MAL MICHAEL

paddyl90 · Post by **paddyl90** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 4:47 pm

Brisbane build a bridge and get over it. He obviously ditched you because you suck now and he sees a better opportunity down here. You can suck on it. Your reign is over !!

Ahhh what a good feeling.

Sorry but it's just good to see them suck.

bombercol · Post by **bombercol** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 5:58 pm

Brisbane delisted him. End of story. He is no longer a Lions player. Don't see any issue and it appears that contact was made after 31/10 when Michael WAS DELISTED.

Welcome to Essendon Mal.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:10 pm

The way I see it, Brisbane released him from his contract and delisted him. Essendon saw an opportunity to talk him out of retirement and he changed his mind about playing the game. That's his prerogative. I understand Brisbane's anger, but I don't see how they can challenge "an understanding".

AnarchicBomber · Post by **AnarchicBomber** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:17 pm

The way I see it Brisbane's beef should be with the existing rules. This being the case they have little chance of changing what has happened because it hasn't contravened those rules.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:32 pm

I just had a thought. This is Sheedy's revenge. Back to those 2001 days of "If it bleeds, we can kill it" comments by Matthews, and the "No rules" round when we played them next. I guess there are "no rules" regarding this development. How ironic!

bombercol · Post by **bombercol** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:45 pm

BenDoolan wrote:The way I see it, Brisbane released him from his contract and delisted him. Essendon saw an opportunity to talk him out of retirement and he changed his mind about playing the game. That's his prerogative. I understand Brisbane's anger, but I don't see how they can challenge "an understanding".

Exactly right! He was delisted therefore no longer a Lions player.

I also as a member of this club would expect our match committee or recruiting manager to "enquire" about him if he would fit into our plans as he is a delisted player.

Brisbane have nothing to hold their hat on here. They need to move on, put it down to experience and next time they release a player they might need to look after themselves a bit better.

No sympathy for the Lions here.

Marillion · Post by **Marillion** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:04 pm

Hey Lethal! "If it Retires,Draft it"...........

AnarchicBomber · Post by **AnarchicBomber** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:23 pm

Marillion wrote:Hey Lethal! "If it Retires,Draft it"...........

HaHa! God work Marillion. Would love to hear Sheeds come out and say "Well we think if it retires we can draft it"

bombercol · Post by **bombercol** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:28 pm

Just to add another bit, the AFL (and Essendon) only need to highlight the sooky la la behaviour they performed with Akermanis as a contracted player.

There is no case to answer for here. He's delisted and he's signing with us.

Just as if young Lucy signed with another club, we delisted him (with a year to go on his contract), nothing to hang the hat on at all

WELCOME MAL!!!!

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:02 pm

Not a done deal yet.

In the press conference, Michael stated that he had signed a contract to be an Ambassador for Brisbane (not sure in what regard). He hasn't heard if the contract been formally lodged yet (probably not seeing as Brisbane haven't used it as a point in their favour yet).

But I don't think we should be counting the chickens just yet.

This deal has not fully hatched yet.

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:42 pm

nmgilbert wrote:From the Brisbane Lions Website:

“If this situation is left to stand, then the integrity of AFL contracts and the drafting system will be seriously undermined. It creates the potential for anarchy and no other AFL Club could seriously support such a precedent that could jeopardise their own future football planning.
”

You mean like when you won 3 premierships in a row with a list you were able to keep together with an extra $600K in the cap....or when you tried to bully the AFL into extending you Brisbane exclusive pick zone by about and extra 15km so you could grab Nick Riewoldt for nothing....and then sooked and whinged about how the AFL wasn't doing enough to help you, when they refused to gave in!!!!

How about when the AFL basically torpedoed the Fitzroy/North Melbourne merger at the lst moment and allowed the Brisbanes hostile takeover of Fitzroy and their raping and pillaging of Fitzroy history.

Suck on shit you hypocritical f****!!!

Maybe you f**** should look at what's going on at your club...why are club champions like Aker and Michaels essentially deciding to walk out on you.

Sure you might say it because they rats jumping from a sinking ship. Might be a valid argument if Michaels didn't jump ship to go to the team that just finished 2nd bottom.

Something stinks behind closed doors at Brisbane and if we first talked to Michaels on Nov 2, and got permission from the AFL to go ahead with it, then cry us a river, then build a bridge and get the f*** over it you tossers!!!

