Nasher

And speculation is all it will ever be, as it's a little too draft tampering-ish for anyone to ever officially say it happened. It resonates well with me though and I think it did.

Speaking for myself, I didn't "want" him gone, just thought he would be based on output to date and how these things are usually managed.

Purple isn't even trying to be credible any more

Yay! This topic involves females, so let's make it about sex!

I can't understand the logic in not allowing us a top-up, but I'm not really bothered by it. 2016 model James Kelly does zero for me and if we'd picked up Ryan Crowley I would have spontaneously vomited. The pickings out there are very slim and Essendon are going to be crud because of it. It means Mitch White will play instead of Melksham; I can live with that.

Agree with GRRM re: OH&S. I don't give a fig about Essendon or if they lose by 150 points every week, but you just can't field a list 12 short. It's not any fault of, say, Darcy Parish that this occurred, but it's his like who would bear the extra workload in an environment that is already punishing on young bodies. I also can't see how the logic doesn't extend to the MFC, Port, St Kilda and Bulldogs, even if it is to a much lesser degree. I doubt conventional logic will come in to it when the AFL is involved, though.

Yep, the old blame the victim trick again. While I'd have thought that folk in the public eye might show a bit more discretion, at the end of the day it's their discretion to use and their right to decide who sees it, not the recipient of the photo.

Fair point. I always thought Zaharakis "I fear needles" when he apparently has a tattoo on his arse sounded like an excuse for getting out of it without appearing to be dissenting.

The reason people assume they didn't know is because a) that's what Essendon said (yeah, I know) and b) it seems implausible that 34 (or more) players would knowingly and willingly be injected with a banned substance. Surely with a group that large, someone's conscience is going to kick in at some point.

That hasn't been contended by any of the people I've been having this debate with. If that's the case then I've been arguing against the wrong point. dc?

They would go back in to the pool, presumably. Probably as delisted free agents? Essendon certainly shouldn't get any rights over them. Wouldn't it be bloody typical if Essendon unearthed a star out of their topups?

I can understand a stance of principles Choke, though I don't think it's quite as black and white as "drug cheat". DC et al seem to me to think it's the one year ban that makes a difference. I can't understand that at all.

My answer is a non-commital "I dunno". It sucks, no doubt, but he still has a truckload of time to redeem himself. If we were talking a life ban I might see your point. Ask yourself this: if Melksham has a spectacular 2017 and 2018 for the MFC, was the decision to trade still a bad one? How about if we did the trade at the end of 2016 or 2017 (ie after the ban is served)? Assuming we paid the same price, would that be better? If so, why?

Nobody will be paying him this year.

Okay. Your position is that because the player is going to miss one season out of the four he is contracted for, and for no other reason whatsoever, the entire decision to trade him in was bad. Is that correct? A yes or no will do. Edit: I'm not trying to be a tool here in case it comes across that way. Your position just makes no logical sense to me and I am trying to flesh it out.

It's already down the drain by the sounds of it.

In that case, we might as well just delist him now if we've already decided the whole trade is a bust.

I had this exact example lined up and ready to go in a previous post but left it out in the end. Obviously the club saw the reward as being worth the risks. No different here.

Again, I think you can only conclusively call the trade a mistake if you look at the first year of his contract in isolation and discount all the possibilities for years 2, 3, 4 and beyond.

The fact that the bulk of your post focuses on whether Melksham is that good a player or not really just enforces my point that the suspension is immaterial to the value of the trade. If Melksham turns out to be a bust, we'll bemoan the poor trade for years, but if he turns out to be a gun in years 2, 3 and 4 and beyond, we'll all be slapping ourselves on the back for it. Both these outcomes and everything in between are independent of his one season suspension, which is why I see it as little more than a 1%er in the total value of the trade. At the end of 2019 when he's out of contract and we're looking back, we will barely remember that this even happened, given that there would have been 3 footy seasons in between.

I can't see how Essendon could possibly be allowed to conduct a season with only 32 on their list. You can take the "you cheated, tough luck" but the main recipients of that punishment would be the innocent players of marginal fitness who have to slog through the season because there's no backup. It's a major, unacceptable health risk to players who did nothing wrong. Essendon will rightly be allowed to top up. I suspect in the interest of fairness, the other clubs including us should be able to as well. It's no big deal, they're going to stink anyway.

They probably just took the view that even if he got rubbed out, it would be worth it. One year in the context of a whole career is almost immaterial; he'll come back at the ripe old age of 25 and have another 5+ years. It's really not that different to drafting a player who does his knee on day 1, although for this he can return fit and with no risk of reoccurrence. I really don't see the big deal.

For three seasons of Melksham 2017 onwards, and then some hopefully. Practically speaking it's not that different to if he'd done his knee on day 1. He's a long term investment and losing a year isn't a huge deal in the scheme. Look, I am disappointed and a bit annoyed, but for me it is far outweighed by the relief that justice has been served. They simply can't have been allowed to get away with this.

Yep.

That doesn't work for me at all. All the text goes from the quotes, but the quote boxes remain. Doesn't matter how many times I try. The only thing that works is the backspace trick you described before. I can also hit the 'source' button on the top-left and delete everything in there, but I think that's only an option for admin level accounts.