The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement

Clubs of former Essendon players should seek further compensation

Tony D'Orsi new author
Roar Rookie
23rd January, 2016
Advertisement
AFL CEO Gillon McLachlan speaks. (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)
Tony D'Orsi new author
Roar Rookie
23rd January, 2016
56
2240 Reads

Earlier this month, when the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) banned 34 former and current Essendon players for the 2016 season, AFL Chief Executive Officer Gillon McLachlan fronted a press conference.

He announced a detailed plan to supplement the Bombers list with top-up players and extra salary cap space.

In comparison, the compensation offered to the four other clubs which have been adversely affected by the CAS ruling – Melbourne, Port Adelaide, St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs – almost feels like an afterthought.

While Essendon is able to recruit players the quality of Ryan Crowley and James Kelly to their list, the other clubs, who have ultimately done nothing wrong throughout the saga, are restricted to upgrading existing rookie list players to cover their significant losses.

The Arbitral Award for the case of WADA versus the Essendon players, which was released by the CAS last week, contains the most detailed timeline of events yet in this sad and sorry tale. An interesting but overlooked fact to come from this is that Essendon self-reported concerns about an alleged supplements program to the AFL and ASADA before the 2012 finals series.

Previously, it was accepted that the Bombers only self-reported on February 5, 2013, two days before ASADA held their ‘Blackest day in Australian sport’ press conference. The new timeline is significant, it means not only did Essendon fail to disclose important information to other clubs during the 2012 trade period, but that the AFL was also complicit.

During that trade period, Essendon dealt Angus Monfries to Port Adelaide on a four-year deal, in what was at the time described as a ‘goodwill’ trade. Port Adelaide was not informed of the potential risks by the AFL or Essendon, and for this reason the AFL must afford Port the same opportunities they have given Essendon to recruit a top-up player replacement.

The Power made an official submission to the AFL on Tuesday, seeking replacements for two players – Monfries and Patrick Ryder. Head coach Ken Hinkley bemoaned the AFL’s handling of the issue in an interview with 5AA on the same day, making the point that Port would now enter the season with less players than Essendon, “how do you get penalised for not creating the problem and have to deal with it? It doesn’t make sense to me.”

Advertisement

Any decision by the AFL on Port’s submission is expected to happen at the end of the month. St Kilda and the Western Bulldogs are also keeping a close eye on the outcome and how it could affect their position with Jake Carlisle and Stewart Crameri respectively. In the meantime, Essendon have the pick of the crop.

However the situation with Ryder, Carlisle and Crameri is not as clear cut as it is with Monfries. Those players were traded after the ASADA investigation began in 2013. The clubs involved were well aware of the risks involved and they paid below market value for precisely that reason. A sensible solution in this situation might be to have the full 2016 salaries of the banned players removed from the salary cap, allowing the clubs to restructure contracts for active players on their list, rather than to grant more top-up players.

While the Power have the strongest case for a top-up player with Monfries, it is likely they would use any concessions to recruit a back-up ruckman to cover the loss of Ryder. The Power has strong pinch-hitting ruck options in Jackson Trengove and new recruit Charlie Dixon, but both players have expressed concerns over spending time in the ruck due to their long injury history.

If either were to suffer a career-ending injury playing in the ruck in 2016, there are all sorts of duty of care issues that could potentially arise for the club and the AFL.

Ultimately, what this episode once again highlights is the ridiculous, inflexible nature of an AFL list. That the actions of one club can potentially derail the upcoming seasons for four others in a top tier professional competition boggles the mind. Spare a thought too for the local league clubs who will have their star players poached by Essendon just weeks before the season starts.

Free agency was the first big step, is it time to have a serious discussion about a mid-season trade period?

close