Seen but not Hird

Remove this Banner Ad

The socceroo's win and their clean cut image and Essendon's drug stuff up causing the stench that is now permeating through out the game must be giving the AFL big shots constant nightmares .You can see every youngster in Oz wanting to be part of the so called world game.
 
They've got some decent young players capable of coming up and doing alright (Gleeson is a gun; he and Kayne Turner are probably my two favourite under-15-game players) and guys like Goddard (as much as I hate him – petulant, entitled, a bit of a dog to the Saints) and Chappy (who I love) would be interesting to see carry a team.
I'd be concerned if Kayne Turner did alright for Essendon this season considering he plays for Norf :p

I really think if/when Essendon players get bans, the AFL puts their foot down, and bans them from fielding any side for the duration. The club needs to get punished too for allowing this to happen. Their remaining players can still play VFL or if the bans are lengthy (e.g. a full 2 seasons) share the players out to the other clubs.
 
The socceroo's win and their clean cut image and Essendon's drug stuff up causing the stench that is now permeating through out the game must be giving the AFL big shots constant nightmares .You can see every youngster in Oz wanting to be part of the so called world game.

Fair point, but they have one club, Newcastle, imploding.

One step forward, one step back.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It seems to me that we're focusing on only one possible sanction and its solution (ie fielding a team once guilty players are suspended).
Surely the AFL could impose other sanctions, for example, ban or restrict Essendon from trading, National Draft, Rookie Draft, reruiting international players, etc. Personally I think that this is a fairer punishment because it affects the club and not the players (and the players were the real victims).

I have enormous empathy for the players who, believing the club was doing the right thing by them, received those "supplements". Essendon should have exercised more oversight but didn't. The players are going to be punished by having potential health problems hanging over their heads for life.

Secondly, if Essendon is sanctioned by having restrictions on who they can field this year, it will significantly influence their weekly performance, and probably lead to them ending up near the bottom of the ladder. "Good", you say, but that means that they will, under the current system, receive a number of juicy high draft picks. Again, this is NOT punishing Essendon, but rewarding them!

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that trading/drafting bans are the most appropriate sanctions.
 
It seems to me that we're focusing on only one possible sanction and its solution (ie fielding a team once guilty players are suspended).
Surely the AFL could impose other sanctions, for example, ban or restrict Essendon from trading, National Draft, Rookie Draft, reruiting international players, etc. Personally I think that this is a fairer punishment because it affects the club and not the players (and the players were the real victims).

I have enormous empathy for the players who, believing the club was doing the right thing by them, received those "supplements". Essendon should have exercised more oversight but didn't. The players are going to be punished by having potential health problems hanging over their heads for life.

Secondly, if Essendon is sanctioned by having restrictions on who they can field this year, it will significantly influence their weekly performance, and probably lead to them ending up near the bottom of the ladder. "Good", you say, but that means that they will, under the current system, receive a number of juicy high draft picks. Again, this is NOT punishing Essendon, but rewarding them!

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that trading/drafting bans are the most appropriate sanctions.

If they doped the players will be banned from sport by asada for however long. The afl wouldnt want the whole team banned because it will kill ratings but they wont have a choice. Its going to massively distort the season. I doubt they will be given a bunch of high draft picks.. the afl will likely take picks away so they look like they are doing something. Its the afls go to play.

I think this is going to impact on the makeup of the four and the eight.. very possibly to our detriment.
 
Taking into consideration the lost of gate revenue, tv deal, plus the possible need to refund essendon members, I doubt AFL will accept this lost.
Essendon will still field a team I believe. How they assemble the team will be the big question
 
Taking into consideration the lost of gate revenue, tv deal, plus the possible need to refund essendon members, I doubt AFL will accept this lost.
Essendon will still field a team I believe. How they assemble the team will be the big question
Well theres only 20 of the original 34 left at Essendon. That means there's still 20 players on their list. Not sure if that include rookies or not but they can still field a team.

And their recruiting strategy over the last two years reflects this.
 
It's not 'so called' it just simply is..
It's just a catch phrase they're trying to make popular. More people in the world play bingo.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It seems to me that we're focusing on only one possible sanction and its solution (ie fielding a team once guilty players are suspended).
Surely the AFL could impose other sanctions, for example, ban or restrict Essendon from trading, National Draft, Rookie Draft, reruiting international players, etc. Personally I think that this is a fairer punishment because it affects the club and not the players (and the players were the real victims).

I have enormous empathy for the players who, believing the club was doing the right thing by them, received those "supplements". Essendon should have exercised more oversight but didn't. The players are going to be punished by having potential health problems hanging over their heads for life.

Secondly, if Essendon is sanctioned by having restrictions on who they can field this year, it will significantly influence their weekly performance, and probably lead to them ending up near the bottom of the ladder. "Good", you say, but that means that they will, under the current system, receive a number of juicy high draft picks. Again, this is NOT punishing Essendon, but rewarding them!

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that trading/drafting bans are the most appropriate sanctions.

They can do both. Penalties against the team are in the hands of the AFL Commission. They can do as they please. They can simply deem a club to be given the last pick in each round, or exclude them from certain rounds. They've done it before with salary cap breaches.
 
They're doing a pretty good job. I'm pretty 'world game' refers not just to participants but viewers/spectators. I don't believe bingo rates that highly, nor AFL in anywhere but Australia.
You soccer people are a touchy lot, aren't you?
 
I watched the soccer last night because there was nothing else on, and I enjoyed it.

But will this be the beginning of a new wave of soccer sweeping the nation? I think not. The domestic T20 cricket provides competition. The cricket World Cup this month and next will swamp whatever momentum soccer got from the Asian Cup. Then the regular AFL and NRL competitions will take the stage. Kids might be wanting to be the next Massimo Luongo or Matt Ryan this week, but next fortnight they'll be aspiring to Mitch Johnson or Steve Smith; and then when that tournament is over they'll be back to Nathan Fyfe or Zac Dawson. None of it is ever permanent.
 
I watched the soccer last night because there was nothing else on, and I enjoyed it.

But will this be the beginning of a new wave of soccer sweeping the nation? I think not. The domestic T20 cricket provides competition. The cricket World Cup this month and next will swamp whatever momentum soccer got from the Asian Cup. Then the regular AFL and NRL competitions will take the stage. Kids might be wanting to be the next Massimo Luongo or Matt Ryan this week, but next fortnight they'll be aspiring to Mitch Johnson or Steve Smith; and then when that tournament is over they'll be back to Nathan Fyfe or Zac Dawson. None of it is ever permanent.
Normally I would agree, but that game the other night will have a more significant impact than what you think.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top