Essendon's OOC players plus the 12

[Ambrosia]

less - $650K

I know because I am on BF

Way too low he'd already be on at least 500k a season imo.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Not technically true - the relevant player contracts have a term that allows the player to terminate the contract and bail out in the event of a gross breach by the club.

There is not a court in the land that would force an employee to continue to work for an employer that plead guilty to worksafe breaches, and EFC wouldnt dare try it.

If any of the players want out, theyre free to go as DFA - no compo awarded and thats all she wrote. The EFC is free to use the money freed up from players leaving to entice other players to get on board, so its not all bad news.

Most will stay. Hooker and Hurley are out the door from what Im hearing, but thats probably the only damage. EFC will load up on a lowish pick (1-3) from finishing low on the ladder, and another one in the early 20's.

Hooker is a special case in that he can walk anyway (as an UFA) and the AFL can award compo accordingly. Based on his age and the purported length of his contract and dollar value, this should net them another end of 1st round pick.

So they lose Hooker and Hurley, and go to the draft with pick 1, 20 and 21 and a spare million in SC space to pick up another bloke from somewhere. Its not all doom and gloom.

It could be much worse if there is a mass exodus of players, or if the current compensation payout negotiations fall through and a messy legal battle arises between the club and the players. The club (and the AFL) certainly dont want that, and will throw as much money at the players as possible to avoid this occuring.

TL;DR It wont be as bad as some make out (a few players will go, but EFC will get a couple of decent low picks and some SC space to get in a replacement). Hurley leaves for nothing, and Hooker nets them an extra pick at the end of the 1st round.

But anyone suggesting the AFL hands them picks 1 and 2 (or 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) is dreaming.

>they lose Hooker and Hurley
>go to the draft with pick 1, 20 and 21 and a spare million in SC space
>it wont be as bad as some make out

Yeah, no that's pretty bad. I think that's a Carlton Mk. II or worse level of bad.

 

[Malifice]

>they lose Hooker and Hurley
>go to the draft with pick 1, 20 and 21 and a spare million in SC space
>it wont be as bad as some make out

Yeah, no that's pretty bad. I think that's a Carlton Mk. II or worse level of bad.

You get pick 1, a million bucks to play around with FA and still have some decent low picks from last year and decent under 25 y/o players on the list.

Carlton had an ageing list, a squillion in debt and not enough money to pay the players we did have, no F/A to fall back on and no money to spare even if it existed, no talented youth comng though having treated the draft with contempt for the years prior, and had picks 1 and 2 stripped from us (and our first and second round picks stripped the following year - when we finished second last).

You got stuck with recycled players for a year. We had David Teague, Digby Morell and Callum Chambers running around just to make us 'competitive' for years.

To compare the two isnt even close. Trust me - I lived through it. Those penalties (and our own hubris) ****ed us for a decade.

You'll lose Hooker and Hurley, but have a million to spare in F/A and get an extra end of 1st round draft pick in exchange. You'll also get pick 1 most likely. It could be much much worse if you hadnt have delayed the final CAS ruling by three years and offloaded 2/3 of the players affected (even trading some out for more first rounders) and stockpiled up on the likes of Cooney and Goddard to see you through this year.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

You get pick 1, a million bucks to play around with FA and still have some decent low picks from last year and decent under 25 y/o players on the list.

Carlton had an ageing list, a squillion in debt and not enough money to pay the players we did have, no F/A to fall back on and no money to spare even if it existed, no talented youth comng though having treated the draft with contempt for the years prior, and had picks 1 and 2 stripped from us (and our first and second round picks stripped the following year - when we finished second last).

You got stuck with recycled players for a year. We had David Teague, Digby Morell and Callum Chambers running around just to make us 'competitive' for years.

To compare the two isnt even close. Trust me - I lived through it. Those penalties (and our own hubris) stuffed us for a decade.

You'll lose Hooker and Hurley, but have a million to spare in F/A and get an extra end of 1st round draft pick in exchange. You'll also get pick 1 most likely. It could be much much worse if you hadnt have delayed the final CAS ruling by three years and offloaded 2/3 of the players affected (even trading some out for more first rounders) and stockpiled up on the likes of Cooney and Goddard to see you through this year.

The thing is, we would have had pick 1 and a fair bit of room in the salary cap anyway. So the only thing we're really getting in exchange is... pick 21.

