MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA - SEPTEMBER 12: Stewart Crameri (left) and Tory Dickson of the Bulldogs celebrate a goal during the 2015 AFL Second Elimination Final match between the Western Bulldogs and the Adelaide Crows at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne, Australia on September 12, 2015. (Photo by Adam Trafford/AFL Media/Getty Images)

Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge has slammed the decision by the AFL to not allow other clubs top-up players for 2016.

Melbourne, St Kilda, Port Adelaide and the Western Bulldogs have all been affected by the Essendon top-up scandal.

The AFL ruled that the clubs could not sign top-up players like Essendona re permitted to do, but instead could upgrade one rookie from its rookie list.

“We are disappointed,” Beveridge said on 3AW Radio on Thursday.

“I was quite passionate about the fact that we should have been able to fill the void there.

TRENDING NOW

“The offering of a rookie is of no benefit to us. We drafted Jed Adcock as a rookie to cover Clay Smith, who has a long-term injury.

“We’ve brought in a couple of very young players as our other two (rookies). We’re not in a position to elevate another rookie for Stewart.”

Beveridge said he believes the league should have done more to help both Essendopn and the other four affected clubs move on from the doping scandal.

“For the decision to be made that they can only replace 10 of the 12 players — the strain that will put on that young group going in two less — I’d have thought it’s replace the 12 and let’s help the Bombers move on,” Beveridge said.

SEE ALSO:  The top five out of contract players for 2019

“Yet here we are, they’re two short and there’s four other clubs who go in short when there’s already an interesting quirk in the draw.

“There’s some clubs — and we don’t know who they are — who protested our submission that we should be able to replace players.

“That’s really just unfair that they don’t see it the same way as we do. That is because we genuinely feel for Essendon and their supporters and, in particular, the 34 players.”

25 COMMENTS

  2. So WB want top-up players so that means Port, St Kilda and Melbourne should also get some top-ups but the AFL CEO can’t grow some balls thats the only problem the AFL CEO won’t allow it to happen

  3. What a crock of shit…..they knew the potential risk when trading players in with only exception being Angus Monfries from Port Adelaide…no crying now, deal with it!! If they were on the long term injury list and out for the season the team structure would have to adjust….try doing that!!

  4. Shut up already you knew what might happen but you signed them anyway so no you should not get top up players no one should get top up players and that includes essenscum the cheating pricks

  5. If Port, Melbourne, Saints, Bulldogs were granted permission it would of been unfair because as far as I know Collingwood with Thomas and Okeefe plus Fremantle with Crowley never got a top up player/s

    • The flip side of that is that it occurred at another club, at the request of that club. I’m a dogs fan. I understand both sides, but really, feel that a top up for us would be almost useless.

    • It doesn’t matter what club they from they were suspended for a season like the bombers players are so if they are aloud to top up players (saints Bulldogs demons etc) then collingwood and Freo should of been too!

    • Totally different because the bombers got fill in players.. It’s different because the afl made it that way.. Why shouldn’t clubs like the power get the same?

    • I am not against port etc getting top up players but Collingwood Fremantle and St Kilda when Saad was suspended should received them too at the time of players suspended

    • Again, Collingwood, Fremantle and the saints with saad were different due to the afl making up rules as they go (allowed the Dons to have top up players) before they did that, I’d agree with any player getting suspended due to a drug related ban not being replaced at all. But the bombers, the ones who administered the program, are being rewarded and clubs that traded with them are being punished.

    • But that’s exactly it…..AFL news has not gone a week in the last two seasons where this shit has not been played over and over again at bloody nauseous intervals and the whole time the consensus has been they were going to take a break….this comment of Essendon selling players….better read the history again….either way the clubs involved in picking up these players rolled a dice and it didn’t work out….the reason Essendon are only allowed 10 top up players out of the 12 suspended on their list is because Port Adelaide is affected by the loss of two of the former players…it would be deemed unfair if they were allowed to top up the whole list….The only reason why Essendon is compensated at all is because the AFL is a BUSINESS, not just a sport. If the whole club had to forfeit this year, do you know how much revenue loss that is to the AFL on scheduled games? Not to mention the membership base lost to the club already for this season

  13. Baffling Beveridge yes of course the dogs should be allowed a top up player( as should all clubs ) but think the druggies should be helped even more as stupid and idiotic as the dogs treatment of M Talia

Comments are closed.