Non-Lions Footy Discussion

[lionshine]

Can't they only take one former player from each club?

My understanding was that it was from each state league club. So for example they have just signed Crowley from Swan Districts football club so they can't sign anyone else from Swan Districts now. Although I think the AFL have the right to overrule their own rules if Essendon really want multiple players from the one state league club.

 

[Skoob]

I think it an extraordinary choice to pick up Crowley. I know he has served his suspension, but at a time when 34 present & past players are banned, wouldn't you want to send a different message? This just says "we know he is guilty of drug offences, but that's okay". Even if that train of thought is a 50/50 proposition, surely you'd give it a miss rather than continue the defiance. I think it points to a naive and/or arrogant culture throughout the management in the joint.
Oh well, it won't do much for the perception of their rabble.

 

[Len S]

I think it an extraordinary choice to pick up Crowley. I know he has served his suspension, but at a time when 34 present & past players are banned, wouldn't you want to send a different message? This just says "we know he is guilty of drug offences, but that's okay". Even if that train of thought is a 50/50 proposition, surely you'd give it a miss rather than continue the defiance. I think it points to a naive and/or arrogant culture throughout the management in the joint.
Oh well, it won't do much for the perception of their rabble.

Agree totally. .....you would think he'd be the one player they wouldn't sign. They are beyond redemption.

 

[POBT]

I think once a player has served a suspension, then he's entitled to keep playing.

In terms of Essendon's reputation, they aren't restoring that for a while yet. This makes no difference IMO.

 

[lionshine]

I think once a player has served a suspension, then he's entitled to keep playing.

In terms of Essendon's reputation, they aren't restoring that for a while yet. This makes no difference IMO.

Agreed he has served his time. He is a quality player, is still very fit and is hungry to continue his career in the AFL. Will act as a big, mature body to protect the young ones. Seems like a good choice to me.

 

[Skoob]

Sometimes it's not enough to just play by the rules, but needed to make a strong stand for them, to make a declaration. This should be the time for Essendon to do that.

 

[POBT]

Sometimes it's not enough to just play by the rules, but needed to make a strong stand for them, to make a declaration. This should be the time for Essendon to do that.

Wrong issue to be making a "strong stand" on. No-one would give them an ounce of credit if they came out publicly and said "we didn't sign Crowley because of his previous suspension". In fact, some would argue that it would be highly hypocritical given their recent past and the fact that they are hoping that none of their own banned players walk out on them.

If there can be no damage to Essendon's reputation by signing him, and he's the best option for them football-wise, then I think it becomes a no-brainer. I just don't think the logic of not signing him stands up.

 

[Skoob]

Wrong issue to be making a "strong stand" on. No-one would give them an ounce of credit if they came out publicly and said "we didn't sign Crowley because of his previous suspension". In fact, some would argue that it would be highly hypocritical given their recent past and the fact that they are hoping that none of their own banned players walk out on them.

If there can be no damage to Essendon's reputation by signing him, and he's the best option for them football-wise, then I think it becomes a no-brainer. I just don't think the logic of not signing him stands up.

You're right that it wouldn't make a direct statement and that they'd gain credibility. I probably made a poor point in suggesting it should. That said, they'd have no need to make an announcement or reason for not selecting him. They could have simply overlooked him. As it is, plenty are taking the piss and will continue to do so. I figure this is something they could/should have avoided.
There are many reasons they could/should give him a run, but at the end of the day, it appears they've taken the "who cares" approach rather than the "Let's give them no more ammunition" one.
It's a minor thing in the big picture, but I would have said "Nah, let's not".

 

[SizeMatters]

what happens to the players after this year? Just delisted? Or will Essendon get some kind of priority in the upcoming rookie draft to select them for 2017 onwards if they choose to

 

[Redeye Rambler]

what happens to the players after this year? Just delisted? Or will Essendon get some kind of priority in the upcoming rookie draft to select them for 2017 onwards if they choose to

All the top-ups are on short term contract only. Essendon don't have any priority access to access them after this season.
If good enough, they are available to all clubs in the draft.

 

[Ironmonger]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-...relax-list-concession-rules-after-cas-verdict

"How do you get penalised for not creating the problem and have to deal with it? It doesn't make sense to me," Hinkley told 5AA.

"You would think at worst we would not start the season below the numbers of the Essendon Football Club."

I haven't heard the interview, but I'm surprised by the quotes attributed to Hinkley. The idea that Port are at a disadvantage compared to Essendon is just crazy.

And they chose to recruit Ryder when the prospect of a suspension was still in play, knowing they had Monfries on the list at the time as well. They understood they'd have to deal with the worst case scenario of both players getting suspended.

Hinkley's not an idiot. I'm sure 'it doesn't make sense to me' is dishonest.

I know these days clubs go out and shill for every little advantage they hope they can get, but I'm surprised to see Hinkley doing it.

 

[Football Pope]

Ryan Crowley the first Bombers top up player. Mitch Golby and Zac O'Brien are rumoured to be two of the other ten. Jonathan Simpkin from the Hawks as well.

Talk that Ahmed Saad is ..another...

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/ess...s/news-story/1606fdc59c3b4eb411734d52ec7aa05e

 

[Skoob]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-01-...relax-list-concession-rules-after-cas-verdict



I haven't heard the interview, but I'm surprised by the quotes attributed to Hinkley. The idea that Port are at a disadvantage compared to Essendon is just crazy.

