Page 9 of 15
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:37 pm
by Rexy17
The Karma Bus has arrived....
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:00 pm
by think positive
Anyone notice the bomber player at the meeting with NADA on his shirt!
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:25 pm
by Jezza
Media lawyer Justin Quill believes that the relevant past and present Essendon players could have the ability to sue Essendon for negligence and that they would most likely win the case as well.
He claims that the players could sue the club on the grounds of:
i). Loss of future earning capacity - Not just for being banned this year but for future years where delistings could occur especially if players stall in development and other scenarios where future job prospects are hindered such as being involved in coaching in the system for example.
ii). Pain and suffering.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/essendo ... 7706517914
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:37 pm
by Dave The Man
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/essendo ... 7706560394
God the AFLPA are look like complete and utter Idiots.
So Marsh thinks that Players can do what they want and never get in trouble.
WHAT A FLOG
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:42 pm
by Dave The Man
I am Sick of the Media Kissing Essendon and Hirds Ass all day - MAKES ME SICK
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:51 pm
by stui magpie
Jezza wrote:Media lawyer Justin Quill believes that the relevant past and present Essendon players could have the ability to sue Essendon for negligence and that they would most likely win the case as well.
He claims that the players could sue the club on the grounds of:
i). Loss of future earning capacity - Not just for being banned this year but for future years where delistings could occur especially if players stall in development and other scenarios where future job prospects are hindered such as being involved in coaching in the system for example.
ii). Pain and suffering.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/essendo ... 7706517914
Oh there'll be lawsuits alright. Essendon's insurer is already in the foetal position crying in anticipation
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:51 pm
by Dave The Man
stui magpie wrote:Jezza wrote:Media lawyer Justin Quill believes that the relevant past and present Essendon players could have the ability to sue Essendon for negligence and that they would most likely win the case as well.
He claims that the players could sue the club on the grounds of:
i). Loss of future earning capacity - Not just for being banned this year but for future years where delistings could occur especially if players stall in development and other scenarios where future job prospects are hindered such as being involved in coaching in the system for example.
ii). Pain and suffering.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/essendo ... 7706517914
Oh there'll be lawsuits alright. Essendon's insurer is already in the foetal position crying in anticipation
Essendon will get there Ass Sued that Much they won't have much money t all left afterwards
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:01 pm
by Dave The Man
I bet Dons wish they kept Matthew Knights as Head Coach and Not Pay Hird The Turd Millions to leave the Media
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:19 pm
by Pi
imagine the large koala is the AFL and the little one is James Turd having a cry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0cAx1jLbJk
Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:57 pm
by Jezza
I couldn't resist!
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:02 am
by piedys
simon tonna wrote: "did you hear the news today oh boy" David Bowie. rip. essendon meh.
Lol, at All the Young Dopers.
Vale Bowie.
think positive wrote:... my daughter ^&*^*% ex has been training with them for 8 months, when he is a basketballer. 6 foot 4 jerkoff! fit right in!
Hey skip, some of us 6 foot 4 jerkoffs might take resemblance to that remark!
So does that mean if WADA doesn't approve Viagra, then i can't get "any action" for 2016? And any do any of my 2015 conquests become null and void? Who do i sue? I want compensation dammit!
stui magpie wrote:Jezza wrote:Media lawyer Justin Quill believes that the relevant past and present Essendon players could have the ability to sue Essendon for negligence and that they would most likely win the case as well.
He claims that the players could sue the club on the grounds of:
i). Loss of future earning capacity - Not just for being banned this year but for future years where delistings could occur especially if players stall in development and other scenarios where future job prospects are hindered such as being involved in coaching in the system for example.
ii). Pain and suffering.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/essendo ... 7706517914
Oh there'll be lawsuits alright. Essendon's insurer is already in the foetal position crying in anticipation
Stui, surely the insurer would void any club policy related to claims by players in this instance?
Do insurance companies cover damage claims made by drug effected drivers who cause accidents? Of course not! So the insurer will be offering the "too bad - so sad, please read the fine print next time" clause to the club, i'd expect. The Dons may well go a row of shithouses here...
Dyso
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:07 am
by piedys
Jezza wrote:I couldn't resist!
And his loyal sidekick...
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 12:41 am
by David
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 7:53 am
by think positive
Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2016 8:12 am
by qldmagpie67
AFL 360 had a special live last night. They grilled Gill good. Robbo got questioned by Kingy asking him did he get lied to by Hird about what happened. He paused forever and said everyone had told lies and twisted versions of the truth.
Most important they revealed the reason the players where found guilty was they had filled out forms stating what had happened and they all (every player) denied being injected with anything at any time and never took any unknown pills or substances. The players lied to ASADA point blank and that's why CAS deemed it was more than probable they had taken an illicit substance (like a game of join th dots)
On the issue of the players taking legal action Robbo said if they did (and all legal advice says they can and would be successful) he said even if they got lost wages, damages and loss of future income if they received $500k each on average that's $17million the dopers are up for.
This morning I spoke to a legal mate of mine and he believes without knowing the exact terms of the dopers insurance policy they wouldn't be covered for negelence but the directors would have indemnity insurance against losing there personal assets. Said it would be interesting court case insurance v directors