Port, Bulldogs, Demons and St Kilda DENIED top up players - AFL

Remove this Banner Ad

iBeng said:
The AFL dont want to run a club short for the season, financially its not a good thing, therefore they need to prop the club up with topups.
Click to expand...

They had enough players to field an AFL side. Dump the VFL side for a season if you have to - it has almost no effect on tv ratings.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Essendon should've been made to upgrade all their rookies then get the rest from their VFL side. You don't look after drug cheats.

Same with all the clubs, upgrade rookies as it's buyer beware. I'd allow a top-up player for Monfries only given he was traded before the s**t hit the fan in 2013.
 
I really couldn't care that we dont get a top-up but this is a few things that stink:
  • Yes it was buyer be aware, however seller aware too as Essendon re-signed contracts of players that doped and are now allowed top-up players because of it (ie: resigned in 2013, 2014 and 2015) (eg Heppell re-signed for 2015, Essendon should have delisted him because he could of got banned)
  • They can quickly make decision on players payments and top up players but need to wait longer about Jobes medal, which should have been taken off him day one
  • Gordon - You look like the biggest moron right now, went in to bat for the AFL because they asked you too, now they s**t on you. Good one dickhead
  • Port should be allowed at least 1 top up player for Monfries
  • Gets announced at 5PM on a Friday to blow it over quickly.
Joke of an organization. If they wanted to play fair,they should have only allowed top-up players for the ones they lost because their contract was still valid and not re-signed during the saga

gtfo AFL

* Edited and verified by Lance Uppercut
 
Last edited:
Buyer beware applies to any player that changes club (crystal ball not included)...


http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2016-02-05/no-topups-powers-application-rejected

"The AFL based its decision around an assumed risk with the recruitment of players from other clubs.

It argued factors at play prior to a player joining his new club may result in his suspension under the AFL’s rules.

That includes in circumstances such as those related to the recruitment of Angus Monfries in 2012, where information related to Essendon’s anti-doping offences was then unknown."
 
Grave Danger said:
Buyer beware applies to any player that changes club (crystal ball not included)...


http://www.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2016-02-05/no-topups-powers-application-rejected

"The AFL based its decision around an assumed risk with the recruitment of players from other clubs.

It argued factors at play prior to a player joining his new club may result in his suspension under the AFL’s rules.

That includes in circumstances such as those related to the recruitment of Angus Monfries in 2012, where information related to Essendon’s anti-doping offences was then unknown."
Click to expand...

Means Essendon shouldn't get top-ups either. It's mean if those players weren't traded and stayed at Essendon, they would've got a top-up player. Because that player is at another club though, no top-ups. Something wrong there.
 
The AFL justification for their policy on the run:

AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon said the circumstances did not call for special treatment or exception to the rules beyond those already granted.

He defended the decision to grant Essendon the right to sign up to 10 top-up players.

"An exception has been made for Essendon only because of the sheer number of suspended players it has on its list, and on the basis that they must be able to field a side that that can compete at a basic level each week," Dillon said.

"If Essendon were not granted list concessions, there may be legitimate health and safety concerns for young and inexperienced players forced to play senior football over a full 22-week season."
 
My maths says that Essendon are allowed to top up ten players when 12 Essendon players are not allowed to play. So, Essendon has to upgrade at least 2 rookies. The other teams involved have the right to upgrade up to 2 rookies the same as Essendon. So it appears that the rule is to upgrade up to two rookies first and then the rest of the team. So where's the difference?
 
Jimthegreat said:
Essendon should've been made to upgrade all their rookies then get the rest from their VFL side. You don't look after drug cheats.

Same with all the clubs, upgrade rookies as it's buyer beware. I'd allow a top-up player for Monfries only given he was traded before the s**t hit the fan in 2013.
Click to expand...
The AFL does sadly.

I don't think it can sink any lower.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Marley10 said:
Rocket Eade said it perfectly. Buyers beware.

The other 13 clubs were "lukewarm" about it because some of them must have stayed away from the EFC players for this purpose.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree.


Although why the same 'buyer beware' rule doesn't apply to Essendon is beyond belief.

I mean, embarking on a 'edge of the cliff' drug program with shady, unsupervised dudes and keeping no records to protect yourself - and putting your hand out for top up players is just slightly worse and more reckless and irresponsible than what Port, Melbourne, the Saints and Footscray did I'd have thought.
 
So for those playing at home, Essendon will have more players on their active roster than Port will this season.

The four other clubs have been granted permission to upgrade a rookie on to their primary list, but that decision means Port Adelaide – with Angus Monfries and Patrick Ryder receiving season-long bans – may go into the season with one fewer player on their overall list then Essendon.
Click to expand...
 
Seems harsh that no top up allowed for Monfries. For the rest it was worth a try but not a huge deal getting knocked back.

Hope AFL remain similarly firm on "caveat emptor" if Buddy can't see out the remaining 7 years of his contract!
 
Essendon should get the same treatment. It is after all reasonably foreseeable that a club that may engage in conduct that borders or transgresses doping code may be punished with player suspensions.
 
I think it's only fair and reasonable to paint pink polka dots on the outside of every stadium, and have the umpires officiate while wearing top hat and tails.
 
Gilligan,
Mark The Moron Evans, and now
Andrew The Dildo Dillion
running the AFL like a random number generator
 
Last edited:
crowsup said:
My maths says that Essendon are allowed to top up ten players when 12 Essendon players are not allowed to play. So, Essendon has to upgrade at least 2 rookies. The other teams involved have the right to upgrade up to 2 rookies the same as Essendon. So it appears that the rule is to upgrade up to two rookies first and then the rest of the team. So where's the difference?
Click to expand...
That sounds fair enough. On the other hand, this is an outrage. I am outraged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
678
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top