If you believe this thread, Essendon is currently sitting at half a list with a huge compensation payout on the horizon, well and truly feeling the affects of the draft sanctions in 2013 and 2014, and we didn't get a priority pick before the 2014 draft either. It's now 2016, the club will again finish near the bottom four years after this started, next year will probably be no different. Carlton returned to finals seven years after sanctions were placed, unless you can see Essendon returning to finals quite inexplicably in the next two years I think this is a little more than comparable.

Carlton was awarded a priority pick in 2003, possibly when the AFL realized what they'd done. You then got priority picks in 2005 and 2007. Based on that, I see no reason why the AFL should not consider every player who decides to leave rather than just Hooker when awarding compensation, even if it's less than market value. What's the alternative, keep playing with top-ups until we can fill the list again? Not perform any list management in the off-season because we need to use draft picks on filling spots? It seems absolutely senseless to let the club fester for a few more years until finally deciding to hand out priority picks after a string of bottom finishes, when the "decent under 25's" that we have are getting close to 30 and we need to start rebuilding all over again.

Hopefully, any player who leaves will do as Ryder did and request a trade. That way everybody is satisfied, aside from those who are set on getting something good for nothing.

 

[Malifice]

The thing is, we would have had pick 1 and a fair bit of room in the salary cap anyway. So the only thing we're really getting in exchange is... pick 21.

You put the suspended players back in your side, and you're not a wooden spoon team. Take Hurley and Hooker out, but add in pick 1 and an end of 1st round Compo for Hooker and a F/A worth 500k to replace Hurley and its not looking too bad.

Carlton, Brisbane and Melbourne are worse than your mob at full strength at a minimum.

If you believe this thread, Essendon is currently sitting at half a list with a huge compensation payout on the horizon, well and truly feeling the affects of the draft sanctions in 2013 and 2014

I dont believe your draft sanctions can be viewed on any objective level to be anywhere near what Carlton copped. You lost your first and 2nd round picks in 2013 (at best picks 10 and 33 after FA and compo picks had been awarded) and 2014 (around picks 12 and 32) but were granted pick 20 in return.

So you lost 10, 12, 32, 33 and gained back pick 20. Thats a net value of around 2,500 points worth of talent using the AFLs point value for picks. We lost picks 1, 1, 2 and 18; or 9,500 points worth of talent using the same measure. What we copped was far worse. Factoring in the sides relative position both financially (we were 16 million in debt and forcing players to take pay cuts back in 2002 when that kind of money was ridiculous) and on field (we didnt have any young players the calibre of Parish, Heppell, Francis etc) just makes it worse.

Carlton was awarded a priority pick in 2003, possibly when the AFL realized what they'd done. You then got priority picks in 2005 and 2007. Based on that, I see no reason why the AFL should not consider every player who decides to leave rather than just Hooker when awarding compensation, even if it's less than market value.

Carlton was awarded a priority pick under the rules as they existed at the time. For being totally shit. Which we were. The rules as they exist now are that in the event of a gross breach of the playing contract by a club, a player can elect to terminate his playing contract and be regarded as a DFA or enter the PSD.

The AFL are already underwriting your club financially, and pitching in on the player compo payments to stop a mass exodus of players from your club, and to prevent the players from engaging in legal action.

Expecting them to also ignore the rules and just dole out a bunch of free draft picks (at the expense of the other clubs) is a step too far.

What's the alternative, keep playing with top-ups until we can fill the list again? Not perform any list management in the off-season because we need to use draft picks on filling spots? It seems absolutely senseless to let the club fester for a few more years until finally deciding to hand out priority picks after a string of bottom finishes, when the "decent under 25's" that we have are getting close to 30 and we need to start rebuilding all over again.

Yet Carlton is in the middle of having to do just this, and are currently in this very position themselves (our over 25s are propping the side up while we rebuild over three years). And all Carlton did was breach the salary cap and pay our players too much money. Essendon OTOH plead guilty to providing an unsafe work environment, were subsequently convicted of this offence, and created a 'pharmacologically unsafe' environment that saw over a dozen players miss a year for doping offences in a scandal that achieved notoriety around the globe, and tarnished the entire sport.

