costs asking questions which are irrelevant to its bottom line, which is how much it needs to pay out. The questions the insurer will ask is whether there is a valid claim, how much is it for and what is the least it can settle it for in the quickest way (time being money). In most cases, the insurer will go in low, the players will go in high and the parties will meet somewhere in the middle, sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...
I think it works in reverse for the Insurers. It will take over 12 months to get to the Supreme Court. The insurance company is in no hurry to hand over the money and settle quickly. In the mean time Player/AFLPA are spending more in legal fees as they have to prepare the claim first with no guarantee of the outcome they are looking for.

In the mean time Doise is out there proclaiming he didn't take anything untoward. He is the insurers best witness.
 
Sector 7G said:
I think it works in reverse for the Insurers. It will take over 12 months to get to the Supreme Court. The insurance company is in no hurry to hand over the money and settle quickly. In the mean time Player/AFLPA are spending more in legal fees as they have to prepare the claim first with no guarantee of the outcome they are looking for.

In the mean time Doise is out there proclaiming he didn't take anything untoward. He is the insurers best witness.
Click to expand...
You seem to be assuming the matter is contentious and heading for court. My understanding is that the players are making damages claims against Essendon who will in turn claim on its insurance. The parties are trying to settle these claims to everyone's best advantage and that means avoiding court costs if possible.

So if the insurance claim is as straightforward, as it appears, the insurer is not going to open up the basis of the claim as proposed above. There will of course be discussion about quantification of loss (economic, reputation, pain and suffering etc) but there are established precedents and guidelines for calculating these losses. I expect the matter will be resolved without recourse to court.
 
WhiteCat said:
Does any know whether the policy is costs inclusive or costs addition?
Click to expand...

Probably best to ask James Albert... actually cancel that idea.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Of course they knew what they were taking.

They just thought Dank had found a loophole in the code, because that was his thing and why he was employed.

It was no coincidence that Dank rolled into the EFC at the same time as Hird told the press that he wanted his side to be bigger and stronger.

It's why Jobe told Fox Footy they were told it was "the good Thymosin", while also never declaring any of this supposed "good Thymosin" to ASADA at any point....as they thought they were ahead of the game.

Anyone who thinks a professional football club implements an injection regime and doesn't look to quantify it at any point with records of what each player has been given is a dumb *.

/oldground
 
Last edited:
dees are rabble said:
Why won't the media touch the subject. Maybe they have in Melbourne. Not sure
Click to expand...

Because the AFL framed the players as victims, in order to protect the brand (knowing the media won't go after the poor victims). But the truth is, the players are 100% to blame. They are accountable for anything that goes into their body. Footy clubs aside, sports scientists aside, it all comes down to the individual.

But lets say for a moment that the players didn't know. If this were the case then the club is to blame. If the club is to blame, then why do the players want to re-sign at this club? They wouldn't. The fact they are re-signing at the club really says it all.
 
Last edited:
i only feel slightly bad for young players who have been in the system a year or so they are going to do everything that there idols do etc. but the fact none of them asked or checked wtf they were given or researched it them self sets off alarm bells. either essendon had the most naive people ever on there list or they systematically doped and thought they would get away with it on a technicality.
 
Stevi_Tigers said:
i only feel slightly bad for young players who have been in the system a year or so they are going to do everything that there idols do etc. but the fact none of them asked or checked wtf they were given or researched it them self sets off alarm bells. either essendon had the most naive people ever on there list or they systematically doped and thought they would get away with it on a technicality.
Click to expand...

I recall when I was at school many years ago, they had various types of injections they wanted to give to the kids. Even then, at 9 years of age, I had the presence of mind to ask my parents what the injections were, and whether I should be taking them. This is why I find it remarkable that the players expect us to believe they had no idea of what they were given. Anyone with a propensity for common sense knows this is pure crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Satan
Pharmacist involved in essendon saga sadly found dead
Replies
3
Views
718
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