Top ups: Did the AFL make the right call?

[Rich]

Wouldn't players like Kelly, Crowley, Stokes and Simpkin just sign with Essendon's VFL team? They'd be allowed to do that, wouldn't they? What's the difference?

Fair call.

I guess the biggest difference may be in what they could be paid (not sure about VFL salary caps).

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Nevermind those who didn't get top-ups. Imagine IF Essendon manage to snag a few wins. As an opposition supporter you'd be filthy, and rightly so. There would be nothing fair about that.

I think embarrassed would be more likely...

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

I don't think any of them, Essendon included, should have had access to top ups. Tough s**t if they only have 32 players to choose from--teams have been decimated by injuries to this level in the past and haven't had any assistance.

 

[pazza]

Reckon the aFL lost a lot of respect by not granting the top ups. Still, that's why there is a rookie list.

 

[Ambrosia]

So they get to upgrade 2 of their 5 rookies to fill the gap (because they went into the season with a 39 man list + 5 rookies). 10 top ups + 2 rookie elevations = full 40 man list, with 3 Cat A rookies left.

Port gets to upgrade 3 rookies (thanks to going in with a 39 man list at time of final list submission), with 2 of those elevations to replace suspended players. 3 rookie elevations = full 40 man list, with 2 Cat A rookies left.

So the upshot is - Port gets a worse deal than Essendon when it comes to pure list numbers.

That doesn't add up. Both sides started with 39 players plus 5 rookies. Essendon lost 12 and can sign 10 top up players so that gives us 37 plus 3 rookie upgrades which leaves us with 2 cat a rookies

Port lost two players to suspension so upgrades 3 rookies to leave them with 40 on the main list and 2 cat a rookies

 

[Janus]

That doesn't add up. Both sides started with 39 players plus 5 rookies. Essendon lost 12 and can sign 10 top up players so that gives us 37 plus 3 rookie upgrades which leaves us with 2 cat a rookies

Port lost two players to suspension so upgrades 3 rookies to leave them with 40 on the main list and 2 cat a rookies

Ah yes. My bad. I'll edit it.

 

[Forward Press]

Ah yes. My bad. I'll edit it.

If Port chose to run 1 short because of presumably salary cap issues, then why should the AFL fix that for you?

 

[HighBudget]

What do you think? Was it the right decision to deny others top ups despite us getting them?

Personally I think it was, despite some people's indignation. To be remotely competitive, we needed them.

The AFL didn't make any decision, the other clubs not affected by the situation did

 

[Janus]

If Port chose to run 1 short because of presumably salary cap issues, then why should the AFL fix that for you?

How is asking for the same number of players as everyone else got anything to do with salary cap issues? We had 39 plus 5 = 44. We're going to end up with 37 plus 5 = 42.

If we had traded in Monfries with full knowledge of the situation then there would be no cause for complaint. But we didn't, and the size of the contract he is on - a contract that would have been significantly less lucrative had we known what was going to happen - has directly impacted our list management and made it impossible to sign back up in the off season without sacrificing in other areas. Why should we have to delist a player who has done nothing wrong to pay for another clubs indiscretions?

I don't know how hard this is for people to understand. Both Fremantle and Collingwood were responsible for the education of their players when they messed up, so they deserved to not have them replaced. Ryder was traded in after the knowledge of the drugs program was made public, so Port deserves not to have him replaced.

But Monfries? A reasonable league would have allowed a top up for him. 43 players, just like everyone else that was indirectly affected by the saga.

Another artificial hand brake on Port Adelaide endorsed by the AFL.

 

[Seeds]

Common sense.

No it isn't. If anything the other teams should of got top ups and the bombers none. That would be common sense.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

For Essendon:
This decision was purely about what was best, and easiest to manage, for the competition, not about being fair.
An Essendon team without top ups wouldve been close to GC/GWS in their intro years, but without the same potential ahead... And those were some very poor games to watch. As much is it can avoid it the AFL would want to avoid such a farse. Giving them top up players is a simple way to keep the bombers competitive in 2016, and limiting them to recent AFL delists, allows them to do so without an unfair advantage of a free draft pool.

But for the other clubs:
You can lose 1 or 2 players all the time. How many times does a player get injured for the season? Collingwood, Freo and St Kildas lost players to drug suspensions. Hell, its not so long ago North basically lost the best CHF in history because he was being a knob.
In this case, bar Monfries, every club knew exactly what the risks were when they picked up these players. Even in the case of Monfries, Port had 3 years to prepare for this day.
At any point any of those others clubs couldve instructed their player to break from the pack and made an individual deal with ASADA. Look at the suspensions given to Cronulla... Any player who voluntarily went to ASADA and openly admitted what was done couldve had this over and done with 2 years ago. (and once one did it, others would soon follow).

 

[Kram]

No it isn't. If anything the other teams should of got top ups and the bombers none. That would be common sense.