To compare the two offences, yet argue for a lesser penalty, is absurd. The AFL are not going to hand you a bunch of low draft picks to get you out of this mess. They'll pay your blokes compo to keep them at the club and avoid legal action against the club. They handed you a freeby end of 1st round draft pick, and are letting you have pick 1 this year (if you finish low). They did everything they could to protect your club (including warning you not to engage in the peptide crap, tipping you off before ASADA swooped, trying to shield the players from ASADA sanctions, letting you negotiate your penalties you did cop, changing the SC rules to allow you to bring in top up players - and now you want more special rules on top?

What about the clubs that have done nothing wrong and are legitimately trying to rebuild? Should Carlton (who we can agree copped way worse, and are arguably still suffering now) also be handed a few free draft picks?

Hopefully, any player who leaves will do as Ryder did and request a trade. That way everybody is satisfied, aside from those who are set on getting something good for nothing.

They may do just that. Thats said, I would certainly hope the recieving club tells Essendon to GAGF and picks them up for nothing as DFA. Youve already screwed over Port and the Saints by trading them Ryder and Carlisle (although there certainly is an element of buyer beware here).

If Carlton were in your position, and Murphy decided to leave for Essendon, and you could get him as a DFA for nothing, would you want your club trading for him instead?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

You put the suspended players back in your side, and you're not a wooden spoon team. Take Hurley and Hooker out, but add in pick 1 and an end of 1st round Compo for Hooker and a F/A worth 500k to replace Hurley and its not looking too bad.

Carlton, Brisbane and Melbourne are worse than your mob at full strength at a minimum.



I dont believe your draft sanctions can be viewed on any objective level to be anywhere near what Carlton copped. You lost your first and 2nd round picks in 2013 (at best picks 10 and 33 after FA and compo picks had been awarded) and 2014 (around picks 12 and 32) but were granted pick 20 in return.

So you lost 10, 12, 32, 33 and gained back pick 20. Thats a net value of around 2,500 points worth of talent using the AFLs point value for picks. We lost picks 1, 1, 2 and 18; or 9,500 points worth of talent using the same measure. What we copped was far worse. Factoring in the sides relative position both financially (we were 16 million in debt and forcing players to take pay cuts back in 2002 when that kind of money was ridiculous) and on field (we didnt have any young players the calibre of Parish, Heppell, Francis etc) just makes it worse.



Carlton was awarded a priority pick under the rules as they existed at the time. For being totally shit. Which we were. The rules as they exist now are that in the event of a gross breach of the playing contract by a club, a player can elect to terminate his playing contract and be regarded as a DFA or enter the PSD.

The AFL are already underwriting your club financially, and pitching in on the player compo payments to stop a mass exodus of players from your club, and to prevent the players from engaging in legal action.

Expecting them to also ignore the rules and just dole out a bunch of free draft picks (at the expense of the other clubs) is a step too far.



Yet Carlton is in the middle of having to do just this, and are currently in this very position themselves (our over 25s are propping the side up while we rebuild over three years). And all Carlton did was breach the salary cap and pay our players too much money. Essendon OTOH plead guilty to providing an unsafe work environment, were subsequently convicted of this offence, and created a 'pharmacologically unsafe' environment that saw over a dozen players miss a year for doping offences in a scandal that achieved notoriety around the globe, and tarnished the entire sport.

To compare the two offences, yet argue for a lesser penalty, is absurd. The AFL are not going to hand you a bunch of low draft picks to get you out of this mess. They'll pay your blokes compo to keep them at the club and avoid legal action against the club. They handed you a freeby end of 1st round draft pick, and are letting you have pick 1 this year (if you finish low). They did everything they could to protect your club (including warning you not to engage in the peptide crap, tipping you off before ASADA swooped, trying to shield the players from ASADA sanctions, letting you negotiate your penalties you did cop, changing the SC rules to allow you to bring in top up players - and now you want more special rules on top?

What about the clubs that have done nothing wrong and are legitimately trying to rebuild? Should Carlton (who we can agree copped way worse, and are arguably still suffering now) also be handed a few free draft picks?



They may do just that. Thats said, I would certainly hope the recieving club tells Essendon to GAGF and picks them up for nothing as DFA. Youve already screwed over Port and the Saints by trading them Ryder and Carlisle (although there certainly is an element of buyer beware here).

If Carlton were in your position, and Murphy decided to leave for Essendon, and you could get him as a DFA for nothing, would you want your club trading for him instead?

