bing181

It's just not a factor. Jeff Garlett couldn't get a game at Carlton either.

A bit different. Most of those players were let go for next to nothing, and Sylvia was a FA, so AFL covered the compo.

All the AFL can do here is offer some kind of relief in terms of allowing us to add a player at a later date. Though hard to see how useful that could be, given that it could easily be February before we/they get final verdicts. If Melksham were suspended, and we could add to the list, I have the perfect proposition for a last-minute call-up: Daniel Cross.

Take with grain of salt, but for discussion purposes: From BF: "Confirmed: Essendon 3rd round selection with jake for the Demons second round selection. Will be done in the first hour of trade week."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/the-names-of-the-34-essendon-players-have-been-released-then-removed-by-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport/story-fni5f6kv-1227352382547?sv=975afb5f9267749f2fea0ab35af04501 "Jake Melksham"

I wonder if the WADA situation is one of the factors behind a 4-year deal - which becomes, effectively, a 3-year deal. OK, we're probably one player down next year, but having the likes of McKenzie etc. on our list has left us one player down in any case.

Last year we brought in a guy that couldn't get a game at Carlton. Was worth 40 Goals. Melksham has shown that he's a solid, capable, first-22 player. That's the Melksham that we're looking to sign, not the one who has obviously had a hard time over the last 2 years.

No he/they can't.

Ablett. A grade is A grade.

They well might. I'm not sure where the club is re Watts, I was just replying to post that wanted a trade for someone who would be one of our 10 best players. Just think that that possibility is unlikely, and would be surprised if Jack isn't a Demon for at least one more year.

I'd want that too, but think it's very unlikely. Watts hasn't even been able to hold his place in our first 22, so just getting someone who does would already be an upgrade.

I can't find anything in the WADA rules that cover a team situation where players have long-term contracts. I know that in cycling, if you're banned, you aren't paid by your team. Maybe someone else has clear info. At the very least, he would lose match payments (as in the Crowley case), and if the contract is mainly built around match payments, then we don't leave ourselves with too much of a financial millstone. As for bans, I've always thought that they'd be banned. 2 years, but a reduction for no significant fault, probably down to 18 months, perhaps 12 months. But they've already served 6 months or so, and it also depends on what's currently happening. It's the off-season again, so have these players restarted their provisional bans, just in case? IOW, if he only received a 12 month ban, he could be available from early next season. If it's 18 months, he would miss next season, and be ready to go when Goodwin takes over. Also, on returning from a ban, you can return to (team) training 2 months before the end of the ban. As I understand it ...

But payment situation not the same. In theory if you're banned/suspended, you don't (can't?) get paid, but if you're injured you still get paid, including match payments.

Big risk, but presumably it's being taken into consideration. It's not as if it's not out in the open.

OK. Carry on.

Something you've heard, or something you're proposing?

Given what we've experienced across this season (especially the latter part), I'd be making "competitive" the first requirement. No point being fast, skilful and blessed with a footy IQ if you only use it every other week, or 3 out of 4 quarters.

It's the draft ... comes with the job, and it's the same for all clubs.

Would be an improvement on our current fifth or sixth midfielder. Once again, I trust Goodwin and McCartney (and others at the club) on players they've worked with.

This is very very different. WADA didn't take anyone to CAS for starters. I'll be very surprised if there are no penalties, but with the 6 months already served (provisional suspension), and a reduction for no significant fault, it could come down to 12 months or so to serve = 1 season (or even less, though hard to see how given the rules in place). Presumably that's being (or has been) weighed up.

Given some that were on our list this season, not sure that that would be any different.

Speculation.

Or Essendon.

Monday October 12, 10am - NAB AFL Trade Period begins

Will be interesting to see if someone gives Fitzy a second crack. 1-2 year contract on minimum payments mightn't hurt, for a tall he's still comparatively young. Either that or he finds a home in the SANFL.