Australian Open 2022
Difficult to see how he could compete on a level basis here. I'm sure the government will not back down, even with a legal challenge.
I do think Djokovic has played a shocker here. Should have sorted this all out a long time ago if he really wanted to be there to become the GOAT and avoid all this.
I do think Djokovic has played a shocker here. Should have sorted this all out a long time ago if he really wanted to be there to become the GOAT and avoid all this.
Just for trading info - Djokovic can either return to detention pending legal appeal or leave Australia.
At present it does not appear he can stay out of detention pending appeal. He has been asked to present himself to immigration for an interview on Saturday morning. He is not yet in detention and the comments on that detention pending legal appeal is my opinion (and understanding of the law).
I really don’t think he should constitute 30% of the market. That’s just my opinion. So I’ve backed the field without the Djoker within my risk tolerances.
The other bet that some are looking at is lay the Djoker.
If he doesn’t take to the court for round 1 the lay is void.
If he does take to the court the lay stands. He then has to win 7 matches off a dodgy preparation.
At present it does not appear he can stay out of detention pending appeal. He has been asked to present himself to immigration for an interview on Saturday morning. He is not yet in detention and the comments on that detention pending legal appeal is my opinion (and understanding of the law).
I really don’t think he should constitute 30% of the market. That’s just my opinion. So I’ve backed the field without the Djoker within my risk tolerances.
The other bet that some are looking at is lay the Djoker.
If he doesn’t take to the court for round 1 the lay is void.
If he does take to the court the lay stands. He then has to win 7 matches off a dodgy preparation.
Thanks for the post!gazuty wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:14 amJust for trading info - Djokovic can either return to detention pending legal appeal or leave Australia.
At present it does not appear he can stay out of detention pending appeal. He has been asked to present himself to immigration for an interview on Saturday morning. He is not yet in detention and the comments on that detention pending legal appeal is my opinion (and understanding of the law).
I really don’t think he should constitute 30% of the market. That’s just my opinion. So I’ve backed the field without the Djoker within my risk tolerances.
The other bet that some are looking at is lay the Djoker.
If he doesn’t take to the court for round 1 the lay is void.
If he does take to the court the lay stands. He then has to win 7 matches off a dodgy preparation.
- wearthefoxhat
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:55 am
Theoretically, now the visa has been cancelled, Novak can't re-apply for 3 more years!Euler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:00 amDifficult to see how he could compete on a level basis here. I'm sure the government will not back down, even with a legal challenge.
I do think Djokovic has played a shocker here. Should have sorted this all out a long time ago if he really wanted to be there to become the GOAT and avoid all this.
Yep. Of course the minister can exercise a discretion on that three years but given everything that has happened I can’t see any minister doing that in the next three years.wearthefoxhat wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:34 amTheoretically, now the visa has been cancelled, Novak can't re-apply for 3 more years!
In addition there is the possibility of being granted a bridging Visa allowing him to be in the community pending a legal appeal however that is not the usual path for the government and even less so that a court would direct the government issue a bridging Visa. (All my opinion only based on my understanding).
He can apply for a Bridging Visa but that doesn’t automatically come with working rights so he’s gotta two battles in court and then an uphill battle on court if it does get granted.wearthefoxhat wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:34 amTheoretically, now the visa has been cancelled, Novak can't re-apply for 3 more years!Euler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:00 amDifficult to see how he could compete on a level basis here. I'm sure the government will not back down, even with a legal challenge.
I do think Djokovic has played a shocker here. Should have sorted this all out a long time ago if he really wanted to be there to become the GOAT and avoid all this.
Agree, have both a back the field and lay Djoko position at the moment.gazuty wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 8:14 amJust for trading info - Djokovic can either return to detention pending legal appeal or leave Australia.
At present it does not appear he can stay out of detention pending appeal. He has been asked to present himself to immigration for an interview on Saturday morning. He is not yet in detention and the comments on that detention pending legal appeal is my opinion (and understanding of the law).
I really don’t think he should constitute 30% of the market. That’s just my opinion. So I’ve backed the field without the Djoker within my risk tolerances.
The other bet that some are looking at is lay the Djoker.
If he doesn’t take to the court for round 1 the lay is void.
If he does take to the court the lay stands. He then has to win 7 matches off a dodgy preparation.
You have to pay 115% to back the field now though, probably still worth it. You can of course skip some of the 1000 oddsers.
The Djoko trade value is depending on the likelyhood of him having to leave after the tournament has started. With all this mess, including lawyers anything is possible. If he was guaranteed to finish the tournament if starting I would rather back at 3.5 than lay. Don't think preparations matter too much, as he will get in shape during the first few rounds.
-
- Posts: 1075
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:38 am
There is a link to to the court feed here (11:13 update)... Shows arguments so far atm..
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/ ... alex-hawke
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/live/ ... alex-hawke
I’m not much for the word harmless “not able or ‘likely’ to cause harm”. Although technically correct (about the jab) it comes across somewhat deceiving. It’s pretence imo.
We know there are side effects, although unlikely, so let’s umbrella it with the word harmless.
Just my opinion, as we were.