Still claiming to be suffering from 2002 sanctions!!?? Good god.

They’ve played multiple finals series since!

Carlton bottomed out in 2005 – 2006, as was to be expected. They haven’t competed for a flag since because of a decade of mismanagement. They drafted poorly – constantly ignoring KPPs for mids - and made countless shortcuts and stupid trades to the point where there was no discernible list strategy.

You cannot possibly say their current position is a result of salary cap sanctions. That’s absolutely absurd.

 

[bomberland33]

Good to see Hurley training with the boys today, shows how much damien (purple) Barrett knows

 

[Malifice]

You cannot possibly say their current position is a result of salary cap sanctions. That’s absolutely absurd.

I'm not laying the blame for our current position soley at the feet of the sanctions from 15 years ago - I am saying it still has an impact which echoes down from then. Our list was all over the shop in 2011 with no kids from 2002-2004 coming through at which time it stuttered to a halt at a 5th place best finish. Throw picks 1, 1, 2, 18 (Adam Cooney, Daniel Wells, Brendan Goddard, David Mundy were the players taken at these picks) into that mix for that premiership window and we may have been able to push that side further up the ladder (or stayed there a bit longer) and attracted F/A etc going forwards that a succesful side brings.

Come 2012 we had a handfull of talented picks from 2005-2008 on the list (Murphy, Gibbs, Kruezer), a hole where we screwed up in our picks 2009-2012 (and we only have ourselves to blame there). We now have the same hole in the middle age bracket, but also have a few good kids (Cripps, Weitering) coming from recent years.

There are also issues with the cultural problems that getting flogged by 10 goals week in week out for nearly a decade causes.

Our current problems stem mainly from poor recruiting in that 2008-2012 bracket (Bootsma, Watson, Lucas as wasted 1st round picks) which followed on from not having any 1st or second round picks in 2002-2003. We have had talent gaps in the list at certain age brackets which we're still trying to iron out. It threw our list out of kilter, and we certainly havent helped it by stuffing a few first rounders since then.

I'd like to see us be a bit more agressive with our trades of players 26 and over (trading them for extra 1st round picks or trading them + later picks to move up as high up into the draft order as we can).

But anyways, this isnt a Carlton trade/ draft thread. Thats just my take on it all. You blokes have Parish, Heppell, Francis, Danniher driving a young side going forwards. Tack on pick 1 this year (and picks 20+21) thats a solid nucleus to build on that is nothing like where Carlton were in 2002-4.

 

[boncer34]

Hurley never going back eh Damo?

 

[quotemokc]

View attachment 232140

Hurley never going back eh Damo?

Is that Hooker with the pink top and whats looks to be an Essendon cap

 

[Dr Whoooooooo]

Isn't he going on an overseas holiday?

Lets be clear here. The biggest stumbling block for the 12 to go back and play for Essendon is ... Essendon for legal reasons cant / wont give the players what the players want.

So ultimately, every player in the 12 are in full control over their own destiny and training regimes because they all are DFA's ... if they elect to go down that path. Where, what, when and how they choose to fill their days are their choice.

 

[reload141]

Lets be clear here. The biggest stumbling block for the 12 to go back and play for Essendon is ... Essendon for legal reasons cant / wont give the players what the players want.

So ultimately, every player in the 12 are in full control over their own destiny and training regimes because they all are DFA's ... if they elect to go down that path. Where, what, when and how they choose to fill their days are their choice.

I didn't know you were the principal of the 12 while they are banned? With one of them committed already back to the club and 6 of the others already contracted maybe we should only talk about the 5 remaining?

 

[dlanod]

I didn't know you were the principal of the 12 while they are banned? With one of them committed already back to the club and 6 of the others already contracted maybe we should only talk about the 5 remaining?

Not with the persistent reports that any of the 12 are able to nullify their contract with Essendon because of the WorkCover finding that Essendon failed to provide a safe workplace.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You put the suspended players back in your side, and you're not a wooden spoon team. Take Hurley and Hooker out, but add in pick 1 and an end of 1st round Compo for Hooker and a F/A worth 500k to replace Hurley and its not looking too bad.

Carlton, Brisbane and Melbourne are worse than your mob at full strength at a minimum.



