11 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Essendon took drugs and cheated to win games and are getting rewarded with pick 1. Stop dredging up tanking in one season, as a reason for denying a PP after 10 years of crap.

Getting rewarded after being fined, banned from competing in a finals series they qualified for and excluded from the first two rounds of two separate drafts... 

29 minutes ago, Radar Detector said:

Getting rewarded after being fined, banned from competing in a finals series they qualified for and excluded from the first two rounds of two separate drafts... 

They got off lightly.

Drug cheats.

Isn't the PP there to assist struggling clubs? and isn't Brisbane struggling? If the AFL approve it I personally don't see the the big drama over it.

 

On a side note Essendon have been punished by the AFL and then the players got done by WADA and made to sit out a season. As much as I dislike Essendon if they done the crime and done the time regardless of whether you thought it was enough you cant keep punishing them.   

They will get the number 1 pick because they have the wooden spoon not because they are drug cheats. 

3 minutes ago, felixdacat said:

Isn't the PP there to assist struggling clubs? and isn't Brisbane struggling? If the AFL approve it I personally don't see the the big drama over it.

 

On a side note Essendon have been punished by the AFL and then the players got done by WADA and made to sit out a season. As much as I dislike Essendon if they done the crime and done the time regardless of whether you thought it was enough you cant keep punishing them.   

They will get the number 1 pick because they have the wooden spoon not because they are drug cheats. 

they are only getting the #1 pick by virtue of having 12 players banned who will now be available, so in essence they are getting richly rewarded by being found guilty of doping

go figure

On 9/2/2016 at 3:26 PM, Vogon Poetry said:

I wasn't nitpicking Sue, I just quoted you and then explained why the MFC fitted your definition.  And don't think for a moment the name Melbourne is any protection to being made redundant, there is no "London" in the EPL.  If MFC were to disappear it would cause the least disruption to the AFL of any Vic team, we have the least number of supporters as evidenced by the Morgan poll and I'd contend after our performance over the last 10 years one of the smallest supporter bases amongst kids. 

That is a poor example: Melbourne was a foundation club and is the name of the city where the game began. London has never had that.

Just now, daisycutter said:

they are only getting the #1 pick by virtue of having 12 players banned who will now be available, so in essence they are getting richly rewarded by being found guilty of doping

go figure

If you were Essendon and the CAS found that they were comfortably satisfied that the 34 of your  players were injected with Thymosin beta-4 and they were suspended which means that you lose 12 current players to suspension,then you have to top up which means you play crap all year come last on the ladder then as per the AFL rules you get first pick in the 2016 drafts would you say you have been richly rewarded? 

15 minutes ago, felixdacat said:

If you were Essendon and the CAS found that they were comfortably satisfied that the 34 of your  players were injected with Thymosin beta-4 and they were suspended which means that you lose 12 current players to suspension,then you have to top up which means you play crap all year come last on the ladder then as per the AFL rules you get first pick in the 2016 drafts would you say you have been richly rewarded? 

Yes! They should never have got those twelve top-up players! They could have fielded an AFL team each week with the 34 remaining! The Power, Saints, Dogs or us weren't provided with top-up players (and we weren't guilty of a drug culture)!

14 minutes ago, CBDees said:

Yes! They should never have got those twelve top-up players! They could have fielded an AFL team each week with the 34 remaining! The Power, Saints, Dogs or us weren't provided with top-up players (and we weren't guilty of a drug culture)!

No I disagree I still don't think they have been richly rewarded and I also think EFC would agree that they have not been.. 

Also it mean those 10 top up players that came in to assist Essendon whom had 32 Players left in 2016. In the last 10 season AFL teams on average utilise 34 players from their list each season so they may have fielded a team but there is chance that they may not for all rounds. The AFL would have been screwed.

Thanks for telling me that we weren't guilty of a drug culture I did not know that?

Please let me be clear I dislike Essendon as much as any one. But at some point you just got to let go its just unhealthy to perpetually hold on to the anger and continue to grab the pitch fork and torch and shout kill the infidels.

5 hours ago, felixdacat said:

No I disagree I still don't think they have been richly rewarded and I also think EFC would agree that they have not been.. 

