Non-Lions Footy Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now we get to see the other side of the coin;

Swan Districts calls for compensation after loss of Ryan Crowley

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

I think this is more a case of Swan Districts coach Greg Harding making himself a farce.

Every club faces the risk of losing every player for the season every day.

This isn't limited to footy by any means, but these days it seems as though everyone reckons they're entitled to some sort of compensation for anything bad that happens.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think this is more a case of Swan Districts coach Greg Harding making himself a farce.

Every club faces the risk of losing every player for the season every day.

This isn't limited to footy by any means, but these days it seems as though everyone reckons they're entitled to some sort of compensation for anything bad that happens.
Difference here being they lost a player due to another clubs actions though. It's not like Crowley did a knee, they are suffering because of Essendons penalty.
 
Difference here being they lost a player due to another clubs actions though. It's not like Crowley did a knee, they are suffering because of Essendons penalty.

I don't see the relevance.

Whether it's injury, or an AFL list spot becoming open, or someone winning the lottery, you always have to be prepared for players being unavailable.
 
Would be even funnier if each top up created a chain of musical chairs poaching all the way down to the u17 state comps with Essendon liable for the lot.
 
I think this is more a case of Swan Districts coach Greg Harding making himself a farce.

Every club faces the risk of losing every player for the season every day.

This isn't limited to footy by any means, but these days it seems as though everyone reckons they're entitled to some sort of compensation for anything bad that happens.
Not to another club, just because. He would have been contracted, and they stood to gain real value (sporting and commercial) from having him. Because a club broke doping rules, they now miss out. At this short notice, I'd be pissed if Gary O'Donnell was poached just because one of their coaches was banned.
I agree that screams for compo get out of hand, but this is another case of others paying for Essendon's crimes. These are the things that the AFL wouldn't have thought of (or cared about) when coming up with their "solution".
 
I don't see the relevance.

Whether it's injury, or an AFL list spot becoming open, or someone winning the lottery, you always have to be prepared for players being unavailable.
That's a silly argument (and disappointing). It's the same argument as "no point being angry at someone being killed, 'cause yanno', folk die all the time and could happen any time".
The point is he didn't win lotto or enter the AFL through normal process, he was poached to fill a team that has done the wrong thing, 5 minutes before the season. I think they have a right to be disgruntled.
Don't make a gruntled joke.
 
That's a silly argument (and disappointing). It's the same argument as "no point being angry at someone being killed, 'cause yanno', folk die all the time and could happen any time".
The point is he didn't win lotto or enter the AFL through normal process, he was poached to fill a team that has done the wrong thing, 5 minutes before the season. I think they have a right to be disgruntled.
Don't make a gruntled joke.

Stop being so gruntled, Skoob!

They have a right to be unhappy, but this isn't out of the bounds of what footy clubs normally have to deal with. It's quite different to people getting killed.

Ultimately, these events were set in motion by the Bombers cheating, but that was some way back in the process. They cheated, WADA appealed the not guilty verdict, CAS upheld the appeal and suspended their players, the AFL allowed Essendon to top up the list, they decided to take Ryan Crowley, Crowley accepted. I'm no lawyer, but I assume liability ends at some point on the chain of causation. And there are a lot of decisions made by different parties in that process.

Seeing as Crowley is the only party Swan Districts have a contract with, AFAIK, I'd imagine he'd be the only person who'd be obliged to offer any compensation.

The irony here of course is that Crowley might not have been available to Swan Districts in the first place if he hadn't ruined his AFL career by taking a banned substance.
 
I don't see the relevance.

Whether it's injury, or an AFL list spot becoming open, or someone winning the lottery, you always have to be prepared for players being unavailable.
Does this mean they should not be allowed the same luxury as the guilty party to top up their list? It is one thing to be prepared, it is another to lose a senior player and coach through the actions of another club. I can definitely see where Districts are coming from, particularly with the top up rules in place for the Bombers.
 
Does this mean they should not be allowed the same luxury as the guilty party to top up their list? It is one thing to be prepared, it is another to lose a senior player and coach through the actions of another club. I can definitely see where Districts are coming from, particularly with the top up rules in place for the Bombers.

Topping up their list is up to the WAFL, I guess.

In any case, Swan Districts and Essendon aren't competing clubs. Rules or favours applied to one don't need to apply to the other.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I guess this late in the season how far down the ladder do you go, AFL tops up from the state league, then the state league tops up from where? and they top up from the juniors and somewhere down the track someone has to go find a new player completely. Or do you only allow compensation in clubs where players are played or winning the competition comes with some prize money. I just think at some stage you have to make the call, "buyer be ware" The AFL have a process incase a player goes out long term - the rookie list. Clubs below that are not so lucky. Clubs do their due diligence and AFL have more resources to check that anyone else. St Kilda should have got compensation for Carlile, clearly others knew of his issues before the contract was signed. If they said no to St Kilda I think they have to say no to Port.
 
Oh the irony.!!!!!!Coached by a chemist, who had absolutely no idea when he was coaching Eagles.. that a few of his star players were drug addicts .when they won a premiership.

I think you will find he inherited the problems at the Eagles and is credited with cleaning the problems up which is why he would have been so attractive to the Bombers although the 2 issues are very different but he did re-build with Judd and Cousins and a few others gone. I read it somewhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top