SANFL Statement = Essendon

mickyj wrote:

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.

This has nothing to do with Ryder. Monfries only.

Booney wrote:

mickyj wrote:

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.

This has nothing to do with Ryder. Monfries only.

Ok so why are people saying the replacement should be Ryder's size or a ruckman type .

Really I am old over 50 something smells like port Adelaide hey day years getting away with whatever they want
No replacement upgrade a rookie player

I think that whatever contrived, ill-conceived rules the afl have invented for Essendon, should be the same contrived, ill-conceived rules they apply to Port.

Specific players aside, if Essendon get 43 players on their list, Port should have 43 players on their list.

How they can justify penalising Port 1 more player and not Essendon, just shows the completely arbitrary way the afl applies rules. And why I can understand Port being p!ssed off.

Port has the opportunity to upgrade rookies which is the same as Melb and the WB
They knew the situation with Ryder and shouldn't be allowed another compensation player.
End of story.

lachlan wrote:Port has the opportunity to upgrade rookies which is the same as Melb and the WB
They knew the situation with Ryder and shouldn't be allowed another compensation player.
End of story.

*SIGH*

It's not to replace Ryder on the list, it's to replace Monfries.

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.

I hear you Booney but it strikes me that it would just be a circumvention of the AFL's ruling.

Jonathon Simpkin has become top-up player #3.

Sorry I meant Monfries.
'Booney' I think the AFL should agree that you can upgrade one player and that would be Steven Summerton. He deserves to get an opportunity to play for more than $400.00 a game, which is his current salary. Ha Ha

lachlan wrote:Sorry I meant Monfries.
'Booney' I think the AFL should agree that you can upgrade one player and that would be Steven Summerton. He deserves to get an opportunity to play  for more than $400.00 a game, which is his current salary. Ha Ha

I assume you can come forward with evidence to prove otherwise?

You can either send it to me via private message on here, or pm me and I'll flip you an email address to send it through to.

Thanks in advance, I look forward to hearing from you.

Booney

I'm with you mate. Summerton would definitely be on $400.00 a game. Let's face it mate he took a massive pay cut to stay with the Port Reserves side.

lachlan wrote:Booney

I'm with you mate. Summerton would definitely be on $400.00 a game. Let's face it mate he took a massive pay cut to stay with the Port Reserves side.

I don't know mate, you're telling the story. Obviously with some sound evidence to support it, you wouldn't just be spinning **** for the sake of stirring things up would you?

I'm most interested in the evidence to support your claims. My offer still stands, pm me or I can give you an email address to send it to.

Again, I look forward to seeing this and thank you in advance.

Booney

Wouldn't think of stirring the pot mate.
Summerton made a sound business decision to stay
with Port

Don't need to send you a PM mate as I really believe Summerton stayed with Port for the right reasons

So you've got nothing other than what every other big mouth has and now you go all sarcastic to make it look like you're agreeing to get out without looking the goose.

I wish I was more like you.

Move on.

Booney

I'm sure We have never met mate. So if you think I'm a loud mouth and being sarcastic that s fine by me

Only going on your mouthy, sarcastic comments on here. Nothing else to work with.

Offer still stands.

Booney

Thanks for the kind words. I look forward to another
rivetting response from you

I look forward to you supplying anything other than hearsay.

Be quick, I'm holding me breath!

Booney wrote:

lachlan wrote:Booney

I'm with you mate. Summerton would definitely be on $400.00 a game. Let's face it mate he took a massive pay cut to stay with the Port Reserves side.

I don't know mate, you're telling the story. Obviously with some sound evidence to support it, you wouldn't just be spinning **** for the sake of stirring things up would you?

I'm most interested in the evidence to support your claims. My offer still stands, pm me or I can give you an email address to send it to.

Again, I look forward to seeing this and thank you in advance.

We could all PM you . Maybe just post the Email address then ? It's public either way hey.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:I think that whatever contrived, ill-conceived rules the afl have invented for Essendon, should be the same contrived, ill-conceived rules they apply to Port.

Specific players aside, if Essendon get 43 players on their list, Port should have 43 players on their list.

How they can justify penalising Port 1 more player and not Essendon, just shows the completely arbitrary way the afl applies rules. And why I can understand Port being p!ssed off.

Chambo, the main, NO the ONLY reason Essendon appear to be getting a better 'deal' is because they are based in Melbourne & play in the AFL which is still really the VFL, whereas Port are NOT based in Victoria & aren't the ''traditional'' VFL club

Sh.t, I didn't think of that.

bayman wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:I think that whatever contrived, ill-conceived rules the afl have invented for Essendon, should be the same contrived, ill-conceived rules they apply to Port.

Specific players aside, if Essendon get 43 players on their list, Port should have 43 players on their list.

How they can justify penalising Port 1 more player and not Essendon, just shows the completely arbitrary way the afl applies rules. And why I can understand Port being p!ssed off.

Chambo, the main, NO the ONLY reason Essendon appear to be getting a better 'deal' is because they are based in Melbourne & play in the AFL which is still really the VFL, whereas Port are NOT based in Victoria & aren't the ''traditional'' VFL club

It's this sort of thinking that has the rest of the country laugh at Adelaidians.

It is the AFL. The AFL spend millions on supporting clubs in western Sydney and in Queensland. Do you think a Victorian competition would support that?

Nope. It's 2016, let's get up with the times.

waddayamean wrote:

Booney wrote:

lachlan wrote:Booney

I'm with you mate. Summerton would definitely be on $400.00 a game. Let's face it mate he took a massive pay cut to stay with the Port Reserves side.

I don't know mate, you're telling the story. Obviously with some sound evidence to support it, you wouldn't just be spinning **** for the sake of stirring things up would you?

I'm most interested in the evidence to support your claims. My offer still stands, pm me or I can give you an email address to send it to.

Again, I look forward to seeing this and thank you in advance.

We could all PM you . Maybe just post the Email address then ? It's public either way hey.

So you have evidence, hard evidence, not anecdotal pub talk?

No never said I did. It seems though if we PM you you will give us an Email address . So is that evidence ? My point is obvious, if you have an email address then post it as we can get it off you via a PM. No difference .I personally couldn't give a rats . Do you have evidence ?

Booney wrote:

bayman wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:I think that whatever contrived, ill-conceived rules the afl have invented for Essendon, should be the same contrived, ill-conceived rules they apply to Port.

Specific players aside, if Essendon get 43 players on their list, Port should have 43 players on their list.

How they can justify penalising Port 1 more player and not Essendon, just shows the completely arbitrary way the afl applies rules. And why I can understand Port being p!ssed off.

Chambo, the main, NO the ONLY reason Essendon appear to be getting a better 'deal' is because they are based in Melbourne & play in the AFL which is still really the VFL, whereas Port are NOT based in Victoria & aren't the ''traditional'' VFL club

It's this sort of thinking that has the rest of the country laugh at Adelaidians.

It is the AFL. The AFL spend millions on supporting clubs in western Sydney and in Queensland. Do you think a Victorian competition would support that?

Nope. It's 2016, let's get up with the times.

So it's 2016 yet Victoria doesn't rate south Australian teams
But hey port got Ryder when they knew he may get suspended
Do you think Victoria wishes to help port Adelaide he's not Steven Trigg he won't land a cushy job at Carlton will he

So if the banned Essendon players decide to appeal the CAS decision, is the ban set aside pending the appeal? Obviously this would render the top-up players superfluous and create yet another debacle.