Also it mean those 10 top up players that came in to assist Essendon whom had 32 Players left in 2016. In the last 10 season AFL teams on average utilise 34 players from their list each season so they may have fielded a team but there is chance that they may not for all rounds. The AFL would have been screwed.

Thanks for telling me that we weren't guilty of a drug culture I did not know that?

Please let me be clear I dislike Essendon as much as any one. But at some point you just got to let go its just unhealthy to perpetually hold on to the anger and continue to grab the pitch fork and torch and shout kill the infidels.

Oh now I understand. EFC (& maybe S.J.R.) shares your view that Essendon were poorly done by. I guess the fact that EFC considers that they have not been richly rewarded makes it false. How surprising that they would share your view!

On 9/6/2016 at 0:23 AM, CBDees said:

Yes! They should never have got those twelve top-up players! They could have fielded an AFL team each week with the 34 remaining! The Power, Saints, Dogs or us weren't provided with top-up players (and we weren't guilty of a drug culture)!

well so far their reward for tanking is

National draft pick 1. 

Pre Season draft pick 1 ( huge card in the O'meara chase.)

the chance to expose young players without the concern of a win-loss ratio, 

special rules to ensure they can retain not on their primary list, but any top ups who impressed before opposition clubs can get a crack. 

in my opinion they should have been no part in the draft last year or this year, this is a club that was found guilty of cheating, and they've come out in a far better position than they went in.

1 hour ago, CBDees said:

Oh now I understand. EFC (& maybe S.J.R.) shares your view that Essendon were poorly done by. I guess the fact that EFC considers that they have not been richly rewarded makes it false. How surprising that they would share your view!

That is not what he said. There is a spectrum of outcomes between richly rewarded and poorly done by. I suggest they have been neither. They got what is probably a fair punishment overall but you can't keep meting out a new punishment every year.

1 hour ago, Abe said:

well so far their reward for tanking is

National draft pick 1. 

Pre Season draft pick 1 ( huge card in the O'meara chase.)

the chance to expose young players without the concern of a win-loss ratio, 

special rules to ensure they can retain not on their primary list, but any top ups who impressed before opposition clubs can get a crack. 

in my opinion they should have been no part in the draft last year or this year, this is a club that was found guilty of cheating, and they've come out in a far better position than they went in.

They were already banned from participating in the first 2 rounds of 2 successive drafts...

9 hours ago, felixdacat said:

If you were Essendon and the CAS found that they were comfortably satisfied that the 34 of your  players were injected with Thymosin beta-4 and they were suspended which means that you lose 12 current players to suspension,then you have to top up which means you play crap all year come last on the ladder then as per the AFL rules you get first pick in the 2016 drafts would you say you have been richly rewarded? 

yep....no question and richly rewarded with respect to the draft only

9 hours ago, felixdacat said:

If you were Essendon and the CAS found that they were comfortably satisfied that the 34 of your  players were injected with Thymosin beta-4 and they were suspended which means that you lose 12 current players to suspension,then you have to top up which means you play crap all year come last on the ladder then as per the AFL rules you get first pick in the 2016 drafts would you say you have been richly rewarded? 

They have received no punishment for implementing a program that led to 34 players being found guilty of using PED's.

Indirectly they have been without 10 players as a result of the players ban, but the club were rewarded with extra players outside the salary cap and 1st pick in the draft.

41 minutes ago, Radar Detector said:

That is not what he said. There is a spectrum of outcomes between richly rewarded and poorly done by. I suggest they have been neither. They got what is probably a fair punishment overall but you can't keep meting out a new punishment every year.

 

40 minutes ago, Radar Detector said:

They were already banned from participating in the first 2 rounds of 2 successive drafts...

It's not a punishment to push them back in the draft order this year. They are not deserving of the number 1 draft pick...the draft system is supposed to be set up to help clubs who need help, EFC don't need help.

It's a punishment to Brisbane who deserve the pick, and a punishment to GC who won't get fair value for O'Meara.

2 hours ago, Abe said:

well so far their reward for tanking is

National draft pick 1. 

