Don't agree.
Essendon by all means and for Monfries maybe, but all others we're known risks.
He'll all through the Carlisle trade Saints fans pointed to a possible ban as mitigation for no straight swap for pick 5.
Bit rich to cry about it now.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Should Port Adelaide, Bulldogs, MFC and Stk be allowed Top Up players
- Thread starter gillo94
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Essendon by all means and for Monfries maybe, but all others we're known risks.
He'll all through the Carlisle trade Saints fans pointed to a possible ban as mitigation for no straight swap for pick 5.
Bit rich to cry about it now.
- Sep 26, 2004
- 47,838
- 64,817
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #52
Melbourne, St Kilda and the Bulldogs definitely should not be allowed to sign a top-up player, and Port Adelaide shouldn't be allowed to sign one as a replacement for Ryder.
Port does, however, have a legitimate claim to being able to sign one as a replacement for Monfries - but that won't eventuate.
Port does, however, have a legitimate claim to being able to sign one as a replacement for Monfries - but that won't eventuate.
JeffDunne
TheBrownDog
All rules brought in by the AFL should apply equally to all teams.
Call me old-fashioned.
Call me old-fashioned.
That's a bit harsh mate. And here I've been advocating that Carlton receives a top up player or random inanimate object to replace Liam Jones.
TedDougChris
🏆 🦍
- Mar 10, 2007
- 52,545
- 98,136
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Charlton Athletic, Roys FFC
TedDougChris
🏆 🦍
- Mar 10, 2007
- 52,545
- 98,136
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Charlton Athletic, Roys FFC
Didn't Fremantle receive permission from the AFL (in the last few years or so) to play a non listed player during an injury crisis ???
They didn't have a full 22 to choose from, so selected someone from the WAFL ??
Or is my memory just really, really shot now....
They didn't have a full 22 to choose from, so selected someone from the WAFL ??
Or is my memory just really, really shot now....
- Jul 13, 2015
- 38,554
- 43,669
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Crazy talk.
In the last round a few years ago, maybe 2011 (it was definitely against the Bulldogs), they had so many injuries that they had to gain permission to promote more rookies than normally allowed to fill the 22. All players were on listed though.
Lore
Moderator ❀
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Upset Victory Tipping
LL
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2020 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
Essendon Player Sponsor 2019 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
Essendon Board Goal Kicking Comp
Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 - Colyer, Fantasia, McDonald-Tipungwuti and McKernan
- Dec 14, 2015
- 45,492
- 67,598
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Jye Caldwell & Georgia Clarke
- Moderator
- #60
I understand the all or none argument, and the Monfries-only argument. I also think Port made an informed decision not to put Redden or another mature ruck on the rookie list.
But maybe a different perspective:
Essendon lost 12 players. We are allowed 10 top-ups and 5 rookie-upgrades, BUT we are only allowed a senior list of 40. This means that if we use all 10 top-ups, we still upgrade 2 rookies as if they were LTI replacements. If we upgrade all 5 rookies, then we get 7 top-ups. We can't have all of them, and we have to use at least two rookies if we want a full list (and I think that's fair).
From that I'd guess that from now on, the AFL is allowing all clubs two rookie-upgrades (one per suspended player as if they were LTIs), and any more than that results in a top-up provision. If something happens in future and this isn't the principle used, I'd be surprised.
Tarkyn_24
Okeydoke7 is [redacted]
- Dec 23, 2006
- 53,957
- 77,004
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
We should get top ups for Keeffe and Thomas.
What's good for the goose...
What's good for the goose...
- Jun 6, 2012
- 10,024
- 17,815
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Rampage
Who cares? Give the clubs the option & I bet they wouldn't even bother going out & finding top ups. These teams have another 40 players on their list that they obviously consider better footballers than any potential top up. The top up players wouldn't get a game
Dogs could have got no better top-up than Adcock under the rules specified. He would've been Essendons first pick, maybe J Grant had they not been given another chance. We get to upgrade Jed off the rookie list so is all OK for us.
- Aug 22, 2009
- 24,506
- 28,840
- AFL Club
- West Coast
They should have the option. Essendon shouldn't be given an advantage that the other clubs don't get.
Topkent
Confirmed ITK Drafting King
Should be allowed to take back one of your delisted players for the season so we can get Crossy back on the list
The Old Dark Navy's
Moderator
- Moderator
- #67
I'm not sure I agree with the notion that these teams traded for known risks therefore don't deserve a top up player. I would have thought allow yourself or your players to be injected with substances that you hadn't checked out also counts as a 'known risk'.
These teams have paid a fair price in terms of trades for these players, in most cases a price that ignores any potential penalty hanging over their heads. The AFL tribunal cleared them last year. Who is to say that St Kilda were unreasonable in thinking that would happen again? Certainly all the noise in AFL circles would be that any suspension would be minimal.
I just can't reconcile the notion that these teams are somehow to blame for taking a risk in recruiting these players while the team that has caused these players to be suspended can play with a full list. When you consider that some of these players are rucks/KPP players, their structures in the seniors or VFL level might be affected by not being able to sign a top up replacement.
These teams have paid a fair price in terms of trades for these players, in most cases a price that ignores any potential penalty hanging over their heads. The AFL tribunal cleared them last year. Who is to say that St Kilda were unreasonable in thinking that would happen again? Certainly all the noise in AFL circles would be that any suspension would be minimal.
I just can't reconcile the notion that these teams are somehow to blame for taking a risk in recruiting these players while the team that has caused these players to be suspended can play with a full list. When you consider that some of these players are rucks/KPP players, their structures in the seniors or VFL level might be affected by not being able to sign a top up replacement.
- Aug 22, 2009
- 24,506
- 28,840
- AFL Club
- West Coast
No & yes respectfully.
I get you're trying to say. But no matter what is decided here it's unfair for someone, so I'm not sure your point is pertinent.
I think the other teams should have top-up options. At the very least, Port should get one for Monfries.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
I think last round of 2011? They were allowed to promote additional players from the rookie list. It is how Casey Sibosado played his one and only game for the Dockers.
bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
Adelaide supporters be like, "NO WAY U TAKE RYDER KNOWING CAVEAT EMPTOR AND SHIT!" but completely ignore the situation of Melbourne, St Kilda and Bulldogs. Says it all really.
Clubs that DIDN'T implement a full scale, illegal supplements program, but have lost players due to the penalties handed down for said program, should get AT LEAST the same 'top up' ability as the perpetrators themselves, whether they need it or not.
Anyone arguing different is too biased to see clearly.
Clubs that DIDN'T implement a full scale, illegal supplements program, but have lost players due to the penalties handed down for said program, should get AT LEAST the same 'top up' ability as the perpetrators themselves, whether they need it or not.
Anyone arguing different is too biased to see clearly.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
I'm pretty sure I don't support Adelaide.
bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
Good for you.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
So let's discuss this topic without trolling the club they support then.
bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
Trolling? How on earth is that trolling?
None of the clubs should receive top ups, the club wasnt found guilty the players were. Did Essendon ring the PAFC and ask them to take their players, in Monfries case he was aware of what he had done at the EFC and eventually found guilty of it yet he didnt advise you of it when he approached the PAFC. It will be interesting to see if the PAFC pays both Monfries and Ryder a 100% of their wage although in Monfries case he didnt disclose a potential risk he put on the PAFC. How is it Essendons fault they you poached their players?
Similar threads
