Surely you realise why we have top up players. I mean, we can sit out for the year if you'd like, but watch how channel 7 and Fox will react to that.
12 players suspended, 10 top up players.
Port, Bulldogs, Demons and St Kilda DENIED top up players - AFL
- Thread starter Chadwiko
- Start date
- Tagged users None
12 players suspended, 10 top up players.
sherb
Hall of Famer
- Moderator
- #128
If the league had any integrity it wouldnt matter what Fox or Seven thought. And even accounting fort that inevitability, 12 players out should have resulted in a greater club penalty - as ive said, shut down the VFL side for a year, allow the Bombers to use their VFL top ups, but that should have been it.
Armchair Critic
Cancelled
- Feb 8, 2013
- 9,566
- 11,241
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I do get it. I also think the other clubs should have been allowed to top up and also given the go ahead at the same time Essendon did so they could have a crack at the players Essendon had already signed if they liked
Well the AFL is a business.
Channel 7 and Fox wouldn't be happy with an uncompetitive Essendon getting smashed by 100+ points every week like people on here want. The AFL also can't have us sitting out for the year because of the number of games that they have to meet as per the TV rights deal.
So the best alternative for them to keep Essendon competitive is topping up with players without it affecting other competitions too much.
Hey take that up with the other 13 clubs that weren't so keen on them topping up.
Like I mentioned, the AFL is a business. They'll lose a lot of money with having a completely uncompetitive Essendon side, so they have used this top up system as an alternative to keep channel 7 and Fox happy, while minimising the impact on other state leagues.
I'd put Essendon's first round draft pick from 2016 up for grabs, whoever finishes higher out of Melb, Dogs, Saints and Port gets it.
- Moderator
- #134
Im well aware the AFL is a business. Im saying that its a stupid situation that has been poorly and insufficiently dealt with.
I think that surprisingly, it actually had been dealt with in a good way from a business perspective. There are so many different parties involved in the current situation and allowing top ups with the current criteria to be used by Essendon keeps most involved happy. It doesn't compromise any state league, while keeping the tv stations happy, while keeping Essendon supporters satisfied enough to buy memberships/attending games, without upsetting other clubs for the most part seeing that we won't gain any advantage over others by essentially using rejects.
Yeah some opposition supporters that want to see Essendon burned to the ground aren't happy, but their outrage won't affect the AFL much. They'll keep watching, attending and buying memberships.
This is the closest to making everyone happy while maximising the AFL's ability to profit in this situation, which in turn, will go back to the other clubs' benefit
- Moderator
- #136
It is what every decision of the Commission has been for the last 10 years, a watered down compromise that doesnt actually deal with a specific issue outright, just implies it as discretely and quietly as possible. Few people are happy with how this has gone down. And the average supporter doesnt give a crap about AFL profitability.
Which I understand. While few people may be happy about the decision, it won't affect memberships, nor TV rights (which otherwise, might have affected the other clubs as well). In fact, Essendon's membership is ahead of this time last year despite a late start.
You can want Essendon to burn to the ground, but it isn't going to happen. That's the AFL for you.
The outrage on here is really pointless. Surely one exposed to the same stimilus every time will adjust to that stimilus and adopt accordingly? "THE AFL ONLY CARES ABOUT MONEY". That's not something new. Look at the fixture imbalance. If this surprises anyone, then they'll need to adapt their expectations.
So much this. A top up will be pointless. An extra rookie upgrade will be more beneficial
- Moderator
- #140
You cant expect people to be happy with the system. Its just not going to happen.
NoAFLinmycomp
Club Legend
- Oct 21, 2014
- 1,579
- 2,190
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Central District
I'm not entirely sure - the only AFL games I watched last year were the ones where Hirdie was squirming and pouting in the coaches box. Sometimes you just can't resist a good train-wreck in progress!
Of course not. But at least brace yourself for the decision that will generate most money instead of the outrage every time.
gavaniacono
Cancelled
Health and safety reasons: fear of exposing many unready EFC players to the elite level too soon.
At least that what "she" said.
For Power, WB, Saints, Demons - should be able to upgrade rookies to replace suspended players ... Then replace those rookies.
For Essendon, I want 100% one year top ups so they get no advantage of being able to keep an upgraded rookie over an older washed up player when the suspended players return.
For Essendon, I want 100% one year top ups so they get no advantage of being able to keep an upgraded rookie over an older washed up player when the suspended players return.
I feel SO sorry for these clubs that used the supplements saga to poach players from us.
Poor Port Adelaide, who pressured Ryder to break his contract so they wouldn't have to trade.
Poor St Kilda, who threatened the same with Carlisle.
Melbourne, at least, played it above board. I feel for them.
Poor Port Adelaide, who pressured Ryder to break his contract so they wouldn't have to trade.
Poor St Kilda, who threatened the same with Carlisle.
Melbourne, at least, played it above board. I feel for them.
- Apr 24, 2013
- 2,677
- 6,862
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Hearts to hearts
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 16, 2001
- 24,131
- 56,667
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Wales, Eastwood, West Ham
I suspect neutral viewers would be more interested in watching a gutted Essendon than a plain ordinary one, but the AFL might be right. We will never know.
Broadcasters would be better off taking a long view and accepting that sport is more interesting when people feel they can trust the results - when they/we are feeling confident that play and results are not being twisted by betting or PEDs. The AFL and its pet media with their determination to let Esdendon down as easily as they can get away with is leaving a lot more distaste and loss of trust than they realise.
doona
SMFC
I think it's funny that the only club that have an issue with this decision is port.
Port knew the CAS decision was coming when the draft was on last year. I thought it would have been list management 101 to draft a mature Ruckman onto the list or rookie list just in case the worst scenario was realized.
Instead, they want the AFL to grant special permission because of list management failure.
I mean who goes into the season with only 2 rucks that can play AFL? It's why west coast recruited Giles, we recruited Sinclair etc Geelong recruiting Smith etc... ....
I 100% agree with the decision. I see it as no different to an LTI, a normal drug suspension etc.... This is why clubs have a rookie list. That is its purpose in addition to unearthing talent.
I also agree with Essendon getting top ups because they wouldn't be able to field a team.
Port knew the CAS decision was coming when the draft was on last year. I thought it would have been list management 101 to draft a mature Ruckman onto the list or rookie list just in case the worst scenario was realized.
Instead, they want the AFL to grant special permission because of list management failure.
I mean who goes into the season with only 2 rucks that can play AFL? It's why west coast recruited Giles, we recruited Sinclair etc Geelong recruiting Smith etc... ....
I 100% agree with the decision. I see it as no different to an LTI, a normal drug suspension etc.... This is why clubs have a rookie list. That is its purpose in addition to unearthing talent.
I also agree with Essendon getting top ups because they wouldn't be able to field a team.
Last edited:
