View Full Version : The Rumour Why Hird Re-Signed
Bourky23
18 Aug 2006, 21:14
listening to friday nite tip-off on afl.com and andy maher, billy brownless and timmy watson saying apparently that essendon told hirdy that aker has basically signed with the dons and that they want him to play on bcoz they'll have lloyd back and mite actually be a shot at the 8... anyone else hird about it??? haha shocking pun
Oh When the Saints
18 Aug 2006, 21:15
Heard the same thing from a forward scout at the Bombers. Aker is a done deal for the Bomber's priority pick.
andypie
18 Aug 2006, 21:17
Heard the same thing from a forward scout at the Bombers. Aker is a done deal for the Bomber's priority pick.
priority picks cant be traded.
kimirocks
18 Aug 2006, 21:22
NO.1 Essendon are'nt a given for the priority pick in the first place. And like andypie said, cant be traded, so assume its for their 2nd round pick (pic 18/19/20)
andypie
18 Aug 2006, 21:29
Heard the same thing from a forward scout at the Bombers. Aker is a done deal for the Bomber's priority pick.
no such thing as a done deal. illegal to put pen to paper now, and all it takes is for someone else to offer something better. just ask turner from the storm. so go tell your "forward scout "mate that andy pie said that he's full of sh*t.
goDees22
18 Aug 2006, 21:30
i thought Aker couldn't go in the PSD?
Porthos
18 Aug 2006, 21:33
NO.1 Essendon are'nt a given for the priority pick in the first place. And like andypie said, cant be traded, so assume its for their 2nd round pick (pic 18/19/20)
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
Could someone please bookmark or sticky or just make sure people remember what I am about to say, because people here have been getting this wrong for more than 5 years.
In 2001, Fremantle traded the #1 pick over-all (THEIR PRIORITY PICK) to Hawthorn, along with pick #20, for Luke McPharlin and Trent Croad.
PRIORITY PICKS CAN BE TRADED. PRIORITY PICKS CAN BE TRADED. PRIORITY PICKS CAN BE TRADED.
Corpuscles
18 Aug 2006, 21:41
Porthos.. suggest ya move up to size 22 knickers luv;)
They are all in knot
The Dustbin
18 Aug 2006, 21:45
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
Could someone please bookmark or sticky or just make sure people remember what I am about to say, because people here have been getting this wrong for more than 5 years.
In 2001, Fremantle traded the #1 pick over-all (THEIR PRIORITY PICK) to Hawthorn, along with pick #20, for Luke McPharlin and Trent Croad.
PRIORITY PICKS CAN BE TRADED. PRIORITY PICKS CAN BE TRADED. PRIORITY PICKS CAN BE TRADED.
Second that. :thumbsu:
Jimmy_the_Gent
18 Aug 2006, 21:48
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
Could someone please bookmark or sticky or just make sure people remember what I am about to say, because people here have been getting this wrong for more than 5 years.
In 2001, Fremantle traded the #1 pick over-all (THEIR PRIORITY PICK) to Hawthorn, along with pick #20, for Luke McPharlin and Trent Croad.
PRIORITY PICKS CAN BE TRADED. PRIORITY PICKS CAN BE TRADED. PRIORITY PICKS CAN BE TRADED.
I thought that as a result of the Freo trade the rule came in about not being able to trade priority picks.
Either way if this is true Essendon could just trade their second round pick which would only be like 2 or 3 selections worse than their priority pick.
Rough_Edges
18 Aug 2006, 21:56
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
Could someone please bookmark or sticky or just make sure people remember what I am about to say, because people here have been getting this wrong for more than 5 years.
In 2001, Fremantle traded the #1 pick over-all (THEIR PRIORITY PICK) to Hawthorn, along with pick #20, for Luke McPharlin and Trent Croad.
PRIORITY PICKS CAN BE TRADED. PRIORITY PICKS CAN BE TRADED. PRIORITY PICKS CAN BE TRADED.
Agree totally.
Drives me crazy.
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
Could someone please bookmark or sticky or just make sure people remember what I am about to say, because people here have been getting this wrong for more than 5 years.
In 2001, Fremantle traded the #1 pick over-all (THEIR PRIORITY PICK) to Hawthorn, along with pick #20 AND PICK#36, for Luke McPharlin and Trent Croad.
