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

[Kram]

Seriously are people this dumb. Without top ups Essendon CANNOT EVEN FIELD A TEAM NEXT YEAR! That is the difference! They will get absolutely smashed anyway and almost certainly collect the spoon so who cares. Port are a potential premiership threat that traded for a guy and used the leverage of the situation to get Ryder for well below his value knowing about the potential ban. They took a calculated risk thinking he wouldn't get a ban and they have stuffed it, suck it up.

 

[bomberclifford]

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?

That's all fine and dandy, poor sentence structure and all, but Essendon IS getting top ups. Once that decision was made, IT HAS TO BE APPLIED TO THE OTHER CLUBS AFFECTED. Anything less is ridiculous.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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?

Firstly, the club were found guilty as far as the AFL are concerned. That's why they were penalised in 2013, which in turn is why they won't be penalised further by the AFL after the player verdict came down.

You are saying that Monfries knew he did something wrong and didn't disclose it therefore a top up player shouldn't be granted for him, yet everybody at Essendon knew they had done something wrong and they are being allowed top up players for everybody suspended.

 

[bomberclifford]

Seriously are people this dumb. Without top ups Essendon CANNOT EVEN FIELD A TEAM NEXT YEAR! That is the difference! They will get absolutely smashed anyway and almost certainly collect the spoon so who cares. Port are a potential premiership threat that traded for a guy and used the leverage of the situation to get Ryder for well below his value knowing about the potential ban. They took a calculated risk thinking he wouldn't get a ban and they have stuffed it, suck it up.

Also it's funny the complaining from the Port supporters after all the carry on and gloating after the Ryder trade about how much they got a steal. St Kilda were silly enough to sell the farm for Carlisle with pick 5 but they are just a terribly run organisation.

So because Port is a "potential premiership threat" they don't deserve to top up their list? What an absurd notion. Where is the line drawn? Do Saints get one because they aren't? Wouldn't Bulldogs be as much of a 'threat' as Port?

If a rule is required to be applied to allow Essendon to field a competitive team, it stands to reason that this same rule applies to the other affected teams.

 

[vanders]

No team should be getting top up players, but since one of them is all the teams effected should be able to.

 

[bomberclifford]

No team should be getting top up players, but since one of them is all the teams effected should be able to.

This, I agree with.

 

[marty36]

That's all fine and dandy, poor sentence structure and all, but Essendon IS getting top ups. Once that decision was made, IT HAS TO BE APPLIED TO THE OTHER CLUBS AFFECTED. Anything less is ridiculous.

And Collingwood last year or Freo for Crowley or St Kilda for Saad. Its not about anything but players being found guilty of doping. The essendon Top Up situation is there as an extra ordinary situation that ensures the team can function.

Tell me how the present players with Bulldogs, Melbourne, StKilda, Port differes from those three other incidents and they were not compensated with top ups?

 

[marty36]

Firstly, the club were found guilty as far as the AFL are concerned. That's why they were penalised in 2013, which in turn is why they won't be penalised further by the AFL after the player verdict came down.

You are saying that Monfries knew he did something wrong and didn't disclose it therefore a top up player shouldn't be granted for him, yet everybody at Essendon knew they had done something wrong and they are being allowed top up players for everybody suspended.

Governance issues isnt being found guilty of doping players, I think we all know that.

Essendon situation is an extra ordinary event that needs to be fixed so the season can operate as normal as possible, what has happened in the pasdt for drug use players?

 

[go_the_dockers]

And Collingwood last year or Freo for Crowley or St Kilda for Saad. Its not about anything but players being found guilty of doping. The essendon Top Up situation is there as an extra ordinary situation that ensures the team can function.

Tell me how the present players with Bulldogs, Melbourne, StKilda, Port differes from those three other incidents and they were not compensated with top ups?

You make a very good point with Collingwood and St Kilda previously.

I was going to say of course they should be allowed, but I have changed my opinion with Eseendon being the obvious exception as they need the players to be able to field a team.