I dont believe your draft sanctions can be viewed on any objective level to be anywhere near what Carlton copped. You lost your first and 2nd round picks in 2013 (at best picks 10 and 33 after FA and compo picks had been awarded) and 2014 (around picks 12 and 32) but were granted pick 20 in return.

So you lost 10, 12, 32, 33 and gained back pick 20. Thats a net value of around 2,500 points worth of talent using the AFLs point value for picks. We lost picks 1, 1, 2 and 18; or 9,500 points worth of talent using the same measure. What we copped was far worse. Factoring in the sides relative position both financially (we were 16 million in debt and forcing players to take pay cuts back in 2002 when that kind of money was ridiculous) and on field (we didnt have any young players the calibre of Parish, Heppell, Francis etc) just makes it worse.



Carlton was awarded a priority pick under the rules as they existed at the time. For being totally shit. Which we were. The rules as they exist now are that in the event of a gross breach of the playing contract by a club, a player can elect to terminate his playing contract and be regarded as a DFA or enter the PSD.

The AFL are already underwriting your club financially, and pitching in on the player compo payments to stop a mass exodus of players from your club, and to prevent the players from engaging in legal action.

Expecting them to also ignore the rules and just dole out a bunch of free draft picks (at the expense of the other clubs) is a step too far.



Yet Carlton is in the middle of having to do just this, and are currently in this very position themselves (our over 25s are propping the side up while we rebuild over three years). And all Carlton did was breach the salary cap and pay our players too much money. Essendon OTOH plead guilty to providing an unsafe work environment, were subsequently convicted of this offence, and created a 'pharmacologically unsafe' environment that saw over a dozen players miss a year for doping offences in a scandal that achieved notoriety around the globe, and tarnished the entire sport.

To compare the two offences, yet argue for a lesser penalty, is absurd. The AFL are not going to hand you a bunch of low draft picks to get you out of this mess. They'll pay your blokes compo to keep them at the club and avoid legal action against the club. They handed you a freeby end of 1st round draft pick, and are letting you have pick 1 this year (if you finish low). They did everything they could to protect your club (including warning you not to engage in the peptide crap, tipping you off before ASADA swooped, trying to shield the players from ASADA sanctions, letting you negotiate your penalties you did cop, changing the SC rules to allow you to bring in top up players - and now you want more special rules on top?

What about the clubs that have done nothing wrong and are legitimately trying to rebuild? Should Carlton (who we can agree copped way worse, and are arguably still suffering now) also be handed a few free draft picks?



They may do just that. Thats said, I would certainly hope the recieving club tells Essendon to GAGF and picks them up for nothing as DFA. Youve already screwed over Port and the Saints by trading them Ryder and Carlisle (although there certainly is an element of buyer beware here).

If Carlton were in your position, and Murphy decided to leave for Essendon, and you could get him as a DFA for nothing, would you want your club trading for him instead?

screwed over Port and Saints

Good on ya lol.

Port used the saga to screw us on the trade for Ryder and St Kilda tried to do the same but were just too inept to pull it off.

Yet somehow, according to you, we "screwed them over" by diabolically allowing the player to leave as they wanted to and to go to the club they wanted to get to. How dastardly. What a screwing!!

lol

 

[Malifice]

Port used the saga to screw us on the trade for Ryder

You got picks 17 and 37 for a 26 year old (turned 27 at the start of the following season) inconsistent ruck/forward that hasnt achieved anything other than an ANZAC day medal and a rising star nom in 2007. Both a 1st and 2nd round draft picks for someone who could have walked as a DFA.

He subsequenly missed the following pre season and NAB cup on provisional suspension on account of your club doping him, and then 12 months later missed another year (this year) because of the same. He turns 29 next year - they'll be lucky to get a total of 80 games out of him.

How on earth you view that as Port 'screwing you over' I will never know.

Seriously brother, put the shoe on the other foot.

 

[carnthedons]

You got picks 17 and 37 for a 26 year old (turned 27 at the start of the following season) inconsistent ruck/forward that hasnt achieved anything other than an ANZAC day medal and a rising star nom in 2007. Both a 1st and 2nd round draft picks for someone who could have walked as a DFA.

He subsequenly missed the following pre season and NAB cup on provisional suspension on account of your club doping him, and then 12 months later missed another year (this year) because of the same. He turns 29 next year - they'll be lucky to get a total of 80 games out of him.