Pre Season draft pick 1 ( huge card in the O'meara chase.)

the chance to expose young players without the concern of a win-loss ratio, 

special rules to ensure they can retain not on their primary list, but any top ups who impressed before opposition clubs can get a crack. 

in my opinion they should have been no part in the draft last year or this year, this is a club that was found guilty of cheating, and they've come out in a far better position than they went in.

 

They can not retain any top up players past 31 October every team can then draft them

 

26 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yep....no question and richly rewarded with respect to the draft only

 

OK so you believe they team that gets the wooden spoon gets the number 1 pick and that is being richly rewarded. If thats the way you rate it fair enough. 

26 minutes ago, ManDee said:

They have received no punishment for implementing a program that led to 34 players being found guilty of using PED's.

Indirectly they have been without 10 players as a result of the players ban, but the club were rewarded with extra players outside the salary cap and 1st pick in the draft.

Fined $2 million, ruled ineligible to participate in the 2013 AFL finals series, stripped of draft picks in two drafts 2013 and 2014 and 34 players suspended from any involvement in any Football for 2 years 12 of whom are current players and the top up players were included in their salary cap.

24 minutes ago, rjay said:

 

It's not a punishment to push them back in the draft order this year. They are not deserving of the number 1 draft pick...the draft system is supposed to be set up to help clubs who need help, EFC don't need help.

It's a punishment to Brisbane who deserve the pick, and a punishment to GC who won't get fair value for O'Meara.

 

I agree that Brisbane deserve a priority pick I just don't get all the slashing of wrists over the fact that Essendon have a high pick in the draft. You make the decision on what will help the Lions not how you shaft Essendon. 

 

12 minutes ago, felixdacat said:

 

They can not retain any top up players past 31 October every team can then draft them

 

 

OK so you believe they team that gets the wooden spoon gets the number 1 pick and that is being richly rewarded. If thats the way you rate it fair enough. 

Fined $2 million, ruled ineligible to participate in the 2013 AFL finals series, stripped of draft picks in two drafts 2013 and 2014 and 34 players suspended from any involvement in any Football for 2 years 12 of whom are current players and the top up players were included in their salary cap.

 

I agree that Brisbane deserve a priority pick I just don't get all the slashing of wrists over the fact that Essendon have a high pick in the draft. You make the decision on what will help the Lions not how you shaft Essendon. 

 

No penalties to the EFC subsequent to the players being found guilty. The penalties you refer to are for governance & duty of care failures in 2012 handed down in August 2013.

The players were found guilty in January 2016. What penalties have been applied to the club since the guilty verdict? NONE!

9 minutes ago, felixdacat said:

 

OK so you believe they team that gets the wooden spoon gets the number 1 pick and that is being richly rewarded. If thats the way you rate it fair enough. 

 

In this particular case, yes

they got the wooden spoon purely and only as a result of their punishment. It's as simple as that

they shouldn't get a reward directly as a result of a punishment

a fairer choice would have been to set their first draft pick at the same position as for 2015

22 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

In this particular case, yes

they got the wooden spoon purely and only as a result of their punishment. It's as simple as that

they shouldn't get a reward directly as a result of a punishment

a fairer choice would have been to set their first draft pick at the same position as for 2015

Now dc this is Gill the pie mans game that was never going to happen.

Next thing you will tell is that Tigers will win the flag next year.

19 minutes ago, old dee said:

Now dc this is Gill the pie mans game that was never going to happen.

Next thing you will tell is that Tigers will win the flag next year.

did i ever say it was going to happen, od? as soon as i said "a fairer choice" you should have realised i wasn't talking about gil or the afl commish 

.....and dimma said they have a finals list, just had a bad year....it happens

2 hours ago, felixdacat said:

1. They can not retain any top up players past 31 October every team can then draft them

2. Fined $2 million, ruled ineligible to participate in the 2013 AFL finals series, stripped of draft picks in two drafts 2013 and 2014 and 34 players suspended from any involvement in any Football for 2 years 12 of whom are current players and the top up players were included in their salary cap.

I don't really want to buy into the broader issues around EFC deserving pick1/Lions pp but I would like to clarify those two comments.

1. Recently the AFL changed the 'Delisted FA' rule interpretation for EFC to contract top-up players 'free' outside the draft so other clubs cannot draft them and EFC do not have to use any draft picks.  Recent suggestions are they will sign 2 to 4 of those players.

