CBDees

Such as Neale Bullen, Vanders, JKH, Stretch, Kennedy & Bugg if they play him through the midfield.

If Weideman can earn himself a Round 1 debut, expect Oliver to also get a Guernsey!

That's a good thing as we hate their supporters anyway! Be happy to play our final at the G whilst their GF rotates between Victoria Park, Princess Park and Windy Hill.

1) no 2) none 3) Watts will star, Dawes is a worry 4) yes 5) yes 6) yes (we beat Geelong at the Cattery without Hogan. Everything is possible.)

The obvious answer is obviously two leagues of eight teams each and a Final Four in each league. To ensure relegation/promotion is interesting, l would start with Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon, etc, initially starting in the "B League" with GWS, Freo, Gold Coast, Dees, and others who need practice playing Premierships, comprising the inaugural "A League". With promotion of only one "B League" team occurring annually, we may see a slight adjustment of egos and the order of things whilst Collingwood and Essendon fight out their minor Premiership and we try and locate the key to our cabinet which stores the Premiership Cups for the real thing.

In answer to the question posed in the article: Eleven wins (minimum) would be a bare pass in the transition from Roos to Goodwin, though quietly optimistic that we will slip into the eight (providing valuable experience for Goody's Premiership debut in 2017)!

In that case, we should be entitled to one also. (And we should jump in quick before the others pick the eyes out of those available!)

Maybe he will be for Essendon. Him and Bail are both amongst the players the AFL are pushing.

Two actually but happy for the Pies to get those this year. I just want us to make the eight!

Maybe Mike Fitzpatrick can be Essendon's "top-up" ruckman! I am sure that they would find a way to facilitate it.

All great news but is anybody able to actually report on the training?

Emma also had Ben Kennedy at #10, given that both Daniher and Viney were locked away as FS picks.

Some very encouraging reports, singling out many of the guys, especially: 1) Stretch, NB and Salem, 2) Gawn, 3) Hunt and Harmes, 4) Wagner and Hulett, 5) T. McDonald and Frost, and 6) Weideman (especially when he fills out)!

I watched it on iView after the event. Whilst Hird made an absolute fool of himself, l concede that Holmes could have been softer than many Demonlanders assert and did ask some awkward questions during the 45 minutes. It was letting Hird get away with the (non) responses that he gave which made her questioning seem so soft, not so much the actual questions she asked.

Yes.

Frankly I think the whole concept of top-up is a disgrace and that Essendon should absorb their full penalty (which has been massively diluted due to the passage of time wherein they have been able to reduce the number of effected players from 34 to 12). With as eligible list of 32 plus plus 5 rookies they should have no problems in fielding a team of 22 (& 3 emergencies) each week without any OH&S issues. Without raining on Jamar's parade, maybe he should come back and ruck alongside Spencer at Casey! No Top-up is my strong view!

Exactly! We were punished by the AFL for "bringing the game into disrepute" (by being fined and denied Priority Picks) despite being found innocent whilst EFC is rewarded (with "top-up players and financial assistance) for being found guilty of running a drug regime. Talk about double standards and re-inventing the definition of "disrepute".

The AFL website is suggesting Cross as one of the top up players for the Bombers. Fat chance!

To be fair, I was not suggesting that it was Crossy's idea, just another initiative of a morally bankrupt AFL keep to ensure the survival of the power clubs over all the others.

Aidan Riley is no longer on our payroll whereas Cross is a Casey coach.

It is worse than that Carlos as the AFL website is suggesting Daniel Cross as one of the "top-up" midfielders so it is affecting Casey on two fronts: 1) losing White or whoever is promoted to replace Melksham, and 2) potentially losing Cross one of their experienced midfield coaches!

I wouldn't be troubled about the Russian. I am more worried that the AFL website is suggesting Daniel Cross as one of Essendon's "top-up" players. This cosy top-up arrangement is going to impact on every Club to their detriment in addition to the damage caused by the banned players at other Clubs.

I am still livid about the AFL immediately coming out and awarding them ten "top-up" players! When they did this previously (for the three weeks of the NAB Challenge only) they tried to represent the furphy that EFC players were embarked on a 'voluntary 4.5 month suspension' (notwithstanding the fact that on that occasion they continued to train with the rest of the lis)! At that stage, they had 34 effected players meaning that they were incapable of fielding a side so there was some (tenuous) justification. This time around, they have less than a quarter of their total list effected (viz. 12 out of 39, including their 5 rookies) so can quite easily field a (weakened) team which is consistent with the position that they dug for themselves. It is I fathomable why the AFL should try and dilute the penalty imposed by the CAS, trying to effectively override arguably the highest authority in World sport. Esendon (as a Club) should take their medicine alongside their players for their primarily role in this sordid saga. As it is now, the penalty on the EFC has been effectively watered down by 80% due to the reduction of the percentage of guilty players on their list over time, coupled with the latitude given by reducing the ban from two years to a single playing season. Other Clubs, such as Port, the Saints, the Dogs and the Dees, have all been impacted in this without being given 'top-up' players or other compensation for either their suspended players or their foregone first and second round draft picks! Further, the other seventeen Clubs have all lost games in the 2013, 2014 and 2015 seasons to a team comprised primarily of drug cheats!

In our case two promotions (because of Melksham) but no "top-up" player (unlike Essendon)!

I similarly am an advocate of promoting White ahead of Mitchie on the basis of like for like however l would be pleased to see Mitchie also get a few games based on his most recent form.