Top Up Player

[The Adelaide Connection]

I am going to start this thread and hope the madness that is a potential appeal against the EFC bans goes away. Please let it go away.

Two part question: 1, Should we lobby the AFL to be able to bring in an extra rookie to replace the Rookie (most likely Adcock) who is upgraded for Crameri?
2, If yes, who would you like to see fill the spot?

I think we should definitely be lobbying the AFL. We essentially entice another player to our VFL team and they serve as a little insurance.

As mentioned here http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?15105-Operation-Get-Cross I would love that player to be Daniel Cross, for the romance of it but also as he is a seasoned campaigner and could play a similar insurance role to what we had with Goodes. The fewer rotations this year certainly does play to Daniel's endurance strengths. There are lots of other reasons, but I have covered those in the other thread.

It would also be great to see Will Hayes get a nod for the consistency he has shown at VFL level (whilst I acknowledge we really do have an abundance of players around Will's size). Still, should circumstances present themselves we could get a chance to see if he can perform at the highest level.

[LostDoggy]

Firstly, yes we should get a top up player. Port and StKilda are agitating for this - I suspect it will happen.

Given the top up is essentially a 1 year replacement for Crameri, the obvious player to look for would be a big bodied experienced guy who can offer depth in his role. Given someone like that would be unlikely to be outside of the AFL system and ready to go, I would think Cross would be a great candidate given he's one of very few who's likely to be fit enough and he would be such a great fit morale wise.

The other option is to accept that Suckling and Adcock give us versatile, experienced depth for the year and just get whichever kid just missed a rookie spot just to trial them out to potentially get them next year. Maybe Charlie Lee?

[Go_Dogs]

If we were to do this, I'd be looking at a 22 and under player who was delisted in 2015, no idea who without giving it further thought, but a few young players with good pedigree but limited opportunity would fit the category and be hungry to prove themselves. They are more likely to be able to adapt to training loads and required fitness levels, too.

[bornadog]

If we were to do this, I'd be looking at a 22 and under player who was delisted in 2015, no idea who without giving it further thought, but a few young players with good pedigree but limited opportunity would fit the category and be hungry to prove themselves. They are more likely to be able to adapt to training loads and required fitness levels, too.

Agree, no hasbeens please.

[GVGjr]

If we were to do this, I'd be looking at a 22 and under player who was delisted in 2015, no idea who without giving it further thought, but a few young players with good pedigree but limited opportunity would fit the category and be hungry to prove themselves. They are more likely to be able to adapt to training loads and required fitness levels, too.

I would think any player selected, regardless of the age, should be either the best player available or someone who might cover a need.
We have no ties to the player at the end of the season so it's just a case of adding someone who can who could potentially play senior footy if needed.

[Go_Dogs]

I would think any player selected, regardless of the age, should be either the best player available or someone who might cover a need.
We have no ties to the player at the end of the season so it's just a case of adding someone who can who could potentially play senior footy if needed.

I'd take a slightly longer-term view, and be looking at someone we think could develop into a longer term player, as well as be capable of playing this year if need be. I know we wouldn't get automatic rights to the player for 2017, but it certainly puts us in the box seat being best poised to make that decision.

[GVGjr]

I'd take a slightly longer-term view, and be looking at someone we think could develop into a longer term player, as well as be capable of playing this year if need be. I know we wouldn't get automatic rights to the player for 2017, but it certainly puts us in the box seat being best poised to make that decision.

Couldn't we do the same with recruiting a player to Footscray?

Unless we can find a player who can fit in straight away I'd rather stick with the players we have.

[bulldogtragic]

Couldn't we do the same with recruiting a player to Footscray?

Unless we can find a player who can fit in straight away I'd rather stick with the players we have.

I'd take Crossy back. Why? A consummate professional, a great leader within the club rooms, a great example of getting everything out of your talent and a tremendous teacher at VFL or good depth for the AFL side and I'd love to poach him to Footscray/WBFC coaching ranks away from Melbourne. He needs one more game to get to 250. Play him against Essendon and let the fans give him a standing ovation for everything he has given our club with a 250 celebration.

[GVGjr]

I'd take Crossy back. Why? A consummate professional, a great leader within the club rooms, a great example of getting everything out of your talent and a tremendous teacher at VFL or good depth for the AFL side and I'd love to poach him to Footscray/WBFC coaching ranks away from Melbourne. He needs one more game to get to 250. Play him against Essendon and let the fans give him a standing ovation for everything he has given our club with a 250 celebration.

If I was Cross I wouldn't be interested because it's time for him to get into the coaching on a full time basis. No good being half in.

I don't think anyone doubts what he could bring to a club but he just doesn't cover our needs on the field especially now that we have Adcock. Essentially you are wanting him to be either a Footscray player or coach which he knocked back a couple of years ago.

