AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Bad luck for Port and too bad for Collingwood if Aish gets injured. Clubs don't have to be compensated for everything that goes against them. The AFL need Essendon to field a side so they have to get the players to facilitate that. It isn't about Essendon's entitlement, it is a commercial necessity for the AFL and all the other clubs by extension. No other club is in a remotely analogous situation.
Of course it makes sense - common sense. No Essendon games costs the AFL/Clubs millions.
Most Port fans would have found it hard to find a spot in the 22 for Lobbe, so he would have spent majority of the games in the reserves. Having Ryder in the AFL, and Lobbe and Frampton in the SANFL would have been a good ruck division, but now, Lobbe is moved into the AFL and Frampton has to ruck practically by himself all year in the SANFL unless Lobbe goes down, which he would then have to ruck in the AFL.
So, You're saying, that since Port brang in a player under a suspension cloud, just like St Kilda, Western Bulldogs and Melbourne, that these four teams shouldn't be allowed to pick-up top-up players, while Essendon, the team that caused all of this, are allowed 10 top-up players as well as the ability to upgrade five out of their six rookie listed players. One way or another Ryder, Melksham Carlisle and Crameri were going to leave Essendon, if it wasn't these four clubs then it would be different clubs that would have recruited them..
You're delusional if you think it doesn't make sense. Why should other clubs be penalized because of Essendon's wrongdoing?
For about the 10th time Essendon are a completely unique situation in that they need top ups just to get a team out on the park that will in any case still cop a flogging almost all the time at best. Not getting any extras they would mean a farce situation where they could get smashed by 200+ points every week. This wont do anyone any good except for the teams that jagged playing them twice in the draw for extra %.
You mean does I presume. Because they have players convicted of taking illegal drugs. So did Freo and Collingwood last year It is the way it is. What makes sense is that Essendon have to play games for the AFL to fulfil contracts so they have to get players to field a side and the other clubs are not in the position of jeopardising those contracts. It is a fundamental difference in their respective situations ad they re not analogous. How is that a delusional observation?
Essendon re-signed players knowing this risk...
Do you think I, and everyone else, not know that Essendon are in a unique situation and that they need players to field a team? I don't think they will get 'flogged' like people are predicting, of course they wont be at the top of the ladder, but they will still be serviceable. I believe we got Ryder for about the right price, did you expect Port to give them a Wingard, Hartlett or Wines like they were asking? Would that make it more fairer to you?
I didn't say anything about Essendon not fielding a team, i said that the other clubs should get top-ups just like Essendon are.
Fremantle and Collingwood players weren't recruited by another club now where they? So, of course they didn't deserve top-ups. I understand Essendon getting top-ups, but why you should Port go into the season with less players on the list when they have done nothing wrong? Answer that.
From the supplier perhaps. Not from the government or at the local market. Same deal with Saints and Carlisle. They were done over by Essendon and should really have a case against them. It's not the first time that soulless, cheating club has been less than honesty on such dealings and hopefully their penalty comes from future dealings with the clubs but that has nothing to do with rights from other parties.
Agreed. Getting these heavily experienced players in will majorly dampen the blow. The question is whether there are enough of them.
So buyer beware doesn't apply to them?
