Port Adelaide 2016

Talk on the national game

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby JK » Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:11 pm

bennymacca wrote:That's pretty shitty. Why should Essendon get players if port don't. Doesn't make any sense. Ryder you could at least argue that they took the risk but not monfries


Not really if Essendon are allowed to replace players from the Ryder era, then all affected clubs should be able to. The AFL will find some other form of recompense for Port I'd say.
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37368
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4438 times
Been liked: 2985 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby Wedgie » Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:16 pm

The AFL deemed the other clubs weren't impacted upon as much as Essendon.
Personally I can understand the Power not getting an extra pick for Ryder but not getting one for Monfries is very rough.
User avatar
Wedgie
Site Admin
 
 
Posts: 50781
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:00 am
Has liked: 2020 times
Been liked: 3862 times
Grassroots Team: Noarlunga

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby valleys07 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:21 pm

Wedgie wrote:The AFL deemed the other clubs weren't impacted upon as much as Essendon.
Personally I can understand the Power not getting an extra pick for Ryder but not getting one for Monfries is very rough.


This is what I am spewing about.

Caveat Emptor re. Ryder, but how can we be punished for Gus when he was traded to us with absolutely no inkling of what was to unfold.

Absolutely staggering decision..
“Think of me like Yoda, but instead of being little and green I wear suits and I'm awesome. I'm your bro—I'm Broda!”

HOGG Shield 2015 Division I Premiers.
HOGG Shield 2017 Premier League Premiers.
User avatar
valleys07
Coach
 
 
Posts: 9156
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:38 pm
Location: From a place much more pure than yours
Has liked: 767 times
Been liked: 1168 times
Grassroots Team: Hope Valley

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby Brodlach » Fri Feb 05, 2016 6:34 pm

If Port had got a player for Monfries, assuming the player would need to be a "like for like" type of player, would that player have played this season? Doubt it otherwise that player would already be on your list.

I don't think it would be fair for Port to be able to replace Monfries with a ruckman, a similar player should have been allowed
July 11th 2012....
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
User avatar
Brodlach
Coach
 
 
Posts: 47296
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:18 pm
Location: Unley
Has liked: 72 times
Been liked: 4206 times
Grassroots Team: Colonel Light Gardens

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby JK » Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:03 pm

valleys07 wrote:
Wedgie wrote:The AFL deemed the other clubs weren't impacted upon as much as Essendon.
Personally I can understand the Power not getting an extra pick for Ryder but not getting one for Monfries is very rough.


This is what I am spewing about.

Caveat Emptor re. Ryder, but how can we be punished for Gus when he was traded to us with absolutely no inkling of what was to unfold.

Absolutely staggering decision..


If Essendon can replace players from the guilty regime - of which Ryder was deemed to be a part - then isn't it inconsistent if Port can't replace him?

Ie, if Ryder stayed at Essendon he could be replaced, but not if he's at another club? That doesn't make any sense to me.
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37368
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4438 times
Been liked: 2985 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby whufc » Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:10 pm

JK wrote:
valleys07 wrote:
Wedgie wrote:The AFL deemed the other clubs weren't impacted upon as much as Essendon.
Personally I can understand the Power not getting an extra pick for Ryder but not getting one for Monfries is very rough.


This is what I am spewing about.

Caveat Emptor re. Ryder, but how can we be punished for Gus when he was traded to us with absolutely no inkling of what was to unfold.

Absolutely staggering decision..


If Essendon can replace players from the guilty regime - of which Ryder was deemed to be a part - then isn't it inconsistent if Port can't replace him?

Ie, if Ryder stayed at Essendon he could be replaced, but not if he's at another club? That doesn't make any sense to me.