PICK#36 SAM MITCHELL PICK#36 SAM MITCHELL PICK#36 SAM MITCHELL PICK#36 SAM MITCHELL
Mr Lizard
18 Aug 2006, 22:08
hahahahahahaha it's good to get the facts straight :thumbsu:
andypie
18 Aug 2006, 22:21
hahahahahahaha it's good to get the facts straight :thumbsu:
since when do facts matter?
didnt know they changed that but early days you couldnt do it.
sorry.
crudbucket
18 Aug 2006, 22:27
Freo did not trade their priority pick in 2001.
Freo won the spoon in 2001 and therefore earned the No. 1 pick for finishing last. this was their right and and not a priority.
As they only won 2 games they also received a priority pick which was pick no. 4. (Saints 15th with 4 wins got picks 2 & 5 and Eagles 14th with 5 wins got picks 3 & 6)
The pick they traded was No.1, the pick they kept was no. 4 which was the priority pick.
Bronx Bomber
18 Aug 2006, 22:35
Freo did not trade their priority pick in 2001.
Freo won the spoon in 2001 and therefore earned the No. 1 pick for finishing last. this was their right and and not a priority.
As they only won 2 games they also received a priority pick which was pick no. 4. (Saints 15th with 4 wins got picks 2 & 5 and Eagles 14th with 5 wins got picks 3 & 6)
The pick they traded was No.1, the pick they kept was no. 4 which was the priority pick.
But I believe that pick #1 was the priority pick.
Simalar to this year when Carlton, Collingwood & Hawthorn all had priority picks.
So the first 3 picks in the draft were priority picks.
They were called priority picks becuase they came before all the other picks.
crimson
18 Aug 2006, 22:39
Does Aker get a say. If Brisbane get a better offer from another side can they take that?
the No. 1 pick for finishing last...was their right and and not a priority.
As they only won 2 games they also received a priority pick which was pick no. 4...
I actually agree with crudbucket here. I know the AFL records list those first choices as the actual priority picks, but you can't argue with the crudmeister's logic.
In 2000 if St Kilda had finished 16th, but won more than 4 games, they still would've chosen Riewoldt at number 1. Koschitzke was their freebie.
Bourky23
18 Aug 2006, 22:41
Does Aker get a say. If Brisbane get a better offer from another side can they take that?
they toyed with the idea of solomon and a pick for aker... they did say that brisbane would have to be satisfied for the deal to occur
Longy413
18 Aug 2006, 22:44
Freo did not trade their priority pick in 2001.
Freo won the spoon in 2001 and therefore earned the No. 1 pick for finishing last. this was their right and and not a priority.
As they only won 2 games they also received a priority pick which was pick no. 4. (Saints 15th with 4 wins got picks 2 & 5 and Eagles 14th with 5 wins got picks 3 & 6)
The pick they traded was No.1, the pick they kept was no. 4 which was the priority pick.
Technically you're right, but under the laws of the AFL you are wrong.
Previous to this year, priority picks we taken prior to the first round of the draft. In 2005 priority picks were picks 1, 2 and 3. The first round started at pick 4.
crimson
18 Aug 2006, 22:45
they toyed with the idea of solomon and a pick for aker... they did say that brisbane would have to be satisfied for the deal to occur Let's say Carlton offer their first round pick or a player like Fev which Brisbane would not likely turn down, then Aker would have to go to the Blues for the value of the final year contract?
Technically you're right, but under the laws of the AFL you are wrong.
Previous to this year, priority picks we taken prior to the first round of the draft. In 2005 priority picks were picks 1, 2 and 3. The first round started at pick 4.
Always a stickler for the technicalities, eh Longy?
I reckon the AFL have simply got it wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time....
droppuntkick23
18 Aug 2006, 22:52
Freo did not trade their priority pick in 2001.
Freo won the spoon in 2001 and therefore earned the No. 1 pick for finishing last. this was their right and and not a priority.
As they only won 2 games they also received a priority pick which was pick no. 4. (Saints 15th with 4 wins got picks 2 & 5 and Eagles 14th with 5 wins got picks 3 & 6)
The pick they traded was No.1, the pick they kept was no. 4 which was the priority pick.
Which Freo used to pick up Polak
Roylion
18 Aug 2006, 22:54
Heard the same thing from a forward scout at the Bombers. Aker is a done deal for the Bomber's priority pick.
I have two questions about this.
1. How can Akermanis have "basically signed" with Essendon when he is still contracted to the Lions?
2. Have all offers from all clubs for Akermanis been put to Brisbane? If not and another club such as Melbourne or Richmond put forward what Brisbane consider to be a better offer for Akermanis, Essendon's 'done deal' won't be a 'done deal'
Nothing is a 'done deal' at this point of the season.
