Essendon

[Jim05]

Hooker is the only one I'm really concerned about leaving, Hurley and Heppell I think will stay. If they leave it won't be for money as they would get more playing for us. Some might want a break and I can't blame them. There has been a good vibe around the club the last day or two and they are quietly confident all will return.

[stan]

[quote="Bombers4EVA"]I just don't understand why some of the players are interested or looking into the possibility of using the grievance clause to leave Essendon. Especially when some of the players still have years in their contracts. Now I understand that the banned players would be feeling angry still at the club for what has happened. But as far as I know, they weren't held at gun point to take the injections and they could've not signed the waivers like some other players did. And they would be playing today. They aren't wholly responsible but they could've said no. I would've thought that Hooker, Hurley and even Heppell would be loyal and stick around. But with the AFL clubs circling around them throwing big $$$ at them. Their loyalty now could be questioned.

If you were told to take an ice bath and said no, or do some extra running and said no, do you think you would be looked on favourably?

Players want to leave because they were betrayed by the club

What a load of crap. Look at Zakarakis. He said no and look what he does with his time on the weekends. He's playing footy. Unlike the rest of the 12.

Who are you James Hird?

Although your keen to talk about the players taking some responsibility, you seem keen to push it all to the players. Thats already been done re: wada.

#standbyhird?

I am a vivid Essendon supporter. Born and bleed black and red. Always will. All I am saying is that the players agreed to the injections. Got banned for doing so. Are pi$$ed at EFC and are now considering using the "AFL get out of club card" and may look at accepting offers from other clubs. Are they totally at fault? No. Are they totally innocent? No.[/quote]
So your saying th players should say no i dont want this injection that you claim to be ok in case your full of it and its all crap that could cost me a 12 month ban after a massive 4 years of ******* around?

Seriously Hirdy is that you?

Lool I agree the players have some responsibility but the way you are coming at it is a bit rough.

As Jim said I think you would only lose 1 maybe 2 at most.

[LaughingKookaburra]

So when does the AFL supply players with banned substance tester cards where they can test everything their "trusted employer" administers to them prior to being dosed up?

If your work has a medical department which is fully funded by them and they then paid for you to get a flu shot and afterwards you find out it wasn't what you thought it was, or they couldn't tell you what you took when you looked in to it? You would take legal action? Then ask yourself why would you want to work there?

[LaughingKookaburra]

Just further on that... Yes players are responsible for what goes in to their body. However if your employer can't tell you what you have been administered thats pretty ordinary to say the least...

[tigerpie]

[quote="Bombers4EVA"]All I am saying about the players looking at other opportunities. Is, they didn't have to take the injections, no matter what they were told. If they didn't want to, they didn't have to. For example Zaka declined the injections and look what he is doing today. The players have to accept that they are responsible in the supplement saga to a certain degree. And to now come and take advantage of the grievance rule, what a load of crap.[/quote

Zaka took it in pill form. Just takes longer than they wanted, to get through his system.
At footy clubs its one in, ALL in.
Very naive comment bombers4eva!
They are very complicit in this for not fessing up on the asada drug tests.
They have, however, been severely let down by their club.

[Bombers4EVA]

I don't think the point I'm trying to make is getting across. All I am saying is that whether or not what the players did was innocent or guilty. We will never know the truth. It just makes me upset to hear or see players wanting to leave or look into it because of a AFL clause thats on offer. They took the injections based on the idea that it was ok and that what they are taking is ok. Unfortunately for them, that didn't work out too well. They and the EFC have been punished for that mistake and now we are trying to get on with it. The people (coach & administration) that were at the helm during that time have now been moved on and we have fresh faces with new ideas of moving forward. For that to happen, we need those 12 players to stay and play next year. If any of the players are looking into that clause because other clubs are offering big $$$ then that tells me that they aren't really that loyal to the new EFC and we don't need that.

I know that the banned players feel that EFC and the AFL has let them down. But like I keep saying, (and no matter what you all keep suggesting that they were only following what EFC were telling them at the time), they could've still said no to the injections.

