If you haven't worked it out yet, the women were paid off to keep quiet. No players were named due to this, and thus he can't name anyone due to it. 1999 was a while back now, though how long after Kate's one they continued paying people off is the question. Thus why he alludes that some of the guys may still be playing now.
Um, the player in question was named by The Age four days ago.He also retired eight years ago. Having done five minutes of research it is a pretty messy case and deserves reinvestigation. However, you seem to struggle to grasp the concept of a confidentiality agreement. It's different to a court injunction. The media are quite within their rights to mention the players name within the public domain. They have done this. "SWEEP, SWEEP", right?
To the point of further pay-offs, John Elliott was President until 2002. Looking at the 2002 playing list there are only three players still on the Carlton list or still active in the AFL. You cant rule out the unlikely possibility of one of those three being implicated, but it seems unlikely. As I said earlier, the author's remark simply sounded like a shot in the dark. He's just guessing. Ive got no problems with the article, it's pretty good on the whole, but that kind of journalism pervades the media and is emblematic of those who dont do proper research. He knows that sentence will resonate with the mainstream because they are unlikely to know, or remember, the 1999-2000-2001-2002 playing lists.
John Elliott was president of Carlton for about a thousand years. It's far more likely that the 'hush money' occured in the 70s and 80s and as such, again, the comment by the journalist is simply scaremongering.
