Should Port Adelaide, Bulldogs, MFC and Stk be allowed Top Up players

[gillo94]

I think they should have lost their 2016 1st round draft pick as they shouldn't be rewarded with the #1-2 pick given they put themselves in this situation, however they have been punished fairly heavily, have paid millions in fines and are probably going to get sued for 10s of millions, so how much more accountable do they need to get?

Compensate StK, Port, Bulldogs and MFC with contracts of those players suspended
and the contracts of the players who have moved on as assistant coaches and trainers

 

[Newnsey Boy]

St Kilda will be fine with just the free elevation of a rookie. I would be very surprised if we were pushing for finals and Carlisle being a missing piece of the puzzle in 2016.

 

[gillo94]

St Kilda will be fine with just the free elevation of a rookie. I would be very surprised if we were pushing for finals and Carlisle being a missing piece of the puzzle in 2016.

I'm still very confused of StK back 6
Think Carlisle will be missed

 

[wowlace]

Meh, I don't think so. Everyone knew this was the likely end game. Those in the industry would have a good idea what was going down. First thing I questioned when The MFC took Jake Melksham was why, when we know he is very likely going to be sidelined. The second thing I questioned was why the MFC took Jake Melksham because he is shit redefined.

I don't think the MFC should get a top up player.

 

[marty36]

Maybe both Ryder and Monfries felt a sense of loyalty to a club that they had spent their formative years with (since they were 18) and ex-teammates that they had spent over 6 years with to not throw them under the bus by cutting a deal. If they believed they did nothing wrong, then why wouldn't they contest it?

The great thing is...next year we'll get Ryder and Gus back (Monfries on a base one year contract)...and you'll get NOTHING. Just like you got for Tippett.

Actually...it wasn't nothing, was it? You actually lost picks.

Now THAT was karma

Adelaide deserved to cop it for Tippet, I'm not afraid to take the guilt for what was done, if they did it they did it no hiding from it.

Monfries and Ryder broke the guidelines found guilty for it as did 32 other players along with the likes of Saad,Crowley, Keeffie and Thomas. They should all be penalised.

As for the clubs the rules apply for all, as it did with Adelaide

The only reason for Essendon getting top ups is so that the other 17 clubs aren't penalised financially imagine what the crowds would be if the bombers were getting flogged by 150 points.

 

[Newnsey Boy]

I'm still very confused of StK back 6
Think Carlisle will be missed

You've got the veteran defenders in Gilbert, Fisher and Dempster. All still very serviceable when in peak condition.

Dylan Roberton was one of our most improved players last year, and can explode off the back flank when needed. Hugh Goddard has proven he has the potential to be an incredible full back in the future.

Geary, Savage and Newnes can play both defence and midfield and can provide the forwardline with decent swing options.

Of course Carlisle is a big shame as he will one day be a great defender, but that's the thing, ONE DAY. We can wait.

Bailey Rice and Brandon White, our newest recruits, both play as defenders and it will be good to see them get some game time.

 

[TedDougChris]

In the last round a few years ago, maybe 2011 (it was definitely against the Bulldogs), they had so many injuries that they had to gain permission to promote more rookies than normally allowed to fill the 22. All players were on listed though.

I think last round of 2011? They were allowed to promote additional players from the rookie list. It is how Casey Sibosado played his one and only game for the Dockers.

Thanks guys, couldn't remember the details. Would be interesting to see if the AFL had adopted this practice with Essendon. Give them access to 12 additional rookie list players, only to be introduced in case of injury....

 

[rdhopkins2]

Definitely for Monfries.

As for the rest, on the one hand they didn't do this so they should for fairness but on the other hand buyer beware, they knew the risks.

Nobody should get top ups but since the Bombers are, so should the others.

 

[Gosha]

No. Buyer beware.

 

[DazzaTys]

In theory, I don't have a problem with Port getting one for Monfries.
However, as has been said by a number of their supporters, they want to use it to replace Ryder instead, so they have more ruck depth. This when they specifically chose to delist a ruckman and not pick another one up in the rookie draft, leaving a spot free instead.

To reward them for poor contingency planning would be wrong, in my opinion.

That being said, I don't think Essendon should be able to pick up 10 either - use their list first, and in the event of x number of injuries in a given week, they can then top up from their VFL team (they have one, right?) to avoid any forfeits. You might say this disadvantages them, as they won't be able to train together for the whole year, but that's the point - they cheated, so tough shit.

How do you caveat us selecting somebody then? Make a rule that says the player drafted has to be under 186cm. If the AFL are not dictating to Essednon on the type of player they are recruiting then they've got absolutely no right to tell us.

 

[DazzaTys]

For about the 10th time Essendon are a completely unique situation in that they need top ups just to get a team out on the park that will in any case still cop a flogging almost all the time at best. Not getting any extras they would mean a farce situation where they could get smashed by 200+ points every week. This wont do anyone any good except for the teams that jagged playing them twice in the draw for extra %.

Port knew the gamble they were taking and thought they were clever getting the guy on the cheap but lost their bet, and were too dumb to manage their list properly to allow for the potential Ryder getting banned situation. Suck it up.

Mate, Port aren't asking for the Ryder top up, it's to replace Monfries. A trade that occurred before any issues arose.

