Michael probe continuing
11:01:05 AM Wed 29 November, 2006
Naomi Levin
Sportal for afl.com.au
AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has said he's uncertain how long the league's investigation into Mal Michael's retirement backflip and planned move to Essendon will take to complete.
Last week the Bombers announced their intention to pick up Michael on a two-year deal in the upcoming pre-season draft after the Brisbane Lions triple-premiership defender had announced his retirement from football in early October.
Michael had one year remaining on his contract with the Lions and, in thanking Michael for his "fantastic" contribution, Brisbane coach Leigh Matthews said: "We understand each individual has their own career path to follow and Mal's does not involve playing anymore".
Brisbane was left seething over the circumstances, believing the club had been denied the right to trade for Michael and it urged the league to rule the 29-year-old ineligible for the pre-season draft.
"At the moment we don't think they (Essendon) are (in breach of any rules) but there is an investigation going on and we will have to wait for the outcome of the investigation," Demetriou said.
Demetriou said the only time the AFL was consulted regarding Michael was when Essendon contacted AFL investigations manager Ken Wood before any decision had been made.
"Peter Jackson contacted Ken Wood to ask whether Mal Michael was available to be drafted in the pre-season draft and the answer to that question was yes but that was a direct answer to a specific question," Demetriou said.
AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson is overseeing the league's investigation.
Sounds like Vlad and co might be getting set to shaft us again.
Just our luck to have Anderson overseeing the investigation
"You can quote me on this... He is gawn" - bomberdonnie re Hurley's contract status 25 February 2012
the only thing that could shaft us, is if we were involved in Michael's decision to retire. That would be I am sure tampering and that is probably what the AFL is and should be looking into.
I have no reason to believe anyone involved has lied so far, and if the version of the truth presented at our press conference is fine then it is all very legitimate.
The footy world should be welcoming Michael back with welcome arms.
I thought it was a tragedy for the game when he first announced retirement.
This whole issue is being blown up and fanned by the media, desperate for some footy news to report on in this traditionally quiet time.
The more I hear (such as the Hawthorn revelations), the more I'm sure Essendon acted fine and is in the clear.
That said, Brisbane may still have legal grounds against Michael to stop him playing. It would depend on the laws surrounding verbal contracts (no idea personally) and the contract that surrounded his 'ambassadorial' duties.
Of course, if the AFL/Brisbane stop Mal Michael nominating, it would indirectly affect us, and I think it is still possible that will happen, but it won't be aimed (IMO) at Essendon itself.
Hahaha, I love this speculation, investigation and procrastination about a very simple matter. He was afree agent, and we signed him on contract. Here is a simple investigative process for the AFL to consider......
AFL to Mal Michael: Were you aproached by EFC prior to making your retirement announcement and did they influence your decision?
Mal Michael: No.
AFL: Thankyou for your time, your asistance has been most helpful during our investigation.
AFL to EFC: Did you approach Mal Michael prior to announcement to retire and did you influence his decision?
EFC: No.
AFL: Thankyou for your time, your assistance has been most helpful during our investigation.
And he's not sure how long it will take???????
Last edited by BenDoolan on Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
swoodley wrote:"Peter Jackson contacted Ken Wood to ask whether Mal Michael was available to be drafted in the pre-season draft and the answer to that question was yes..."
mean it's all above board?
We asked, they said go for it.
Don't know what else we're supposed to do.
You couldn't fool your own mother on the foolingest day of your life with an electrified fooling machine.
BenDoolan wrote:Hahaha, I love this speculation, investigation and procrastination about a very simple matter. He was afree agent, and we signed him on contract. Here is a simple investigative process for the AFL to consider......
AFL to Mal Michael: Were you aproached by EFC prior to making your retirement announcement and did they influence your decision?
Mal Michael: No.
AFL: Thankyou for your time, your asistance has been most helpful during our investigation.
AFL to EFC: Did you approach Mal Michael prior to announcement to retire and did you influence his decision?
EFC: No.
AFL: Thankyou for your time, your assistance has been most helpful during our investigation.
And he's not sure how long it will take???????
I read that it was going to take 2-3 weeks.
Ken Wood must have a really bad stutter
"You can quote me on this... He is gawn" - bomberdonnie re Hurley's contract status 25 February 2012
You seem to be missing the point that the investigation is far more likely to focus on whether Michael is truly a free agent than whether or not Essendon (or anyone else) tampered with the draft.
antcl wrote:You seem to be missing the point that the investigation is far more likely to focus on whether Michael is truly a free agent than whether or not Essendon (or anyone else) tampered with the draft.
How long does it take to look at a piece of paper then?
swoodley wrote:"Peter Jackson contacted Ken Wood to ask whether Mal Michael was available to be drafted in the pre-season draft and the answer to that question was yes..."
mean it's all above board?
We asked, they said go for it.
Don't know what else we're supposed to do.
Well, I hear that Vlad has asked PJ to bend over and take it like a man...
antcl wrote:You seem to be missing the point that the investigation is far more likely to focus on whether Michael is truly a free agent than whether or not Essendon (or anyone else) tampered with the draft.
How long does it take to look at a piece of paper then?
That would depend on how many QCs look at it
I do think its pretty certain to go through. But I'm not willing to assume its 100% certain quite yet. I'll be watching Brisbane closely to see what they do, as I suspect any legal action if it eventuates will come from them.