[LaughingKookaburra]

You can't blame the players if they did want to leave Bombers4eva no matter the lure. It's a big breach of trust. I am actually surprised that any players want to play for Essendon after this process. I can understand your point of view and some that "there is no proof of what they were administered" but from an external view it looks horrible that you can't tell people what you jabbed in to their body. If you need to question a medical practice that was done by your employer in this age and in a World Class competition by a team funded medical/supplement team it would be very hard to ever trust them again.

[Bombers4EVA]

You can't blame the players if they did want to leave Bombers4eva no matter the lure. It's a big breach of trust. I am actually surprised that any players want to play for Essendon after this process. I can understand your point of view and some that "there is no proof of what they were administered" but from an external view it looks horrible that you can't tell people what you jabbed in to their body. If you need to question a medical practice that was done by your employer in this age and in a World Class competition by a team funded medical/supplement team it would be very hard to ever trust them again.

Thank you for understanding what I am trying to say. And I totally agree with all that you have said. It's a grey area in which I hope that they can look past this knowing that we have a fresh group of coaches and administration who want to get EFC back to playing finals footy and leave the saga in the past. I know it will take time, and not playing footy doesn't help either.

[jakovasaurus]

Heppell suing the club for over $1m.
Can't be good for the hopes of keeping him.

[Jim05]

Heppell suing the club for over $1m.
Can't be good for the hopes of keeping him.

All of the players are suing, it won't have an affect on if they stay or not.
I posted earlier in the week that his lawyers were meeting the club and as long as the compensation he asks for is coughed up he will be back next year

[bennymacca]

Used to think your mail was pretty good Jim but how could you possibly stay at a club that you are suing. That's ridiculous

[stan]

Used to think your mail was pretty good Jim but how could you possibly stay at a club that you are suing. That's ridiculous

I think Benny has a good point here Jim.

[Jim05]

Used to think your mail was pretty good Jim but how could you possibly stay at a club that you are suing. That's ridiculous

All players are going to sue for compensation as is their right.
They are angry at past administration and some of the players can see the changes that has happened and are willing to stay put under the new regime.
Heath Hocking only re-signed again last week and he is also suing.
Heppell could actually sue for more as he is only pretty much going for loss of earnings and it will be settled out of court in the next few weeks with the AFL footing some of the bill

[bennymacca]

Hocking is very different to Heppell as it may be his only chance at playing afl again.

Heppell can name his price and his club basically.

[Corona Man]

Used to think your mail was pretty good Jim but how could you possibly stay at a club that you are suing. That's ridiculous

Not wanting to get off topic here, but who did Shaun Rehn sue over his knee? Was it the Crows, the SANFL, or Footy Park?

[stan]

Used to think your mail was pretty good Jim but how could you possibly stay at a club that you are suing. That's ridiculous

Not wanting to get off topic here, but who did Shaun Rehn sue over his knee? Was it the Crows, the SANFL, or Footy Park?

Thought it was Footy park but thats owned by the SANFL so I guess it was the SANFL in the end. Happy to be corrected here.

[bennymacca]

Good question, not 100% sure. I would say the SANFL as the owners of the ground if I had to guess.

Although it was also ultimately an unsafe workplace too, I feel like this is pretty different to not knowing what you are injecting your players

[MW]

Did Rehn sue when he was with Adelaide or Hawthorn?

[Corona Man]

Did Rehn sue when he was with Adelaide or Hawthorn?

Definetly when with the crows....hence in part the reason for the question in relation to Heppell. Possible precedent in some ways. I don't recall all the circumstances in the Rehn case.

[Jim05]

Hocking is very different to Heppell as it may be his only chance at playing afl again.

Heppell can name his price and his club basically.

Don't be fooled by the media Benny. Heppell signed a 5 year contract last year only, more than 3 years after the saga. The AFL won't let him just walk like the media are claiming.
Might also be a good tactic by Heppell as the compo money isn't included the cap so he could claim a little more compo to subsidise his existing contract[emoji6]