It appears that Port, Saints and the Dogs, have asked for top up players and for the AFL to make the Bombers pay for their suspended players.

We are noticeable by our absence on both fronts.

I wonder what our tack is?

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

It appears that Port, Saints and the Dogs, have asked for top up players and for the AFL to make the Bombers pay for their suspended players.

We are noticeable by our absence on both fronts.

I wonder what our tack is?

i think we are only absent on the former, redleg

anyway the afl are yet to (publicly) decide on whether suspended players can be paid and if so, how much

stay tuned

Things might happen/ or not come Feb 10;)

Could we just put Melksham in Terlichs number and play him as Terlich. Woukd anyone notice?

6 hours ago, chookrat said:

Could we just put Melksham in Terlichs number and play him as Terlich. Woukd anyone notice?

Yes, Melksham can play. Dead give away.

9 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Yes, Melksham can play. Dead give away.

CAS disagrees with this.

5 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

CAS disagrees with this.

Now you're being pedantic. Compared to Terlich.....  

 

But you are so right. That is the price we pay for dealing with the EFC. 

Edited February 1, 20169 yr by ManDee
typo

41 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Now you're being pedantic. Compared to Terlich.....  

 

But you are so right. That is the price we pay for dealing with the EFC. 

The more time goes by without us hearing about the club lobbying for a top-up player for 2016, the more certain I become that we were prepared for this outcome when we began to court Melksham. We've got more than enough solid options down back to cover his loss this season.

2 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

The more time goes by without us hearing about the club lobbying for a top-up player for 2016, the more certain I become that we were prepared for this outcome when we began to court Melksham. We've got more than enough solid options down back to cover his loss this season.

That is my feeling too. We don't need a top up to replace Melksham. We have several players that can do a similar job. Better to upgrade our rookies or Smith, at least we get to keep them. Why waste resources on a player we may never use and have no rights to.

Looks like we may be joining the top-up party:  http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-02/demons-seek-topup-rookie-for-suspended-melksham?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

But we would upgrade a rookie to our senior list and top up the rookie list to maintain a full list.  However, it seems we are not too fussed:  "It is believed the Demons are in no rush to bring in a new player in place of Melksham, with the club under the impression the player would be inadequately prepared from a fitness point of view, as well as being behind in understanding the club's game plan". 

As Melksham was never really there, we are not going to miss him...its more a case of keeping the overall numbers topped up.

52 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Looks like we may be joining the top-up party:  http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-02/demons-seek-topup-rookie-for-suspended-melksham?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

But we would upgrade a rookie to our senior list and top up the rookie list to maintain a full list.  However, it seems we are not too fussed:  "It is believed the Demons are in no rush to bring in a new player in place of Melksham, with the club under the impression the player would be inadequately prepared from a fitness point of view, as well as being behind in understanding the club's game plan". 

As Melksham was never really there, we are not going to miss him...its more a case of keeping the overall numbers topped up.

This is precisely what confronts the crowd at Tullamarine.

Edited February 2, 20169 yr by iv'a worn smith

51 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Looks like we may be joining the top-up party:  http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-02/demons-seek-topup-rookie-for-suspended-melksham?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

But we would upgrade a rookie to our senior list and top up the rookie list to maintain a full list.  However, it seems we are not too fussed:  "It is believed the Demons are in no rush to bring in a new player in place of Melksham, with the club under the impression the player would be inadequately prepared from a fitness point of view, as well as being behind in understanding the club's game plan". 

As Melksham was never really there, we are not going to miss him...its more a case of keeping the overall numbers topped up.

This makes me think we possibly have a VFL/SANFL/WAFL player in our sights but who knows.

17 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Things might happen/ or not come Feb 10;)

The only certainty is that the day before will have been the 9th.

7 hours ago, Good Times Grimes said:

The more time goes by without us hearing about the club lobbying for a top-up player for 2016, the more certain I become that we were prepared for this outcome when we began to court Melksham. We've got more than enough solid options down back to cover his loss this season.

But Casey will have lost a player. That is unfair.

7 minutes ago, Redleg said:

But Casey will have lost a player. That is unfair.

You're right, I wasn't considering Casey. 

I can't wait for the footy to actually start so that we can move past this whole mess.

Looks like the AFL is holding off making a call on the other clubs being allowed a topup player until Essendon has had their pick of the pack. We may then get to choose from what is left. While we may be looking for a rookie, I would assume that we would be constrained by the same rules as Essendon, i.e. only pick an ex player who has left the game in the last 2 years. 

So given the MFC now want to add a top up player to the rookie list rather than the primary and they have also stated that getting late in the pre-season for a new player to learn the game plan. 

Putting 1 + 1 together gets you Daniel Cross. He knows the game plan, is still super fit, training with the team and could be brought in if injuries are worse than hoped for. Also I like the completing the circle aspect with Daniel handing over the number 18 to Jake who then hands it back to Daniel who then gives it back at the end of the year.. 

There goes the argument mfc were all good with getting duped.

We've just timed it better. Progress I suppose

17 hours ago, Redleg said:

But Casey will have lost a player. That is unfair.

If we draft a Casey player in Feb onto the Rookie List - they will invariably play for Casey...

Article in the hun about Melksham. 

In short we pay 4 months Essendon pays the rest although we dont have to pay anything under industrial law. It was unclear if we are going to pay anything though as it also said we havent paid him since his ban and wont until his return. 

Roos has spoken to him a quite a few times and suggests he take an extended break from training and football and recharges the batteries. Roos said he should ramp up his training in June July so he is ready for his return in September. 

Does that constitute training from the club while banned? Would hate to lose him for another year because we spoke to a journo!

18 minutes ago, Chris said:

Article in the hun about Melksham. 

In short we pay 4 months Essendon pays the rest although we dont have to pay anything under industrial law. It was unclear if we are going to pay anything though as it also said we havent paid him since his ban and wont until his return. 

Roos has spoken to him a quite a few times and suggests he take an extended break from training and football and recharges the batteries. Roos said he should ramp up his training in June July so he is ready for his return in September. 

Does that constitute training from the club while banned? Would hate to lose him for another year because we spoke to a journo!

hmmmm. dunno. presume/hope roosy would have checked it out

2 hours ago, Chris said:

Article in the hun about Melksham. 

In short we pay 4 months Essendon pays the rest although we dont have to pay anything under industrial law. It was unclear if we are going to pay anything though as it also said we havent paid him since his ban and wont until his return. 

Roos has spoken to him a quite a few times and suggests he take an extended break from training and football and recharges the batteries. Roos said he should ramp up his training in June July so he is ready for his return in September. 

Does that constitute training from the club while banned? Would hate to lose him for another year because we spoke to a journo!

Think that's a bit of a long bow Chris. If he's not at the club and not training with the others or by an employee of the club, it's highly unlikely that a conversation about taking a break from footy before getting back into it would be in breach of the code.

What you just said is perfectly logical Moonshadow. However the AFL just deemed Heppel was only attending the Kia event as they were his "personal" sponsors. The AFL Integrity Commission  will probably investigate us fully over this.

 

</sarcasm font>

 

What happens when Heppell has his monthly Footy Show appearances representing the club? How is that fair?

54 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

What happens when Heppell has his monthly Footy Show appearances representing the club? How is that fair?

You are expecting fair?