Top up player rules.

[teknodeejay]

I'm all for top up players from anywhere. Let them play.

I'll start to worry if Essendon replace Hird with Coach Bombay.

 

[chelseacarlton]

The real question is, why do we even need Essendon as a team? If a team is going to be made out of a couple of players from the reserves of each team, then just kick Essendon out for a couple of years and have a Best of the Rest team fulfill TV rights.

Carna BOR's

 

[Muggs]

Not really in favor of VFL players being able to be selected across the board, non AFL-aligned state league players and non-aligned VFL clubs would have made more sense.

A question that needs to be asked in this does the club they coming from have to sign off on a contract transfer? It may be possible that clubs have the option to stop players departing this way.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Essendon players get suspended but the other clubs have to supply them with players so they can field a team ??

I'm sorry, I find that completely ludicrous in the extreme.

If they choose one or two players from Werribee who aren't on North's list, I just don't see those guys as anything to do with North Melbourne. If anything, it would potentially give more young North-listed players opportunities in senior level games for Werribee to fill the gaps. It's not an issue I can get excited about, and I don't get why anyone is that fussed.

Whether the whole top-up thing is reasonable to allow EFC to field teams in practice or real games, and whether Essendon should be able to recruit top-up players to replace guys who aren't under any provisional suspensions but just don't want to play, are separate and to me much more debate-worthy issues.

For me, FWIW, it's ok to give them top-ups under strict conditions for pre-season hitouts, so their opponents aren't significantly disadvantaged. One condition should be that they can't get more top-ups than they have lost players under provisional suspensions - if extra players are unavailable or choose to sit out, that's bad luck. In principle, players shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose, but in the end missing preseason games is disadvantaging their own preparation, so the AFL doesn't need to impose additional penalties.

Once the tribunal delivers its decision, or the season proper starts, the temporary fix is over. If bans are handed down, for a club-sanctioned and run program, then both players and club wear the consequences, and if that means EFC can't run enough players out for games, they should have to forfeit the games. There was a game a few years ago, against St Kilda, when North had so many injuries they played part of the game with 17 on the field and no-one available on the bench. It was just bad luck. If EFC have players suspended and can't provide 22 fit players, that is the same thing, but larger scale, and not so much luck as natural consequence.

 

[NoAFLinmycomp]

Not really in favor of VFL players being able to be selected across the board, non AFL-aligned state league players and non-aligned VFL clubs would have made more sense.

It makes no more sense, to lumber the requirement to provide the players on just these clubs/ leagues either, to top up a cheating AFL club.

One that actually has set of eligible players available to use.

Remembering also that two clubs in both the SANFL & WAFL are AFL aligned reserves teams. If the other AFL clubs aren't having to provide top-ups from their reserves teams, then I'm pretty sure they'll get themselves excluded as well.

That increases the load on the other 14 clubs - who are already struggling to retain good quality fringe players due to better $ and jobs being available in country leagues.

If it were a club devastated by illness, plane/bus crash, etc then yes you all pitch in to help.
But a top tier club that was intentuonally and knowingly pushing the boundaries; and wound up putting 34 of their players in this situation?
Nah. You reap what you sow.

 

[Muggs]

I had to highlight & increase the size of that really important point as it goes to the heart of the issue for me, it's one that way too many people are forgetting or choosing to overlook.

Take the club name out of the equation, what should have happened would be the same no matter who the club was.

A selective application of the rules (any rules that is) does nothing but taint the whole organisation as corrupt & lacking in morals & ethics.

The part you bolded is the key to me, allowing the 8 players or so who are on the 2012 list but not suspended enables the principal of anonymity to be maintained. It keeps the AFLPA on side which is important with them offside we not sure what impact it will have on players in other clubs as sure many players sympathise with the EFC players that wish to remain nameless and would have done the same if it was someone from thier club. I could see making the 8 play being the basis of a league wide player strike or at least threat to strike and it's just not worth even going down that path.

By allowing recent delisting and retired players only to be used you addresses much of the OHS issues that were floating around.

All things considered IMO this is a pretty good solution, my biggest issue with this why was it not addressed and finalised much earlier.