That one irks a lot of people on here because EFC and the AFL dug their heels in to stop Hibberd coming to us as a 'Delisted FA' forcing a trade yet get 'free kicks' going the other way. 

2. In the 2014 draft they did lose rnd 1 and rnd 2 picks but they got an 'end of rnd 1 pick' in return.  Still a penalty but not as severe as it looks at first glance.

The AFL deemed EFC would get the #1 pick in 2016 if they finish last, so EFC have nicely tanked a few games to make sure that happens.  EFC have proudly proclaimed they will play finals in 2017.

Also, the AFL has made it easy for EFC to recover their $2m fines by giving them preferential fixtures in terms of family friendly time slots (ie gate revenues), MCG home games vs bigger teams (more gate revenue), prime FTA times (keep sponsors happy and committed) etc.

So considering all those AFL maneuverings, one could form a view that the 2013/2014 draft sanctions and the fines have all but been offset.  

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I don't really want to buy into the broader issues around EFC deserving pick1/Lions pp but I would like to clarify those two comments.

1. Recently the AFL changed the 'Delisted FA' rule interpretation for EFC to contract top-up players 'free' outside the draft so other clubs cannot draft them and EFC do not have to use any draft picks.  Recent suggestions are they will sign 2 to 4 of those players.

That one irks a lot of people on here because EFC and the AFL dug their heels in to stop Hibberd coming to us as a 'Delisted FA' forcing a trade yet get 'free kicks' going the other way. 

2. In the 2014 draft they did lose rnd 1 and rnd 2 picks but they got an 'end of rnd 1 pick' in return.  Still a penalty but not as severe as it looks at first glance.

The AFL deemed EFC would get the #1 pick in 2016 if they finish last, so EFC have nicely tanked a few games to make sure that happens.  EFC have proudly proclaimed they will play finals in 2017.

Also, the AFL has made it easy for EFC to recover their $2m fines by giving them preferential fixtures in terms of family friendly time slots (ie gate revenues), MCG home games vs bigger teams (more gate revenue), prime FTA times (keep sponsors happy and committed) etc.

So considering all those AFL maneuverings, one could form a view that the 2013/2014 draft sanctions and the fines have all but been offset.  

I am sure there is not one person in Australia who does not agree with you LH.

 

They should have Repented and they should have gone to Hell too, but noticeably they didn't do either

On 5 September 2016 at 2:26 AM, faultydet said:

I'm sure, or correct me if I'm wrong, that Mark Evans said after our last request, that the rule basically exists now, only in tragic circumstances such as a death etc.

How can they possibly have a good case for a pick, if that was the ruling only a couple of years back in regards to us?

 

 

Pause and think for a minute about how you would feel about it, if we had only won 6-7 games this season. I reckon there would be outrage from every poster here. Never forget that these pricks campaigned against us getting one, even when we were gasping for breath and about to expire. We should be leading the chorus against them.

 

But that was then, and this is now  

And  AFL is a dynamic game with rules made up on the run to suit the primary purpose, ie making TV $$$$, of the AFL, and nothing else 

On 5 September 2016 at 7:03 AM, felixdacat said:

If you were Essendon and the CAS found that they were comfortably satisfied that the 34 of your  players were injected with Thymosin beta-4 and they were suspended which means that you lose 12 current players to suspension,then you have to top up which means you play crap all year come last on the ladder then as per the AFL rules you get first pick in the 2016 drafts would you say you have been richly rewarded? 

But they get back the 12 "all freshened up" plus number 1 pick. 

15 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

.........

Also, the AFL has made it easy for EFC to recover their $2m fines by giving them preferential fixtures in terms of family friendly time slots (ie gate revenues), MCG home games vs bigger teams (more gate revenue), prime FTA times (keep sponsors happy and committed) etc............

That has annoyed me more that the concessions re top ups and the rule changes re DFA.......and I know that they will again reward them with prime fixturing opportunities to welcome them back from the nasty WADA ASADA wilderness.  

Meanwhile MFC, an exciting young team on the rise will get bugger all prime fixturing and thus continue to struggle to keep up financially.