If Brisbane get a better offer from another side can they take that?
They sure can.
Bourky23
18 Aug 2006, 22:54
Let's say Carlton offer their first round pick or a player like Fev which Brisbane would not likely turn down, then Aker would have to go to the Blues for the value of the final year contract?
suppose so... but are carlton going to give that much up for him??
under the laws of the AFL you are wrong.
The reason they got it wrong is because of the name they gave 'em.
"Priority" picks by definition have to come before the rest of the draft picks.
But if they called them "supplementary" picks, then there wouldn't be any issue with this - eg. last year Carlton, Collingwood and Hawthorn received supplementary picks at numbers 4,5 and 6 for winning less than 5 games.
Bronx Bomber
18 Aug 2006, 22:59
The reason they got it wrong is because of the name they gave 'em.
"Priority" picks by definition have to come before the rest of the draft picks.
But if they called them "supplementary" picks, then there wouldn't be any issue with this - eg. last year Carlton, Collingwood and Hawthorn received supplementary picks at numbers 4,5 and 6 for winning less than 5 games.
According to AFL website (http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=237544)
2001 - *Fremantle traded its priority selection to Hawthorn. It received Trent Croad and in exchange Hawthorn drafted Luke Hodge.
So as the name suggested PRIORITY PICKS are taken before the first round.
Aker brought a house around the corner from my house in Moonee ponds
Longy413
18 Aug 2006, 23:00
The reason they got it wrong is because of the name they gave 'em.
"Priority" picks by definition have to come before the rest of the draft picks.
But if they called them "supplementary" picks, then there wouldn't be any issue with this - eg. last year Carlton, Collingwood and Hawthorn received supplementary picks at numbers 4,5 and 6 for winning less than 5 games.
Why does it matter anyway?
They can be traded, so in the end it has no consequence what they are called.
MrSquashed
18 Aug 2006, 23:02
I would laugh if hird resigned for this reason and aker doesn't play for essendon.
I cannot see aker playing for essendon, unless the lions wanted to screw him over haha
If we win another game, we don't get the extra pick anyway.
Longy413
18 Aug 2006, 23:04
I would laugh if hird resigned for this reason and aker doesn't play for essendon
Why? Easily amused?
I cannot see aker playing for essendon, unless the lions wanted to screw him over haha
They can't screw him over. He has to agree to a trade, so if he gets traded to Essendon, it's because he wanted to come.
andypie
18 Aug 2006, 23:05
since when do facts matter?
didnt know they changed that but early days you couldnt do it.
sorry.
i withdraw my apology.
i reckon you cant trade the priority and want to see some clarification.
Reckon Aker would love playing for the AFL's most successful club.
Longy413
18 Aug 2006, 23:07
Reckon Aker would love playing for the AFL's most successful club.
Here come the Port supporters.
i withdraw my apology.
i reckon you cant trade the priority and want to see some clarification.
In 2001, pick 1 was traded from Fremantle to Hawthorn. Sticky this ;)
Bronx Bomber
18 Aug 2006, 23:08
Reckon Aker would love playing for the AFL's most successful club.
What have you heard that Carlton are intersted in him? News to me. :rolleyes:
What have you heard that Carlton are intersted in him? News to me. :rolleyes:
Sorry, that should have read equal most successful...and not requiring AFL assistance for being in financial strife :cool:
Bronx Bomber
18 Aug 2006, 23:12
i withdraw my apology.
i reckon you cant trade the priority and want to see some clarification.
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=237544
2001 - *Fremantle traded its priority selection to Hawthorn. It received Trent Croad and in exchange Hawthorn drafted Luke Hodge.
Why does it matter anyway?
They can be traded, so in the end it has no consequence what they are called.
It doesn't really matter. But it's just one little thing that the AFL have made an oversight on that leads to confusion among footy fans.
I know this myself from arguing with people on here. They might say something like "If the AFL didn't have the unfair priority pick rule, then you wouldn't have drafted Xavier Ellis last year" and I have to correct them by saying "No. We still would've chosen Ellis at number 3, we just wouldn't have got Dowler with pick 6"
Another area where the AFL are sloppy in their official publications is with the complex 3 way player trades, or 4 club trades. This led to huge confusion and arguments on here regarding the Jon Hay trade. If you look it up, it says the Roos traded pick 18 for Hay. But all avid Hawk fans remember how this was what the Roos originally offered and we refused. Then when Port were added to the mix and other sweeteners were offered (including Nathan Lonie to Port) then we received our wish for 2 early picks for Hay. There are still some misguided souls who think that Lonie was traded for pick number 14.
