SA Footy

1 year deal?

Booney wrote:1 year deal?

Yep, with triggers for a second.

Looks like the AFL have now deemed all top ups as DFA's meaning that clubs wouldn't have to give up anything to get them and can do so before the draft.



http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-24/a ... ers-topups

Very tidy work by Essendon thus far. Even if the others leave you'd have to think the club would be over the moon.

Grahaml wrote:Very tidy work by Essendon thus far. Even if the others leave you'd have to think the club would be over the moon.

Only 3 of the 12 left to sign and obviously Hibberd wants out. Pears is trying out for the MFS and its expected Jobe will sign in the next couple of weeks. So to get 10 of the 12 back has been a fair job. Goddard should re-sign in the coming days and with 3 top 30 picks to come in a decent draft you would hope that we will be competitive at the very least next year.

Doesn't sit well with me that the club can break the rules. Spend a single year without the suspended players. Keep most of them with added incentives & benefits of compensation payouts & holidays etc paid for all outside the salary cap then get the no 1 draft pick as a reward. Tough pill to swallow for the clubs who genuinely warrant &/or need the no 1 pick.

Couldn't agree more.

give the #1 pick to brisbane too

Just drove past the Essendon facility at Tullarmarine....looks good from the outside, but **** me, it's miles from anywhere.....

Considering we were stripped of picks in Round 1 and 2 of the 2013 Draft and had our 2014 first pick moved to the end of the first round I think the club has already done its penance draft wise.

Don't forget the penalty handed down on the club in 2013 was the most severe in AFL history...

bomber14 wrote:Don't forget the penalty handed down on the club in 2013 was the most severe in AFL history...

Genuine lol - there's a pretty good reason this happened...

Wasn't saying the penalty was undeserved. My point was that the club has copped its whack and shouldn't be continually penalised

If you compare it to the penalty the crows copped regarding the tippett saga, you got off light - especially given you are also rewarded with the #1 pick now

Fair point, for the comparative indiscretions the penalty in regard to draft picks was light compared to the Tippett saga.

Still you can't continually punish a team after the original penalty.

What if a team was to lose 5-6 of their best players to season ending injuries and as a result finish at the bottom of the ladder.
Would you move them back in the draft order because they will be a better team next year when those players have recovered from injury and are back in the team?

Corona Man wrote:Just drove past the Essendon facility at Tullarmarine....looks good from the outside, but **** me, it's miles from anywhere.....

Only about 5 minutes further from the CBD than Windy Hill.
We needed a place to go where the club could get a heap of land to grow the club. Some big plans out there scheduled over the next 10 years. Half hour drive from the city isn't too bad

bomber14 wrote:Fair point, for the comparative indiscretions the penalty in regard to draft picks was light compared to the Tippett saga.

Still you can't continually punish a team after the original penalty.

What if a team was to lose 5-6 of their best players to season ending injuries and as a result finish at the bottom of the ladder.
Would you move them back in the draft order because they will be a better team next year when those players have recovered from injury and are back in the team?

losing players due to injuries isnt the same as losing players to systematic drug cheating

bennymacca wrote:

bomber14 wrote:Fair point, for the comparative indiscretions the penalty in regard to draft picks was light compared to the Tippett saga.

Still you can't continually punish a team after the original penalty.

What if a team was to lose 5-6 of their best players to season ending injuries and as a result finish at the bottom of the ladder.
Would you move them back in the draft order because they will be a better team next year when those players have recovered from injury and are back in the team?

losing players due to injuries isnt the same as losing players to systematic drug cheating

So if by some miracle the CAS decision comes back in our favour you will be championing the cause to have our picks and money returned[emoji6]

Anyway, what's done is done. We will finish bottom for the first time since Jesus played CHB and we are the worst side in the comp and with that comes pick 1. Our list still isn't great and we won't be winning flags anytime soon

Goddard signs a 1 year extension with a clause for a second year

Cooney dropped for his last game or did he retire last week?

bomber14 wrote:Fair point, for the comparative indiscretions the penalty in regard to draft picks was light compared to the Tippett saga.

Still you can't continually punish a team after the original penalty.

What if a team was to lose 5-6 of their best players to season ending injuries and as a result finish at the bottom of the ladder.
Would you move them back in the draft order because they will be a better team next year when those players have recovered from injury and are back in the team?

It's not about a further punishment, it's about assuring the penalty doesn't directly cause a benefit. It's not like the players are automatically going back into the draft and you need to replace them.