Carlisle ban?

[Bluthy]

Maybe they will hire a minder/personal trainer to map a fitness regime/look after him for the next 12 months. If not then I can't seeing him getting thru this on his own.

Under present rules unless there is some special exemption the Saints cannot do that.

Saad's training was supervised by an ex-teamate (non-Stkilda).

Thats why I'd be really disappointed if the club hadn't loaded him up with all the stuff they want him to do well before. They knew with Saad how it worked. They shouldn't risk playing funny buggers with anything sneaky now.

[The OtherThommo]

The players knew enough to lie, over and over and over again.

Turns out what they were given was banned. However shocking and sad, of course they deserve the full whack and to be labelled drug cheats.

They didn't take the plea because they decided to continue to trust those at the club who said all along that they couldn't be pinged for this and that they would win and be cleared, and because hird made it impossible for the club to sell the idea of accepting a plea.

They can sue now because they know if the club runs with a 'you knew' defence then the club is also admitting it knew, and the ramifications of that are greater than coming to a deal.

Good point, that last one, Mark.

There's been a lot of concentration on them not taking the deal they were offered, and how they would have been able to come out of it as well as Cronulla. I reckon that's a furphy.

WADA would have had to sign off on any deal, and I doubt they would have. Just look at this last part of their statement on agreeing to the Cronulla deal:

“WADA has determined that full scrutiny of the file revealed that the number of delays were directly the result of the lack of activity or decision by either ASADA or the Australian government. In particular WADA notes that:

i. Nothing was done by ASADA to advance the matter following the completion of the ASADA investigation in November 2013 for many months.

ii. The Australian government decided, for reasons it considered appropriate, to appoint a retired judge (Downes) to review the ASADA files. It took some months for Downes to complete his task in early April 2014.

iii. There is no explanation for the continued inaction from ASADA following the receipt of the Downes report in April 2014 until steps were formally taken by ASADA in August 2014.

WADA is not entirely satisfied with the outcome of this case and the practical period of the 12 month suspensions that will actually be served by the players. However, having fully considered all circumstances, WADA is of the view that an appeal would not advance the fight against doping in any meaningful way.”

Not happy, were they? Some of those points were very Cronulla specific. The Cronulla program ran for about 6 weeks, a good deal of it was done away from the club and the number of jabs were a very small fraction of what was done at E'dope.

Plus, the Cronulla blokes seem to have fessed up to the totality. How would E'dope have coped with that, given by the time the deal was being discussed they were already a long way down the well of invention and porkies?

It is always seemed to me WADA thought the E'dope case was far grander of scale, involved more people, more substances, more volume, was wholly conducted under the club management and went for far longer.

If they'd fully cooperated (which would have been a nice ol' backflip, and cooperation is not as simple as many believe), yes, they could have got a deduction, but I don't reckon WADA would have copped any deal approaching Cronulla's.

The AFL's objective was always to get the players a walk, via NSF, co-operation etc - no way WADA would have copped such an outcome, not even close to such an outcome. And, as we saw, E'dope were so arrogant and cocky, they reckoned they could get a walk, without having to accept they'd breached the anti-doping code.

Tyson Gay voluntarily suspended himself, fully cooperated (dobbed in the architects and perpetrators, and they got banned - one of the key points of discounts for co-operation - it has to result in other charges, or providing vital evidence in support of other charges), admitted guilt, and still was out of the caper for around 12 months.

[markp]

I heard (maybe on 360 the other night??) there was a confidentiality section on the "consent" forms, essentially to protect the IP of the program from other clubs. Agreements like this are commonplace, both in the AFL (gameplans etc.) and the normal working world.

Somewhere along the line, the players either decided themselves, or the club instructed, that ASADA needed to be kept in the dark as well. Cynics would say this was because they knew is wasn't compliant, while others would suggest it was just another mechanism to avoid a leak.

And I'm sure somewhere sometime a dog has eaten someone's homework.

It'd really suck for the players if that was truly the case (and they were that dumb), but it obviously can't be accepted as reasonable justification for repeatedly lying to the policing authority.

[markp]

Agree ToT, anyone who's been saying they should've taken the deal hasn't been qualifying that the deal very well may have been appealed by WADA.

And as I put earlier, would not accepting the plea deal (and admitting guilt) have diminished their hand in a subsequent case against the club?

[The OtherThommo]

Agree ToT, anyone who's been saying they should've taken the deal hasn't been qualifying that the deal very well may have been appealed by WADA.

And as I put earlier, would not accepting the plea deal (and admitting guilt) have diminished their hand in a subsequent case against the club?

Yep, and that was one of a number of ways they'd wedged themselves. E'dope and the AFL summoned all manner of 'authoritative' voices, from dopey lawyers who hadn't bothered to read the governing code (e.g. Burnside), and spoke as if this was a criminal matter about to be heard in the Mag's Crt, to media & PR shills, from the dumb, to the unprincipled, to right wing nut jobs, to the fearful of their ongoing employment, who then inspired warriors like Martin Hardie to rant like idiots (without bothering to declare his prior involvement with Dank) and the likes of good ol' Doc Willcourt to lend medical 'weight' to the whole deception.

All designed to do one thing - make sure the players didn't stray. And, has history has shown, time and again, the best way to make sure people don't stray is to bolster and harden their ingrained want to believe they're a) innocent of any wrongdoing, b) about to be righteously vindicated as upstanding citizens and c) definitely not so stupid as to have succumbed to snake oil salesman out to make a buck.

As I just quoted over at the big thread,

"Kierkegaard said of belief that it becomes stronger the more impossible and threatened it is."

Once people's skepticism is quelled, which is the design intent, it's nigh on impossible to shake them free from what they believe.

[spert]

.. Do you think the players thought they were taking PEDS or not?

That's obvious, even a complete idiot knows that. The issue for them was whether they would be caught. The same has applied to a number of other clubs over the years. The most obvious being WCE in the period 1990-1995 and the Magpies 2008-2011. Spot the common factor. Players just don't grow arms the size of legs due to "exercises". The thing about drugs is that they don't last forever. There is an inevitable big break down. Then again, if you have won one or two flags - who cares?

No it isn't obvious at all. If it was that obvious why wouldn't the 2 WB players take a plea when advised by their president who happens to be a lawyer when they knew ASADA was on to them. They may have got about 4 weeks when they knew the penalty was 2 years. Any fool would take if you knew you deliberately cheated. Without being rude what you say isn't common sense.

Cant think of to many pies players who suddenly got bigger either and I refuse to believe 34 players decided to cheat all at once. You can, I wont. Obviously you don't want that cheat Carlisle anywhere near our club next season. People do look at life differently though. Some look for the worst unless proven otherwise and some look for the best unless proven otherwise. I like the way I look at people.

Apparently Essendon just injected the players for no other reason than to inject them with an empty syringe, and all the players agreed that it was a good idea...that seems to be what some Essendon supporters and players are saying in a million words. Or maybe they just walked past syringes and leant against them. What a stupid, dishonest, deluded group of people the Essendon FC are, and some of their supporters are pretty blunt pencils.

[samoht]

Too bad Carlisle didn't suffer from Zaharakis's "aversion" to needles.
re: Zaharakis - and his declared aversion:
Zaharakis would have obviously known of the PED program (that it would involve regular injections), but chose not to report it to the AFL or ASADA - so, to some degree, shouldn't he be considered complicit (in the cover up)?
Some penalty should be forthcoming - a few weeks suspension?

[ripplug66]

The players knew enough to lie, over and over and over again.

Turns out what they were given was banned. However shocking and sad, of course they deserve the full whack and to be labelled drug cheats.

They didn't take the plea because they decided to continue to trust those at the club who said all along that they couldn't be pinged for this and that they would win and be cleared, and because hird made it impossible for the club to sell the idea of accepting a plea.

They can sue now because they know if the club runs with a 'you knew' defence then the club is also admitting it knew, and the ramifications of that are greater than coming to a deal.

Lie and over and over again? Sounds a bit emotive but Ok. And you can call them drug cheats if you feel good doing that but I wont. Each to their own. And now we are on trust. Suits you to use trust with this argument but doesn't suit you when they trusted what they were being given wasn't PEDS. The funny thing is the WB players had nothing to do with Hird or the club when they may have taken a plea. They weren't even at the club. There goes that trust part. And of course they would have been able to plea. Cronulla did and Armstrongs cronies did and their case makes this look like someone had KFC when they should have had skinless chicken. Finally The suing part. I didn't say they couldn't sue but I wondering about the morals of those who want players to sue Essendon even though they also think the players cheated. As I said morals only seem to apply to some when it suits them. To your point though about suing why would Essendon care more than the players if "they new" actually came out? Both the players and Essendon would be both found out. Why is it worse for Essendon?

[markp]

The players knew enough to lie, over and over and over again.

Turns out what they were given was banned. However shocking and sad, of course they deserve the full whack and to be labelled drug cheats.

They didn't take the plea because they decided to continue to trust those at the club who said all along that they couldn't be pinged for this and that they would win and be cleared, and because hird made it impossible for the club to sell the idea of accepting a plea.

They can sue now because they know if the club runs with a 'you knew' defence then the club is also admitting it knew, and the ramifications of that are greater than coming to a deal.

Lie and over and over again? Sounds a bit emotive but Ok. And you can call them drug cheats if you feel good doing that but I wont. Each to their own. And now we are on trust. Suits you to use trust with this argument but doesn't suit you when they trusted what they were being given wasn't PEDS. The funny thing is the WB players had nothing to do with Hird or the club when they may have taken a plea. They weren't even at the club. There goes that trust part. And of course they would have been able to plea. Cronulla did and Armstrongs cronies did and their case makes this look like someone had KFC when they should have had skinless chicken. Finally The suing part. I didn't say they couldn't sue but I wondering about the morals of those who want players to sue Essendon even though they also think the players cheated. As I said morals only seem to apply to some when it suits them. To your point though about suing why would Essendon care more than the players if "they new" actually came out? Both the players and Essendon would be both found out. Why is it worse for Essendon?

They were asked by asada on 30 occasions about supplements and they never mentioned the injections (which shock horror it turns out contained banned substances).

If that's not lying over and over again what is it?

And I'd say they trusted that the club and they'd get away with a 'perfect crime' rather than what they were taking was entirely legit.

[saintsRrising]

Thats why I'd be really disappointed if the club hadn't loaded him up with all the stuff they want him to do well before. They knew with Saad how it worked. They shouldn't risk playing funny buggers with anything sneaky now.

Personally I suspect that the Saints got caught out by not knowing that the players had all lied to the ASADA Testers after being instructed to do so by the EFC (which was to me the biggest surpise of Tuesday), which has caused the full penalty to be handed down. Remember that as far as WADA is concerned attempting to cheat is just as much as an infraction as actually cheating. So intent is everything.

I strongly suspect that the Saint's Brains Trust was expecting some form of no-fault discount if a guilty verdict came down and that Carlisle would at most miss half a season. So once agin EFC lies have brought us undone.

[ripplug66]

The players knew enough to lie, over and over and over again.

Turns out what they were given was banned. However shocking and sad, of course they deserve the full whack and to be labelled drug cheats.

They didn't take the plea because they decided to continue to trust those at the club who said all along that they couldn't be pinged for this and that they would win and be cleared, and because hird made it impossible for the club to sell the idea of accepting a plea.

They can sue now because they know if the club runs with a 'you knew' defence then the club is also admitting it knew, and the ramifications of that are greater than coming to a deal.

Lie and over and over again? Sounds a bit emotive but Ok. And you can call them drug cheats if you feel good doing that but I wont. Each to their own. And now we are on trust. Suits you to use trust with this argument but doesn't suit you when they trusted what they were being given wasn't PEDS. The funny thing is the WB players had nothing to do with Hird or the club when they may have taken a plea. They weren't even at the club. There goes that trust part. And of course they would have been able to plea. Cronulla did and Armstrongs cronies did and their case makes this look like someone had KFC when they should have had skinless chicken. Finally The suing part. I didn't say they couldn't sue but I wondering about the morals of those who want players to sue Essendon even though they also think the players cheated. As I said morals only seem to apply to some when it suits them. To your point though about suing why would Essendon care more than the players if "they new" actually came out? Both the players and Essendon would be both found out. Why is it worse for Essendon?

They were asked by asada on 30 occasions about supplements and they never mentioned the injections (which shock horror it turns out contained banned substances).

If that's not lying over and over again what is it?

And I'd say they trusted that the club and they'd get away with a 'perfect crime' rather than what they were taking was entirely legit.

WB? To hard. Is 30 fact? Serious question.

[To the top]

Just to repeat.

It is my opinion that the AFL is responsible.

The AFL, as the governing body for the Code, has the responsibility to oversee the operations of the Code - and that includes overseeing the operations of the Member Clubs who compete under Licence issued by the AFL.

The AFL can not put responsibility for what was happening onto the Member Club.

They can blame as an excuse if they wish to further demean themselves, but they can not put responsibility anywhere but with themselves as the custodians of the Code.

Otherwise why have an AFL in the first place?

You would just have individual organisations fielding sides and those sides playing each other by arrangement with each other.

I would venture that this recognition of where responsibility lays is the reason the AFL did not consider certain matters at their AFL Tribunal - such as why the players did not, and were apparently instructed not by the Club, mention at any time that they were being subjected to an injection program at the Club.

The AFL (yes, the AFL) has a testing regime which includes that it must know where players are at given times and this requirement would indicate that the players are successively in contact with the AFL (yes, the AFL again) drug testers.

For the AFL to rely on a defense of "we did not know, the Member Club did not tell us and was acting alone" is errant.

Such an excuse does not carry validity in other areas of society and can not here also.

An example is John Bannon, who has recently very sadly passed away and who I knew well from his PAC days and his PAOC days plying his leg-breaks - one of nature's true gentlemen.

But, in the aftermath of the Savings & Loans debacle trashing asset values globally and the inept handling of the deregulation of the banking industry by Banks in Australia (their Directors) including imprudent growth of the lending book free of the constraints of regulation, the State Bank of SA made poor loan decisions (as, indeed, did every bank).

The Bank had a Board of Directors and a Senior Management structure - and that was how it functioned.

When those poor lending decisions came back to bite, wiping the Capital & Reserves of the bank with the bank then assumed by the Commonwealth Bank (and ANZ and Westpac were not far behind in regards pressure on Capital & Reserves - so that was the climate of the time) John, as Premier of the State, stood and took responsibility - and resigned.

John was the Premier of the State.

Tim Marcus-Clark was the Managing Director of the bank.

John, as anyone who knew him would expect, did the honorable thing.

John did not sit at the board table of the bank and he did not sign off on lending decisions.

That was done by the bankers.

But is was a bank owned by the State of South Australia, of which, as Premier, John was the CEO.

That is the way it works - and has to work.

The alternative is just not an option - never has been and never will be.

It is the Westminster system - and it is central to the functioning of our society.

[markp]

Peter Gordon prolly thought they'd pull it off too... And he was batting pretty hard for it wasn't he?

But what player would want to admit to their new club they knew it wasn't entirely legit?

And 30 is what mcdevitt said in his statement.

[ripplug66]

Just to repeat.

It is my opinion that the AFL is responsible.

The AFL, as the governing body for the Code, has the responsibility to oversee the operations of the Code - and that includes overseeing the operations of the Member Clubs who compete under Licence issued by the AFL.

The AFL can not put responsibility for what was happening onto the Member Club.

They can blame as an excuse if they wish to further demean themselves, but they can not put responsibility anywhere but with themselves as the custodians of the Code.

Otherwise why have an AFL in the first place?

You would just have individual organisations fielding sides and those sides playing each other by arrangement with each other.

I would venture that this recognition of where responsibility lays is the reason the AFL did not consider certain matters at their AFL Tribunal - such as why the players did not, and were apparently instructed not by the Club, mention at any time that they were being subjected to an injection program at the Club.

The AFL (yes, the AFL) has a testing regime which includes that it must know where players are at given times and this requirement would indicate that the players are successively in contact with the AFL (yes, the AFL again) drug testers.

For the AFL to rely on a defense of "we did not know, the Member Club did not tell us and was acting alone" is errant.

Such an excuse does not carry validity in other areas of society and can not here also.

An example is John Bannon, who has recently very sadly passed away and who I knew well from his PAC days and his PAOC days plying his leg-breaks - one of nature's true gentlemen.

But, in the aftermath of the Savings & Loans debacle trashing asset values globally and the inept handling of the deregulation of the banking industry by Banks in Australia (their Directors) including imprudent growth of the lending book free of the constraints of regulation, the State Bank of SA made poor loan decisions (as, indeed, did every bank).

The Bank had a Board of Directors and a Senior Management structure - and that was how it functioned.

When those poor lending decisions came back to bite, wiping the Capital & Reserves of the bank with the bank then assumed by the Commonwealth Bank (and ANZ and Westpac were not far behind in regards pressure on Capital & Reserves - so that was the climate of the time) John, as Premier of the State, stood and took responsibility - and resigned.

John was the Premier of the State.

Tim Marcus-Clark was the Managing Director of the bank.

John, as anyone who knew him would expect, did the honorable thing.

John did not sit at the board table of the bank and he did not sign off on lending decisions.

That was done by the bankers.

But is was a bank owned by the State of South Australia, of which, as Premier, John was the CEO.

That is the way it works - and has to work.

The alternative is just not an option - never has been and never will be.

It is the Westminster system - and it is central to the functioning of our society.

17 out of 18 clubs haven't chosen to use PEDS. The AFL cant look over everyones shoulder. No idea about the rest of your post but I will go on a rant as well. Say I was a franchisee of a fast food place. The franchisor gives me all the rules and regulations and the correct training. I then choose to poison all my customers. Who is at fault. It the franchisee. The franchisor cant look over the shoulder every single day.

The facts are clear. Only one club of the franchise chose to cheat. No other history of cheating in the franchise. Why the hell anyone would want Essendon to not be the main people responsible just amazes me.

[Mr Magic]

The players knew enough to lie, over and over and over again.

Turns out what they were given was banned. However shocking and sad, of course they deserve the full whack and to be labelled drug cheats.

They didn't take the plea because they decided to continue to trust those at the club who said all along that they couldn't be pinged for this and that they would win and be cleared, and because hird made it impossible for the club to sell the idea of accepting a plea.

They can sue now because they know if the club runs with a 'you knew' defence then the club is also admitting it knew, and the ramifications of that are greater than coming to a deal.

Lie and over and over again? Sounds a bit emotive but Ok. And you can call them drug cheats if you feel good doing that but I wont. Each to their own. And now we are on trust. Suits you to use trust with this argument but doesn't suit you when they trusted what they were being given wasn't PEDS. The funny thing is the WB players had nothing to do with Hird or the club when they may have taken a plea. They weren't even at the club. There goes that trust part. And of course they would have been able to plea. Cronulla did and Armstrongs cronies did and their case makes this look like someone had KFC when they should have had skinless chicken. Finally The suing part. I didn't say they couldn't sue but I wondering about the morals of those who want players to sue Essendon even though they also think the players cheated. As I said morals only seem to apply to some when it suits them. To your point though about suing why would Essendon care more than the players if "they new" actually came out? Both the players and Essendon would be both found out. Why is it worse for Essendon?

They were asked by asada on 30 occasions about supplements and they never mentioned the injections (which shock horror it turns out contained banned substances).

If that's not lying over and over again what is it?

And I'd say they trusted that the club and they'd get away with a 'perfect crime' rather than what they were taking was entirely legit.

WB? To hard. Is 30 fact? Serious question.

Fact according to ASADA bos McDivot in his presser on Tuesday.
Stated categorically that there were 30 ASADA drug tests done at Essendon in the 2012 period and that only on 1 occasion did a player write on the official form that he's received an injection of 'vitamin (B2 I think he said).
On all other occasions the tested player neglected to write down on the mandatory list that they'd received any injections at all.
Given that the players were 'sure' that they were receiving legitimate peptides McDivot (and seemingly C) found it singularly suggestive that not one tested player 'remembered' any of the scores of injections they had received.

When I heard that piece of information any sympathy I had been feeling for the 'duped' payers went out the window.
They acted 'in concert' and knowingly 'lied' to the drug testers at that time.
They either knew what they had been doing as wrong (and this was before the ASADA investigation commenced) or they, as a Club, were intent on 'duping' everybody with what they were actually doing.

And I'll let you in on another secret.
I don't buy for 1 second the 'dog ate my homework' excuse as to why there are no records.
IMHO those records existed and were subsequently destroyed by people who knew that if they surfaced those records would 'prove' the case against the Club/Players.
AFL football clubs keep track of everything and there is no possible way that such an organized 'Sports Science Program' would be run without someone at EFC knowing exactly what was going on and documenting it.
Let's be generous here and say that Dank/Robinson et al 'duped' EFC with what the program actually was - there would still be records given to EFC with the 'substituted' substances listed.
Who destroyed the information at EFC?
I bet it wasn't Dank/Robinson et al.

[ripplug66]

Fact according to ASADA bos McDivot in his presser on Tuesday.
Stated categorically that there were 30 ASADA drug tests done at Essendon in the 2012 period and that only on 1 occasion did a player write on the official form that he's received an injection of 'vitamin (B2 I think he said).
On all other occasions the tested player neglected to write down on the mandatory list that they'd received any injections at all.
Given that the players were 'sure' that they were receiving legitimate peptides McDivot (and seemingly C) found it singularly suggestive that not one tested player 'remembered' any of the scores of injections they had received.