But you can't blame 'em. It says so in black and white in the the official AFL records. :rolleyes:
Longy413
18 Aug 2006, 23:36
It doesn't really matter. But it's just one little thing that the AFL have made an oversight on that leads to confusion among footy fans.
I know this myself from arguing with people on here. They might say something like "If the AFL didn't have the unfair priority pick rule, then you wouldn't have drafted Xavier Ellis last year" and I have to correct them by saying "No. We still would've chosen Ellis at number 3, we just wouldn't have got Dowler with pick 6"
I disagree, I actually think they've got it right.
If Hawthorn didn't have a priority pick you may not have got Ellis or Dowler because you would have ended up with pick 5.
If there were no priority picks at all, yes you still would have got Ellis.
But to be honest, anyone who actually understands the system (and it isn't that hard to understand) doesn't make that mistake.
Another area where the AFL are sloppy in their official publications is with the complex 3 way player trades, or 4 club trades.
As you said, they are complex. Which makes them complex to document.
But in order for the trade to go through, the clubs have to document it. The way the AFL publish it is actually the way the clubs send through the paper work.
You can't actually trade something for nothing and that is why there is the complicated method in documenting trades.
That's why Essendon traded pick 55 to Fremantle for McPhee. In effect it was a three way trade with Brisbane included. But the records show McPhee for pick 55 because we couldn't actually get McPhee for nothing.
In effect, there is no such thing as a three-way trade as far as the AFL are concerned and that comes about because you can't on-trade players.
andypie
18 Aug 2006, 23:47
In 2001, pick 1 was traded from Fremantle to Hawthorn. Sticky this ;)
wasnt a priority pick, just a charity to interstate teams pick
Oh Furious One
18 Aug 2006, 23:49
no such thing as a done deal. illegal to put pen to paper now, and all it takes is for someone else to offer something better. just ask turner from the storm. so go tell your "forward scout "mate that andy pie said that he's full of sh*t.
I laughed, great post and usage of third person.
fishbowl
18 Aug 2006, 23:58
Essendon must lose all three games to be considered for a priority pick. They can only draw on game as they are on 3.5 wins.
I disagree, I actually think they've got it right.
If Hawthorn didn't have a priority pick you may not have got Ellis or Dowler because you would have ended up with pick 5.
Nah.... Dowler was our "priority" pick or "supplemental" pick.
2005 Draft order with the old priority picks rule:
1. Carlton - Marc Murphy
2. Collingwood - Dale Thomas
3. Hawthorn - Xavier Ellis
4. Carlton - Josh Kennedy
5. Collingwood - Scott Pendlebury
6. Hawthorn - Beau Dowler
7. Essendon - Paddy Ryder
8. Richmond - Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls
9. Brisbane - Mitchell Clark
2005 Draft order if they had scrapped priority picks:
1. Carlton - Marc Murphy
2. Collingwood - Dale Thomas
3. Hawthorn - Xavier Ellis
4. Essendon - Paddy Ryder (Sheeds said he should've been no.1)
5. Richmond - Beau Dowler
6. Brisbane - Josh Kennedy
7. Fremantle - Mitchell Clark
8. Bulldogs - Shaun Higgins
9. Melbourne - Nathan Jones
As you said, they are complex. Which makes them complex to document.
But in order for the trade to go through, the clubs have to document it. The way the AFL publish it is actually the way the clubs send through the paper work.
You can't actually trade something for nothing and that is why there is the complicated method in documenting trades.
That's why Essendon traded pick 55 to Fremantle for McPhee. In effect it was a three way trade with Brisbane included. But the records show McPhee for pick 55 because we couldn't actually get McPhee for nothing.
In effect, there is no such thing as a three-way trade as far as the AFL are concerned and that comes about because you can't on-trade players.
Yeah. The AFL are being technically correct, but it's unhelpful for us, the fans.
Hay wasn't traded for pick 18. The AFL are full of it.
They should really publish the full details of each 4 way trade. Group them all together and acknowledge their existence. The newspapers do it. Why can't the AFL? They are doing us a disservice. What is the point in the AFL keeping false records? Just because they're hung up about the technicalities of the rules, doesn't mean fans should be going around with the wrong idea and arguing about this stuff.