 

[Kram]

So because Port is a "potential premiership threat" they don't deserve to top up their list? What an absurd notion. Where is the line drawn? Do Saints get one because they aren't? Wouldn't Bulldogs be as much of a 'threat' as Port?

If a rule is required to be applied to allow Essendon to field a competitive team, it stands to reason that this same rule applies to the other affected teams.

If you don't want to be affected by this stuff then here's a thought, don't trade in players from a club that you know full well that they a very real potential drug ban hanging over their heads. Very, very simple stuff. Also the top ups are not about Essendon fielding a 'competitive' team, it's about them any them fielding any team whatsoever.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Seriously are people this dumb. Without top ups Essendon CANNOT EVEN FIELD A TEAM NEXT YEAR! That is the difference! They will get absolutely smashed anyway and almost certainly collect the spoon so who cares. Port are a potential premiership threat that traded for a guy and used the leverage of the situation to get Ryder for well below his value knowing about the potential ban. They took a calculated risk thinking he wouldn't get a ban and they have stuffed it, suck it up.

Also it's funny the complaining from the Port supporters after all the carry on and gloating after the Ryder trade about how much they got a steal. St Kilda were silly enough to sell the farm for Carlisle with pick 5 but they are just a terribly run organisation.

I think there is a debate here with two sides of an argument both with valid points. To reduce it to 'are people this dumb' is not helpful at all.

Of course Essendon need top ups to field a team in 2016. That is not up for debate. The whole point is whether Essendon should have access to more players than other teams who have had players suspended because of Essendon's supplements program?

There have been years where teams have used most of the players on their list. There have been games where teams have barely been able to field a team because of injury. Don't look at it as 12 players missing compared to 2 and write off the 2 as insignificant. You never know if they will need those extra 2 at some stage this year. At the very least the AFL would have to consider allowing top ups mid season if those teams are hard hit by injury.

I am fairly sure that none of the supporters of these teams really think top ups are going to be the making or undoing of their seasons as they still have 42 players to select from, all theoretically better than the top ups they would get.

It boils down to 2 things. 1) the what ifs 2) the principle of being without a full list through a situation not of their making while Essendon are granted a full list.

That's not dumb. There may be reasons to disagree but it's not dumb.

 

[Forward Press]

It boils down to 2 things. 1) the what ifs 2) the principle of being without a full list through a situation not of their making while Essendon are granted a full list.

It's not a full list, for the record. There are a maximum of 10 top-up players to replace 12 suspended players.

 

[Marley10]

I can't believe people are crying about players that are not AFL standard only because Essendon get to have some.

Let's swap lists and you can have all the top up players you like.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Governance issues isnt being found guilty of doping players, I think we all know that.

Seriously?

Their players have been suspended for doping yet you don't think the club has been found guilty of doping?

The AFL penalised them for these governance issues in 2013 and when pressed as to further penalties for doping after the players were suspended, the AFL said they had already penalised them over this issue so there would be no further penalty.

It was posed that Essendon hadn't been found guilty but the players had. I disagree.

 

[marty36]

I can't believe people are crying about players that are not AFL standard only because Essendon get to have some.

Let's swap lists and you can have all the top up players you like.

The majority of people realise the need for the EFC to have top ups, the competition needs it as much as the EFC it is a extra ordinary event that needed to be rectified, all other teams need to comply with the existing rules and what has occured with any team that has been affected by a player found guilty of drug offences, not even sure if in the past rookies could be used, Im sure someone can advise!

 

[Marley10]

Have you seen our ruck depth?

Well, we are struggling to find talls at the moment so it isn't like you're going to get anything that will benefit your side much.

 

[JeffDunne]

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.

No, you're allowed an active list of 40, your senior list still includes the suspended players.

That's the problem I have with this "top-up" bullshit it allows Essendon to stockpile players to minimise the consequences of their penalties. In fact I have a real problem with that!

The only concession the league should make in such circumstances is to allow teams to cut suspended players before adding others to their list.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It's not a full list, for the record. There are a maximum of 10 top-up players to replace 12 suspended players.

Fair enough. The point still stands that these teams won't have a full list to cover any eventualities. I don't get why anybody would begrudge supporters of those teams thinking that was unfair when clearly getting in top up players to cover for Essendon doping suspensions is an actual thing.

