MW wrote:Knee surgery or any kind and you're not playing round one. Sounds like the same spin Port were putting on Lobbe at the start of 2015 and he didn't play until round 4 maybe?
Not so sure, its just a simple arthroscopy to snip off a bit of cartlidge, Ive had the same operation and was back running in 2 weeks and I'm certainly no athlete.
Yep, it was a simple meniscus clean up, players are regularly back running/training/playing within 4 weeks.
Sunday Mail states Dixon out for 4-6 weeks.
That's a massive time out for a simple meniscus tear
fester69 wrote: I'm full of "pish and wind" !!You can call me weak !!
Port should have been allowed a top up for Monfries, IMO
BUT
Given the AFL categorises all players as small forwards, tall forwards, medium defenders, Rucks etc, Port should vae been told you can only recruit a player in the small forward caetgory.
In other words they had to recruit a like for like for Monfries.
Let that be a lesson to you Port, no one beats the Bays five times in a row in a GF and gets away with it!!!
The AFL denied Port a top up player for Monfries as it was either allow all of St.Kilda the Bulldogs and Port top up players or not at all. Couldn't allow Port one and the others none.In essence, the AFL didn't want one set of rules for one and one for another.
However, the club that has caused all of this is allowed top up players. So, one set of rules for them, one set for another.
The fact that Essendon will have more players on its list than Port is staggering. Surely it cant be compared to when a single player is banned, like Saad
The AFL denied Port a top up player for Monfries as it was either allow all of St.Kilda the Bulldogs and Port top up players or not at all. Couldn't allow Port one and the others none.In essence, the AFL didn't want one set of rules for one and one for another.
However, the club that has caused all of this is allowed top up players. So, one set of rules for them, one set for another.
Yep, there's that irony.
it was easy to give Port a player compared to the others.
Players traded from Essendon after the 2012 season but before the Feb 2013 announcement could be re-placed with a top up player.
After the "Blackest day in Australian sport" was announced in 2013 it was strictly buyer beware....
But to paraphrase Seinfeold for Port, "No ruckmen for you....."
Let that be a lesson to you Port, no one beats the Bays five times in a row in a GF and gets away with it!!!
The AFL denied Port a top up player for Monfries as it was either allow all of St.Kilda the Bulldogs and Port top up players or not at all. Couldn't allow Port one and the others none.In essence, the AFL didn't want one set of rules for one and one for another.
However, the club that has caused all of this is allowed top up players. So, one set of rules for them, one set for another.
Yep, there's that irony.
it was easy to give Port a player compared to the others.
Players traded from Essendon after the 2012 season but before the Feb 2013 announcement could be re-placed with a top up player.
After the "Blackest day in Australian sport" was announced in 2013 it was strictly buyer beware....
But to paraphrase Seinfeold for Port, "No ruckmen for you....."
Have the AFL told Essendon to pick like for like and, if they did, did they give them height and weight restrictions?
The AFL denied Port a top up player for Monfries as it was either allow all of St.Kilda the Bulldogs and Port top up players or not at all. Couldn't allow Port one and the others none.In essence, the AFL didn't want one set of rules for one and one for another.
However, the club that has caused all of this is allowed top up players. So, one set of rules for them, one set for another.
Yep, there's that irony.
Agree Booney
Essendon is the guilty party and can replace players Port Adelaide are not gulity and cant replace players
The AFL denied Port a top up player for Monfries as it was either allow all of St.Kilda the Bulldogs and Port top up players or not at all. Couldn't allow Port one and the others none.In essence, the AFL didn't want one set of rules for one and one for another.
However, the club that has caused all of this is allowed top up players. So, one set of rules for them, one set for another.
Yep, there's that irony.
Aren't Port allowed to bring up their rookies to cover the spots?
The AFL denied Port a top up player for Monfries as it was either allow all of St.Kilda the Bulldogs and Port top up players or not at all. Couldn't allow Port one and the others none.In essence, the AFL didn't want one set of rules for one and one for another.
However, the club that has caused all of this is allowed top up players. So, one set of rules for them, one set for another.
Yep, there's that irony.
Aren't Port allowed to bring up their rookies to cover the spots?
On the primary list, leaving no rookies to elevate in the event of someone going on the long term injury list.
The AFL denied Port a top up player for Monfries as it was either allow all of St.Kilda the Bulldogs and Port top up players or not at all. Couldn't allow Port one and the others none.In essence, the AFL didn't want one set of rules for one and one for another.
However, the club that has caused all of this is allowed top up players. So, one set of rules for them, one set for another.
Yep, there's that irony.
Are you surprised though that the rebranded VFL make up the rules and reasoning as they go on the hop
The AFL denied Port a top up player for Monfries as it was either allow all of St.Kilda the Bulldogs and Port top up players or not at all. Couldn't allow Port one and the others none.In essence, the AFL didn't want one set of rules for one and one for another.
However, the club that has caused all of this is allowed top up players. So, one set of rules for them, one set for another.
Yep, there's that irony.
Are you surprised though that the rebranded VFL make up the rules and reasoning as they go on the hop
With a South Australian in charge, ( all but ) 30 years after it became the AFL, I've moved past that type of inferiority complex and small town mentality, myself.
It's not that they're biased or Victorian-centric, just inept in the main and they're now running a business not a sporting competition.
The AFL denied Port a top up player for Monfries as it was either allow all of St.Kilda the Bulldogs and Port top up players or not at all. Couldn't allow Port one and the others none.In essence, the AFL didn't want one set of rules for one and one for another.
However, the club that has caused all of this is allowed top up players. So, one set of rules for them, one set for another.
Yep, there's that irony.
Aren't Port allowed to bring up their rookies to cover the spots?
On the primary list, leaving no rookies to elevate in the event of someone going on the long term injury list.
Its not as though any top up player they could have got wouldve made their team anyway. We are talking about guys that couldnt make the list of any of the 18 clubs
Supercoach Spring Racing Champion 2019 Spargo's Good Friday Cup Champion 2020