 

[Proper Gander]

I'm all for top up players from anywhere. Let them play.

I'll start to worry if Essendon replace Hird with Coach Bombay.

Ha! You're giving me ideas now! Top up coaches! Hird could stand down in solidarity with something and spend some quality time o/s prepping a High Court appeal or Autobiography or whatever. Essendon could pick a coach less likely to annoy virtually everyone but the Hirdy-cult. Essendon could pay James a gazillion dollars just for the hell of it, to give the HTB something to get its teeth into, and possibly to keep him away. Eventually Essendon could put this mess in the past (which they seem not to want to do) and we can watch the footy in a bit of peace and quiet.

 

[mxett]

What personal reasons? Can't ever remember players refusing to play.

Plenty chose to attend their childs birth over games

 

[mxett]

If you can't field a team because of drug suspensions, get out of the comp. It's pretty simple.

provisional suspensions

 

[mxett]

They knew what they were given

If the players knew they were being given banned substances this is probably the best outcome for the club, assuming they are proven guilty. There's no way they will be suing the club for millions if they were in on the whole thing.

Thanks for supporting the dons!

 

[Argy]

Carna BOR's

Subtle!

 

[Argy]

I just hate the idea of Hawks players being coached by Hird.

 

[IanW]

If the players knew they were being given banned substances this is probably the best outcome for the club, assuming they are proven guilty. There's no way they will be suing the club for millions if they were in on the whole thing.

Thanks for supporting the dons!

Bomber Thompson has already proved if you threaten to tell the truth in public, Essendon will settle the case for millions.

 

[Tiger Toffee]

So Essendon are allowed to recruit washed up spuds, they should fit right in with the likes of Cooney, Giles, Gwilt,and Mckerwho.

 

[andrewb]

So will you join us in calling them cheats then if (when) they are found guilty?

If they are proven to have taken performance enhancing drugs I'm sure they'll feel that way anyway.

Will you stop calling them cheats if the verdict is not guilty? Will you apologize for jumping to conclusions?

 

[BlueWorld]

Plenty chose to attend their childs birth over games

This is not the same.

 

[BlueWorld]

If they are proven to have taken performance enhancing drugs I'm sure they'll feel that way anyway.

Will you stop calling them cheats if the verdict is not guilty? Will you apologize for jumping to conclusions?

That depends. If there's evidence they didn't cheat- yes. If there's not enough evidence- no.

 

[Argy]

If they are proven to have taken performance enhancing drugs I'm sure they'll feel that way anyway.

Will you stop calling them cheats if the verdict is not guilty? Will you apologize for jumping to conclusions?

No, probably not. The way the club and Hird have behaved makes me think they're cheats and that they know it.

 

[andrewb]

No, probably not. The way the club and Hird have behaved makes me think they're cheats and that they know it.

Then you have no right to complain about their need for anonymity.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Then you have no right to complain about their need for anonymity.

From all i have read on these boards, most people think the EFC is the cheat, not the players

 

[andrewb]

From all i have read on these boards, most people think the EFC is the cheat, not the players

Tell that to Jobe Watson with a straight face

 

[caitsith01]

I guess that they should not get allowances if they are proven to have cheated. If innocent, they should get all the allowances they deserve.

If they are innocent, why aren't they playing?

Lots of other innocent players at other clubs seem to be playing.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Tell that to Jobe Watson with a straight face

And he would listen to a complete unknown to him would he?
There are haters out there that no matter what, the players are cheats, but there are also a hell of a lot of football lovers out there that think the players were duped by some at the EFC.
And on the other side of the fence there are a lot of Essendon people who think nothing happened no matter what is put in front of them.

 

[Boxhead_31]

their anonymity was respected over their participation in practice games, which was supported by the AFLPA and now the AFL. Where's the problem exactly?

The problem is the AFLPA don't mind naming other players who have IN but are no longer at EFC. Why are the AFLPA naming other players but not the EFC players?

 

[Boxhead_31]

Tell that to Jobe Watson with a straight face

40 odd thousand West Australian football supporters did just that and the EFC faithful lost their collective minds