I'm liking very much what I'm reading in the ORFFA forum......which I think ORFFU should accept as well....bearing in mind that our first season was 2014 and this supplement crap occurred during the 2012 season...... "For clarity, we have all known about the bombers saga for a long time and it's potential implications. There will be no dispensation in the FA for coaches holding affected players, if you don't want to keep them delist them and redraft, if you want to hold them consider them a project."
I can't seem to find a poll, but agree with Choppers. We've known about this since we started, so I don't see any reason anything different should happen. That being said, I'm not effected nearly as much as others so have no reason to see any necessity to changes for this season
You guys are funny....if your not affected then no change....if you are then free for all. Not sure we all thought they would get rubbed out for 12 months 3 years after it happened....now now Tipping this was a fair shock to all of us. I'm easy really, be cool to hang onto Jobe for the year but I can understand that other teams don't want us affected teams to advantage from this....so what ever goes lads. When are delistments due? Need to start prepping. Pakenham have been busy leading the way in div 1 bball. Hopefully the club can have something to celebrate this year because it looks like our footy team is going to struggle
Subject to change..... Calendar of Events Draft List Order (initial & adjusted for MSD trades) Post Season Trade Period – 14 Sep 15 to 30 Nov 15 Post Season Auction Thread – 14 Sep 15 to 30 Nov 15 Preseason Trade Period – 18 Jan 16 to 31 Jan 16 Draft List Order (Final) Delistments – 01 Feb 16 to 12 Feb 16 Preseason Draft – 13 Feb 16 to 06 Mar 16 Preseason Trade Period – 07 Mar 16 to 27 Mar 16 Start of the Season TBA
From someone with none of the affected 34, I was thinking along the same lines as dd. Was way harsher than anyone could have imagined and if we had a side that theoretically had 5 or 6 of these guys would we really be willing to let them not be able to field a full side a lot of weeks because of the extraordinary penalties? Anyway poll is in action and seems like that's not the majority view!
Having a think about it, not sure we have got the poll right. Should it first be Compensation Yes or No and then if yes we go to what that compensation should be? Yes for compensation votes are being diluted atm because of the different options available
That's up to the commissioner; that's why we've got one! The whole thing rests with him. I just chucked up a poll to take a temperature check/gather information/promote conversation. Considering how dead it was around here I figured it would be nice to have something in the FU to yack about
Looking at the poll and grouping the 3 extra pick options it seems to be sitting at 7-8 in favour of no compensation. But I think your point is a good one and we should have a Yes/No poll first....motion seconded.
I'm throwing up the opposite side to the debate that dd and wrightbrendan have taken. YES, I agree the penalty is a way bit too harsh but it is what it is. Before I get onto the "Compensation" bit, this supplement saga had its origins in 2012, and our 1st season was 2014, so I believe that anyone who has traded/drafted any of these players into their squads, did so, knowing that they took a risk that they would lose their players at some time, should they been found guilty. Since the start of our 2014 season, everyone with any of those same players has had plenty of opportunity to trade those players out of their squads if they so wished. If they have any of those players still in their squads, then obviously they have chosen not to, but have accepted willingly all the points that those players brought them during those 2 seasons. Now they're after Compensation for losing these players for 1 season. Why? Did JPK get compensation last year for losing O'Meara for the season, before a ball was bounced. NO. How about fresh and Mick with Scharenberg and Freeman, both players missing their seasons, once again the answer is NO. My answer to this unfortunate saga is that some bad decisions have been made but they're our bad decisions and we now need to live by these decisions, so to the teams affected by this, either keep the players on your list OR delist them and go to the draft. That is your choice. Another thing to consider is that if Compensation is given, and extra players are allowed to be drafted then we also need to change one of our rules. Rule 1(b) Squads of 26 players during competition. ........
Not sure if that will achieve much mate. Personally I would have hung onto Laverde if I knew they were all getting banned. He should see some game time this year.
Even though I'm one of those holding two bombers one suspended one playing I voted no compensation as I basically had my head in the sand hoping for a back dated suspension . Howlett will be up for trade or de listed. Sent from my GT-N7105T using Tapatalk
Chop? Just throwing injuries into the same box as this doesn't make sense to me. Completely different mate. How did we know who was implicated and who wasn't when we had to make these list decisions your talking about. Did you know Crameri was one of the players that was going to be rubbed out? If so did you shaft me or was I silly not to have asked you? What bad decisions are you suggesting have been made? Are you trying to have a dig at me? Like I said before I'm easy with what ever decision gets made.
Hey mate, I'm not having a go at anyone. All I'm saying is if anyone drafted /or traded any Essendon players into their squad, then that's on them, and shouldn't expect compensation. I agree that no-one knew exactly who the 34 players were, and because of not knowing, I wasn't prepared to take the risk and so put Crameri and Monfries on the trade table You obviously were prepared to take the risk, otherwise Crameri would still be with the Barcrawlers, and I'd be the one having to make the decision whether to de-list him or keep him on the bench for 2016. And how would I know who the 34 players were. I only know what I read online, probably same as you. And as far as comparison to season ending injuries goes, at least you knew there was a chance that the Bomber players might be banned, so had time to do something if you wished. When a player cops a season ending injury, you just gotta cop in on the chin and move on. No compensation even considered and nor should there be. Anyway, if the vote goes to Compensation, it is what it is and I'll get on with it.....
No worries mate. Thanks for clearing that up. All fair enough. I understand what your meaning. Looking like its a lose lose in our trade anyways mate...both our players are gone now.....meh I've copped bad injuries every season so far but can cop them on the chin, this situation just feels different and extradionary to me. I could handle losing Watson last year because of injury but for some reason feel ripped off because he is missing this year because of Dank......it's a smelly crappy situation for the players, I do feel for them
Choppers has said it all, Brad Crouch didn't play a game, no compensation, I also remember Petracca did an ACL, no compensation. I'm happy to consider trading in a suspended player. There is a long term aspect to our competition not just 2016.
Can we stop using injuries in this discussion. It has nothing to do with this and means nothing to this matter. Thanks
The reality is that one group of coaches is going to be disadvantaged - if there's no compensation then it's those of us who have Bombers players, or if there's compensation, the rest of the FU as they lose access to those players picked up as compensation. So while I'm not happy to be losing Heppell (who was probably going to be the highest scoring Bomber this year) my view is that it's fairer to the group overall that no compensation is granted. F$&king Hird.