[Go_Dogs]

Couldn't we do the same with recruiting a player to Footscray?

Unless we can find a player who can fit in straight away I'd rather stick with the players we have.

It's a fair enough point, only difference being we can get AFL exposure into a top up player. I'm sort of looking at it as a free hit, but maybe your approach is a better one, particularly if we're a genuine contender.

[chef]

I don't care much for a top up as we seemed to have seen this coming and have Adcock(I know not like for like) who is a mature body who can come straight in and perform a role for us. Not as great a concern for us as it is for other clubs.

I guess it would be nice to get another rookie to replace him, but it aint no biggie.

[The Adelaide Connection]

I still think we would be mad not to request an extra rookie. Moving away from Cross or Hayes, it is a free kick to have a good look at a player that was on the cusp of being drafted that may not come to us if it were just a VFL position on offer. They would essentially be an extra for our Footscray team, which whilst not our primary concern, is an entity that we still want to win premierships.

I would hate to think the next Morris, Boyd, Priddis, Jack, etc. was ripe for the picking and we didn't have a risk free stab at getting them.

[Doc26]

Should Collingwood have been given permission to top up their list for Thomas and O'Keefe (or Saad at St.Kilda) for the duration of their infraction penalty rather than having to make a choice at season end to delist or retain them on their primary list ? Other than the scale of this Essendon mess, and by extension whether the Essendon Club should be even be viable for the 2016 season, I'm having some difficulty appreciating the difference in the treatment being afforded here.

[bornadog]

Personally, no club should have been given a top up, including Essendon. This would have been real punishment.

[LostDoggy]

Should Collingwood have been given permission to top up their list for Thomas and O'Keefe (or Saad at St.Kilda) for the duration of their infraction penalty rather than having to make a choice at season end to delist or retain them on their primary list ? Other than the scale of this Essendon mess, and by extension whether the Essendon Club should be even be viable for the 2016 season, I'm having some difficulty appreciating the difference in the treatment being afforded here.
I agree the distinction is not black and white, however the big difference is that the Collingwood and StKilda offences were committed by players whilst at the club.

Allowing clubs to replace players who fail drugs tests whilst in the clubs care is obviously not on as the clubs deserve penalty too, however clubs being penalised for other clubs failures is a more debatable measure. However we and others did recruit Essendon players knowing the risks, so there are reasonable arguments both ways.

[ledge]

Poor old Crossy didn't have much luck with McCartney , gave him the flick from us, he goes to Melbourne and Macca turns up there and he is booted again, I think he would gladly come back to the dogs now that a new coach is there.
I believe he will come back in a role at some stage, just let him get experience at other clubs, unlike Hird and Buckley who didn't see how other clubs operate therefore closing off successful ideas that other clubs have.

[LostDoggy]

Poor old Crossy didn't have much luck with McCartney , gave him the flick from us, he goes to Melbourne and Macca turns up there and he is booted again, I think he would gladly come back to the dogs now that a new coach is there.
I believe he will come back in a role at some stage, just let him get experience at other clubs, unlike Hird and Buckley who didn't see how other clubs operate therefore closing off successful ideas that other clubs have.

Well he's learned some of the finer workings of the mighty Melbourne machine, that'd add heaps to our IP :)

[Maddog37]

I don't feel clubs that traded in Bombres players deserve top ups. Caveat emptor

[GVGjr]

Should Collingwood have been given permission to top up their list for Thomas and O'Keefe (or Saad at St.Kilda) for the duration of their infraction penalty rather than having to make a choice at season end to delist or retain them on their primary list ? Other than the scale of this Essendon mess, and by extension whether the Essendon Club should be even be viable for the 2016 season, I'm having some difficulty appreciating the difference in the treatment being afforded here.

Great point you raise and yes there is massive inconsistencies in the way penalties are applied.

[GVGjr]

Poor old Crossy didn't have much luck with McCartney , gave him the flick from us, he goes to Melbourne and Macca turns up there and he is booted again, I think he would gladly come back to the dogs now that a new coach is there.
I believe he will come back in a role at some stage, just let him get experience at other clubs, unlike Hird and Buckley who didn't see how other clubs operate therefore closing off successful ideas that other clubs have.

That's a very long bow you are drawing but Macca is the convenient scapegoat.
Could you imagine the vitriol if Macca's name, not Bevo, was linked to the East West day reschedule? He certainly wouldn't have been given the free pass that Bevo has.

[bulldogtragic]

That's a very long bow you are drawing but Macca is the convenient scapegoat.
Could you imagine the vitriol if Macca's name, not Bevo, was linked to the East West day reschedule? He certainly wouldn't have been given the free pass that Bevo has.

