by Jim05 » Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:57 pm
by stan » Wed Apr 13, 2016 8:37 pm
Bombers4EVA wrote:stan wrote:Bombers4EVA wrote:bennymacca wrote:[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?
by LaughingKookaburra » Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:19 pm
by LaughingKookaburra » Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:40 pm
by tigerpie » Thu Apr 14, 2016 9:32 am
by Bombers4EVA » Thu Apr 14, 2016 11:03 am
by LaughingKookaburra » Thu Apr 14, 2016 11:50 am
by Bombers4EVA » Thu Apr 14, 2016 12:04 pm
LaughingKookaburra wrote: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.
by jakovasaurus » Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:52 am
by Jim05 » Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:13 am
jakovasaurus wrote:Heppell suing the club for over $1m.
Can't be good for the hopes of keeping him.
by bennymacca » Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:50 am
by stan » Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:56 am
bennymacca wrote: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
by Jim05 » Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:35 am
bennymacca wrote: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
by bennymacca » Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:47 am
by Corona Man » Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:49 am
bennymacca wrote: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
by stan » Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:12 pm
Corona Man wrote:bennymacca wrote: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?
by bennymacca » Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:12 pm
by Corona Man » Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:24 pm
MW wrote:Did Rehn sue when he was with Adelaide or Hawthorn?
by Jim05 » Fri Apr 15, 2016 12:25 pm
bennymacca wrote: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.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |