This is true.... Board to contest 2002 PP Removal

camel · **Posted:** Mon Sep 25, 2006 11:42 am

Elwood Blues1 wrote:

....lets get a decent board toghether, new coach and show the AFL we can make it without their help or this pathetic begging approach...

I agree.

The pathway to enlightenment is simple.

But building it is bloody hard!

Baggers · **Posted:** Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:27 pm

Synbad wrote:

Step one.
A presentation and a claim for the lost pick was made last week.
The AFL have been given 7 days to reply.

So its really a case of watch this space for now. Should know more this week.

GO YOU GOOD THING!!!!!!!!!

Carlton (clap clap clap) Carlton (clap clap clap)

The Vet · **Posted:** Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:47 am

Synbad wrote:

Step one.
A presentation and a claim for the lost pick was made last week.
The AFL have been given 7 days to reply.

So its really a case of watch this space for now. Should know more this week.

Nice touch - make 'em respond in Grand Final week.

GWS · **Posted:** Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:58 am

If the AFL were to grant the 2002 PP retrospectively would there be a case to sue for damages?

Obviously depriving us of that player for four years has been detrimental to our playing list and the result of that is that we've won fewer games and hence received lower revenues.

By acknowledging that the penalty was excessively punitive the AFL would obviously be recognising that they have damaged the Carlton Football Club.

Am I being a little greedy here? :lol:

CarltonClem · **Posted:** Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:00 pm

GWS wrote:

If the AFL were to grant the 2002 PP retrospectively would there be a case to sue for damages?

Obviously depriving us of that player for four years has been detrimental to our playing list and the result of that is that we've won fewer games and hence received lower revenues.

By acknowledging that the penalty was excessively punitive the AFL would obviously be recognising that they have damaged the Carlton Football Club.

Am I being a little greedy here? :lol:

Hard to quantify GWS - the exact damages would only be approximate and that is not often enough for the courts.

Would try to settle with the AFL rather than trying litigation...

TheGame · **Posted:** Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:10 pm

GWS wrote:

Am I being a little greedy here? :lol:

Yes! I'd be happy just to take Gibbs, Hansen and my new username.

Carlton God · **Joined:** Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:39 pm **Posts:** 487

Even if there is only a 5% chance of getting the PP the club should be going at it full steam ahead - 15 other clubs would.

If we don't go for it in 5 years time the same sheep bleating how we shouldn't go for it now will be bleating how pathetic we were for not going for it!

Some of the sheep whinging about how totally shit this board is want them to just sit back and be the AFL's bitches and not 'rock the boat'. Hillarious.

Saying what a mistake it was in 2004 winning so many games and then wanting to have a couple of meaningless wins in 2006 coz "We are Carlton" or "we need to start winning at some stage".

Worried about trading Stevens coz "he's our best midfielder" LOL. Not wanting to trade Fatnall coz of his "footy brain".

Some of you would be too scared to take a flight on a plane but wouldn't think twice about crossing a busy road blind folded. Then when you get smacked by a 20 tonne semi trailer you would whinge and cry about what you 'should' have done before you crossed the road. @#$%&! hopeless!

Carlton God

The Tyrant · **Posted:** Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:23 pm

I hope we do get picks 1 & 2..... so Pagan can trade them both for a bag of magic beans

Kaptain Kouta · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:41 pm **Posts:** 63509

The Tyrant wrote:

I hope we do get picks 1 & 2..... so Pagan can trade them both for a bag of magic beans

*yaaawwwwwn*

The Tyrant · **Posted:** Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:40 pm

<-------------

Nick · **Joined:** Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:52 pm **Posts:** 1857

Quote:

The AFL Commission voted on Monday to reject Carlton's request for the reinstatement of the 2002 priority pick that was taken from the club as part of its penalty for systematic salary cap breaches during the 1990s. The commission also learnt of the conclusions former St Kilda chief executive Jim Watts reached after his league-sanctioned investigation of Carlton's operations.

It is understood the report was highly critical of several administrative and board practices and the recent ground naming-rights deal with MC Labour.

It just keeps getting better and better.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2006/09/27/1159337221831.html

titimus · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:06 pm **Posts:** 940

-- edit --

heh, bet me to it!

Willl we take them to court? This is going to be interesting.

kennyhunter · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:35 pm **Posts:** 2438

Now, has the board got the balls????

Kouta · **Posted:** Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:56 am

kennyhunter wrote:

Now, has the board got the balls????

They better go through with it or we are just another club like the Dogs who are run by the AFL. We've got more self respect to lose by not going for it and fighting for what may be ours by rights.

Forget the cost of it and what others may think and go for the jugular! :twisted:

What are they going to do, kick us out of the AFL or fine us? :lol:

bmaurizio · **Joined:** Thu May 05, 2005 10:49 am **Posts:** 1624

Agree go for the jugular if legal council is sound just do it.
We've been trampled on for to long.
Ciao

Synbad · **Posted:** Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:08 am

they will disband their counsel and get back in their box ..

bluechucky · **Joined:** Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:29 am **Posts:** 13689

Wouldn't surprise me Synbad.

We are a rabble and a laughing stock.

mjonc · **Posted:** Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:56 am

kennyhunter wrote:

Now, has the board got the balls????

Would be an interesting game of soggy biscuit to see who makes the final decision on this.

marciblue · **Posted:** Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:57 am

Like I posted earlier, this could be a "line in the sand" moment for our club if the board has the balls.

But this club is a deadset rabble so expect nothing to eventuate... :cry:

Synbad · **Posted:** Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:04 am

mjonc wrote:

kennyhunter wrote:

Now, has the board got the balls????

Would be an interesting game of soggy biscuit to see who makes the final decision on this.

The board would.

But Smorgon isnt one to rush off to the courts.

I think they were hoping they would be given the pick.

Fitzpatrick told them it was "highly unlikely"

We have accepted money from the AFL (even on loan) One of the reasons why Collo didnt go the money path is because he believed that if we did we could scratch any hope of ever getting the PP back... he was after all a footballer as well as an accountant.

Smorgon on the other hand is even more monetary driven..and in his accountant like eyes he believes football is just about paying bills. The football is secondary... his big thing was the AFL money.

He wouldnt want to be seen to do anything 'dirty' like take the AFL to court... no matter what the others think.

He just doesnt understand football.
He has no clue what industry he is in... its about entertainment and dreams.. not nuts and bolts.

I reckon the club is in severe turmoil ..

When a StKilda man can recognise gaping holes in the way this club is run.. you can imagine how far behind we are .

This is true.... Board to contest 2002 PP Removal

Who is online