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

[HighBudget]

Essendon are picking up 10 players that, for one reason or another, were no longer deemed suitable to find a place on an AFL list. That is, not amongst the top 600+ players in the country. It's not like they are picking up Fyfe and Buddy here, this is about ameliorating a significant disadvantage - even after picking up 10 hacks, Essendon is not even close to being on equal footing with the other 17 clubs.

No doubt the other teams will pick up hacks as well, so why not let them?

 

[Forward Press]

No doubt the other teams will pick up hacks as well, so why not let them?

Huge difference between losing one player and losing twelve players.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No those cases I suggested were all drug related dont try and change it, Crowley, saad, Keeffe and Thomas were all banned for drugs were there clubs compensated in anyway shape or form.

As for sharing EFC punishment you are not listening the 12 monmth ban on the[players is purely the players ban for not adhering to the drug code regardless of what the EFC have or havent done. No different from the 16 year old romanian gymnist being given a cold and flu tablet by teh olympic doctor and losing her olympic medal, it was her responisbility not her doctors.

No different to Saad drinking the sports drink, his fault no one elses the current players have only themselves at fault not the EFC.

As for the AFL tribunal they arent ultimatly responsible for the drug code I dont care if he was traded swapped delisted, its the player that broke the rules which is why the have 12 month bans not Essendon.

Did you not read the part where I said all of those players were suspended while playing for the clubs they were at when they committed the offence? Port, St Kilda, Dogs, Melbourne did not do anything wrong to deserve having players suspended. They were not responsible for the education of those players regarding the drug code.

If a player does something wrong while at a club, the club has to take responsibility for disciplining that player or wear the consequences of what that player did while under its charge. That didn't happen in this case. Whilst the player still has to be suspended, I don't see why the club that had zero responsibility or zero influence over that player when they committed that offense should be disadvantaged.

Yeah, it's only 1 or 2 list spots. Things happen. Injuries, suspensions etc. You have to wear those. However there is scope for replacement players to be allowed so as not to disadvantage innocent parties. Shannon Motlop being added to the Melbourne list after the tragedy with Troy Broadbridge for example. (First person to say I am even remotely comparing the severity of the situations isn't paying attention and is more than a little disingenous).

Let's put it another way. If the other teams were allowed top up replacements, would you consider those teams were given an unfair advantage and continue to argue against it? It is their 43rd and 44th players on their list coming from a pool of players nobody else wanted. Would you argue as strongly?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Huge difference between losing one player and losing twelve players.

Yeah there is, but a huge difference in culpability between the clubs too.

 

[Forward Press]

Yeah there is, but a huge difference in culpability between the clubs too.

I just don't think Essendon picking up 10 discards comes even close to making up for the loss of 12 senior players. The competition comes before destroying the club.

 

[Power Raid]

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.

You can't have one rule for one and another for everyone else.

If anything Essendon should be the ones with no top ups as it was Essendon who had the drug program. They should be punished not other clubs.

They shouldn't have to forfeit as even a guy with a broken leg can sit in the forward pocket.

 

[Power Raid]

I swear anyone that doesn't get the difference is almost deliberately being obtuse.

Yep

One club had a drug program and is being given top ups

The other clubs did not have drug programs and are not being offered top ups.

 

[HighBudget]

Huge difference between losing one player and losing twelve players.

So people are complaining about a few clubs getting 1 hack player? They're gonna be crap players who aren't going to influence this season at all yet people are complaining about it. Why is this a debate?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I just don't think Essendon picking up 10 discards comes even close to making up for the loss of 12 senior players. The competition comes before destroying the club.

No it doesn't come close and nor should it. Penalties are designed to hurt.

How does one season of playing discards and getting thrashed most weeks destroy the club anyway? The only thing that will do that is further legal action and players exercising their DFA option.

Nobody gave a damn about Carlton being at the bottom when they were penalised and being consigned to many years of the same. The overwhelming vibe was we needed to be taught a lesson and be a basket case for a decade or more. We survived from a far worse position than the Bombers are in. The competition has still thrived without us.

In fact I remember other clubs actively canvassing the AFL to make sure our penalties were severe.

You start protecting one or two clubs depending on their supporter base size ... for the 'good of the competition', it's a whole new can of worms and a whole new level of disillusionment from a lot more fans of the game.

 

[Forward Press]

You can't have one rule for one and another for everyone else.

