On 30 January 2016 at 9:05 AM, Roger Mellie said:

 !

 

On 30 January 2016 at 9:24 AM, Franky_31 said:

If Gawn is our only fit ruck going into the season, Id rather we were able to bring Jamar in, than Port or especially Essendon.

If Bombers have Luenberger and Jamar and Gawn gets a niggle, who are we going to have in the Ruck?

I understand Spencer Dawes and Frost have all not had clear Pre-seasons. Am I missing something?

Yes  Dawes doesn't / won't ruck

On 30 January 2016 at 9:24 AM, beelzebub said:

The AFL is corrupt. Nothing new here. scandalous yes, unexpected ? No.

The AFL warrants a Royal Commission. It will never come.

Those tasked with looking after the game have lost their way and long since made Faustian deals.

It pains me to say but I think I will give AFL a big miss this year - pains me because our team finally looks like they may make an impact, sans injections too  

On 30 January 2016 at 10:08 AM, Redleg said:

Jack, the AFL has already consulted the other clubs on the Brownlow and the result was 16 to retain it and 2 to lose it. I will let you work out who the 2 are .

If that is a fact, it only reinforces my rapidly dwindling interest in all things AFL  

On 30 January 2016 at 2:47 PM, chookrat said:

The AFL should have only allowed top up players on the basis that each replaced player is treated as an UFA at the end of the season. Additionally the club should not be eligible for finals. Imagine if the EFC make the finals as the result of their experienced top up players.

IF the AFL had any interest whatsoever in the integrity of the competition, let alone of the game, EFC would have to play the season for zero points  

On 30 January 2016 at 7:35 PM, Jesus Hoganshaw said:

Doubt we'd want a top-up player that we lose access to at the end of the season anyway.

At the same time, losing 12 players to suspension and having a free-hit at 10, giving them access to one more player than Port Adelaide doesn't make a lot of sense either. Collingwood lost Thomas and Keeffe to suspension and Scharenberg for the year with injury, but weren't given a top-up player. Plenty of teams have lost more than 3 players to injury and didn't require a top up player. Sets a strange precedent.

If they manage to have 12 of their currently listed players suspended, then it should be a case of "unlucky lads, you're in for a rubbish season." Replacing 10 out of 12 missing players with whoever they like so they can "field a competitive side" is mind-boggling.

God damn wine, I was planning on making this a one sentence response.

Much as I hate to show any sympathy for Collingwood, it is grossly unfair that EssUndone get pandered to by Gil and his corrupt mates, while Collingwood, rightly, were made to "take their medicine" so to speak.  And they didn't even grumble.  And they didn't deliberately and secretly undertake a systematic drug injection regimen.  

On 30 January 2016 at 8:21 PM, SaberFang said:

They obviously can't if they want to retain any shred of integrity, but I've a feeling the reason for their delay tactic announcing any decision was straight from any slimy politician's playbook: wait for the opportune Friday afternoon (right before round 1, probably) to announce something hugely unpopular with the public (ie. allowing him to keep the medal), because the masses are too busy focusing on other things.

Absolutely nothing to retain, so I guess they see nothing to lose.

4 hours ago, DemonFrog said:

Can someone be considered the fairest and the best after they had been convicted of taking a banned substances in the year they won the award? 

IF Jab returns after his suspension, I would love to be at the Downlow count the following year IF he got any votes: one can imagine the undercurrent mutterings which of course the AFL would ensure did not appear on the TV coverage. 

The only plot Gillon McLachlan ever had was for All the President's Men or some similar corruption & cover-up fiasco.

Simon Barnes' article in The Spectator is not about AFL, but it may as well be: This could be the year that sport starts to die.

The Integrity Unit exists to make sure no one commits integrity.

On 1/30/2016 at 8:28 PM, Petraccattack said:

Has there ever been a good AFL CEO?

Demetriou, McLachlan and Wayne Jackson all sucked/suck.  Was Ross Oakley any good?

When Jackson left the AFL was seen as a bit of a clunky bungler, when Demetriou left the AFL was seen as an organisation whose every single public utterance was a lie.

The AFL integrity unit...

