SANFL Statement = Essendon

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Booney on Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:33 am

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.
avatar
Booney

Join date : 2011-12-12
Posts : 1984
Location : Alberton.....literally.
Teams : Port Adelaide, Chicago White Sox
My club : port

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by mickyj on Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:40 am

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
avatar
mickyj

Join date : 2012-02-21
Posts : 1509
My club : eagles

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Chambo Off To Work We Go on Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:11 am

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.


Last edited by Chambo Off To Work We Go on Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:40 am; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Chambo Off To Work We Go

Join date : 2012-02-03
Posts : 2764
My club : sturt

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by lachlan on Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:17 am

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.
avatar
lachlan

Join date : 2011-12-29
Posts : 240

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Booney on Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:22 am

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.
avatar
Booney

Join date : 2011-12-12
Posts : 1984
Location : Alberton.....literally.
Teams : Port Adelaide, Chicago White Sox
My club : port

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Flag No.10 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:28 am

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.


Flag No.10

Join date : 2012-01-07
Posts : 1965
Teams : West Adelaide
My club : west

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Flag No.10 on Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:30 am

Jonathon Simpkin has become top-up player #3.

Flag No.10

Join date : 2012-01-07
Posts : 1965
Teams : West Adelaide
My club : west

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by lachlan on Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:31 am

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
avatar
lachlan

Join date : 2011-12-29
Posts : 240

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Booney on Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:23 pm

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.
avatar
Booney

Join date : 2011-12-12
Posts : 1984
Location : Alberton.....literally.
Teams : Port Adelaide, Chicago White Sox
My club : port

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by lachlan on Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:54 pm

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.
avatar
lachlan

Join date : 2011-12-29
Posts : 240

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Booney on Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:57 pm

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.
avatar
Booney

Join date : 2011-12-12
Posts : 1984
Location : Alberton.....literally.
Teams : Port Adelaide, Chicago White Sox
My club : port

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by lachlan on Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:15 pm

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
avatar
lachlan

Join date : 2011-12-29
Posts : 240

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Booney on Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:19 pm

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.
avatar
Booney

Join date : 2011-12-12
Posts : 1984
Location : Alberton.....literally.
Teams : Port Adelaide, Chicago White Sox
My club : port

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by lachlan on Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:28 pm

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
avatar
lachlan

Join date : 2011-12-29
Posts : 240

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Booney on Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:34 pm

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

Offer still stands.
avatar
Booney

Join date : 2011-12-12
Posts : 1984
Location : Alberton.....literally.
Teams : Port Adelaide, Chicago White Sox
My club : port

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by lachlan on Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:42 pm

Booney

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

Join date : 2011-12-29
Posts : 240

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Booney on Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:58 pm

I look forward to you supplying anything other than hearsay.

Be quick, I'm holding me breath!
avatar
Booney

Join date : 2011-12-12
Posts : 1984
Location : Alberton.....literally.
Teams : Port Adelaide, Chicago White Sox
My club : port

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by bayman on Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:25 am

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
avatar
bayman

Join date : 2012-02-05
Posts : 6710
Location : on a marx brothers set
Teams : plympton, glenelg, redbacks & whoever the money is on
My club : glenelg

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Chambo Off To Work We Go on Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:53 pm

Sh.t, I didn't think of that. Very Happy
avatar
Chambo Off To Work We Go

Join date : 2012-02-03
Posts : 2764
My club : sturt

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Booney on Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:20 pm

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.
avatar
Booney

Join date : 2011-12-12
Posts : 1984
Location : Alberton.....literally.
Teams : Port Adelaide, Chicago White Sox
My club : port

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Booney on Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:21 pm

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?
avatar
Booney

Join date : 2011-12-12
Posts : 1984
Location : Alberton.....literally.
Teams : Port Adelaide, Chicago White Sox
My club : port

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by mickyj on Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:45 pm

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
avatar
mickyj

Join date : 2012-02-21
Posts : 1509
My club : eagles

Back to top Go down

Re: SANFL Statement = Essendon

Post by Flag No.10 on Sat Jan 23, 2016 11:49 am

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.

Flag No.10

Join date : 2012-01-07
Posts : 1965
Teams : West Adelaide
My club : west

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum