Reward for cheating

[saintkev]

Should Essendon be financially propped up by the AFL when they sought that little extra edge by using dodgy jungle juice and wasted millions of dollars in mounting spurious legal challenges?
What happens if they finish at the bottom of the table, will they be rewarded with choice draft picks while blooding a range of youngsters this year and then having a swag of experienced, suspended players rested and cherry-ripe for 2017?
Should banned players be paid for doing nothing during the 2016 season, or perhaps be obligated to take hard-yakka jobs that ordinary Aussies do (maybe for voluntary / charitable organisations)? Cleaning up the rubbish discarded on roadways could be a start.

[BigMart]

In the end it will fast track them back to the top 4

[Toy Saint]

Essendon probably should pay their players else the players will sue the club (they may anyway).

Don't see why St Kilda should pay Carslile, Essendon should pay his as well otherwise he should sue them. Hope the Saints have 'front-ended' his contract..

Don't reckon the AFL should prop up the drug cheats (it's OK to call them that now), if they've got money to burn perhaps they should bring back Fitzroy....let the cheats suffer.

[casey scorp]

The AFL has said it won't deny Essendon first draft pick if it ends up on the bottom of the ladder because Essendon has already been punished. However, that punishment was for governance failures - not because the players took drugs. Now that the players have been found guilty and banned for the season, Essendon should not be able to capitalise on their breaches. Had they been found not guilty, Essendon probably would have finished middle of the road and had a commensurate draft pick. The AFL needs to ensure that the club can't benefit from the banning of Essendon's players, and adjust the process (as it always does to get outcomes it wants).

[ausfatcat]

Melbourne instead of tanking should have taken banned substances and self reported, they would have been better off,


Essendon will probably find a gem in one of their pop up players and get first choice at him as well

[bigred]

Basically they have been handed the wooden spoon for 2016.

Still being able to claim the relevant draft pick I find somewhat irksome.

I am irked.

[St Chris]

The AFL has to keep the interests of the game at the front of their mind.

When Fitzpatrick sits at a presser and says "The AFL is stronger when Essendon is strong", it tells you everything you need to know about how this will unfold from here.

I think back to how happy I was after our win against these drug cheats last year, and the thought of seeing that most weeks will get old really quickly. Meaning ratings will be down, attendances will be down, and general interest in the games involving Essendon will be almost non-existent for the neutral supporter. And with so many bonuses linked to these stats, the people pulling the strings need this to go away as soon as possible.

They have all learnt their lesson after the Blues last 15 years in the wilderness. Getting Essendon back to being competitive will be a high priority around AFL house for a while yet....

[samuraisaint]

They might get the #1 pick for finishing last - then again they might not. A lot of very ordinary sides have always managed to win at least one game in a season in the past 50 years, and they usually end up winning 2-3 games.
They won't be decent for years though. They have lost important players like Carlisle, Ryder, Monfries, Crameri, Chapman. A host of their players who have stick around have a years suspension. Several of them will retire this year, and others will leave for greener pastures. Others, like BJ and Gwilt are looking at retirement sooner rather than later.
The AFL want them to be able to field a side for the tv rights dollars, but have no worries about Essendon's continued survival, as with their following they are no chance of folding. Richmond, Melbourne and Carlton have all been very poor for a long time and they still have their support. The AFL will be very busy holding up Gold Coast, Brisbane, and just getting anybody to watch the Giants. You can add Sydney to that list too.
Essendon will struggle for years and then spend a long time mid-tier, but their future is assured. I think a lot of thise 12 players will desert them. We couold pick up Hurley and the Hawks could grab Heppel. Those things are a real possibility.
Who knows? Maybe with Carlisle out for the year, and if Freeman is doing a modified program this year, we won't improve either and will end up with the #4 or #5 pick again. We'll beat Carlton, Essendon and Melbourne twice, plus Brisbane at Etihad - that's 7 wins and probably a fifth from the bottom finish.

[samuraisaint]

Melbourne instead of tanking should have taken banned substances and self reported, they would have been better off,


Essendon will probably find a gem in one of their pop up players and get first choice at him as well

But they have no greater entitlement to that top up player than any other side. Anybody else can draft them. I think Brown was a good pick up though.Many on here felt that he is just a good VFL player. I guess time will tell.

[flack]

My concern right now is not what Essendon get over the next few years but what the CEO in charge of the greatest game of all has just perpetrated on the brand. Having stated publicly that no further action will be taken against a club which has just lost 17 players to the code for the next season FOR BREACHING THE WADA CODE is, to my mind, suggesting to 17 other Presidents that they can use whatever supplements they like and if WADA find out and ban some of their players (FOR BREACHING THE WADA CODE) the AFL will not only allow the use of top up players they will even modify the salary cap to accommodate this. Incidentally, don’t forget to throw in a first round draft pick to assist a struggling team. Rewarding bad behaviour is not the way to go and I call upon the other 17 presidents to take a vote of no confidence in Gill and have him removed from the position before the brand is irreversibly damaged by a newfound culture - the best chemist wins games. The teams in rebuild mode do not get these generous concessions to allow them to remain competitive but if drugs come into the equation apparently everything’s sweet. What will mum think when her son asks to go to Auskick?
Then there is the matter of the tainted Brownlow Medal. Any decent person would hand it back without thinking so as to retain the integrity of the medal but the CEO of the AFL has to call a meeting and invite the recipient along to hear his views, obviously no principles so needs assurances.

[loris]

I notice Hinkley is wanting an extra top up player on Port's list. He doesn't think it is fair that Essendon who caused all this problem will have 43 players to select from, whereas Port Power will only have 42.

He says Port were aware when they recruited Ryder that if things went against him he could face suspension, so they will wear that gamble they took. However he says Monfries was signed up before the scandal broke.

I think Hinkley has got reasonable grounds for Port to get a top up player.

[samuraisaint]

My concern right now is not what Essendon get over the next few years but what the CEO in charge of the greatest game of all has just perpetrated on the brand. Having stated publicly that no further action will be taken against a club which has just lost 17 players to the code for the next season FOR BREACHING THE WADA CODE is, to my mind, suggesting to 17 other Presidents that they can use whatever supplements they like and if WADA find out and ban some of their players (FOR BREACHING THE WADA CODE) the AFL will not only allow the use of top up players they will even modify the salary cap to accommodate this. Incidentally, don’t forget to throw in a first round draft pick to assist a struggling team. Rewarding bad behaviour is not the way to go and I call upon the other 17 presidents to take a vote of no confidence in Gill and have him removed from the position before the brand is irreversibly damaged by a newfound culture - the best chemist wins games. The teams in rebuild mode do not get these generous concessions to allow them to remain competitive but if drugs come into the equation apparently everything’s sweet. What will mum think when her son asks to go to Auskick?
Then there is the matter of the tainted Brownlow Medal. Any decent person would hand it back without thinking so as to retain the integrity of the medal but the CEO of the AFL has to call a meeting and invite the recipient along to hear his views, obviously no principles so needs assurances.

But a lot of those 12 players will leave and others will retire. Plus the 5 that are still playing at AFL level at other clubs would still be in Essendon's best 22, and they have lost them too. Add to that the other 17 who have already moved out of the AFL and it is easy to see that they are going to be very light on for quality players after 2016.

[ripplug66]

I notice Hinkley is wanting an extra top up player on Port's list. He doesn't think it is fair that Essendon who caused all this problem will have 43 players to select from, whereas Port Power will only have 42.

He says Port were aware when they recruited Ryder that if things went against him he could face suspension, so they will wear that gamble they took. However he says Monfries was signed up before the scandal broke.

I think Hinkley has got reasonable grounds for Port to get a top up player.

Do you think we would want a player who has been delisted or retired and pay at least 70K a year? Who would you like?

[Dr Spaceman]

Yes a lot of the players have moved on or retired.

And the coach and some officials are no longer there.

And of course the club is in for a lot of hurt on and off the field in the foreseeable future.

A lot has been said about this since 2013. A lot of opinions, a lot of people alleging they know what happened etc. However for the first time in 3 years we actually have an outcome. An official outcome. And that official outcome is "guilty" - "guilty of illegally drugging 34 players".

While the AFL's response is easy to understand on a financial level, and indeed was totally expected by a sceptical public, it is nonetheless totally at odds with what has just occurred. The world authority, which the AFL signed up to, has just found that one of your clubs ran a doping program.

You, the AFL, should be outraged - OUTRAGED!

Instead we get the response that basically treats the Bombers as victims. The poor dears will continue, with assistance. Will keep the draft picks normally reserved for natural poor performance. Will keep Anzac Day. Will hopefully recover quickly if all the fans stand by them.

Yes I know the importance of these strong teams, both to the competition and to our team.

