SA Footy

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

Collingwood didn't get top ups when they had two players suspended for drugs.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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..