List Mgmt. Player Replacements

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
raptalia said:
We are partly to blame for the predicament we are in. We knew Ryder was at risk of suspension so we could have Rookie Listed Redden or Harvey instead of going for four players with a maximum height of 188cm. Whoever was responsible for that peice of list management needs his arse kicked.

That is water under the proverbial so we move on. As for what we have...

Lobbe- the only experienced true ruckman on our books. We all hope he stays fit.
Trengove- will do as a pinch hitter but we loose genuine height when he is not in defence.
Westhoff- could not ruck to save his life.
Dixon- we have already seen why he needs to be kept in cotton wool. Using him in ruck is a risk and not what we recruited him for.
Frampton- will have to get limited AFL ruck time as Ken has few options and Lobbe should not be asked to ruck the entire season. Maybe a run or two against a side with weaker rucks?
Howard- is tall enough but is also more of an unknown than Frampton.

As I see it Lobbe starts supported by Trengove, after that who knows?
Click to expand...

What about Butcher? He's 197cm, the same height as Trengove, only 3cm shorter than Lobbe and Frampton. He's got a good leap and it seems that he's bulked up quite a bit this year.

I can see him doing well as a part timer.
 
B
RussellEbertHandball said:
No different to the Melbourne tanking head in the sand for years, wait to investigate until after Stynes is dead, so the cant sanction a dying man who is enormously popular in Victoria with his Reach Foundation and around Oz, and then you guys get collateral damage with Bailey being suspended for months, which did nothing for his stress levels and subsequent health issues. Unless you are a big Melbourne club, or part of the Melbourne establishment, there is no chance of a consistent just approach.
Click to expand...
Bailey was an easy scapegoat - was disgraceful
 

Log in to remove this ad.

RussellEbertHandball said:
AFL clubs say dont give Port and co, a player so the AFL acquiesce and so no player replacements for 5 players for 4 clubs. Did they ask Essendon??? What did they say.

Port say **** that, we aren't going to pay the players. Essendon can play them. Hopefully the other 3 clubs can say that. Most footy supporters says that bullshit and the pressure comes on Essendon, AFLPA and the AFL can figure out how to pay them.

Great PR by the AFL. Did you have that in the contigency plans??

Gilligan,
Mark The Moron Evans, and now
Andrew The Dildo Dillion
running the AFL like a random number generator
Click to expand...
Yep re the 3 clowns but a random number generator has NO bias
 
Pappagallo said:
What about Butcher? He's 197cm, the same height as Trengove, only 3cm shorter than Lobbe and Frampton. He's got a good leap and it seems that he's bulked up quite a bit this year.

I can see him doing well as a part timer.
Click to expand...
Yep. He's also a good contested marker and has the mobility to defend aggressively around the ground. #backthebutch
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

PatientMental said:
Well they're no longer Port Adelaide players as their contract for 2016 is null and void and they're currently banned Essendon players.
Click to expand...

I really don't think that's how it works.
 
Doctor Feel said:
I really don't think that's how it works.
Click to expand...

They were banned at essendon. They can follow up their own payments through legal avenues. We arnt entitled to pay players that arnt giving us any service.

I'm sure this was mentioned to them that they will receive no financial support after they went against Ports wishes for them to take the initial ASADA deal and instead stuck with the other 34.
 
Last edited:
The announcement yesterday comes as no surprise given the lack of leadership shown by the AFL in this entire saga. To let Ame's brother know our thoughts can we not buy some advertising at the Friday Night game against Essendon simply stating "Build More Wind Farms"
 
PatientMental said:
We've chosen not to pay them as we have all right to do, since they're not fulfilling their contractual obligations.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The only people who should be paying them are Essendon through legal avenues - if they had a contract with Essendon, then they would be Essendon players, which they do not. I don't agree that because they are not playing for us, they somehow automatically become "banned essendon players" and not "Banned port players because of events at Essendon". They're still ours unless we relinquish them to enter the draft on their return.
 
They arnt banned essendon or banned port players they are just banned. Unfortunately they are on their own in terms of legally sourcing their pay. Essendon will pay them I have no doubt, they don't have a leg to stand on now that they've breached a duty of care.
 
PAFC66 said:
They arnt banned essendon or banned port players they are just banned. Unfortunately they are on their own in terms of legally sourcing their pay. Essendon will pay them I have no doubt, they don't have a leg to stand on now that they've breached a duty of care.
Click to expand...

I would say they are still under some sort of contract given they don't enter the draft on their return. So I would still think they are Port players by some letter of the law.
 
Butcher gets destroyed at sanfl level when he has been trialed in the ruck. I trust his set shot more than his rucking ability.
 
Not at all surprised by this decision...the AFL once again coming up with the most illogical solution to a problem they created!

While we've been screwed over the most here, it is somewhat refreshing to see the Melbourne AFL boy's club start to get what's been coming to them for a long time. People are finally starting to realise that their backroom, negotiated settlement model is just a farce to protect their brand and prevent people from taking them to court over their dodgy practices.

The AFL really needs to start recruiting commissioners from outside the "family" because the vested interests inside AFL House are appalling and clearly cloud their judgment.

I once spoke to a highly respected sports administrator who always made a point not work in a sport they were passionate about because they knew they couldn't be impartial, no matter how hard they tried! Food for thought for the AFL I'd say!
 
Doctor Feel said:
I would say they are still under some sort of contract given they don't enter the draft on their return. So I would still think they are Port players by some letter of the law.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point actually. Monfries' contract ends on October 31. Presumably we would not be able to recontract him during the banned period. Therefore, we will have to pick him up as a delisted free agent when the ban ends in November.

Ryder's contract would just resume as normal the day the ban ends.
 
Ford Fairlane said:
I guess trying to convince the AFL that George Hewett has always looked like Dean Cox won't wash? :p
Click to expand...

Does Sydney need a top up ruckman as well?

I have always thought that CAMERON Hewett had a bit of Big Cox in him...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ford Fairlane
Opinion Player Numbers
2 3
Replies
73
Views
3K
1954
1954
Powerade 08
  • Sticky
Player Database - Players From Port
Replies
0
Views
1K
Powerade 08
Powerade 08
Enviable Tradition
Most important showdown player
2
Replies
32
Views
971
Doctor Feel
Doctor Feel
Alberton_Magpie
Port Adelaide players who kicked 25+ goals in a season (1997-2022)
Replies
3
Views
610
Ford Fairlane
Ford Fairlane
Alberton_Magpie
Port Adelaide players who played every game in a season (1997 - 2022)
Replies
2
Views
376
Duck Farmer
Duck Farmer
Marmozet
AFLW Round 9 Player Votes vs St Kilda
Replies
3
Views
446
Oversight
O
EskimoPAFC
AFLW Round 10 Player Votes: Port Adelaide vs Essendon
Replies
0
Views
419
EskimoPAFC
EskimoPAFC

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top