Sorry Saga - “It’s actually quite funny people thinking they know more than they actually do”


No, its not unbelievable, its very believable. Paul (Judas) Hamilton has been rewarded for his loyalty.
Must not have wanted an MBA.


Figure this out…two blokes - a sports supplements fitness guy and the other an ex AFL champion player and coach.

Both get a cool million and an MBA.

  • One has his reputation on and off the field ruined and is banned from coaching for a year for his part in a supplement scandal which is unclear then, soon after resigns. The word from the top is, he will never work in footy again.

  • The other, is stood down from his position at the EFC. Sues the EFC. Lays low for awhile then, re-surfaces in the NRL consulting for his brother, the coach of an NRL team. Has no convictions and is as clean as whistle and free to work anywhere. Unbelievable!!!


A tale of two codes:
Flanagan- head coach of Cronulla - suspended for a year for governance issues - back coaching Cronulla.
Elkin- strength and conditioning coach under Flanagan’s supervision - suspended for governance issues for two years ( initially suspended indefinitely) back in the game.
Hird - head coach at Essendon without supervisory authority over strength and conditioning coach Robinson - settled for a one year suspension following charges of bringing the game into disrepute - now out of the game and, according to Danny Corcororan, , was being blackballed by the AFL from working in the game again (and not employed in any capacity connected to sport).
Robinson, settled an EFC dismissal case for $1 million, never charged by ASADA or AFL, given a job at KPMG , back in sport at the Roosters…


So, it seems, the NRL are fairer and more forgiving than the AFL.

Could any other club in the AFL have survived what Essendon did?


One didn’t take on City Hall.


Elkin was the nominated scapegoat at Cronulla, but successfully appealed his de-registration to an independent tribunal ( all details confidential). Before then he was pilloried in the media - with the media choosing to believe Flanagan’s version over his - but all is sweet now, no longer the disgraced former strength and fitness coach.
Sometimes it pays to take on City Hall ( unless it is the AFL).



Had Hird followed the script laid out for him by Liz Lukin and resigned as coach after that game against the Dockers in Perth 2013, the AFL and their accredited attack dogs in the media would’ve given him a much easier ride, and thus saved any embarrassment and hard work for the AFL.

But because he stood up for his principles and chose to take them on and tried to expose their filthy corrupt practices, along with ASADA’s arsefarkery, they just had to destroy his previously impeccable reputation and good name within the game and bring him and his family to their knees.

To see him survive the past 4-5 years the way he has, following falling to the lowest point in his life early this year, is testament to the strength of character that we all know that he has after displaying it countless times during his playing career.

A pox to all those bacterial scum that frequent the corridors of that slime infested swampland that is known as AFL House.


Been a while since someone went BANG.


Or sat tight…


D day is tomorrow at 4:30?


Can you elaborate Robin Close?


Referring to this, @wazza :


Ready for more disappointment?


Cheers MrJez.


T minus 8 hrs


jackson taylor hearing this afternoon.


i’m sitting tight


The applicant for security costs is the AFL.
Plaintiff is Taylor. Note item (d) in particular:

Factors to be taken into account by the Judge for Security of costs application:

The Judge will give consideration to the particular facts of a case and will give varying weight to the relevant factors.
For example:
(a) Whether the application for security for Costs has been brought promptly;
(b) That regard is to be had to the strength and bona fides of the plaintiff’s case;
© Whether the applicant’s impecuniosity was caused by the plaintiff’s conduct the subject of the claim;
(d) Whether the applicant’s application for security for costs is oppressive in the sense that it is being used merely to deny an impecunious plaintiff a right to litigate;
(e) Whether there are any persons standing behind the plaintiff who are likely to benefit from the litigation and who are willing to provide the necessary security;
(f) Whether persons standing behind the plaintiff have offered any personal undertaking to be liable for the costs and if so, the form of any such undertaking; and

ATM, it feels like the great unwashed are all standing behind the plaintiff’s case.

Good luck.


Let’s hope the judge isn’t of the Middleton variety


Anything come of today?