SANFL Statement = Essendon

Radio report today saying, as Booney forecast, that Port are agitating for a replacement player (or two) other than a simple rookie upgrade.

Essendon are expected to announce some signings in the next day or two. Ryan Crowley is a hot tip, presumably because of his experience. With doping bans.

Yep Flag no 10 - you were right on the money with Crowley - juts announced on Radio

Flag No.10 wrote:Radio report today saying, as Booney forecast, that Port are agitating for a replacement player (or two) other than a simple rookie upgrade.

Shouldn't be granted, of course, as Port knew the risks.

If it was granted, it definitely shouldn't come from any SANFL team, To have perhaps your best player taken from you this late, to probably play against you in these circumstances would be ludicrous.

Thins SANFL clubs if this was the case should refuse clearances - Port took a risk and they lost

mark beswick wrote:Thins SANFL clubs if this was the case should refuse clearances - Port took a risk and they lost

they have a reserves side and academy side so they should be made to take from that if thay get it granted to them. Hope not !!

i have no problems for a replacement for Monfries but not for Ryder...if an SANFL player is chosen at this late stage he should be given an opportunity, however i don't think he should be allowed to play against the SANFL club he had already signed a contract with & this includes SANFL finals

The silly thing to me is that if Essendon are allowed to have 43 players on their list and Port only 42.

As Hinkley is agitating for being allowed to have the same number of players as Essendon.
That seems reasonable since Essendon caused all this.

Essendon should have 42 as well > afl should correct this downwards - Port still have 42 when they upgrade their rookies.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:The silly thing to me is that if Essendon are allowed to have 43 players on their list and Port only 42.

As Hinkley is agitating for being allowed to have the same number of players as Essendon.
That seems reasonable since Essendon caused all this.

To me it does bring up why didn't Essendon do what the NRL team did suspended in the off season for pleading guilty next season back to playing .
Essendon are just like I dunno Prima donnas if they said yes this would have been over last year .
Port Adelaide knew with Ryder what was going to happen bad luck you went after him pay the price .
I think you all forget Bailey was suspended due to Melbourne tanking when he was an assistant coach at the crows .
Same story really they accepted it so should port

James Kelly is top-up player #2. Only 8 bullets left to dodge.

If, as many people suggest should be the case, Port are allowed to replace Monfries but not Ryder, then should they be required to replace him with another small forward? If they are allowed to replace Monfries with a ruckman, it turns the decision on Ryder into a joke.

Flag No.10 wrote:If, as many people suggest should be the case, Port are allowed to replace Monfries but not Ryder, then should they be required to replace him with another small forward? If they are allowed to replace Monfries with a ruckman, it turns the decision on Ryder into a joke.

Excuse me? Pretty damn sure it's nobody's business who we pick up ( if the AFL allow it ).

Has anyone told Essendon who they can pick up,size, weight, position played?

You must lay awake and night worrying about Port Adelaide.

I can assure you that when I'm in bed, Port Adelaide is the furthest thing from my mind.

I am asking the question from the AFL's point of view: If the AFL say Port can only replace Monfries - because they knew the risks with Ryder - then doesn't it render that decision meaningless if Port are allowed to replace Monfries with a ruckman?

Surely it's one spot on the list, nothing more.

So the AFL need to put a height/weight restriction on the selection? Purrlease.

Unless you work for the AFL, in which case it is possible, but not even the AFL could dream up something that absurd.

There should be no replacement for Port, but if the AFL caves in, it shouldn't be to correct Port's list mistakes.

Booney wrote:Surely it's one spot on the list, nothing more.

So the AFL need to put a height/weight restriction on the selection? Purrlease.

Unless you work for the AFL, in which case it is possible, but not even the AFL could dream up something that absurd.

Surely is a big word Booney
Surely port Adelaide knew about Ryder when they drafted him . Surely that's enough to know what will happen to him .
Monfries they supposedly didn't know .

So surely port Adelaide if told one player to take over from Monfries must not be the size of a ruckman . Other wise it's Port Adelaide getting away with let's say murder .

Crows accepted Bailey being banned
Crows accepted their problems after Tippet including not getting draft picks .
They came out better for it .

So surely port Adelaide could accept they stuffed up upgrade a rookie player .

Lee wrote:There should be no replacement for Port, but if the AFL caves in, it shouldn't be to correct Port's list mistakes.