 

49 minutes ago, Tony Tea said:

The Integrity Unit exists to make sure no one commits integrity.

Quote of the year.  ?

58 minutes ago, Tony Tea said:

The Integrity Unit exists to make sure no one commits integrity.

Mr Orwell says hello

Demons seek top-up rookie for suspended Melksham

At last we've shown our hand and ...

Gerard Healy says we should be granted a top-up player.

Dill can't make a decision, handballs to his lawyer, then his lawyer handballs to the 13 uninvolved clubs. Hilarious.

Convenient that the AFL were perfectly capable of making so many high-stakes decisions in Essendon's favour within hours of the CAS verdict, yet need a month of internal consultation about an obvious issue 4 poorer clubs were always going to raise. 

Healy makes an excellent point in that if any of those traded players were still at Essendon, it wouldn't even be a question allowing Essendon an additional top-up player; why is the situation different for us? Why on earth is the team of drug cheats getting preferential treatment? Is this simply routine AFL incompetence or something more sinister? It strikes me much more as another meticulously puppeteered outcome masquerading as administrative bureaucracy. They knew this situation would unravel and they've successfully delayed, handballed and pushed back any decision for nearly a month.

So why? For one obvious purpose: ensuring Essendon had exclusive access to the best available talent for as long as possible. A secondary benefit is creating uncertainty for the 4 other clubs, preventing players from resisting Essendon's advances (would you turn down $200K for 10 months work?).

Significantly, former senior players are the only useful top-ups this late in the game; there's simply no time to train, condition and teach a foreign gameplan to a kid with little experience in the system.

Why would we want a top up player.

Someone who hasn't done a preseason with us, is underdone and doesn't know the game plan.

Tell me why we wouldn't want to use one of our own rookies, that is fit and by now knows the game plan.

52 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

Why would we want a top up player.

Someone who hasn't done a preseason with us, is underdone and doesn't know the game plan.

Tell me why we wouldn't want to use one of our own rookies, that is fit and by now knows the game plan.

Why wouldn't we want one if given the option? 

We're asking for a rookie, so it would give us a chance to get a year of AFL training into a guy like Jake Lovett, or someone else from a state league before deciding whether or not to draft them in November.

It will give Casey an extra AFL listed player (a point that I had overlooked before RedLeg pointed it out to me yesterday)

We'll be promoting someone from our rookie list, and this player would be taking their place. 

14 hours ago, Barney Rubble said:

Why would we want a top up player.

Someone who hasn't done a preseason with us, is underdone and doesn't know the game plan.

Tell me why we wouldn't want to use one of our own rookies, that is fit and by now knows the game plan.

The club has requested a rookie selection to cover for the one that's been upgraded for the Melksham ban. Would be highly beneficial to get someone like Jake Lovett on the payroll and into the system with a view for selecting him next year.

On ‎2‎/‎02‎/‎2016 at 11:59 AM, Tony Tea said:

Simon Barnes' article in The Spectator is not about AFL, but it may as well be: This could be the year that sport starts to die.

Interesting article TT. Stretches the argument but there can be little doubt that sport has become overly corporatized and sanitised and a broadcasting content filler. Across most sports players are, or appear to be faster, stronger .etc. But a lot of our own game, for mine, lacks the mystique and fun of when I was a kid (70's and 80's). And it's all so [censored] serious.

On 2 February 2016 at 8:02 AM, Good Times Grimes said:

Why wouldn't we want one if given the option? 

We're asking for a rookie, so it would give us a chance to get a year of AFL training into a guy like Jake Lovett, or someone else from a state league before deciding whether or not to draft them in November.

It will give Casey an extra AFL listed player (a point that I had overlooked before RedLeg pointed it out to me yesterday)

We'll be promoting someone from our rookie list, and this player would be taking their place. 

IMHO it is just a waste of money.

They have had a chance to watch Jake, he can play football no doubt, but his problem is more about attitude.

Whoever we get will not play a game in the ones. That player probably won't be drafted for 2017. So not only we waste a year of Melksham but we then pay another rookie type player, for what?

49 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

IMHO it is just a waste of money.

They have had a chance to watch Jake, he can play football no doubt, but his problem is more about attitude.

Whoever we get will not play a game in the ones. That player probably won't be drafted for 2017. So not only we waste a year of Melksham but we then pay another rookie type player, for what?

We won't be paying Melksham this year, so the money that he was on can go towards paying a rookie's wages, which will only be a small fraction of what Melksham would have received. 

We might have had our eye on someone in the 2015 rookie draft that we wanted to take but we didn't have the picks for. We might also have our eye on a mature aged recruit for the 2016 rookie draft and this would give us the opportunity to see how they adapt to being a full-time footballer. There's plenty of reasons why we want this rookie pick.

While any player that we end up signing will be behind in terms of fitness and game-plan comprehension, it's impossible to definitively say that they won't play in 2016. Take vandenBerg for example. He came to the club after having shoulder surgery and took a few months to join in the main group. He still managed a round one debut despite being on the rookie list and his setbacks. If we select a player now, it's possible that they will be able to play mid-season, if needed. 

On 1/30/2016 at 0:02 PM, Whispering_Jack said:

Following the CAS judgement on the Essendon 34, the AFL immediately put into place a set of rules relating to clubs affected by the loss of suspended players. These were made apparently without consulting the other AFL clubs and this was done on the basis that it would have been a health and safety issue to force the Bombers to go into a season 12 players light. 

The concessions to Essendon, the offending club in this sorry mess, were far ranging and generous. The AFL allowed the Bombers to elevate all rookies immediately and gave them the right to promote another ten players to their senior list from outside current AFL playing lists without affecting the club's salary cap. The Bombers have already been able to add a number of experienced former players and are continuing to comb the country for more players with which to replenish their list.

As for the other AFL clubs who lost players to suspension, they were allowed the immediate right to promote a rookie and that's all. While it can be argued that the clubs in question don't deserve any breaks because (with the exception of Port Adelaide with Angus Monfries) they recruited players already under investigation/charges for breaches of the WADA Code, this really begs the question. The AFL has made concessions to a club which was the offender in the drugs situation and yet the innocent clubs must go into the season short of players or, if they are belatedly allowed top up players, the Bombers have been allowed to jump the gun and sign players. 

Now this - Essendon and Port want Jamar

"The AFL has asked all clubs for their feedback on allowing affected clubs other than Essendon to be given special consideration. The clubs are expected to give a response by early next week."

How insulting is this part which suggests that the AFL will be influenced in its decision on top up players by the other clubs given there was no consultation on the Essendon concessions?

The AFL consults when it feels like it and likewise doesn't consult when it feels like not consulting. Like when other clubs put pressure on the AFL to not give draft relief to Melbourne on cockamamie grounds when the club clearly deserved a priority pick but was seen as a recent offender against AFL rules over tanking. 

Similarly, the AFL can't make a ruling over Jobe Watson's Brownlow by itself but has to consult with the player.

We're fast becoming a mess and risk losing ground to other clubs. The game needs competent decisive leadership, not the weak efforts we see from Gillon McLachlan.

 

 

Sounds like Bracks when he announced the de-sal was being built on this site in Wonthaggi and it will be this big, and cost this much, and this is who is building it, and now we will start the consultation with the community!

Not the way to run the process or come across as a reputable operator at all. 

35 minutes ago, Good Times Grimes said:

We won't be paying Melksham this year, so the money that he was on can go towards paying a rookie's wages, which will only be a small fraction of what Melksham would have received. 

We might have had our eye on someone in the 2015 rookie draft that we wanted to take but we didn't have the picks for. We might also have our eye on a mature aged recruit for the 2016 rookie draft and this would give us the opportunity to see how they adapt to being a full-time footballer. There's plenty of reasons why we want this rookie pick.

While any player that we end up signing will be behind in terms of fitness and game-plan comprehension, it's impossible to definitively say that they won't play in 2016. Take vandenBerg for example. He came to the club after having shoulder surgery and took a few months to join in the main group. He still managed a round one debut despite being on the rookie list and his setbacks. If we select a player now, it's possible that they will be able to play mid-season, if needed. 

I doubt that any top up rookie would play in the seniors this year. 