How on earth you view that as Port 'screwing you over' I will never know.

Seriously brother, put the shoe on the other foot.

GWS would've given us pick 4 for the same player but we got him to his preferred destination in spite of his decision to railroad the week before an elimination final with emotive bullshit. What would you prefer pick 4 or 17 & 37?

 

[Malifice]

GWS would've given us pick 4 for the same player but we got him to his preferred destination in spite of his decision to railroad the week before an elimination final with emotive bullshit. What would you prefer pick 4 or 17 & 37?

Awesome. How is that Ports fault?

 

[carnthedons]

Awesome. How is that Ports fault?

how about approaching a contracted player, encouraging him to use a bullshit clause to break his contract then giving him a training programme before he's even been traded.

 

[blueiris]

how about approaching a contracted player, encouraging him to use a bullshit clause to break his contract then giving him a training programme before he's even been traded.

He decided to leave the club no one approached him until he said he was leaving he chose to go to the Lions first before Port decided to offer more money thank god he really isn't a forward pretty much what the Lions were thinking of using him for.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

Not with the persistent reports that any of the 12 are able to nullify their contract with Essendon because of the WorkCover finding that Essendon failed to provide a safe workplace.

So essentially this discussion rolls on because the other 17 clubs are hoping and praying a quality player will fall into their lap for nix while pretending to be passionate about player welfare.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You got picks 17 and 37 for a 26 year old (turned 27 at the start of the following season) inconsistent ruck/forward that hasnt achieved anything other than an ANZAC day medal and a rising star nom in 2007. Both a 1st and 2nd round draft picks for someone who could have walked as a DFA.

He subsequenly missed the following pre season and NAB cup on provisional suspension on account of your club doping him, and then 12 months later missed another year (this year) because of the same. He turns 29 next year - they'll be lucky to get a total of 80 games out of him.

How on earth you view that as Port 'screwing you over' I will never know.

Seriously brother, put the shoe on the other foot.

gtfo, your rating of a player is just your opinion you know that right? I can counter saying he is an incredible mix of athleticism and football smarts, who can go forward and kick goals, and is in the prime of his career.

So you can have whatever opinion you like on your 17 and 37 you like, but the absolute truth of the matter is Port held the DFA clause over the clubs head and paid unders for him. Whether you agree or not doesn't even matter, that's fact.

I mean, you're using the fact that he got suspended as proof that we screwed over the clubs! They knew they were getting a player under threat of suspension!! And used that fact to drive a hard bargain. Oh yeah, cry me a river for how we screwed them. ****ing lol.

Now let's address YOUR assertion that the EFC allowing a player to leave, as they requested, to the club they requested to go to, is screwing those clubs over (!!!!!)

It's an utterly ridiculous thing to say and that, right there, demonstrates that you're simply biased as all hell. Which is fine, but don't pretend not to be.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Awesome. How is that Ports fault?

er, you said that it was EFC screwing Port.... That was your words...

And it shows his market value. Instead we dealed with the club he wanted to, and sucked up the fact they refused to pay market value.

Yet we screwed them. Go figure

 

[Dr Whoooooooo]

So essentially this discussion rolls on because the other 17 clubs are hoping and praying a quality player will fall into their lap for nix while pretending to be passionate about player welfare.

There is no hoping and praying from the 17 other clubs ...

The only club hoping and praying is the Essendon football club .. that they dont get their butts sued off or the players leave an option open to sue their butts off later in life. You obviously missed the memo "the players are not happy Jan"

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Now I see Hooks is going to Hawthorn!

I think we need a counter

Hooker – Freo, West Coast, Hawthorn
Heppell – Collingwood, Geelong

It’s funny that all this gets wheeled out at the same time as newspapers are slashing and making redundancies. Memo NewsCorp and Fairfax:

Hooker, Hurley, Heppell all valuable players. 17 clubs interested in obtaining their services for 2017. The end.

There you go, now you can make an army of your footy “journalists” redundant. Job done.

 

[Redeye Rambler]

We can remove Hocking from this conversation. Fox sports news is reporting that he has resigned with Essendon.


ESSENDON midfielder Heath Hocking has become the first of the 12 banned players that remain at the club to re-sign.
Hocking, 28, penned a one-year contract extension to keep him with the Bombers until the end of the 2017 season.