Why no replacement?

Monfries was traded for in October 2012, the scandal came to light on March 2013 as such, Port had no idea that Monfries had a potential suspension hanging over his head, agreed?

Furthermore, Port Adelaide have not been found guilty by the AFL, ASADA, WADA or CAS at any point of any wrong doing, yet Essendon are allowed to find top up players to replace the suspended players and Port are not?

Port are not wanting to replace two players, we knew the baggage Ryder came with, we did not with Monfries.

So guilty Essendon can replace, not guilty Port cannot, is that how you see it?

mickyj wrote:

Booney wrote:Surely it's one spot on the list, nothing more.

So the AFL need to put a height/weight restriction on the selection? Purrlease.

Unless you work for the AFL, in which case it is possible, but not even the AFL could dream up something that absurd.

Surely is a big word Booney
Surely port Adelaide knew about Ryder when they drafted him . Surely that's enough to know what will happen to him .
Monfries they supposedly didn't know .

So surely port Adelaide if told one player to take over from Monfries must not be the size of a ruckman . Other wise it's Port Adelaide getting away with let's say murder .

Crows accepted Bailey being banned
Crows accepted their problems after Tippet including not getting draft picks .
They came out better for it .

So surely port Adelaide could accept they stuffed up upgrade a rookie player .

No comparison.

Adelaide could have replaced Bailey, that was off field and the AFL have no say in that.
Adelaide were found guilty of draft tampering with Tippett, how could that possibly be the same?

Are the AFL telling Essendon how tall, heavy, fast or otherwise the top up players must be?

"Murder"? I wouldn't think it's murder.

Murder is the wrong word to use given what happened last year, this case is simple Port should be able to replace Monfries with whoever they like but they should have to wear it with Ryder

bayman wrote:Murder is the wrong word to use given what happened last year, this case is simple Port should be able to replace Monfries with whoever they like but they should have to wear it with Ryder

bayman, the new voice of reason.

Booney wrote:

mickyj wrote:

Booney wrote:Surely it's one spot on the list, nothing more.

So the AFL need to put a height/weight restriction on the selection? Purrlease.

Unless you work for the AFL, in which case it is possible, but not even the AFL could dream up something that absurd.

Surely is a big word Booney
Surely port Adelaide knew about Ryder when they drafted him . Surely that's enough to know what will happen to him .
Monfries they supposedly didn't know .

So surely port Adelaide if told one player to take over from Monfries must not be the
size of a ruckman . Other wise it's Port Adelaide getting away with let's say murder .

Crows accepted Bailey being banned
Crows accepted their problems after Tippet including not getting draft picks .
They came out better for it .

So surely port Adelaide could accept they stuffed up upgrade a rookie player .

No comparison.

Adelaide could have replaced Bailey, that was off field and the AFL have no say in that.
Adelaide were found guilty of draft tampering with Tippett, how could that possibly be the same?

Are the AFL telling Essendon how tall, heavy, fast or otherwise the top up players must be?

"Murder"? I wouldn't think it's murder.

Crows with Tipet were not allowed to draft for a period of time .
No complaints like are coming up from port people over Ryder
Accept you drafted wrong he's suspended for a year bad luck
Monfries ok that one is stranger but if a replacement is granted not a ruckman

If port Adelaide and fans think they are still a big fish in a small pond it's not their hey day . It's a bigger pond
Accept you've recruited stuff ups
If Essendon had said yes back at the start this would be over

Play on Port

Port also new the decision was being challenged and could have delisted monfries in case of such a penalty or drafted an additional rookie. They should not be allowed a replacement.

bayman wrote:Murder is the wrong word to use given what happened last year, this case is simple Port should be able to replace Monfries with whoever they like but they should have to wear it with Ryder

My mistake I'm having issues with words lol
Seriously it's like port of old
They can't accept they stuffed up recruiting a player who may have gotten suspended.

mark beswick wrote:Port also new the decision was being challenged and could have delisted monfries in case of such a penalty  or drafted  an additional rookie.  They should not be allowed a replacement.

Huh? Monfries has a year to run on his 4 year deal, imagine if we delisted him with a year to run "just in case" they were found guilty?

Up until last Tuesday morning NOBODY knew what the CAS finding was going to be, nobody. They could have just thrown it out. Imagine if we delisted him and then he was found not guilty?