Port Adelaide coach Ken Hinkley says his side should also be given list concessions after the recent Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling.
The AFL has allowed Essendon to upgrade all five of its rookie listed players and sign up to ten top-up players for the 2016 season.
The other four AFL clubs affected by the guilty ruling can upgrade one player from its rookie list.
Hinkley is furious that the Power cannot sign more than one player, as the club has two players (Angus Monfries and Paddy Ryder) banned for the season, meaning the Bombers can start the season with 43 players, where as the Power can only enter the season will 42.
“How do you get penalised for not creating the problem and have to deal with it? It doesn’t make sense to me,” Hinkley told Adelaide radio station 5AA.
TRENDING NOW
“You would think at worst we would not start the season below the numbers of the Essendon Football Club.
“Essendon should not start the season with 43 and us with 42 players.”
Essendon has so far signed two top-up players, former Fremantle player Ryan Crowley and former Geelong triple-premiership player, James Kelly.
If those drug cheats get them, every team affected should have the same opportunities.
Hahahaha hahahaha
REALLY mature! Are you 5?
It’s called a sence of humour sorry port fan 🤓 I find it funny as all the clubs knew what they where getting into by recruiting 😉
Not wen we got guss
And there’s your 1 upgrade.
Too bloody right….but at the same time….these clubs knew when dealing with Essendon with player trades that there was a possibility of sanctions in which i am sure had clauses in their player contracts in regards to it….i kind of say serve yourselves right, but i do feel for the Saints a little…even as a pies man
I agree Paul, but up to a point. I’m a Saints man so I agree we shouldn’t be allowed a top up player for Carlisle because, as you rightly state, we recruited him knowing that this was a worst-case possibility. Which is identical to the Port Adelaide and Paddy Ryder situation. However, Port recruited Angus Monfries BEFORE the supplements saga came up and therefore had no way of protecting themselves. If the AFL have allowed a top up player for Monfries only, then that is the correct course of action. Hinkley needs to cop Ryder on the chin, same as Saints for Carlisle and the Dees for Melksham.
What about Crameri? Did he leave same time as Monfries? ….and yes, you make a valid and fair point there
Well if the other clubs are not allowed top up players, then why are the cheating bastards Essenscum allowed them. They have broken the rules and are being rewarded where as the others only traded/ picked up in FA players not happy with what Essenscum did to them. Essenscum have 28 senior listed players and 6 rookie listed players on their list. It is their own fault if they don’t have enough players to field a side.
It’s not like they are trading up though
There’s really only two ways of looking at it for mine. Either clubs are only allowed replacements if they traded for a player who has since been suspended before the scandal broke, like Monfries at Port, or all clubs get to replace them all. The former option is impossible because Essendon wouldn’t have a viable list, so it has to be the latter. Hinkley is dead right: the way it’s been decided, Essendon, the guilty party, get to replace all their suspended players and Port don’t. That doesn’t sit right at all.
Essendon are the team that screwed up and are getting all the benefits
All the teams that took these players knew that they might be suspended but took the risk Collingwood stayed out of it smart by eddy and I support the whole football legue
So the 2 involved in social media pornography should be given a free pass?
Photos have nothing to do with this article published so how about commenting on what it’s about
Robyn Bonser how is what they’ve done illegal? According to all reports, it was consensual
Except Angus Monfries, who was taken as a trade at the end of 2012, before the scandal broke mate. That’s why PAFC would like to replace him, otherwise they’ll only have 42 players available, 1 less than the team convicted. Hence they ask. They didn’t ask in concern to Paddy Ryder as they knew the risks.
Hahahahaha awww wahhhhh power knew the risk they were taking so get over it
Buyer beware
Boohoo😂
They didn’t know with monfries, ryder was a gamble they knew the risks but not monfries.
Good enough for essendon port should surely be allowed to get just one to replace monfries
Shouldnt all teams with banned players get top ups? St kilda, port, collingwood, freo and st kilda last year?? Why is it only the bombers
Just read the article lol top up for monfries I agree with but ryder?
Doesn’t matter they lost two players Essedon can top up AFL showing their hand again
Yeah I dont disagree and whats the bet the top up players can be paid outside the cap
So many immature 5 year old type responses on here. Do your mum’s know you’re of Facebook?
Bunch of bloody sooks only lost 2 average players
Monfries can be pretty handy….
Only now & again he’s only half the player of Jobe Watson or Say a Dyson Heppel
AFL being incompetent again the competition is a joke
Average ? Really dikhead.
On your rags hey
If Essendon can have players banned and get top ups why cant they?
Bronwyn Keown what u reckon?
Hello LADS!! Yesterday we won £5K
Next matches are Today (01/20/16) with total odd 224.00
Offer will be special,we guarantee your winnings!!!
Check my profile for more info!
Peter Blanas they should’ve applied for a top up last year after Paddys performances
One rule for one AFL becoming a dead set Joke
Supriced the port fans arnt saying its the crows failt. Stop your sooking ya bunch of bitches.