Port Adelaide 2016

[UK Fan]

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

[RustyCage]

It's the Sunday Mail. Accuracy has never been s strong point of theirs

[Mickyj]

It's the Sunday Mail. Accuracy has never been s strong point of theirs

So they print the budget as well lol

[woodublieve12]

Maybe port can ask for a top up player for Dixon too????

[am Bays]

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.

[Booney]

Oh, the irony.

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.

[bennymacca]

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

[am Bays]

Oh, the irony.

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....."

[Booney]

Oh, the irony.

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?

Moot point as Port can't "top up" anyway.

[mal]

Oh, the irony.

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

Does not make sense at all

[Dutchy]

Oh, the irony.

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?

[Booney]

Oh, the irony.

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.

[whufc]

Oh, the irony.

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

[Booney]

Oh, the irony.

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.

[whufc]

Agree i don't think there is any interstate bias but I just prefer to use the term rather than afl as to me that's what it will always be

Yep they make business decisions

[Dutchy]

Oh, the irony.

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.

You have more than 2 rookies though?

[Booney]

Sorry, I meant we are 2 rookies short of their list.

Clubs have 5 rookies to elevate, we will have 3.

[Dutchy]

Sorry, I meant we are 2 rookies short of their list.

Clubs have 5 rookies to elevate, we will have 3.

Maybe the answer was to allow a couple more Rookies then.

[UK Fan]

https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/2202982 ... ref=market


It's Booney!!!

[daysofourlives]

Storm in a tea cup

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