Bevo is very likeable and has won more games than Macca in his whole coaching career and taken us to finals only a few months ago. Everyone likes happy, successful and likeable winners. Human nature really. In my best Martin Luther King voice, I have a dream that one day that Maccas name won't be brought up on woof nor argued about 2015 form credit, legacy or on the content of his character in alienating almost every player on the list. I have a dream.

[Maddog37]

Tell him he's dreaming!

[Throughandthrough]

Bevo ....has won more games than Macca in his whole coaching career .

Dead set? Wow.

[bulldogtragic]

Dead set? Wow.

Ok, a narrative Liberty. BMac 20 wins over 3 years at 30%, Bevo 14 wins in one year at over 60%.

With our first 7 games at Etihad, he could overtake BMac by round 7.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Seems that we will not have to pay Crameri's salary and we are asking for a Top up player. If we don't have to pay Crameri, maybe we can rewrite new frontended contracts for a few of the (significant) list of players that come out of contract at the end of the year.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/essendon-to-pay-carlisles-st-kilda-contract-this-year-20160131-gmi4ai.html

[LostDoggy]

Seems that we will not have to pay Crameri's salary and we are asking for a Top up player. If we don't have to pay Crameri, maybe we can rewrite new frontended contracts for a few of the (significant) list of players that come out of contract at the end of the year.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/essendon-to-pay-carlisles-st-kilda-contract-this-year-20160131-gmi4ai.html

That is a pretty good development for us. All in all, we have little to be aggrieved about. Hoping Stewie hits the ground running next year, renewed and rejuvinated.

[Twodogs]

Seems that we will not have to pay Crameri's salary and we are asking for a Top up player. If we don't have to pay Crameri, maybe we can rewrite new frontended contracts for a few of the (significant) list of players that come out of contract at the end of the year.

http://www.smh.com.au/afl/essendon-to-pay-carlisles-st-kilda-contract-this-year-20160131-gmi4ai.html


That is a pretty good development for us. All in all, we have little to be aggrieved about. Hoping Stewie hits the ground running next year, renewed and rejuvinated.

"Oh yeah that's right. We happen to be paying his entire contract payments this season. Stewie is playing for nothing the other three years. Oh well good luck for us I guess''

[The Adelaide Connection]

"Oh yeah that's right. We happen to be paying his entire contract payments this season. Stewie is playing for nothing the other three years. Oh well good luck for us I guess''

Ha, that certainly would be a significant silver lining. That said, he must be on $400-500k minimum, that split up four or five ways in some creative, redrafted frontended contracts could get some players whose value has risen significantly (like Dickson) over the line while leaving us cap space down the line.

[Rocco Jones]

Personally, no club should have been given a top up, including Essendon. This would have been real punishment.

I get your sentiments but it would mean the distinct possibility of Essendon not being able to field a full 22, which would be bad for the league. It would also mean forcing younger players who aren't ready for the weekly grind of AFL into playing each week, risking injury etc.

I don't believe we should get/need a top up. I believe Port should get one as it makes no sense for them to go in with less players than Essendon.

[Rocco Jones]

If we get a top up, I think we should go for a mature bodied mid. We have ruck and KPP 'depth' (quality is another issue). I guess another foot soldier couldn't hurt.

[LostDoggy]

I get your sentiments but it would mean the distinct possibility of Essendon not being able to field a full 22, which would be bad for the league. It would also mean forcing younger players who aren't ready for the weekly grind of AFL into playing each week, risking injury etc.

I don't believe we should get/need a top up. I believe Port should get one as it makes no sense for them to go in with less players than Essendon.

I think that's fair. You could argue that Port get a top up for Monfries as they recruited him before any public knowledge of Essendon's situation. All clubs who recruited an Essendon player after the scandal broke knew the risks.

[The Doctor]

That's a very long bow you are drawing but Macca is the convenient scapegoat.
Could you imagine the vitriol if Macca's name, not Bevo, was linked to the East West day reschedule? He certainly wouldn't have been given the free pass that Bevo has.

I don't agree with Ledge about Cross and the Macca thing at Melbourne. Crossy is cooked.

But Bevo hasn't been given a free pass at all. He has earned his pass by leading this club from the basket case Macca left it in to being a premiership contender in a very short period of time. Results speak and thats when people take notice. Bevo seems to know what he's doing.

[bornadog]

I get your sentiments but it would mean the distinct possibility of Essendon not being able to field a full 22, which would be bad for the league.

What is bad for the league is doping. Tough titties if Essendon couldn't field a team. In fact their license should have been suspended. The AFL is weak as .... and watch what happens next year when they get a whole lot of priority draft picks.

[bornadog]

I think that's fair. You could argue that Port get a top up for Monfries as they recruited him before any public knowledge of Essendon's situation. All clubs who recruited an Essendon player after the scandal broke knew the risks.