And they chose to recruit Ryder when the prospect of a suspension was still in play, knowing they had Monfries on the list at the time as well. They understood they'd have to deal with the worst case scenario of both players getting suspended.

Hinkley's not an idiot. I'm sure 'it doesn't make sense to me' is dishonest.

I know these days clubs go out and shill for every little advantage they hope they can get, but I'm surprised to see Hinkley doing it.

I found this odd too. Surely the allowed list size is unchanged for both?
Essendon had 45 listed players, and Port only 44, so they would presumably have started with one less anyway. Surely the right to complain about numbers is non-existent if you didn't fill your list?

 

[dlanod]

I found this odd too. Surely the allowed list size is unchanged for both?
Essendon had 45 listed players, and Port only 44, so they would presumably have started with one less anyway. Surely the right to complain about numbers is non-existent if you didn't fill your list?

Essendon had 45, has 12 suspended and can sign up to 10 - that gives them a total list size of 43.
Port had 44, have two suspended and can't sign anyone - that gives them a total list size of 42.

A bit of Onanism but like much Onanism, technically correct.

 

[POBT]

I assume the AFL doesn't want to set a precedent by allowing clubs to sign top up players just because of a listed player's unavailability. I kinda get that - not every drugs suspension is going to fit neatly into a season (eg Crowley's suspension finished around finals time IIRC) and it is part and parcel of managing a list that you may have players unavailable whether due to injury, suspension, early retirement etc.

Having said that, it still doesn't sit comfortably with me that Essendon can sign top up players but other clubs can't, when the missing players all got the same punishment arising from the same doping program. If you have commercial reasons for letting Essendon fill their list (to insure against the risk of them not being able to field a side), then I think you have to apply the same rules to other clubs, even if the commercial imperative isn't there to do so.

 

[Dylan12]

I'm of the view that the 10 supplemetary players should essentially be that e.g. the equivalent of a 12th man in cricket i.e. they are the 35th to 44th players and can only be used when and if Essendon has 13 odd injuries / suspensions.

It doesn't make sense that given Essendon has 34/35 senior and rookie listed players that a supplemetary listed player should be able to get a game ahead of any of Essendon's existing senior and rookie players.

I certainly appreciate the requirement for supplemetary players in the event they are short a 22nd player, but not before.

 

[Cockliff38]

Ol' mate Polkinghorne pictured at Essendon training today with Crowley

 

[Lace Out]

I'm of the view that the 10 supplemetary players should essentially be that e.g. the equivalent of a 12th man in cricket i.e. they are the 35th to 44th players and can only be used when and if Essendon has 13 odd injuries / suspensions.

It doesn't make sense that given Essendon has 34/35 senior and rookie listed players that a supplemetary listed player should be able to get a game ahead of any of Essendon's existing senior and rookie players.

I certainly appreciate the requirement for supplemetary players in the event they are short a 22nd player, but not before.

I reckon the fewer triple figure margin losses the better.

 

[Jman78]

I hope GWS keeps their generous selection academy area... means less focus on our academy

 

[Skoob]

I think we know where Hinks is coming from.

“We had some visibility of Paddy, but we had no visibility on Gus so at worst Essendon should not start the season with 43 and us with 42 players.”

But he doesn't want to replace Angus,

Hinkley wants the ability to dip into the SANFL, VFL, WALL or NEAFL to snare a back up ruckman to support Matthew Lobbe.

With Ryder out, and relying on Charlie "Glass Ankles" Dixon, he wants/needs a replacement for Ryder, despite knowing he was a risk.

I see his point regarding Angus, and makes a fair point in that sense.

I haven't seen anywhere why they came up with allowing 10 top ups when they lost 12. Was it so they effectively lose the same number of players as Port?
It does seem unreasonable that Essendon, despite having only 39 senior listed players before, can now top up to 40. Is Port allowed 2 free rookie upgrades, or 3?

 

[Clarkythelion]

Can't they only take one former player from each club?

Jordan Lyle has also been mentioned and James Polkinhorn

 

[KissKiss]

Jordan Lyle has also been mentioned and James Polkinhorn

They played for different clubs last year. Polk is pretty much a guarantee as already at Essendon

 

[Dan12]

I think Zac O'Brien would be a fair chance of getting a gig with Essendon. An elite endurance runner who was never injured with us and will be able to play at the coal face all day and win the ball will assist them to not get smashed too much.

 

[Lace Out]

Going to be difficult for any player coming in,it's hard to look useful when the team is struggling to win a game.I think Essendon will go for experience to limit the floggings a bit/ look less like a rabble.They will be thinking about development of youngsters and trying to keep them there.

 

[Skoob]

Now we get to see the other side of the coin;

Swan Districts calls for compensation after loss of Ryan Crowley

Swan Districts coach Greg Harding said Crowley, the 2012 Doig medallist, would leave a gaping hole at his team just eight weeks out from the start of the WAFL season.

“Ryan Crowley is impossible to replace,” Swan Districts coach Greg Harding toldfoxsports.com.au

“Whether it’s financial or a player or a combination of both, we do believe there should be compensation.

“I appreciate these are highly unusual circumstances. But we’ve lost a key player and one of our coaches through absolutely no fault of our own. It’s really significant.”

The 'top up' concept is becoming more & more a farce.