When I heard that piece of information any sympathy I had been feeling for the 'duped' payers went out the window.
They acted 'in concert' and knowingly 'lied' to the drug testers at that time.
They either knew what they had been doing as wrong (and this was before the ASADA investigation commenced) or they, as a Club, were intent on 'duping' everybody with what they were actually doing.

And I'll let you in on another secret.
I don't buy for 1 second the 'dog ate my homework' excuse as to why there are no records.
IMHO those records existed and were subsequently destroyed by people who knew that if they surfaced those records would 'prove' the case against the Club/Players.
AFL football clubs keep track of everything and there is no possible way that such an organized 'Sports Science Program' would be run without someone at EFC knowing exactly what was going on and documenting it.
Let's be generous here and say that Dank/Robinson et al 'duped' EFC with what the program actually was - there would still be records given to EFC with the 'substituted' substances listed.
Who destroyed the information at EFC?
I bet it wasn't Dank/Robinson et al.

So every player said it 30 times? Doesn't sound like that to me but I could be wrong. Sounds like there was 30 tests and only one player mentioned something so that could actually be 30 different players who lied once. Still not good enough but it isn't 30 times per player. Again maybe I have that wrong and happy to be told I have read it wrong. And I don't buy the dog ate my home work either.

I gather you think the players shouldn't sue? And I gather you would like Carlisle to be paid out?

[Mr Magic]

I don't know how many individual players were tested, only that there were 30 drug tests done and not one of those tests produced a 'mandatory written form' which stated

An injection of Thymosin (not TB-4, but the allowable Thymosin) was received
an Injection of AOD-9604 was received
An injection of anything was received.
One player wrote down that he had received an injection of 'Vitaman B'

If nothing else it clearly shows that there was a 'plan' in place to 'hide' the 'injection program' from everybody including SADA's drug testers.
Pretty hard to reconcile that fact with the 'players were innocent victims of mad scientist' excuse that's been peddled by the EFC, their cronies and PR spin merchants from day 1 of this fiasco.

[prwilkinson]

How many games did the club suspend Jake for? 6? Will he still serve those matches at the end of this supplement suspension?

[Mr Magic]

Oh, and the players are entitle to sue if they want to - it's entirely up to them.

Personally I believe they were duped initially by Dank/Robinson/Hird et al into believing what EFC was doing was 'cutting edge', 'borderline' but kosher.
BUT
once the banned stuff was in their system they were 'gone'.
And once the proverbial 'hit the fan' I believe they embarked on a course (again sold to them by EFC) of denial and obfuscation as a means of avoiding what happened to them on Tuesday.
In the end they got 'too clever by half' and they 'poked the big bear'.

As for Carlisle, he has a contract and he's got every right to expect his payments.
The question surely is who has to pay it?
If it's us then who really cares?
Under the league rules we have to pay his $700k anyway - we can't just pocket it and save it for a rainy day.
All the contracts for the season were finalised well before Tuesday so we cannot alter who we pay what for 2016 anyway.
So what's the real damage to us?

[Mr Magic]

How many games did the club suspend Jake for? 6? Will he still serve those matches at the end of this supplement suspension?

It was 2 matches dn they will be served concurrently(I believe) with his 12 month ban.

[ripplug66]

How many games did the club suspend Jake for? 6? Will he still serve those matches at the end of this supplement suspension?

2 and not a hope in the world. The guy has suffered enough.

[samoht]

Who cares what fate awaits other cheating clubs and their players.
In the end it was the St Kilda recruiters who were "too clever by half" and it was us who got royally poked - by self poking. $700 K down the tube and a recruit that has to sit out a year.

[Mr Magic]

Who cares what fate awaits other cheating clubs and their players.
In the end it was the St Kilda recruiters who were "too clever by half" and it was us who got royally poked - by self poking. $700 K down the tube and a recruit that has to sit out a year.

You do realize we have to pay that 700k to someone (under the AFL TPP rues)?
We can't just keep it.

[samoht]

You do realize we have to pay that 700k to someone (under the AFL TPP rues)?
We can't just keep it.

Of course. Our recruiters have made a costly blunder.

[ripplug66]

You do realize we have to pay that 700k to someone (under the AFL TPP rues)?
We can't just keep it.

Of course. Our recruiters have made a costly blunder.

If we are 95% it isn't.