4 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Well, in theory, we should have already 'scoured the country' for the best players to put on our list.

I have no problems with the filling of spots through use of the Rookie List for PA, StK, Melb, and WB.

But can we replace the rookie?

2 hours ago, Mach5 said:

 

Is it? I don't wish for him to be forever known as a drugcheat (although it'll happen regardless) but I think it's highly likely he wouldn't have won that brownlow without the drugs.

It's a shame whether you think he would have won it anyway or whether he 'cheated' someone else out of it.

It's bad for footy, for careers, for the legacy of great players (who were great before these so called performance enhancers were used), and for the real culprits in the Essendon footy dept. 

 

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yeah you're right smart/tough guy on the internet, only you saw it coming and none of Roos, Jackson, Mahoney, Goodwin, Viney or McCartney had even heard of CAS before they heard Melksham was going to miss games....

See, this is a perfect example straight off the bat - I'm being serious here, you have a problem. Show me where I implied in any way whatsoever that I SAW IT COMING. You just MADE THAT UP. That's what you do. I absolutely did NOT see this coming, but I am not the highly paid professional with inside knowledge that makes these decisions. Those people have failed here.

 

5 minutes ago, stuie said:

.Not sure you actually read anyone else's posts or just re-read your own over and over again nodding your head in ever growing aggreance with yourself, but a lot of posters have suggested the trade for Melksham is now a bust because he will miss a year. Just to bring it down to basics for you, I've compared that to the fact we've had (and still have) plenty of young players who have missed a year or more through injury and have still provided value. Ironic that you will miss the point while tripping over yourself to argue that I've missed the point.

now, that's 2 from 2. Again, examine the conversation carefully. We are not TALKING ABOUT whether any player missing a year is a cause to delist them. OBVIOUSLY we are not talking about that, that would be crazy. So WHY are you pretending that is what is in discussion. The KEY WORD you continue to miss/ignore is CHEATING. I made this abundantly clear in the last post but again you just discuss it as if that part wasn't mentioned. It's as if chunks of your screen are filled with dead pixels so you literally cannot see some of the text.

9 minutes ago, stuie said:

Did you think we brought in a 24 year old on a 4 year contract without it being with a view to the long haul? Yeah you're right, that was probably all part of Roos' great cover up and hoodwinking of the supporters...

so, I just want to clarify -  you're sticking to your guns. Paul Roos knew Melksham would miss the 2016 season but he wanted him anyway. No dodging, no talking about something completely different, Yes or no to that statement?

ps it IS possible to construct a sentence without using sarcasm, you should aim to make one in your next post - but I won't be responding, arguing with an insane person makes my head hurt

3 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yeah you're right smart/tough guy on the internet, only you saw it coming and none of Roos, Jackson, Mahoney, Goodwin, Viney or McCartney had even heard of CAS before they heard Melksham was going to miss games....

Not sure you actually read anyone else's posts or just re-read your own over and over again nodding your head in ever growing aggreance with yourself, but a lot of posters have suggested the trade for Melksham is now a bust because he will miss a year. Just to bring it down to basics for you, I've compared that to the fact we've had (and still have) plenty of young players who have missed a year or more through injury and have still provided value. Ironic that you will miss the point while tripping over yourself to argue that I've missed the point.

As for the "bolded bit"... Did you think we brought in a 24 year old on a 4 year contract without it being with a view to the long haul? Yeah you're right, that was probably all part of Roos' great cover up and hoodwinking of the supporters...

 

I'm not sure why people are missing this point in amongst everything else.  We've had a variety of players over the last few decades miss huge chunks of game time, yet we've stuck with them and they've come out well on the other side.  Stephen Tingay is a prime example.  Missed a few years and then came back with a vengeance in '98.  There is no reason why Melksham can't do the very same thing.

Missing the year isn't ideal, of course, but it's hardly the end of the world.

seems all those posters who said that the afl must have given sureties, support, guarantees or other forms of insurance, compensation to clubs who might trade for essendon players, got it completely wrong. it was all caveat emptor and we jumped in

2 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

See, this is a perfect example straight off the bat - I'm being serious here, you have a problem. Show me where I implied in any way whatsoever that I SAW IT COMING. You just MADE THAT UP. That's what you do.

 

so, I just want to clarify -  you're sticking to your guns. Paul Roos knew Melksham would miss the 2016 season but he wanted him anyway. No dodging, no talking about something completely different, Yes or no to that statement?

Hahahaha If you're going to do the exact same thing you're accusing me of, at least don't do it in the same post.

 

Just now, Curry & Beer said:

so, I just want to clarify -  you're sticking to your guns. Paul Roos knew Melksham would miss the 2016 season but he wanted him anyway. No dodging, no talking about something completely different, Yes or no to that statement?

 

They wouldn't have known it would happen, but that would have considered all the options and outcomes, and this was one of them.  They would have known there was a possibility of this outcome and planned accordingly.

18 minutes ago, old dee said:

How come Essendrug get to scour the country for replacements but we ( and Others ) get to up grade a rookie?

Why cannot we replace that rookie?

OD, you know the answer to that already.

5 minutes ago, Curry & Beer said:

I am not the highly paid professional with inside knowledge that makes these decisions.

PS - You got one part right though.

 

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

They wouldn't have known it would happen, but that would have considered all the options and outcomes, and this was one of them.  They would have known there was a possibility of this outcome and planned accordingly.

Exactly. A 4 year contract is a pretty clear indicator of that too.