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Fri Nov 24, 2006 11:51 pm

Really, got to makes you wonder how stupid the Lions are.

Apparently we showed interest in him during trade week. They didn't want to deal because apparently they were convinced he wanted to retire. They allowed him to retire and then 3 days later G'OD who would know the bloke pretty well rang him and talked him out of retirement.

Makes you wonder if he really wanted to retire at all or whether he just wanted out of Brisbane.

From the sounds of this, it makes me think Brisbane where playing dirty buggers themselves.

Michaels made comments towards the end of the season about lacking passion for football, and wanting to move part-time and pursue outside interests.

Having made those comments, Brisbane might have been pretty confident no other club would even consider talking to him. So despite us showing some interest in him during trade week, Brisbane ignores our advances and tells Michaels he can re-sign with them and fully commit himself to their club or retire. After all with the state of their current list, and in particular their backline, they couldn't afford to lose and All-Australian fullback!!!

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:22 am

not sure if anyone has mentioned this but this scenario is no different to when Tim Watson retired and was drafted by West Coast. In the end he didnt play and was therefore available to come back to Essendon in 1993.

At the time, he was apparently close to signing with St Kilda before Sheeds stepped in and redrafted him to the Bombers

THere were no law suits then

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 7:41 am

Speaking of Tim Watson, I think he mentioned at some stage during the season with his "the fish rots at the head" statement, that our board/management has lost its mongrel. Well, by looking at this, I think they've just found it again! Some really good positive signs happening at the club at the moment, and it's great to see.

Post by **boncer34** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:28 am

Watson was a different scenario Windy. He retired in 1991 WCE picked him up for the 1992 season on a one year deal, he never played for them and only visited the club once to tell them that. So at the start of the 1993 season he was out of contract totally.

Post by **danstar84** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:34 am

If there is no evidence that we spoke to him before he retired about this circumstance (joining us), they don't have a leg to stand on. We found a loophole (I suspect), and used it to our advantage. Take legal action Brissy, you will just end up with a nice bill at the end of it.

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:14 pm

boncer34 wrote:Watson was a different scenario Windy. He retired in 1991 WCE picked him up for the 1992 season on a one year deal, he never played for them and only visited the club once to tell them that. So at the start of the 1993 season he was out of contract totally.

Understand Bonce, but the point is that he was drafted by another club having already retired - and retired I should stress as a wanted payer at Essendon. The only difference perhaps being that Watson chose not to take up the offer whereas Mal will.

Either way, almost makes up for the hidings we took from those pricks for a few years there

Makaveli · Post by **Makaveli** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 4:57 pm

With the amount of fuss the media has kicked up i wouldn't be too sure michael is definetly gonna play for essendon. It can be seen as something players will do in the future if they wanna swap clubs. Maybe the AFL should bring in a rule whereby retirees have to have at least 12months out of the game unless returning to their original club or some shit. Also in preference to losing michael, the AFL might just do something like say to essendon youv'e got to give brisbane your 3rd round pick next year as compensation. Anyway something like that. Hopefully we can still keep him his a monster in defence and the best full back in the past 10yrs in my opinion.

uptick · Post by **uptick** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 5:05 pm

No chance we'll have to give the BEARS anything. All that will happen is that in future retiring players will be required to offer their services to the old club prior to reactivating theirt careers, assuming they are still under contract at the time of retirement. End of story. Haver said that , I'm going to enjoy the journey between today, and round one when he runs out in the RED and BLACK.

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:21 pm

uptick wrote:No chance we'll have to give the BEARS anything. All that will happen is that in future retiring players will be required to offer their services to the old club prior to reactivating theirt careers, assuming they are still under contract at the time of retirement. End of story. Haver said that , I'm going to enjoy the journey between today, and round one when he runs out in the RED and BLACK.

I am not sure it will work this way. I dont think the AFL needs to introduce any new rules because simply put, the law of contract should prevail. This is simply a case of Brisbane not crossing the T's and dotting the I's. Remenber, they agreed to tear up Michael's contract. He therefore has every legal right to do what he is doing. If Brisbane had been smarter they would have simply held onto the contract but agreed with Michael not to pay any money.

Why are Brisbane so pissed off- because like anyone in this situation, the just feel stupid for letting it happen and are trying to deflect the blame onto everyone else.