If anything Essendon should be the ones with no top ups as it was Essendon who had the drug program. They should be punished not other clubs.

They shouldn't have to forfeit as even a guy with a broken leg can sit in the forward pocket.

Ridiculous proposition.

Essendon have already been punished over the past couple of years, so I don't know where you get the idea that they haven't been.

 

[Forward Press]

No it doesn't come close and nor should it. Penalties are designed to hurt.

How does one season of playing discards and getting thrashed most weeks destroy the club anyway? The only thing that will do that is further legal action and players exercising their DFA option.

Nobody gave a damn about Carlton being at the bottom when they were penalised and being consigned to many years of the same. The overwhelming vibe was we needed to be taught a lesson and be a basket case for a decade or more. We survived from a far worse position than the Bombers are in. The competition has still thrived without us.

In fact I remember other clubs actively canvassing the AFL to make sure our penalties were severe.

You start protecting one or two clubs depending on their supporter base size ... for the 'good of the competition', it's a whole new can of worms and a whole new level of disillusionment from a lot more fans of the game.

I also think Carlton was dealt with too harshly - it doesn't change the premise of my argument though.

And Carlton didn't lose 12 senior players for a year, either.

As to the disillusionment from fans of the game thing - I don't agree that turfing Essendon from the 2016 competition is going to change that.

 

[HighBudget]

Ridiculous proposition.

Essendon have already been punished over the past couple of years, so I don't know where you get the idea that they haven't been.

Why were they punished again?

 

[gothecrows]

In theory, I don't have a problem with Port getting one for Monfries.
However, as has been said by a number of their supporters, they want to use it to replace Ryder instead, so they have more ruck depth. This when they specifically chose to delist a ruckman and not pick another one up in the rookie draft, leaving a spot free instead.

To reward them for poor contingency planning would be wrong, in my opinion.

That being said, I don't think Essendon should be able to pick up 10 either - use their list first, and in the event of x number of injuries in a given week, they can then top up from their VFL team (they have one, right?) to avoid any forfeits. You might say this disadvantages them, as they won't be able to train together for the whole year, but that's the point - they cheated, so tough shit.

 

[Forward Press]

Why were they punished again?

Because they cheated. Draft penalties, kicked out of finals, players suspended etc. Deservedly so, for the record.

None of that changes my belief though that Essendon need these top-ups.

 

[Dr Tigris]

I look at it as bit of a dodgy logic by the AFL. Essendon lose 12 get 10 replacements. So 2 players are suspended without being replaced. All the other clubs are on the same footing. Therefore they don't get to pick up a replacement. Port has the most at 2. So, they get 0 replacements.

Terrible argument if true. But it is the only thing that makes sense to me. Port in particular are hit hard. they could be without a real ruck later this season. That alone could stuff them. Yes, Port knew what they were doing. But they might be hit hard as a spillover in all this.

 

[Xtreme]

Ridiculous proposition.

Essendon have already been punished over the past couple of years, so I don't know where you get the idea that they haven't been.

They were kicked out of finals for that year, unable to draft and fined.... didn't go far enough imo. Fine should have been larger and they should have been kicked out of the competition completely. They are guilty after all!

I want to post the gif but I'll just quote the phrase instead: "yes they deserve to die and I hope they burn in hell"

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I also think Carlton was dealt with too harshly - it doesn't change the premise of my argument though.

And Carlton didn't lose 12 senior players for a year, either.

As to the disillusionment from fans of the game thing - I don't agree that turfing Essendon from the 2016 competition is going to change that.

Are we arguing two different things here?

I was responding to your point that 10 top up players don't nearly make up for losing 12 senior players. I contend it shouldn't.

I am in no way suggesting Essendon shouldn't have top up players. I am suggesting that as they are the club that did something wrong, other clubs shouldn't be disadvantaged in any way because of that, buyer beware or not. If Essendon had no top up players, I'd argue fair enough, none for anybody.

The fact that Essendon can get top up players (again, which I am fine with), I can see no reason for a voracious argument against other clubs also replacing affected players on their list. No, their need is not as great as they are only losing a player or two, but I see no negative precedent for allowing this. It may affect nothing for those clubs. Those players may not get near a senior game. That is all to play out however.

If their need is not that significant and these players are unlikely to play anyway, why are people so vehemently opposed to them being allowed to use them?

 

[Forward Press]

Are we arguing two different things here?

