Universal Love The Kelly Gang

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hot Tin Roof

Club Legend
Oct 26, 2012
1,322
1,670
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Geelong Cats
Clearly Tim should dump her, forget about the kids (they're half her anyway, so half-useless) and focus on himself, so he can keep playing for the football team I support without having to worry about outside concerns like family or fatherhood. I know everything about the situation because I've read a couple articles so I feel completely correct and within my rights to offer up this advice on a public forum. Let's hope his stupid sick children and frowny missus don't affect his footy output next year, amirite fellas?!

AllMad.gif
Awaiting the well known author WCE Troll to
spot this post and take it at face value :D
 
Last edited:
Really? Has she come on here telling you to stop talking publicly about stuff?

Talking publicly about stuff will do her no good only harm. Any competent manager or PR professional would have told her that.
 

AM

The standard you walk past is the one you accept
Aug 18, 2006
24,579
23,475
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
It's still her right mate, no matter how ill-advised she might be.
Yep! It's her right to publicly blacken a clubs reputation without any credible evidence. It's her right to selfishly make life extremely difficult for her partner who it seems only wants to play good football. It's her right to not take the reasonable and decent path and seek to resolve her issues privately. It's right to be self indulgent. Whether it's in the best interests of her partner or serves to have any real and lasting benefit to those caught up in the rant is more to the point.
 

Spearman

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 15, 2017
5,450
8,798
expatriated in East Asia
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Ohio State Buckeyes
Yep! It's her right to publicly blacken a clubs reputation without any credible evidence. It's her right to selfishly make life extremely difficult for her partner who it seems only wants to play good football. It's her right to not take the reasonable and decent path and seek to resolve her issues privately. It's right to be self indulgent. Whether it's in the best interests of her partner or serves to have any real and lasting benefit to those caught up in the rant is more to the point.
that's what the vast majority of the internet is used for, probably neck and neck with porn
 
The one piece of advice I would give them is to set their social media accounts to private. There are so many creepy lunatics out there.
That won't help her desire to be a "Mummy Influencer" so will not happen

I'm not even being a smart arse.. It's clear from her social media use of her desire to do it
 

Max Milburn

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 10, 2018
5,494
10,742
Hobbiton, Tasmania
AFL Club
Geelong
Yep! It's her right to publicly blacken a clubs reputation without any credible evidence. It's her right to selfishly make life extremely difficult for her partner who it seems only wants to play good football. It's her right to not take the reasonable and decent path and seek to resolve her issues privately. It's right to be self indulgent. Whether it's in the best interests of her partner or serves to have any real and lasting benefit to those caught up in the rant is more to the point.
You need help.
 
Clause 9(f) flatly says non-rookie draftees must enter a 2-year (so-called) "contract".

22.3(a) conflicts with 9(f) and does not seem to make any sense unless you read 22.3(a) down by reference to 22.3(b), so that the exemption in (a) only applies to mature-age players (or rookies) who can prove - before the draft - that they are reasonably unlikely to be drafted if clubs have to commit to them for 2 years.

Which Kelly clearly would not have been able to do, with 3 - or more - clubs dwelling on drafting him.

PS, I suspect a case of the bete noire of legal draftsmen when amending/updating existing documents, known in Latin as "forgetting to catch and bung in the cross-references".
Thanks - it's gets bloody confusing trying to make sense of it.

That clause must be why we were able to when we drafted Orren Stephenson sign him for a single year - I remember reading after we drafted him that he only entered the draft based on the premise we would select him in the ND as it wasn't financially viable for him to quit his job if he was only selected in the rookie draft.

An agreement of "we'll select you in the ND but only on a one year contracts", because otherwise it seems weird we'd delist him after one year if he still had a second year as part of his draft contract.
 
This is going nowhere and I posted earlier that it needed to be very straight and narrow.

And we are anything but so we are done here.

GO Catters
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back