Roast The media....*Shakes Head* Part 4

[stewie griffen]

Buyer beware port.

Well to be technical Essendon knew that all there players could be banned so they probs should have delisted all 34. No top ups, play with a list of 30.

Lel

 

[TimmyD11]

Buyer beware apparently means that it's okay to trade players without disclosing the fact that they could be suspended or have their career interrupted and/or cut short for some reason that the club is aware about. In other words any player we trade out could be a drug addled, steroid using violent drug cheat with mental health or other issues as long as its not publicly known and we can bluff the other team into trade for them. Nothing wrong with that all...

 

[tribey]

'buyer beware' seems to be the catch cry for all those disgusting satanists, it sounds hard and uncompromising and like transfer jargon so it works

As a friend of mine remarked recently,

"The 'just suck it up' sentiment with regards to the Paddy/Gus bans. Probably the sort of meek response they would expect from their spineless board. Wouldn't want to rock the boat."

 

[TeeKray]

I think there's an argument to be made that clubs knew the risk recruiting Ryder, Crameri, Melksham and Carlisle and have no real right to then complain when the players cop the year suspension. There is no such argument to be made for Monfries. There is also no such argument that Essendon should lose 12 players and be compensated by being able to select 15 players, putting their list numbers ahead of other clubs including Port who were blindsided by the Monfries trade.

tl;dr - there is no justification at all for us not receiving at least one replacement player.

 

[Trewth]

As a friend of mine remarked recently,

"The 'just suck it up' sentiment with regards to the Paddy/Gus bans. Probably the sort of meek response they would expect from their spineless board. Wouldn't want to rock the boat."

Art needs to post more

 

[tribey]

Art needs to post more

Let's face it, Art makes us look like a northern suburbs teacher sans contract.

 

[PhoenixPower]

As a friend of mine remarked recently,

"The 'just suck it up' sentiment with regards to the Paddy/Gus bans. Probably the sort of meek response they would expect from their spineless board. Wouldn't want to rock the boat."

Must admit hearing the dogs saints and port have all lobbied for top ups whilst Melbourne have yet to make a claim made me visualize Melbourne like the AFC. Sitting back waiting to see if someone else's hard work pays off and if it does they'll raise their hand with the familiar cry of "me too"

 

[Steve Dore]

I think there's an argument to be made that clubs knew the risk recruiting Ryder, Crameri, Melksham and Carlisle and have no real right to then complain when the players cop the year suspension. .......

Essendon knew when embarking on a doping program that any players left on its list could face bans, therefore no top-up players for Essendon.

 

[charcolechaddy]

If they ever make the SANFL GF, I'm barracking for them. The cognitive dissonance that barracking for them will cause me is outweighed by the cognitive dissonance that a Crows win will cause the rest of SA.

If the crows do win the premiership this will happen.

 

[mic59]

The replacement player ethos should exist with all players if it's going to exist for Essendon. Had they still had Ryder, Crameri, Melksham, Carlisle, Monfries they would be the ones getting extra top-up players because they hadn't been able to get clean players or picks for them. So why should other teams, who ultimately not only paid Essendon well for players who will miss 12 months, miss out themselves? Essendon weren't just paid value for these players, they were also saved from having to delve further into the pot of second-raters and hasbeens.

 

[Trewth]

Let's face it, Art makes us look like a northern suburbs teacher sans contract.

Trying to match his wit is like going for it on 4th and long and getting a turnover on downs.

 

[TeeKray]

Essendon new when embarking on a doping program that any players left on its list could face bans, therefore no top-up players for Essendon.

The replacement player ethos should exist with all players if it's going to exist for Essendon. Had they still had Ryder, Crameri, Melksham, Carlisle, Monfries they would be the ones getting extra top-up players because they hadn't been able to get clean players or picks for them. So why should other teams, who ultimately not only paid Essendon well for players who will miss 12 months, miss out themselves? Essendon weren't just paid value for these players, they were also saved from having to delve further into the pot of second-raters and hasbeens.

Essendon are only being allowed to replace their players because of the fact that a list of 40 minus 12 suspended players equals 28, and a list of 28 when you have to field 22 each week would create the scenario where even a moderate injury toll would leave them battling to field a team from week to week. Notice how Freo didn't get a replacement for Crowley, Collingwood didn't get a replacement for Keefe and Thomas, St Kilda didn't get a replacement for Saad, etc.

I think we should get a replacement for Monfries simply because we were duped and basically screwed over by the inept practices of an opposition club and we had zero awareness or control over that at the time. I can live with not getting a replacement for Ryder but would obviously still like one.

 

[Steve Dore]

Essendon are only being allowed to replace their players because of the fact that a list of 40 minus 12 suspended players equals 28, and a list of 28 when you have to field 22 each week would create the scenario where even a moderate injury toll would leave them battling to field a team from week to week. Notice how Freo didn't get a replacement for Crowley, Collingwood didn't get a replacement for Keefe and Thomas, St Kilda didn't get a replacement for Saad, etc........

When you put it like that it is clear how fair and equitable the AFL's replacement player policy is.