However, if there is someone we genuinely had our eye on, it enables us to get 12 months of development into them, and keep them under our wing. 

It is this development that enables them to be match ready come 2017, as opposed to a rookie selected at the end of 2016. 

On 1/30/2016 at 10:07 PM, Middymalt said:

If there's no positive tests there innocent if they test positive there guilty I have read a few story's on it but I can't recall anyone testing positive I've never seen a horse test negative and lose a race and I've been involved in the breeding industry for 20 years and most you people here drool about it because we've been despicable  for so long I've never seen a sprinter test negative and cop 12 months , there's a couple of lawyers in these threads that probably learnt there craft from Terry Bailey. Saber I know your not an ambulance chaser but there's a few here it's a low occupation but what ever floats your boat.

Where do I start?  Wow!  Are you for real?  No you're taking the pizz surely.

   No I don't have the time.

On 30/01/2016 at 7:10 PM, Carlos Danger said:

Top-ups should either apply to all clubs affected by the Essendon suspensions or none of them. Pretty simple really.

If you can go outside the rules to help one club because of the situation, what is the reason for the same courtesy not being extended to the other clubs affected by the CAS decision?

One of the arguments that keeps getting thrown up is clubs traded players after the investigation/infractions were issued (besides Monfries) so they took a risk knowing there was the possibility of suspension.

Ok, that being the case the same rules should apply to the Bombers. Any players they signed to new contracts post the investigation/infractions being issued should be subject to the same criteria, ie Essendon signed them to new contracts knowing there was a risk of suspension.

1 minute ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

One of the arguments that keeps getting thrown up is clubs traded players after the investigation/infractions were issued (besides Monfries) so they took a risk knowing there was the possibility of suspension.

Ok, that being the case the same rules should apply to the Bombers. Any players they signed to new contracts post the investigation/infractions being issued should be subject to the same criteria, ie Essendon signed them to new contracts knowing there was a risk of suspension.

It's more than that DrG. The EFC caused the problem, why should they get special privileges, they are hardly innocent bystanders like Port Stk WBFC and us.

The lengths to which the AFL are going to compensate/reward  Essendon are mocking of the other clubs.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/essendon-topups-gold-coast-suns-coach-rodney-eade-says-affected-clubs-shouldnt-sign-replacements/news-story/3ec9ac1fb727b8697f1866a810c1a117 Quote:  "If the four affected clubs are granted permission to sign top-up players, Essendon will have to hasten its signing process with four new clubs on the prowl for state league talent...Alternatively, it is believed the AFL has canvassed a potential mini-draft which would eliminate the possibility of a bidding war between two or more clubs over a player". This smacks of the AFL stalling further so that EFC get all the players they want first!  I don't care if we get a top-up or not and I doubt the club will be too fussed either way.  But this is farce on farce!  As Healey said:  just make a decision, Gil!     Footnote:  apologies for bold font for some reason I can't get rid of it on this post

Just now, Lucifer's Hero said:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/essendon-topups-gold-coast-suns-coach-rodney-eade-says-affected-clubs-shouldnt-sign-replacements/news-story/3ec9ac1fb727b8697f1866a810c1a117 Quote:  "If the four affected clubs are granted permission to sign top-up players, Essendon will have to hasten its signing process with four new clubs on the prowl for state league talent...Alternatively, it is believed the AFL has canvassed a potential mini-draft which would eliminate the possibility of a bidding war between two or more clubs over a player". This smacks of the AFL stalling further so that EFC get all the players they want first!  This is farce on farce!  As Healey said:  just make a decision, Gil! Footnote:  apologies for bold font for some reason I can't get rid of it on this post

 

Mini-draft? Seriously?

I'm starting to think the AFL is some sort of elaborate practical joke visited on the Australian public by some as yet unrevealed master troll.

The punch line better be funny.

11 minutes ago, Choke said:

 

Mini-draft? Seriously?

I'm starting to think the AFL is some sort of elaborate practical joke visited on the Australian public by some as yet unrevealed master troll.

The punch line better be funny.

My reaction is the same. Sounds like there is a maxi-draft blowing around inside the heads of those who come up with garbage like this ...