 

[Andrew Mc]

If the AFL were semi professional about it, they'd have a supplementary draft for the 5 clubs, with Essendon at the end of the queue. If one of the clubs wanted to bring a player off the rookie list, so be it, but the club that instigated the cheating shouldn't get dibs on uncontracted players ahead of the rest. Yes, they are players not on a list, but I fail to see why Essendon should be allowed to get Crowley (for example) over the other clubs that are short on players when it's their fault in the first place. But, of course the AFL don't want to punish them at all, so the cheats get the advantage.

 

[Infamy]

If Essendon was a club on the level of the Bulldogs/Kangaroos/Saints then they would have been either been pretty much fined into the stone age or been forced to pack up bags and relocate to another state. We even had the AFL CEO saying that the game needs a strong Essendon, they aren't going to punish them any more when he comes out saying that drivel.

Smaller clubs may have had trouble paying the amount of fines that Essendon are up for, depends on the insurance they have I guess. The AFL does want a strong Essendon because they bring in good revenues for the competition, but I don't think they would try to fine another club out of existence. They saw the damage to the game that getting rid of Fitzroy did and I think they'll try to avoid doing something like that again.

Compensate StK, Port, Bulldogs and MFC with contracts of those players suspended
and the contracts of the players who have moved on as assistant coaches and trainers

Essendon may end up responsible if the players end up suing them, I wouldn't be against the salaries of those players being covered by Essendon, as long as it doesn't then give the clubs with those players a gap in the salary cap to roll over for 2017.

 

[joy division]

It's Ports fault for not asking and checking Monfries recent medical history before signing him.

 

[Andrew Mc]

It's Ports fault for not asking and checking Monfries recent medical history before signing him.

Perhaps they did. But with all the missing documentation and lies from Essendon and its players, there's only so much due diligence they could have done.

 

[gillo94]

It's Ports fault for not asking and checking Monfries recent medical history before signing him.

I wonder if EFC would have disclosed info to Port in regards to him or the upcoming saga at the time

 

[yyou]

haven't read all responses, but surely port power deserve 1 player as a top up
& for those concerned that they are unfairly picking up a star,
it should be remembered that a player chosen has been overlooked by all 18 clubs before

 

[DaTBird187]

It's Ports fault for not asking and checking Monfries recent medical history before signing him.

Ahh Essendon fans, don't ever change.

 

[Mervyn Beasley]

What's the point?
If they look like they gonna run out of players (unlikely) then go for it but it's not as though there's a spare Ryder, Crameri, Carlisle etc waiting out there anyway?

On an associated note - I can't for the life of me figure why any club has recruited a bomber in the last 3 years anyway??

I was very concerned when Hawks were apparently in market for Carlisle - regardless of whether we could wear his absence for a year.

 

[Pugz89]

So because Port is a "potential premiership threat" they don't deserve to top up their list? What an absurd notion. Where is the line drawn? Do Saints get one because they aren't? Wouldn't Bulldogs be as much of a 'threat' as Port?

If a rule is required to be applied to allow Essendon to field a competitive team, it stands to reason that this same rule applies to the other affected teams.

Essendon get the top up players to allow themselves to at least be competitive. Port will be competitive even without the top up player(s). Moot point, move on.

 

[Lsta062]

Essendon get the top up players to allow themselves to at least be competitive. Port will be competitive even without the top up player(s). Moot point, move on.

How people don't understand this point is beyond me. It is in the best interest of the 17 other clubs for Essendon to be at least semi-competitive in the AFL because of attendance and $$$$.

Port, Bulldogs, St Kilda and Melbourne will remain AFL standard clubs with these bans

 

[Pugz89]

The 3 clubs should definatley be allowed top up players.
Essendon Fd up and they get top up players?
Port, Melbourne and the Saints didnt and they cant? Dosnt make sence to me.

3? We don't deserve one?

 

[Pugz89]

Ports ruck depth is a bit shaky, especially with injury prone dixon as backup. Think they would want someone to help Lobbe. Should get one topup.

As for Melb replacing Melksham, the top up player would be an improvement.

Dont think the Dogs are losing sleep over Crameri

And Saints were silly for giving up pick 5 before snortchat and the suspensions. Rookie upgrade
and thats it for last three.

We aren't losing sleep but will be hard to cover. Our Adcock recruitment certainly pays off now though.

 

[Pugz89]

Due to the suspension over his head, we should have got him cheaper, he will be 29 when he next plays a home-and-away game. With pick 17 that we gave Essendon, we could have got Langford, Laverde or Goddard for the next 10 years, with pick 37 we could have picked up James Rose or Jack Lonie (Who both look to be good players for the future).

But you didn't, you're goal is short term and unfortunately you're paying the price for that. Had you taken the latter option, you wouldn't have to worry about the Ryder dilemma (and Monfries is easy enough to cover anyway). You hedged your bets without planning for the option you least wanted. Suspect the Dogs knew a guilty verdict was incoming, while not expecting such a long suspension, Pres Gordon told Crameri to accept the ASADA deal, he didn't and we planned for the worst by recruiting Adcock as a rookie just in case. Shame other clubs couldn't foresee both options being a legitimite chance of happening.

 

[Pugz89]

If Essendon was a club on the level of the Bulldogs/Kangaroos/Saints then they would have been either been pretty much fined into the stone age or been forced to pack up bags and relocate to another state. We even had the AFL CEO saying that the game needs a strong Essendon, they aren't going to punish them any more when he comes out saying that drivel.

The AFL need 18 strong clubs. Said they need a strong Carlton etc also. Wouldn't read too much into that tbh.