 

Just now, Wiseblood said:

They wouldn't have known it would happen, but that would have considered all the options and outcomes, and this was one of them.  They would have known there was a possibility of this outcome and planned accordingly.

bs. they thought worst-case would be a handful of games which would be tolerable, because they drank the koolaid being passed around by the usual suspects

4 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

I'm not sure why people are missing this point in amongst everything else.  We've had a variety of players over the last few decades miss huge chunks of game time, yet we've stuck with them and they've come out well on the other side.  Stephen Tingay is a prime example.  Missed a few years and then came back with a vengeance in '98.  There is no reason why Melksham can't do the very same thing.

Missing the year isn't ideal, of course, but it's hardly the end of the world.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? I quoted that bit and addressed it specifically in the post before yours. You've responded again and done a stuie, not even acknowledging there is a difference between being injured and being rubbed out for cheating. Come on mate you're better than him

4 minutes ago, stuie said:

Exactly. A 4 year contract is a pretty clear indicator of that too.

 

it's not an indicator of a goddam thing

8 minutes ago, stuie said:

Hahahaha If you're going to do the exact same thing you're accusing me of, at least don't do it in the same post.

 

lol pick a side mate

you're arguing with yourself

did they get blindsided here or did they know this was going to happen

you can only select one of those options, not flip back and forth depending on if you are looking stupid or not

Just now, Curry & Beer said:

ARE YOU SERIOUS? I quoted that bit and addressed it specifically in the post before yours. You've responded again and done a stuie, not even acknowledging there is a difference between being injured and being rubbed out for cheating. Come on mate you're better than him

He'll be back in a year.  He has the stigma of cheating around him but, to quote you, you're better than that.  You know it's not just down to him and there is far more at play here than that.

There might be a difference, but he will come back without any injury history and be ready to go.  If he can play a good role for us over the coming years then the trade is a win, it's as simple as that.

Just now, daisycutter said:

bs. they thought worst-case would be a handful of games which would be tolerable, because they drank the koolaid being passed around by the usual suspects

You know more than us do you, big mouth? 

30 minutes ago, old dee said:

How come Essendrug get to scour the country for replacements but we ( and Others ) get to up grade a rookie?

Why cannot we replace that rookie?

Because the AFL continue to bend over backwards to gloss over this sordid episode, and to reward to cheating administration and staff at EssUndone.   ANZAC Day continues, as do their pre time fixed-tures. 

I even heard today somewhere that they were talking of "compensating" the banned players!  FCS talk about mixed messages.  

Just now, Wiseblood said:

You know more than us do you, big mouth? 

yep

Just now, daisycutter said:

yep

Quality as always.

3 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Because the AFL continue to bend over backwards to gloss over this sordid episode, and to reward to cheating administration and staff at EssUndone.   ANZAC Day continues, as do their pre time fixed-tures. 

I even heard today somewhere that they were talking of "compensating" the banned players!  FCS talk about mixed messages.  

So they would be circumventing the Rules they signed up to? That is in effect saying don't cheat but if you get caught we will help out.

Not sure why I am surprised.

7 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

bs. they thought worst-case would be a handful of games which would be tolerable, because they drank the koolaid being passed around by the usual suspects

 

2 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

He'll be back in a year.  He has the stigma of cheating around him but, to quote you, you're better than that.  You know it's not just down to him and there is far more at play here than that.

There might be a difference, but he will come back without any injury history and be ready to go.  If he can play a good role for us over the coming years then the trade is a win, it's as simple as that.

You know more than us do you, big mouth? 

They did say they expected at worst he would only miss a few games, they were caught out on that one.

Agree though that it's not a disaster but it could have been avoided. Now we have to make the best of the situation.

11 minutes ago, stuie said:

Exactly. A 4 year contract is a pretty clear indicator of that too.

 

The 4 year contract is what Melksham wanted to get the deal over the line. Nothing to do with indications...

 

I'm not one for conspiracies but I wonder if the reason for putting Michie on the rookie list was based on that if Melksham did (has now) got rubbed out he would be the back up rookie elevation. It makes more sense now then putting someone like a Jayden Hunt who many wanted rookied instead of Michie. He can now come in as the big bodied mature age player to fill in for Melksham and can still come into the side and play a role.

While I think White and Wagner would be other good options they are still unknown in terms of experience and ability (I do rate white highly though)

28 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

They wouldn't have known it would happen, but that would have considered all the options and outcomes, and this was one of them.  They would have known there was a possibility of this outcome and planned accordingly.

And exactly what did they plan? I must have missed something.

28 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

He'll be back in a year.  He has the stigma of cheating around him but, to quote you, you're better than that.  You know it's not just down to him and there is far more at play here than that.

There might be a difference, but he will come back without any injury history and be ready to go.  If he can play a good role for us over the coming years then the trade is a win, it's as simple as that.

You know more than us do you, big mouth? 

well obviously the point we'll never agree on is that cheating is not cool, even if it's by one of your own players (who has never gone into battle for the red and blue BTW)

you and stuie are apparently cool with it, each to his own

26 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

Quality as always.

thanks. i try.

Just a couple of thoughts on matters raised in this thread.

The trade:

I have always assumed our club recognised that Melksham came with risks but knew that the risk for Essendon of keeping him was greater due to their need to offload some of the 34. If that was correct, I also assumed that we got Melksham at a cheaper price (in trading terms) than he would otherwise have cost. Perhaps we would have also had to offer a player as well as the pick we gave up, or there might have been an exchange of picks as well, if he was a risk-free trade. Whether we agree it was value for money or not is not my point. Only that the club thought it was and that the discount was worth it.

Payments during the suspension:

If players cannot be paid during their suspension, does that just mean they can't get cash added to their bank accounts by the club during their suspension? Could not the clubs have already pre-paid a substantial component and agreed to hold over the rest for a future season, thereby not depositing any cash but nevertheless fulfilling the remuneration commitments made? This would be consistent with McLachlan's statement that their payments would be part of the 2016 TPP calculations, even if they are not physically being paid during the period of suspension.