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

[Heaps of fun]

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.

Why is your list so poorly managed?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

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

That's due to poor list management though! Should have had a ruckman on the rookie list as a contingency for the possible Ryder suspension. Now you want the Afl to reward poor management?!

 

[The Swert]

I think every club should get compensated for bad trades.

Fremantle deserves three extra players for recruiting Colin Sylvia, even Hawthorn need help after wasting a pick on Dayle Garlett.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

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.

Port decided to run short by choice for salary cap reasons. The drugs saga is not a reason to give them a full list again.

 

[gillo94]

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.

St Kilda are down a KKP
Port down 2 forwards and a Ruck

My original thoughts were to let these clubs get at least 1 top up. If not then Essendon should be denied its topups too. What's done is done. The whole thing is stupid anyway, perhaps it's better doing a rookie upgrade than signing 32 year olds that will give you 8 games throughout the year. We should at least agree on that

 

[HairyO]

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.

Agree on Monfries, and EFC should pay as well. For all the others the teams can upgrade a Rookie. Its what they are there for.

So use them.

 

[Bulldog1954]

I'm not fussed as we don't really need a top up player. But the clubs should be allowed to in principle.

The buyer beware argument in regards to compensation has merit, but not in regards to a top up player.

I don't understand how the actual club that cheated can get top up players but other clubs can't because they should have been more aware of the possibility the player may get suspended. So basically if we cheated we would be able to get top up players, but if we committed the heinous crime of not being aware when trading we can't.

 

[marty36]

Agree on Monfries, and EFC should pay as well. For all the others the teams can upgrade a Rookie. Its what they are there for.

So use them.

As you said all teams can upgrade rookies even with Monfries, I dont see the problem, would love to know the stats on how many rookies are actually upgraded each year! I doubt that all four rookies would have ever been upgraded, hence putting no team at a disadvantage!

 

[marty36]

I'm not fussed as we don't really need a top up player. But the clubs should be allowed to in principle.

The buyer beware argument in regards to compensation has merit, but not in regards to a top up player.

I don't understand how the actual club that cheated can get top up players but other clubs can't because they should have been more aware of the possibility the player may get suspended. So basically if we cheated we would be able to get top up players, but if we committed the heinous crime of not being aware when trading we can't.

Thats what teh rookie system should be used for, how will it put you at a disadvantage have you ever upgraded 4 rookies?

 

[Bulldog1954]

Thats what teh rookie system should be used for, how will it put you at a disadvantage have you ever upgraded 4 rookies?

I did say I wasn't fussed and it's unlikely 4 rookies will need to be upgraded. I know it's a minor issue but we now have one less rookie then other clubs. I'm probably just frustrated that the team who cheated is getting looked after so well and it's making me a sook

 

[Tiger Toffee]

Essendon only getting 10 top ups to replace the 12 lost, if essendon had've been granted 11 then port could argue for 1, AFL don't want this hence the cut off for essendon is 10 with the other 2 from its rookie list.

 

[HairyO]

As you said all teams can upgrade rookies even with Monfries, I dont see the problem, would love to know the stats on how many rookies are actually upgraded each year! I doubt that all four rookies would have ever been upgraded, hence putting no team at a disadvantage!

Monfries is a different case. Essendon knew when they traded him that there was a potential ban coming - even if they didnt believe it would happen. Its even possible that Monfries didnt even know about the potential ban.

CAS said that Essendon self reported in Aug or Sept 2012, well before they claimed to self report in Feb 2013. So they definitely knew about it.

Rookies are there to be upgraded for long term injuries or retirements. Not where players miss a year over something completely out of the control of the club.

That said, they really should be promoting a Rookie to get some experience in to them. Not sure what benefit there is in getting a player no longer in the AFL system to play for a year.

 

[Lsta062]

The thing is, it seems that Port want a top up for Ryder. The way they carried on at the end of last year in order to secure Ryder from Essendon using threats to use a breach in contract on Essendon's behalf as a reason to poach Ryder if Essendon do not accept Port's deal makes it quite tough to sympathise with Port in this regard. Their behaviour shows that they very well knew what they were getting into, so, I really don't think that the AFL should cave into their demands.

As for Monfries, wouldn't it be better to elevate a rookie or something anyway as the top-ups are only there for a year? I am sure they can replace him with someone decent on their list as they have a fairly strong forward line.

 

[Pacman82]

Why do people want top ups? Would rather upgrade a rookie, than take our pick of the undrafted and the over-the-hill.

Loosing Melkshem's probably goin' to be beneficial for the Dees I'd say.

 

[marty36]

I did say I wasn't fussed and it's unlikely 4 rookies will need to be upgraded. I know it's a minor issue but we now have one less rookie then other clubs. I'm probably just frustrated that the team who cheated is getting looked after so well and it's making me a sook

There have been teams that dont even fill all 4 rookie spots, I think Geelong havent filled their full list this year, on memory I dont think any team has ever used all 4 rookies throughout the season. Could be wrong but very very very unlikely 4 will be used.

As for Essendon I wouldnt be too concerned they will finish dead last they are picking up has beens that will probably break down and players that arent AFL standard, hardly a concern for any team in the league this year. The AFL need to make best of a bad situation so the floggings arent in excess of 100 points as the TV stations will be pissed and both ratings and crowds will cop a hammering, which wont assist any club with their financial position. Clubs will accept the position eh AFL are taking as do you want to lose $$$$ on crowd numbers when you play them, I know your club wont.

 

[marty36]

Monfries is a different case. Essendon knew when they traded him that there was a potential ban coming - even if they didnt believe it would happen. Its even possible that Monfries didnt even know about the potential ban.

CAS said that Essendon self reported in Aug or Sept 2012, well before they claimed to self report in Feb 2013. So they definitely knew about it.

Rookies are there to be upgraded for long term injuries or retirements. Not where players miss a year over something completely out of the control of the club.

That said, they really should be promoting a Rookie to get some experience in to them. Not sure what benefit there is in getting a player no longer in the AFL system to play for a year.

Monfires also new what he had done and was found guilty of it , but failed to disclose it to his potential employer, Essendon didnt go searching out a home for Monfries that was done by Port Adelaide and Monfries, they are almost an innocent party in him moving.

 

[Noobz0r]

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.

Have you seen our ruck depth?

 

[Noobz0r]

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.

In terms of Port, because we traded in Monfries before any of this started?

 

[MotleyLemon]

Not sure about this "they knew the risks" line of thinking.

Did Essendon "know the risks" when commencing their doping program?

 

[Rack Watts]

I think all 4 clubs should get top ups.
They didn't know it would be an entire season.

 

[marty36]

In terms of Port, because we traded in Monfries before any of this started?

Did Essendon want to lose Monfries or ask Port to take him off their hands, or was it both Monfries and Port who looked for Monfries services and Monfries wanted to go there. Monfries knew as much as Essendon of what he had done, in fact the EFC havent been found guilty only Monfries has.

 

[marty36]

I think all 4 clubs should get top ups.
They didn't know it would be an entire season.

They knew the potential bans that could be applied, they could even consider themselves lucky the ban was backdated and its not two years.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Straight swap.
Hampson and Morris for Wines.
Problem solved.

 

[Kram]

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

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.

Maybe think about that before recruiting a guy with a potential drug ban hanging over his head? Port took the risk and got Ryder on the cheap because of it, bad luck.

 

[MotleyLemon]

Maybe think about that before recruiting a guy with a potential drug ban hanging over his head? Port took the risk and got Ryder on the cheap because of it, bad luck.

Surely it's on Essendon to think about ramifications of systematic doping also then?