I SHOULD WRITE 'EM A LETTER, GODDAMNIT!!
Probably not really Bay 13 - will check it out tomorrow.
People are getting way too confused on something that is quite simple.
The priority picks are the very first in the draft, for example, in the past 2 years, there have been 3 clubs that have received priority selections before the start of the first round. For these clubs, the bonus player they received is actually the player selected in the first round, because if they didn't have the priority pick then they'd still have selected the player they selected first. This does not make their 2nd actual selection the priority pick.
You can trade priority picks, although I believe it has to be done with the approval of the AFL. With the changing of the rules this year resulting in priority picks at the end of the 1st round, I would suggest that the AFL will be even more lenient on letting clubs trade that selection as it will not stop them from picking up a Top 3 talent at the start of the draft.
bcoz they'll have lloyd back and mite actually be a shot at the 8...
And they'd be right.
D Mitchell
20 Aug 2006, 13:31
Has Hird re signed ? I thought he had merely announced that he was to play on. A rumour that I heard earlier in the year, from a low level AFL admin source, was that Hird always intended to play on but wanted a 2 year contract. Hird strikes me as a realistic thinker, I wonder whether he really would believe that the addition of Akermanis will elevate Essendon enough to play finals next year.
EssendonPride
20 Aug 2006, 15:17
Has Hird re signed ? I thought he had merely announced that he was to play on. A rumour that I heard earlier in the year, from a low level AFL admin source, was that Hird always intended to play on but wanted a 2 year contract. Hird strikes me as a realistic thinker, I wonder whether he really would believe that the addition of Akermanis will elevate Essendon enough to play finals next year.
What you heard was most definately wrong.
D Mitchell
20 Aug 2006, 17:13
What you heard was most definately wrong.It emerged in the wake of the public support given by Hird for Sheedy's coaching in the middle of the 13 week string of losses. Whether there is anything in it or not is really only known by Sheedy and Hird.
Longy413
21 Aug 2006, 10:57
It emerged in the wake of the public support given by Hird for Sheedy's coaching in the middle of the 13 week string of losses. Whether there is anything in it or not is really only known by Sheedy and Hird.
If it is only known between Sheedy and Hird, how would a low level admin staff member know?
And Hird had stated a number of times, previous to him announcing that he was playing on that he hadn't spoken to Sheedy about his future.
Baby Blue
21 Aug 2006, 11:42
Back on the original rumour, my boss was at the Hird love fest last night and talked with O'Donnell about Aka and was told bombers desperately want him but there are two other clubs ahead of them who will probably pick him up.
D Mitchell
21 Aug 2006, 19:23
If it is only known between Sheedy and Hird, how would a low level admin staff member know?
And Hird had stated a number of times, previous to him announcing that he was playing on that he hadn't spoken to Sheedy about his future.
Rumours usually commence either by speculation by an outsider or when an insider opens his trap. Thereafter, given the reality of innacuracy, exaggeration and self engrandisement, it depends upon where you are in the chinese whisper circle how close the rumour is to what was ever said. My source was a low level admin staff member, his source, so he said, traced back to one of the two you named. You should know better than to take much notice of public utterences in fooball. If Hird intended playing on, why would he need to speak to Sheedy about it ? He'd only do that if he was going to retire. The rumour suggested the existence of a quid pro quo. I'll support your coaching and you support my 2 year deal.
Longy413
21 Aug 2006, 19:26
If Hird intended playing on, why would he need to speak to Sheedy about it ?
Sheedy is actually the senior coach, I presume he has a say on list management.
Hey, lets believe the ramblings of a low level admin staff member rather than what the actual person in question has to say. That sounds like a much better way of finding the truth.
Honest John
21 Aug 2006, 20:14
Jimmy has to play on .Got an official letter from the Geicsh the umpire`s still owe him 2 grans worth. He cannot miss too many games or he will have to go around again in 2008.:rolleyes:
D Mitchell
21 Aug 2006, 20:55
.... or he will have to go around again in 2008.:rolleyes:
Ah. He'll need a 2 year contract to do that.
I thought the second pick due to 5 games or less (wins) had been abolished this year ?
Longy413
21 Aug 2006, 22:56
Ah. He'll need a 2 year contract to do that.
Or two, one year contracts.
I thought the second pick due to 5 games or less (wins) had been abolished this year ?
Try reading the thread, or pay more attention. The picks are now at the end of the 1st round if you have 20 points or less in one season, then at the start of the draft if you do it 2 years running.