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

Remove this Banner Ad

gillo94

gillo94

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 17, 2014
5,956
1,867
Hoppers Crossing
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
LA Lakers
Since Bombers are allowed to top up. Should Port be allowed 2 top ups for Ryder and Monfries.
Demons for Melkshem
StK for Carlisle
Bulldogs for Crameri

I think so but my criteria would be fitting same size and height description as replacement. What do you think?
 
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.
 
NSFB said:
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.
Click to expand...

I reckon Port going out and getting Ryder even after knowing shows they weren't too concerned. So I don't put Monfries in a different list.

As for top ups, I thought it was because it would likely greatly reduce Essendons chance of fielding a side? Only takes 10 total injuries (not that rare especially back half of season) and they would be having 21 players...it's not about 'fairness', it's about ensuring they can fill a side. Not sure Port et al have the same problem. Happy to be wrong though, haven't really bothered to listen to the AFL on their take
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sure. A top up player that is state league level/delisted/retired on a one year contract.

Can people seriously not understand that there is absolutely no point for them to have a top up? They aren't going to develop this player for the future, nor will this player be best 22.

An extra rookie upgrade makes sense. Top up for only a year though?
 
Why do people want top ups? Would rather upgrade a rookie, than take our pick of the undrafted and the over-the-hill.
 
Marley10 said:
Sure. A top up player that is state league level/delisted/retired on a one year contract.

Can people seriously not understand that there is absolutely no point for them to have a top up? They aren't going to develop this player for the future, nor will this player be best 22.

An extra rookie upgrade makes sense. Top up for only a year though?
Click to expand...

In the case of Ryder and Jake Carlisle being key position think would be fair to give them a tall top up in the event that Port have 2 injured rucks at a time of Stk have 2 defenders do ACL's. You must agree
 
gillo94 said:
In the case of Ryder and Jake Carlisle being key position think would be fair to give them a tall top up in the event that Port have 2 injured rucks at a time of Stk have 2 defenders do ACL's. You must agree
Click to expand...
No I don't agree. Both teams took the players while fully knowing the risks associated with it. Especially Port, who tried to entice Ryder in order to break his contract for the "missing piece" of the puzzle.

With St Kilda, it doesn't really affect them either way, so they're fine.

Maybe for Monfries, but again, might as well upgrade a rookie or develop a young player. Besides, it's one player (2 in Port's case). It won't debilitate them.
 
The should. Not their fault and they should get the same privilege as Essendon (or even a first choice to choose players).

Surely you can argue they knew the risk with trades after the drugs were revealed but really had to happen in some cases. Impossible to keep Essendon players out of trades and free agency for 3 years until the matter is finally solved.

But in the end it won't matter that much for those clubs. They only loose one (or two) players and will hardly get a player of similar quality as top up. A player who could replace Ryder or Crameri straight away at AFL level most likely would already be on an AFL list. So they would really have to fight for a spot anyway.
 
Marley10 said:
Sure. A top up player that is state league level/delisted/retired on a one year contract.

Can people seriously not understand that there is absolutely no point for them to have a top up? They aren't going to develop this player for the future, nor will this player be best 22.

An extra rookie upgrade makes sense. Top up for only a year though?
Click to expand...
In port's case, we don't want to develop a player for the future. We won't some ruck cover in case Lobbe goes down. If Lobbe gets injured we would then have to throw 19 year-old Billy Frampton into the deep end.
 
matt_bas said:
How is it fair Essendon start the season with more players than Port? Port should get a top up as should all teams effected or Essenden should play short.
Click to expand...
How do they? Technically they start with two less if you include the rookie list. In any case, the quality of the lists will be far superior in Port's favour anyway.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Power Raid said:
it would be nice to secure a mature age ruckmen for a year as Lobbe can't possibly play 22 rounds and hopefully finals by himself
Click to expand...

Taking a quick looks at your list you've got Trengrove, Butcher, Dixon and Westhoff who could potentially ruck.

Frampton and Howard as youngsters who could also provide relief.

But end of the day you guys chose to get rid of Redden, so you didn't have a plan B knowing what could happen with Ryder.
 
kane249 said:
Taking a quick looks at your list you've got Trengrove, Butcher, Dixon and Westhoff who could potentially ruck.

Frampton and Howard as youngsters who could also provide relief.

But end of the day you guys chose to get rid of Redden, so you didn't have a plan B knowing what could happen with Ryder.
Click to expand...

true but it still doesn't explain why Essendon get to top up when other clubs don't. Why should one club be treated different to another.......perhaps no club should be allowed to top up.
 
Power Raid said:
true but it still doesn't explain why Essendon get to top up when other clubs don't. Why should one club be treated different to another.......perhaps no club should be allowed to top up.
Click to expand...

Essendon lost 12 players, that's a massive hit to take.

With injuries and suspensions going into a season with 32 players is never going to work with them either having to play short or forfeit (both things the AFL wouldn't allow to happen).

If Port had anything approaching 12 it would be a valid argument, but 2 by comparison isn't much.
 
No, they shouldn't get top ups, but Essendon shouldn't either. So if Essendon does, it's only fair for the others to get them.

Moot point, all the top ups are going to be shit.
 
Dont need or want a top up. One player. We knew the gamble. Question is should essendon even be allowed to play in 2016?
Shouldve scraped them. This is going to be embarrassing. Bird and kelly and crowley onball .... Mitch brown the key back ... And god knows what to come.

What will be more embarrassing is when Melbourne lose to them. :/
 
They should get top-ups, not that they will necessarily use them but a mature-age ruckman for Port's sake or a mature key back for the other teams as insurance for instance may prove handy, you never know.

Sure the loss of 1 player may not hurt much but the point is Essendon get to replace their players, the other teams should get to do the same and start the season with the same amount of players in their main list as any other club.

There's arguments against why they actually NEED the top up players but really how would it hurt the other teams if the did get a VFL/SANFL player? It's not like they're poaching from other lists, they're taking mature-agers who wouldn't have been playing AFL otherwise and giving them a chance. I don't see Port being given the opportunity to recruit a ruck from the SANFL to replace the one they lost and probably using him for 1 or 2 games in the season as in any way negative to West Coast, or any other non-affected team, therefore who cares? Let them pick someone up.
 
Severe said:
No. And nor should Essendon, I can't for the life of me understand why they are gifted these players. I'm not anti Essendon I just don't see the reason.
Click to expand...

Its because the afl doesnt want a team that will be flogged by 100+ points every week .Bad for attendances and bad for ratings At least with top ups they can compete with Carlton and other riff raff at the bottom end.
 
Severe said:
No. And nor should Essendon, I can't for the life of me understand why they are gifted these players. I'm not anti Essendon I just don't see the reason.
Click to expand...
Yes, "gifted" players not deemed good enough to be on any other teams list.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

Cleric
Opinion Is it time for the AFL to allow clubs a marquee player outside the cap?
2
Replies
40
Views
883
GWT6
G
Lunchtime
Top 10 Players Since 2000
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
239
Views
7K
kreuze_missile
kreuze_missile
Robroy22
Who are your teams Top Eight players
2 3
Replies
67
Views
2K
Robroy22
Robroy22
Peter Sidorkiewicz
Autopsy Should Adam Kingsley be in hotseat?
2
Replies
27
Views
650
HBFlanker
H
HugeJohnson
Should players stop running during their goal celebrations?
Replies
15
Views
746
burge13
B
Purple7x08_24
Coaches discussing umpiring in conferences. Is it, or should it be allowed?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
geelong_crazy26
G
outabounds
Who exactly is going to end up the best Port midfielder?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
adammania9
adammania9

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top