You only say that because Geelong were conveniently gifted in getting to play Essendon twice.

 

[Oraaaaazio]

Dom Cassisi? Is that you?

I don't think we should have the concessions we've got and in the situation that we have received them, the other clubs should have too.

That said, what Cassisi has suggested is one of the dumber things I've heard.. how on Earth did he come up with that idea? 2+2=5

 

[Seeds]

You only say that because Geelong were conveniently gifted in getting to play Essendon twice.

Um okkk. We do play bulldogs twice as well you know. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Essendon club instigated the program where the other teams didnt. Therefore the other clubs should get more leniency. The decision is purely about profit, not about fairness.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Um okkk. We do play bulldogs twice as well you know. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Essendon club instigated the program where the other teams didnt. Therefore the other clubs should get more leniency. The decision is purely about profit, not about fairness.

I agree. No doubt at all.

Saying that I think Im OK with it, its extraordinary circumstances. I actually think its to Essendon's detriment, these players should help them snag a few wins, but they aren't making finals. All that does is means they drop down the draft, hurting them in the long run.

 

[ClintEastwood]

If Port chose to run 1 short because of presumably salary cap issues, then why should the AFL fix that for you?

When you assume, you make an ass of u and me.

 

[Forward Press]

When you assume, you make an ass of u and me.

Then why did Port run one short?

Janus is complaining that Port are effectively starting 3 down. Well, 1 of those downs was entirely of your own volition.

 

[ClintEastwood]

Then why did Port run one short?

I don't know. But then, that makes two of us.

 

[Seeds]

I agree. No doubt at all.

Saying that I think Im OK with it, its extraordinary circumstances. I actually think its to Essendon's detriment, these players should help them snag a few wins, but they aren't making finals. All that does is means they drop down the draft, hurting them in the long run.

yep afl only cares about Essendon being competitive next year as that is what could impact the bottom line. Whether the bombers are competing for a flag or simply a middle road side in five years time is irrelevant to the afl both now and in five years. A side with a big fanbase being smashed every week is simply bad for profits.

 

[Janus]

Then why did Port run one short?

Janus is complaining that Port are effectively starting 3 down. Well, 1 of those downs was entirely of your own volition.

Did you read what I posted about Monfries' contract affecting our ability to recruit players and just nod like Homer Simpson?

We didn't need to activate another player on our roster because we had more than enough cover for all the available positions, and if we do need another player we can activate them at any time. The one position we didn't have cover for was purely and simply due to the fact that a ruck isn't going to come to Port to maybe play second string for a year and then get demoted to third string unless you give them an incentive to do so - like $150k on the rookie list rather than $70k. But that extra money is tied up with Angus in a contract that would have been significantly lower had we been aware of his indiscretions previously.

So not only is Monfries costing us in his absence, his large contract affected our ability to recruit adequate cover for Ryder. QED.

 

[Forward Press]

So who is responsible for Angus Monfries being offered a substantial contract then?

I think it's disingenuous to write long-winded posts in order to excuse recruiting and list management errors made by Port. It was Port's choice to run one short because of earlier list management decisions, you should have to deal with it. Yeah, so Monfries turned out to be part of the Essendon 34 which you had no reasonable way of knowing at the time - deal with it.

Edit - Predator doesn't know for certain why Port were running one short this year. You seem so certain of it. Can you reconcile that?

 

[Toump Ass]

What do you think?

The AFL have made the wrong call on just about everything to do with this saga.

 

[marty36]

Zero tolerance on drug cheats

Wrong call made on EFC but you can see how they justified their call, right call on any player that is a drug cheat. Zero tolerance needs to be applied to send a message to anyone that is involved in AFL

 

[Janus]

So who is responsible for Angus Monfries being offered a substantial contract then?

I think it's disingenuous to write long-winded posts in order to excuse recruiting and list management errors made by Port. It was Port's choice to run one short because of earlier list management decisions, you should have to deal with it. Yeah, so Monfries turned out to be part of the Essendon 34 which you had no reasonable way of knowing at the time - deal with it.

Edit - Predator doesn't know for certain why Port were running one short this year. You seem so certain of it. Can you reconcile that?

Oh we'll deal with it. Don't worry about that.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

So who is responsible for Angus Monfries being offered a substantial contract then?

I think it's disingenuous to write long-winded posts in order to excuse recruiting and list management errors made by Port. It was Port's choice to run one short because of earlier list management decisions, you should have to deal with it. Yeah, so Monfries turned out to be part of the Essendon 34 which you had no reasonable way of knowing at the time - deal with it.

Edit - Predator doesn't know for certain why Port were running one short this year. You seem so certain of it. Can you reconcile that?

Port are running close to 105% of their salary cap... Which is why they have called themselves destination club with some players earning some very handy salaries... Which is ultimately why they are running 1 short on their main list.

Funny how none of the port supporters are keen to answer your question... As they should be asking of their list manager, including no talls on their rookie list. What other club did this?