Yep doesn't make sense to me either.
RIP PH408 63notoutforever
User avatar
whufc
Coach
 
 
Posts: 27453
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 10:56 am
Location: Blakeview
Has liked: 5565 times
Been liked: 2519 times
Grassroots Team: BSR

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby daysofourlives » Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:13 pm

Havnt port been able to upgrade rookies to cover the 2 suspended players?
So in reality we are only talking about adding a couple rookies to replace the rookies upgraded. No biggy
Supercoach Spring Racing Champion 2019
Spargo's Good Friday Cup Champion 2020
daysofourlives
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11500
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:35 pm
Has liked: 2415 times
Been liked: 1657 times
Grassroots Team: Angaston

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby JK » Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:14 pm

daysofourlives wrote:Havnt port been able to upgrade rookies to cover the 2 suspended players?
So in reality we are only talking about adding a couple rookies to replace the rookies upgraded. No biggy


Yeah true, hard to see it affecting their season, just seems a bad message from Gilligan and co.

EDIT: Unless Lobbe goes down long term, then it could have more affect
FUSC
User avatar
JK
Coach
 
 
Posts: 37368
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 10:11 am
Location: Coopers Hill
Has liked: 4438 times
Been liked: 2985 times
Grassroots Team: SMOSH West Lakes

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby Jim05 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:28 pm

Wedgie wrote:The AFL deemed the other clubs weren't impacted upon as much as Essendon.
Personally I can understand the Power not getting an extra pick for Ryder but not getting one for Monfries is very rough.

Maybe Gus didn't fully disclose his situation with Port when he joined them.
Jim05
Coach
 
 
Posts: 47104
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:03 pm
Has liked: 1125 times
Been liked: 3534 times
Grassroots Team: South Gawler

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby woodublieve12 » Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:30 pm

Swans didn't get a top up player when Tippett was suspended...




;)
"Fellas, it’s OK to be in pain. It’s OK to hurt. It’s OK to be sad. It’s no longer OK to suffer in silence."
User avatar
woodublieve12
Coach
 
 
Posts: 17205
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:48 pm
Has liked: 3016 times
Been liked: 2384 times

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby Brodlach » Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:32 pm

Neither did Richmond when Justin Charles got 16 weeks for drug use
July 11th 2012....
Brodlach wrote:Rory Laird might end up the best IMO, he is an absolute jet. He has been in great form at the Bloods
User avatar
Brodlach
Coach
 
 
Posts: 47296
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:18 pm
Location: Unley
Has liked: 72 times
Been liked: 4206 times
Grassroots Team: Colonel Light Gardens

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby Grahaml » Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:23 pm

I think it's fairly simple. If Essendon weren't allowed top up players then they would be a huge likelihood of playing short at times this season. They might be an embarrassment but you can't have a professional team playing the highest level playing short. Even worse, you can't then bring in replacement players without warning from nowhere.

Top up players are not an advantage. They aren't going to be the equal of anyone on a list, they're blokes who weren't good enough to play for ANY team. Port should be satisfied that if they can't have Monfries and Ryder then they get to spend that cap space paying Wines or possibly another recruit next season. Reckon that's in Port's best interest rather than paying a bloke to take up a spot in the Magpies all season to be honest.
Grahaml
Assistant Coach
 
 
Posts: 4812
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:59 am
Has liked: 3 times
Been liked: 169 times

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby daysofourlives » Sat Feb 06, 2016 7:50 am

There's going to be a lot of squealing from Koch whenever Lobbe misses games. Hinkley may even lose his job because of it if Lobbe misses a majority of the season.
That will be so devastating not only for Power supporters but for all those of us that seek a fair competition and wish Port to do well
Supercoach Spring Racing Champion 2019
Spargo's Good Friday Cup Champion 2020
daysofourlives
Coach
 
 
Posts: 11500
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:35 pm
Has liked: 2415 times
Been liked: 1657 times
Grassroots Team: Angaston

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby UK Fan » Sat Feb 06, 2016 7:54 am

Collingwood didn't get top ups when they had two players suspended for drugs.
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!



MW wrote: Well call me a special asshole!.


Booney wrote: I'm a happy clapper **** stick.


