Top Up Player

[boydogs]

Therefore Essendon get to play with a full roster and we do not !!!!!

Essendon were only allowed to replace 10 of their 12 suspended players

[G-Mo77]

I think it's the correct decision and in a lot of ways allowing the rookie upgrade to cover a suspended player is generous.

I think it's a rubbish decision. We're penalised because they cheated. Regardless of the whole "buyer beware" argument why should we be penalised for what they did?

We're a player down because of them, we should be able to replace him or they pay his salary for a year.

[GVGjr]

I think it's a rubbish decision. We're penalised because they cheated. Regardless of the whole "buyer beware" argument why should we be penalised for what they did?

We're a player down because of them, we should be able to replace him or they pay his salary for a year.

Crameri is suspended and it's likely Adcock comes in.
We aren't actually a player down we just have potentially one less rookie upgrade opportunity.
The more I look at this I think we are incredibly lucky to be allowed to replace Crameri with a rookie list player and have a player like Adcock available.

I get where you are coming from but Collingwood and the Saints couldn't replace suspended players and yet we have that chance.

I feel for Crameri but I don't think we have been dealt a dud hand here.

[S Coast Simon]

I tend to agree with GVGjr we are technically only playing one rookie down so this is not a big deal. There is very little chance we will need to upgrade all our rookies this season. And also the draft, pre season draft and rookie draft have taken all the talent you would have thought so I don't think anyone we picked up would be setting the world on fire and demanding a spot in the best 22

[G-Mo77]

Adcock would likely be elevated anyway, the suspension just guarantees him a spot on the senior list for a year. Technically we're not down a player, we're down a rookie player. I think we and all other clubs roped into Essendon's penalty should have been given a chance to replace that rookie listed player/s.

[GVGjr]

Adcock would likely be elevated anyway, the suspension just guarantees him a spot on the senior list for a year. Technically we're not down a player, we're down a rookie player. I think we and all other clubs roped into Essendon's penalty should have been given a chance to replace that rookie listed player/s.

We have the same primary list number of players as we had at the at the end of the draft period and we have a very good player replacing Crameri. Granted we don't have the flexibility within our rookie list players now but the depth of our playing list is already very good.

Would we really have selected a clearly player better than the likes of Adams, Hrovat, Honeychurch, Prudden or Adcock etc?
I don't think so, and given we would have no claims on the player at the end of the season it seems a luxury more than something that makes us more competitive. Essendon have picked up some nice players but if we had selected one of them there would be another discussion about how a reject from another club is stealing games off one of our youngsters.

I don't think this impacts us at all.

[G-Mo77]

Probably doesn't impact us and we probably won't have to elevate that deep, still l don't think it's right. Port lose 2 bodies, one a ruck so they're the ones being really hurt. If we get a string of injuries our list will get thin quickly. We're already carrying 1 LTI on the senior list and Rourke a rookie listed player, throw in Crameri and we're already a few down. A Dea, Simpkin and now Grimley would have been some handy options for depth. The guilty only get that option not the innocent.

[always right]

Couldn't care less. I'll reserve my anger and frustration for something that actually impacts us. Roll on the 2016 season.

[Greystache]

I think it's the correct decision and in a lot of ways allowing the rookie upgrade to cover a suspended player is generous.

I'm comfortable with that side of the situation, but at the same time are you comfortable with Essendon being allowed to top up their list? Using the example of the two suspended Collingwood players and them being left two short on their list, should Essendon be allowed to replace doping suspended players purely to make them somewhat competitive?

It strikes of AFL brand protection yet again, appear to be tough while not compromising the competition. Surely there's one rule for all, not just for some?

[GVGjr]

I'm comfortable with that side of the situation, but at the same time are you comfortable with Essendon being allowed to top up their list? Using the example of the two suspended Collingwood players and them being left two short on their list, should Essendon be allowed to replace doping suspended players purely to make them somewhat competitive?

It strikes of AFL brand protection yet again, appear to be tough while not compromising the competition. Surely there's one rule for all, not just for some?

I think there is a difference between what impacts us and what the AFL has to do with Essendon to make sure there is 18 teams in the competition in 2016.

I agree there is a strong component of brand protection and that the AFL has only enhanced their reputation of floundering with this issue. It's quite sad really and the reputation of the once strong competition just takes another hit after hit.

Back to the issue of the day, a lot of the players Essendon have added have done little in the way of a pre-season and and at a time where we have just returned from a weeks team bonding session up in Queensland, Essendon are still searching for a few more players. They're a mile behind.

I don't like or respect the way the AFL have handled Essendon but I don't want us to have an attitude that our season has been compromised because many of our supporters think we are a player down. In the scheme of things we have this covered this the best we can.

[soupman]

I'm comfortable with that side of the situation, but at the same time are you comfortable with Essendon being allowed to top up their list? Using the example of the two suspended Collingwood players and them being left two short on their list, should Essendon be allowed to replace doping suspended players purely to make them somewhat competitive?

It strikes of AFL brand protection yet again, appear to be tough while not compromising the competition. Surely there's one rule for all, not just for some?

I think losing 2 fringe players is a vastly different scenario to losing 12 regulars, including their captain, captain in waiting and two of the best key defenders in the comp.

The AFL's hand was kind of forced on this one, they need to keep Essendon on the field and they need to keep Essendon supporters invested in the club. This means they can't leave them with a list of 30 mediocre or young players, they at least need to give them the ability to field a side. I don't agree that the league needs a "strong" Essendon, as often said by key figures, but it has far more to gain by keeping Essendon alive than punishing them any further.

Collingwood were unlucky, they got punished through no fault of their own. However their players were provisionally suspended from March, and the finding wasn't until August. This didn't give much time to find decent players who had done even half an AFL pre-season.

And besides guys, are we really concerned that we aren't getting access to these top up players? Would any of Essendon's top ups come close to our best 30? The best player they have recruited was a fringe player who was delisted 3 times and is already on the decline. They are looking at Ayce Cordy FFS. We are not missing out on the next Bont, at worst we are missing out on the next Paul Dooley.

[G-Mo77]

And besides guys, are we really concerned that we aren't getting access to these top up players? Would any of Essendon's top ups come close to our best 30? The best player they have recruited was a fringe player who was delisted 3 times and is already on the decline. They are looking at Ayce Cordy FFS. We are not missing out on the next Bont, at worst we are missing out on the next Paul Dooley.

It's not about quality of the player at all. The player doesn't stay on the list next season anyway so that's irrelevant. My concern is depth we already have 2 out long term and Crameri is done for the whole season. If we get another LTI or 2 during the season the extra player would come in handy. It's a "What if" type scenario and more than likely something that won't happen but......

Anyway I don't think it's right that we start at a disadvantage when we're the innocent ones here. Neither should Port, neither should Melbourne and neither should the Saints.

[GVGjr]

It's not about quality of the player at all. The player doesn't stay on the list next season anyway so that's irrelevant. My concern is depth we already have 2 out long term and Crameri is done for the whole season. If we get another LTI or 2 during the season the extra player would come in handy. It's a "What if" type scenario and more than likely something that won't happen but......

Anyway I don't think it's right that we start at a disadvantage when we're the innocent ones here. Neither should Port, neither should Melbourne and neither should the Saints.

I think the club factored in a scenario where Crameri wouldn't play for a decent chunk of the season and it's the reason why we were so interested in Adcock. If we have a few injuries on top of losing Crameri and having Clay and Roarke Smith on the injury list we will just have to suck it up.
A lot of supporters on here were very anti having Goodes on either the primary or rookie list and some didn't want Adcock on the rookie list because the 'older guys' potentially takes games away from the younger players, so us missing out on bringing in a marginal talent who has missed the majority of the preseason I don't think limits us in anyway.

If we had a spate of injuries then I don't think one marginal player rescues us. We lost Liberatore 12 months ago and had an excellent season and I don't think bringing in a Jonathon Simpkin type player last year would have made us any more competitive.

[always right]

It's not about quality of the player at all. The player doesn't stay on the list next season anyway so that's irrelevant. My concern is depth we already have 2 out long term and Crameri is done for the whole season. If we get another LTI or 2 during the season the extra player would come in handy. It's a "What if" type scenario and more than likely something that won't happen but......

Anyway I don't think it's right that we start at a disadvantage when we're the innocent ones here. Neither should Port, neither should Melbourne and neither should the Saints.

So let's suppose we get another two LTI's this season. We have plenty of cover who are better than any top up player we are likely to get. It's Footscray that suffers rather than WB.

[G-Mo77]

I think the club factored in a scenario where Crameri wouldn't play for a decent chunk of the season and it's the reason why we were so interested in Adcock. If we have a few injuries on top of losing Crameri and having Clay and Roarke Smith on the injury list we will just have to suck it up.

Yeah we do have to suck it up now, hence the reason a top up player would have been advantageous to us. I think a lot of people are forgetting how young our list is and a durable veteran backup would have been handy to fall back on had a worst case scenario happened. I see a lot of supporters starry eyed in 2016

If we had a spate of injuries then I don't think one marginal player rescues us. We lost Liberatore 12 months ago and had an excellent season and I don't think bringing in a Jonathon Simpkin type player last year would have made us any more competitive.

So let's suppose we get another two LTI's this season. We have plenty of cover who are better than any top up player we are likely to get. It's Footscray that suffers rather than WB.

No it won't make us better but gives us another body to work with to take the load off our young squad. Developing players isn't just throwing them up and seeing how they go, it's about working hard and earning your chance. Guys like Goodes were valuable in that regard, they set the bar and made others work harder to force there way into the squad. My argument has never been about getting a player better than we already have that might get us over the line. I've got full faith in our recruiters and think they've done the best they can. My argument is we are disadvantaged because of another club cheating. Why are we being punished?

I'm just glad I'm not a Port fan. I don't think I could have been as rational about it.