But I ask again; where is the outrage from the AFL following this huge, internationally broadcast, decision?

The lack of any AFL outrage is in fact an outrage!

[Spinner]

Essendon have already been punished by the afl - lost of 1st and 2nd round draft picks for two years (got an end of 1st back), exclusion from finals and what $2 or $1m fine.

Now is the wada punishment.

Agree with the afl - let the cards fall where they fall now.

[chook23]

Essendon have already been punished by the afl - lost of 1st and 2nd round draft picks for two years (got an end of 1st back), exclusion from finals and what $2 or $1m fine.

Now is the wada punishment.

Agree with the afl - let the cards fall where they fall now.

Understand your point Spinner....

but in the back of my mind it was the afl back in 2013 when questioned by parts of media......afl stated that the punishment for lack of governance etc would be separate to any finding of guilt against AFL ANTI DOPING POLICY..

afl justified the punishment (via governance breaches) though guilt or innocence re doping was yet to be determined.

AFL mentioned further punishment would be revisited if anti doping policy proven to be breached.

Yes the players have received punishment from CAS (and of course the impact has on club) BUT AFL should punish Essendon again re the breach of doping policy

another fine and 2016 first draft pick to occur at completion of first round.

This should have been announced amongst Fitzpatrick (commission) response to player bans.

[loris]

I notice Hinkley is wanting an extra top up player on Port's list. He doesn't think it is fair that Essendon who caused all this problem will have 43 players to select from, whereas Port Power will only have 42.

He says Port were aware when they recruited Ryder that if things went against him he could face suspension, so they will wear that gamble they took. However he says Monfries was signed up before the scandal broke.

I think Hinkley has got reasonable grounds for Port to get a top up player.

Do you think we would want a player who has been delisted or retired and pay at least 70K a year? Who would you like?

WE????? Did I mention the Saints? If you correctly read the post, before you jump in with a off the mark response - I only mentioned Port Power, and what Hinkley thinks

Maybe you should go and read on the AFL.com site Hinkley's reasoning.

Incase you don't have the inclination to do just that. Here is the essence behind Hinkley's gripe. He would like to add another ruckman to his list. He is worried IF their main big man Matthew Lobbe succumbs to injury. Hinkley feels it would be too much of a risk asking their other young ruckman (Frampton ??? think that's his name) to carry such a load early in his career.

Now I don't know what other possible rucks Port have on their list, maybe Lobbe, Ryder & Frampton were it. So I think Hinkley's point is reasonable..... but that is only my opinion, sorry it irks you that I have one.

$70K I would imagine would be small bickies to pay if Hinkley's fears of Lobbe being injured eventuated. Obviously its a risk Port Power are willing to take to protect the development of Frampton and not expose him to loads that he hasn't yet been trained up for.

Don't know where you get the figure of $70,000 from. I wouldn't think top up players like Crowley & now James Kelly would be playing for that meagre amount at Essendon, unless the AFL are subsidizing their payments so as the club doesn't have to pay more than $70,000 for a top-up player. But I don't know if that assumption is correct or not.................... just an assumption, so hold your horses before you jump in!

Oh and no I don't have anyone in mind for the Saints to pick up as a top-up player. I wasn't talking about the Saints, only Port Power's response to the situation they find themselves in, which they consider is unfair for them. Understand??????

[ripplug66]

I notice Hinkley is wanting an extra top up player on Port's list. He doesn't think it is fair that Essendon who caused all this problem will have 43 players to select from, whereas Port Power will only have 42.

He says Port were aware when they recruited Ryder that if things went against him he could face suspension, so they will wear that gamble they took. However he says Monfries was signed up before the scandal broke.

I think Hinkley has got reasonable grounds for Port to get a top up player.

Do you think we would want a player who has been delisted or retired and pay at least 70K a year? Who would you like?

WE????? Did I mention the Saints? If you correctly read the post, before you jump in with a off the mark response - I only mentioned Port Power, and what Hinkley thinks

Maybe you should go and read on the AFL.com site Hinkley's reasoning.

Incase you don't have the inclination to do just that. Here is the essence behind Hinkley's gripe. He would like to add another ruckman to his list. He is worried IF their main big man Matthew Lobbe succumbs to injury. Hinkley feels it would be too much of a risk asking their other young ruckman (Frampton ??? think that's his name) to carry such a load early in his career.

Now I don't know what other possible rucks Port have on their list, maybe Lobbe, Ryder & Frampton were it. So I think Hinkley's point is reasonable..... but that is only my opinion, sorry it irks you that I have one.

$70K I would imagine would be small bickies to pay if Hinkley's fears of Lobbe being injured eventuated. Obviously its a risk Port Power are willing to take to protect the development of Frampton and not expose him to loads that he hasn't yet been trained up for.

Don't know where you get the figure of $70,000 from. I wouldn't think top up players like Crowley & now James Kelly would be playing for that meagre amount at Essendon, unless the AFL are subsidizing their payments so as the club doesn't have to pay more than $70,000 for a top-up player. But I don't know if that assumption is correct or not.................... just an assumption, so hold your horses before you jump in!

Oh and no I don't have anyone in mind for the Saints to pick up as a top-up player. I wasn't talking about the Saints, only Port Power's response to the situation they find themselves in, which they consider is unfair for them. Understand??????

Wow. Maybe I shouldn't ask you any questions at all. I didn't say you mentioned us. I was asking a pretty simple question just to see how you felt about it. I don't care about Pt Adelaide to be honest. As for the money you do understand the words at least. Obviously Crowley and Kelly would want at least 200K. Maybe you should look for the best in a simple question and not the worst.

[samuraisaint]

In the end it will fast track them back to the top 4

I don't think so. Too many good players have moved on because they didn't want to stay at the EFC. And apart from the usual retirements and trades to their list, we don't know the impact that the next season will have on their ability to hold onto the 12 players suspended. The individuals themselves may decide to move on from this saga by moving on to another club altogether, or their agents/partners may advise them too.

[matrix]

This couldn't have gone in the essendope thread????

[saintspremiers]

In the end it will fast track them back to the top 4

I don't think so. This will be a defining moment in their history. Melbourne have never recovered from unfairly sacking Norm Smith, Richmond have never recovered from their bidding war with Collingwood, and Carlton have never recovered from the sanctions for breaching the salary cap.
Football teams can't just turn these things around in a season or two. They are big organisations and they lose a lot of experience and expertise when people in positions, off-field and on, are moved on for transgressions.
Right now, it is new news, and their is an air of expectation surrounding what season 2016 will hold, but in time when they become just another mediocre side, finishing bottom four for a decade, finishing ninth for twenty years, or an inability to perform when in finals, this is the true impact of what these moments have on a club culture. Instead of winning a Flag a decade, they don't win one for fifity + years, or 35 years, and the supporters and players lose those high expectations and become resigned to that mediocrity.

Essendon supporters, like Carlton supporters in the 2000s, Richmond in the 90s, and Melbourne in the 70s, are going to find out what it's like to go to matches for season after season experiencing loss after loss.

Probably virtually every poster will agree with you on this !

[GrumpyOne]

In the circumstances, we should be permitted to draft an extra rookie.

[ripplug66]

In the circumstances, we should be permitted to draft an extra rookie.

Isnt it just a waste of money. The player will have been retired or delisted by a club. Seems like we one just because Essendon got 10. I honestly think the club couldn't give a rats. He has to be delisted at the end of the year.

[Saints43]

In the circumstances, we should be permitted to draft an extra rookie.

Isnt it just a waste of money. The player will have been retired or delisted by a club. Seems like we one just because Essendon got 10. I honestly think the club couldn't give a rats. He has to be delisted at the end of the year.

He's saying we should be permitted.... Doesn't say we should take up the option. Can't you see the difference?

Essendon - the drug cheats who caused our issue - shouldn't have better options in the situation than we do. That is all.

Just because in this situation it may not be especially beneficial for us to be considered the equal of on of THE BIG 4 we should try to set a standard that we won't just sit back and see equal stake holders in the league preferred to us in any situation. Fixture, stadium deals, TV exposure... when do we say 'enough is enough' ?

[ripplug66]

In the circumstances, we should be permitted to draft an extra rookie.

Isnt it just a waste of money. The player will have been retired or delisted by a club. Seems like we one just because Essendon got 10. I honestly think the club couldn't give a rats. He has to be delisted at the end of the year.

He's saying we should be permitted.... Doesn't say we should take up the option. Can't you see the difference?

Essendon - the drug cheats who caused our issue - shouldn't have better options in the situation than we do. That is all.

I can obviously but like I said do we want it just to say we got it. We wouldn't use it so why do we care. And Essendon haven't got better options. They are 2 players short. Can I ask a question? Well that's 2 now because I have another one. Do you want to get another player?