If a club loses a player due to its own systemic club sanctioned doping program it must be allowed to replace the player however if a club loses a player due to the action of the individual player at that club or a previous club no replacement player will be allowed.

 

[LFC2010]

Essendon are only being allowed to replace their players because of the fact that a list of 40 minus 12 suspended players equals 28, and a list of 28 when you have to field 22 each week would create the scenario where even a moderate injury toll would leave them battling to field a team from week to week. Notice how Freo didn't get a replacement for Crowley, Collingwood didn't get a replacement for Keefe and Thomas, St Kilda didn't get a replacement for Saad, etc.

I think we should get a replacement for Monfries simply because we were duped and basically screwed over by the inept practices of an opposition club and we had zero awareness or control over that at the time. I can live with not getting a replacement for Ryder but would obviously still like one.

It was Collingwood's choice to keep O'Keefe and Thomas on there list.
We didn't have that chance to rookie list Ryder and Monfries for a season.

 

[scotty13]

Yeah the whole buyer beware doesn't make sense.
Essendon knew there was a chance they would lose players due to this saga, yet they retained 12 of the players and are allowed to replace them. Surely if the seller of a product can replace 'faulty' products due to 'unforeseen circumstances' then buyers of that product are allowed to replace their product as well until the 'fault' has been fixed.

 

[PatientMental]

You lose your keys
You loosen your tie.

 

[Alyx]

This is how Chris McDermott writes his articles.

The extract above is from one titled 'Port Adelaide must focus on winning AFL premiership not bans to key Power players'.

It is a premium article.

Those who wish to view it, beware. You can only access it in your browser's incognito mode.

Rather than well-structured paragraphs, it is as if he writes down individual thoughts.

Those thoughts lead to other thoughts, but by then it is too late. He has already pressed enter.

It is incredibly irritating to read.

How did this man land a job as a writer? He can hardly string two sentences together.

It is The Advertiser, though. What more could we expect?

Why don't we have banana nectar in Australia?

In my opinion, it would have been a welcome addition to my breakfast.

That bird outside is awfully loud.

A lorikeet, I believe.

Of the rainbow variety.

So beautiful.

But so noisy.

Please stop.

 

[Trewth]

This is how Chris McDermott writes his articles.

The extract above is from one titled 'Port Adelaide must focus on winning AFL premiership not bans to key Power players'.

It is a premium article.

Those who wish to view it, beware. You can only access it in your browser's incognito mode.

Rather than well-structured paragraphs, it is as if he writes down individual thoughts.

Those thoughts lead to other thoughts, but by then it is too late. He has already pressed enter.

It is incredibly irritating to read.

How did this man land a job as a writer? He can hardly string two sentences together.

It is The Advertiser, though. What more could we expect?

Why don't we have banana nectar in Australia?

In my opinion, it would have been a welcome addition to my breakfast.

That bird outside is awfully loud.

A lorikeet, I believe.

Of the rainbow variety.

So beautiful.

But so noisy.

Please stop.

I know I'm looking forward to seeing what Justinn can do this year

 

[chiwigi]

I think there's an argument to be made that clubs knew the risk recruiting Ryder, Crameri, Melksham and Carlisle and have no real right to then complain when the players cop the year suspension. There is no such argument to be made for Monfries. There is also no such argument that Essendon should lose 12 players and be compensated by being able to select 15 players, putting their list numbers ahead of other clubs including Port who were blindsided by the Monfries trade.

tl;dr - there is no justification at all for us not receiving at least one replacement player.

all this would be relevant if Essendon hadn't been allowed to replace every single one of theirs.

 

[Lawnchair Larry]

all this would be relevant if Essendon hadn't been allowed to replace every single one of theirs.

Have I read somewhere that it is all bar 2 players that Essendon can replace?
If I have read that then I am unsure as to why.

 

[PAFC66]

Have I read somewhere that it is all bar 2 players that Essendon can replace?
If I have read that then I am unsure as to why.

Essendon are expected to upgrade their two rookies to replace the last two I believe.

 

[Dylan8]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...s/news-story/07c64f9623e12dfb226213037fcae93c

Big picture of Port's indigenous academy
No mention of Port's indigenous academy

Go Vic Go!

 

[manureid]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...s/news-story/07c64f9623e12dfb226213037fcae93c

Big picture of Port's indigenous academy
No mention of Port's indigenous academy

Go Vic Go!

'Staff Writers'.

 

[Smithy7]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...s/news-story/07c64f9623e12dfb226213037fcae93c

Big picture of Port's indigenous academy
No mention of Port's indigenous academy

Go Vic Go!

In 2014 the Port Adelaide Football Club and the South Australian Aboriginal Sports Training Academy (SAASTA) announced the launch of the Aboriginal AFL Academy, the first academy of its type in the AFL.
So now Victorian Clubs can start up an Academy.
We are the leaders again. Bet the AFL stuff up our Academy in regards to where we get the Players from...

 

[philreich]

As a friend of mine remarked recently,

"The 'just suck it up' sentiment with regards to the Paddy/Gus bans. Probably the sort of meek response they would expect from their spineless board. Wouldn't want to rock the boat."

And if Taylor Walker had come from Essendon, and was now banned, they'd be crying foul.