I was responding to your point that 10 top up players don't nearly make up for losing 12 senior players. I contend it shouldn't.

I am in no way suggesting Essendon shouldn't have top up players. I am suggesting that as they are the club that did something wrong, other clubs shouldn't be disadvantaged in any way because of that, buyer beware or not. If Essendon had no top up players, I'd argue fair enough, none for anybody.

The fact that Essendon can get top up players (again, which I am fine with), I can see no reason for a voracious argument against other clubs also replacing affected players on their list. No, their need is not as great as they are only losing a player or two, but I see no negative precedent for allowing this. It may affect nothing for those clubs. Those players may not get near a senior game. That is all to play out however.

If their need is not that significant and these players are unlikely to play anyway, why are people so vehemently opposed to them being allowed to use them?

It shouldn't, and it doesn't.

I believe Port should get one, and the others were 'buyer beware' situations.

I think we're mostly on the same page here.

 

[randyzany]

You can't have one rule for one and another for everyone else.

If anything Essendon should be the ones with no top ups as it was Essendon who had the drug program. They should be punished not other clubs.

They shouldn't have to forfeit as even a guy with a broken leg can sit in the forward pocket.

Ultimately the players themselves contributed to their own downfall by deliberately getting together and outright lying about the extent of their involvement. Just because they ran off to another clubs doesn't lessen their culpability as they still never came forward with the whole truth when they got to other clubs anyway.

Like I said I was fairly relieved when none of the dope cast offs made their way down to the cattery for that very reason.

As a collective they deserve their whack just as much as Essendon, they are grown man FFS. I'd only have some sympathy for players who'd been at essendon for less than 2 years, rookies who are still unsure whether they'd made it to the AFL and therefore vulnerable to been exploited by their superirors for fear they'd be cut (and the end of their dream of playing pro sport for a living) for refusing to do what they're asked.

If anything they got off scott free, the so-called punishment was way too lenient as far as I'm concerned. A minimum of 24 months should've been handed out instead.

The rest were either gullible morons or morally weak cheats; none of which are a valid excuse for taking banned substances.

 

[Joffaboy]

I swear anyone that doesn't get the difference is almost deliberately being obtuse.

I agree. Essendon wont benefit from its supposed "advantage". It is a stop gap measure for a club that is unlike to win more than two or three games this season and may be under the kosh re performance for the next 5 years.

I don't see the benefit in completely destroying Essendon. They are getting and have received a pretty severe penalty, which will continue long after 2016.

They may lose more than one of the 12 who want a fresh start, and they will have to rebuild from scratch. This will take years.

From a selfish PoV losing Carlisle doesn't make much difference for our flag changes of 2016 which is nil.

When we are looking at finals, 2017 plus so Carlisle will come back at 25 and be ready. This year is like last for us.

I would say Melbourne are in the same boat. Bulldogs and Port much harder hit as both are finalist aspirants

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

It shouldn't, and it doesn't.

I believe Port should get one, and the others were 'buyer beware' situations.

I think we're mostly on the same page here.

If the AFL were to allow 5 top ups for those players, would you be upset and argue strongly against it?

 

[Forward Press]

They were kicked out of finals for that year, unable to draft and fined.... didn't go far enough imo. Fine should have been larger and they should have been kicked out of the competition completely. They are guilty after all!

I want to post the gif but I'll just quote the phrase instead: "yes they deserve to die and I hope they burn in hell"

I get you might hate Essendon and right now they're my most disliked club because of this mess but I wouldn't wish destruction upon them.

 

[Forward Press]

If the AFL were to allow 5 top ups for those players, would you be upset and argue strongly against it?

Ambivalent.

They are top-ups after all. Posters on the first page have pointed out they'd be about the 40th best on the list anyway.

 

[Xtreme]

I get you might hate Essendon and right now they're my most disliked club because of this mess but I wouldn't wish destruction upon them.

Difference of opinion is good, I dislike drugs in sport and would prefer they were disbanded completely

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Ambivalent.

They are top-ups after all. Posters on the first page have pointed out they'd be about the 40th best on the list anyway.

Pretty much my thoughts. Ambivalence. I'm just coming down on the side of the supporters who have lost players through no fault of their own club and for who, being able to replace them, might give them some small consolation.

I understand their point of view far more than those that insist they shouldn't get top up because of buyer beware rules. Their position is less ambivalent than the rest of us so why should we care?