Let them feel aggrieved by it. I think they are entitled.

Yeah yeah buyer beware and all that, but if you are doing for the perpetrators, then do for all.

 

[marty36]

Seriously?

Their players have been suspended for doping yet you don't think the club has been found guilty of doping?

The AFL penalised them for these governance issues in 2013 and when pressed as to further penalties for doping after the players were suspended, the AFL said they had already penalised them over this issue so there would be no further penalty.

It was posed that Essendon hadn't been found guilty but the players had. I disagree.

Were the EFC respesented or needing to answer anything at the CAS apeal in Switzerland?

I know we can assume that they were guilty and I think they were but they havent been found guilty by anyone of doping players, Work safe has found them guilty of a non safe work enviroment but not doping players. Maybe once the players go after them we may get that, or do you thnk it will be settled out of court and we will never get a guilty conviction or the truth ?

 

[Forward Press]

No, you're allowed an active list of 40, your senior list still includes the suspended players.

That's the problem I have with this "top-up" bullshit it allows Essendon to stockpile players to minimise the consequences of their penalties. In fact I have a real problem with that!

The only concession the league should make in such circumstances is to allow teams to cut suspended players before adding others to their list.

The 'stockpiled' players were deemed by 18 AFL clubs to not be of AFL quality. Not like they're being compensated with 10 mini Gary Abletts here.

And besides, I think it's been confirmed that all of the Essendon 12 can walk out as unrestricted free agents at the end of 2016, and that they have no preferential rights for the 10 top-ups at the end of 2016. The club is not in a position of strength here at all.

 

[HolyWars]

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.

I totally 100% agree.

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.

Why not? Monfries was taken without any knowledge of the supplements program at Essendon, Ryder was.

However, given that Essendon have been allowed to top up their list, it's only fair that all clubs impacted get the same. The AFL is showing a disgusting double standard by allowing the club that caused the mess to replenish their list, but not other clubs. Either top up players for all involved, or none at all.

 

[Joffaboy]

Trolling? How on earth is that trolling?

Making dumb statements like if posters don't agree with your opinion they are clearly biased.

I'm a Saints supporter and don't agree with you so how do you reconcile that?

 

[JeffDunne]

The 'stockpiled' players were deemed by 18 AFL clubs to not be of AFL quality. Not like they're being compensated with 10 mini Gary Abletts here.

And besides, I think it's been confirmed that all of the Essendon 12 can walk out as unrestricted free agents at the end of 2016, and that they have no preferential rights for the 10 top-ups at the end of 2016. The club is not in a position of strength here at all.

Huh?

I'm talking about keeping suspended players on your list AND having the option of fielding replacements.

If the AFL was a true free-agent market place, you'd need to cut players to sign replacements.

That is what Essendon should be forced to do.

 

[Forward Press]

Huh?

I'm talking about keeping suspended players on your list AND having the option of fielding replacements.

If the AFL was a true free-agent market place, you'd need to cut players to sign replacements.

That is what Essendon should be forced to do.

They can't play any of the suspended players this year though, can they?

All 12 could walk out on them anyway. And all the 10 top-ups could not play in 2017 for Essendon. 2016 Essendon is a short-term fix, and as others have pointed out, this isn't just to make Essendon field a competitive team. It's to ensure they can even field a team, period.

 

[Joffaboy]

Seriously are people this dumb. Without top ups Essendon CANNOT EVEN FIELD A TEAM NEXT YEAR! That is the difference! They will get absolutely smashed anyway and almost certainly collect the spoon so who cares. Port are a potential premiership threat that traded for a guy and used the leverage of the situation to get Ryder for well below his value knowing about the potential ban. They took a calculated risk thinking he wouldn't get a ban and they have stuffed it, suck it up.

That's just ignorant revisionism a la David King.
We got Carlisle and pick 14 which we used on Gresham which we may well have used at five.

In reality we got Carlisle for our second rounder.

And a bit rich for an Essendon supporter to call any football Club a poorly run organisation considering the current circumstances