We knew the risk recruiting Crameri and we should pay his salary.

[Rocco Jones]

What is bad for the league is doping. Tough titties if Essendon couldn't field a team. In fact their license should have been suspended. The AFL is weak as .... and watch what happens next year when they get a whole lot of priority draft picks.

The issue is that AFL also has the most inflexible squad rules in any league I know of. By a mile. Need a set number and no changes 6 months prior to the league even starting. In any other league, you would be able to sign replacements.

I get your sentiments, I really do but there have been occasions where teams only have say 4-5 emergencies with a full list. Imagine having to force injured, young players... guys who had nothing to do with doping. Having Essendon going in short would be silly.

I am up for punishments. Instead of having them play short, I would have a cap on how high their first round pick could be. My issue isn't with top ups but with them getting pick 1 or 2.

[Twodogs]

The issue is that AFL also has the most inflexible squad rules in any league I know of. By a mile. Need a set number and no changes 6 months prior to the league even starting. In any other league, you would be able to sign replacements.

I get your sentiments, I really do but there have been occasions where teams only have say 4-5 emergencies with a full list. Imagine having to force injured, young players... guys who had nothing to do with doping. Having Essendon going in short would be silly.

I am up for punishments. Instead of having them play short, I would have a cap on how high their first round pick could be. My issue isn't with top ups but with them getting pick 1 or 2.


Precisely. No way I would be rewarding them with the number one pick.

Let 'em fill their team up with as many no hopers and bozos as they like but they should not be even entrusted with kids in their employ until they have proved they are ready for the responsibility. For the next two or three years there should be an age limit for their recruits. None under 22 say. Old enough to speak up for themselves when the next bright idea is hatched.

[Sedat]

They created their own mess through undertaking a systematic doping regime, bringing the entire game into disrepute for 3 years in the process, and now they are getting an advantage against all of Port, Dogs and Melbourne by way of top-up players. And they will be given future preferential treatment by way of draft picks, keeping marquee games, etc.. This is why I am really struggling to embrace the upcoming season, despite us being a good young team on the up.

What the hell does Gill even do every day? He asks Jobe to submit why he should keep his Brownlow instead of ripping it off the doping cheat and giving it to Cotchin and Mitchell, and now he asks the rest of the comp if these 3 clubs can get top-ups. Do your job and make a damn decision FFS.

Any team (even the Dogs) caught undertaking a team-wide doping regime should just be wound up and the license given to Tasmania. The lenghts the AFL and compliant media are going to protect this cesspit of an organisation are feeble and embarrassing. It simply proves what a small, insignificant, pissant competition it is.

[ratsmac]

Spot on Sedat.

1000 likes!

[The Adelaide Connection]

We knew the risk recruiting Crameri and we should pay his salary.

We may have known the risk, but I still don't agree with this. Innocent until proven guilty, but once found guilty the player has been suspended and it is not the club that should be punished. I think he should get no salary (in the same way Ahmed Saad would have). It should then be up to Crameri to chase up Essendon via legal action if he feels (justifiably so in this case) that he has been wronged.

[Testekill]

I think that we should request a top up if only because we're already going in with two players on the LTI list in Clay & Roarke Smith.

[Mofra]

I think that we should request a top up if only because we're already going in with two players on the LTI list in Clay & Roarke Smith.
Roarke is on the rookie list so can't be placed on the LTI list

We've already been granted permission to promote a rookie in Crameri's place, and the only rookie AFL ready is Adcock so any other rookie promotion won't benefit us

[Remi Moses]

We knew the risks is just a nonsense argument .
Subscribing to that theory, and not one Essendon player would have been traded for 3 seasons !
They created this mess, they need to be responsible for it .
We should be allowed a recruit to replace Crameri, and not an upgraded rookie .
Close your eyes and imagine it was our club .
We'd be booted out, and sent to Tassie .

[bornadog]

We knew the risks is just a nonsense argument .
Subscribing to that theory, and not one Essendon player would have been traded for 3 seasons !
They created this mess, they need to be responsible for it .
We should be allowed a recruit to replace Crameri, and not an upgraded rookie .
Close your eyes and imagine it was our club .
We'd be booted out, and sent to Tassie .

The player created the situation by agreeing to be injected. Essendon facilitated but didn't force anyone.

[Scraggers]

The AFL has said no to a top up player for us St.Kilda, Dees, and Port.

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

LINK (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-05/afl-refuses-to-allow-topup-players-to-port-adelaide-western-bulldogs-st-kilda-and-melbourne)

[GVGjr]

The AFL has said no to a top up player for us St.Kilda, Dees, and Port.

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

LINK (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-05/afl-refuses-to-allow-topup-players-to-port-adelaide-western-bulldogs-st-kilda-and-melbourne)


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

[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. :)