THE SKY HAS FALLEN!!!!
UK Fan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5642
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:41 am
Has liked: 1197 times
Been liked: 500 times

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby stan » Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:26 am

Its really only 2 rookies they are down, but then again missing a ruckmen is a significant issue to the clubs depth. Leaves with Frampton as backup.

Although honestly I think the saints are much worse off in terms of a KPP player. As Port can immediately cover the loss of Ryder with Lobbe but the Saints are basically back to last year's personnel without a fist round pick on the list.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1253 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby stan » Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:29 am

Brodlach wrote:Neither did Richmond when Justin Charles got 16 weeks for drug use

Problem is with this example and the collingwood example is that the players were on there lists when they took the substance where as Ryder, Monfries, Carlise, Cameri etc were on Essendons.

Still the risk was there, they took the gamble and lost.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1253 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby Magellan » Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:33 am

Jim05 wrote:
Wedgie wrote:The AFL deemed the other clubs weren't impacted upon as much as Essendon.
Personally I can understand the Power not getting an extra pick for Ryder but not getting one for Monfries is very rough.

Maybe Gus didn't fully disclose his situation with Port when he joined them.

What should he have said? When he joined Port in October 2012 there were no questions surrounding Essendon's supplements program, so at the time he hadn't done anything wrong.

Agree that Port have been hard done by by not being able to replace Monfries.
"Religion is like a blind man looking in a black room for a black cat that isn't there...and finding it." - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Magellan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 5981
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Four Seasons Total Landscaping
Has liked: 757 times
Been liked: 1517 times

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby Mickyj » Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:34 am

stan wrote:
Brodlach wrote:Neither did Richmond when Justin Charles got 16 weeks for drug use

Problem is with this example and the collingwood example is that the players were on there lists when they took the substance where as Ryder, Monfries, Carlise, Cameri etc were on Essendons.

Still the risk was there, they took the gamble and lost.


I keep asking why pick up a player like Ryder when you know there is a big risk he may get suspended.
With the risk of that suspension why delist a ruckman in Redden .
What do we get 12 months of Koch going on and on . He is a joke
Land based Lure Bream Fisherman
PB
Hardbody Bream 38cm
Hardbody Mulloway 40cm
Softplastic Bream 38cm
Fly Bream 30cm
User avatar
Mickyj
Coach
 
 
Posts: 7125
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 3:51 pm
Location: Barry Jarman Stand FORTRESS WOODVILLE
Has liked: 154 times
Been liked: 22 times

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby stan » Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:27 pm

Mickyj wrote:
stan wrote:
Brodlach wrote:Neither did Richmond when Justin Charles got 16 weeks for drug use

Problem is with this example and the collingwood example is that the players were on there lists when they took the substance where as Ryder, Monfries, Carlise, Cameri etc were on Essendons.

Still the risk was there, they took the gamble and lost.


I keep asking why pick up a player like Ryder when you know there is a big risk he may get suspended.
With the risk of that suspension why delist a ruckman in Redden .
What do we get 12 months of Koch going on and on . He is a joke

Redden looked slow after his injuries. Seemed to steuggle at AFL level.

Port gambled and lost.

Whilst Koch is annoying he has done a good job for them in Turning them around off the field. They have gone from being a full basket case to a semi basket case.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards
User avatar
stan
Coach
 
 
Posts: 15221
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:53 am
Location: North Eastern Suburbs
Has liked: 88 times
Been liked: 1253 times
Grassroots Team: Goodwood Saints

Re: Port Adelaide 2016

Postby Psyber » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:45 pm

I have some sympathy about Monfries and for some replacement on the "like for like" model Brodlach proposed above.
But Port took on Ryder after the risk was known - so they knew the risk and took it - no sympathy there..
EPIGENETICS - Lamarck was right!
User avatar
Psyber
Coach
 
 
Posts: 12212
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Now back in the Adelaide Hills.
Has liked: 103 times
Been liked: 389 times
Grassroots Team: Hahndorf

PreviousNext

Board index   Football  AFL

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

Around the place

Competitions   SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums   Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |