View Full Version : Stupid media (Darcy Daniher article)
The Age has an article on Darcy here http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/bidding-war-looms-for-daniher/2007/09/05/1188783319904.html?page=2 (I don't think anyone's posted it yet?)
It clarifies a few things, such as that he's being courted by both Sydney & Essendon, and hasn't decided yet.
But what really riles me is this:
he must select between Essendon and Sydney, then the winning club must choose to accept the player by first nominating him as a father-son selection, then announcing what selection it will use to take him in the national draft.
From there, the losing father-son club and the remaining 14 clubs have the chance to bid against the winning club. The winning club then has the last bid should another club — or clubs — nominate a higher draft selection than the initial bid.
This does not agree with what I've read on the AFL site, or read here. Issues appear to be:
- I did not think the nominated club puts in an 'initial' bid (why wouldn't they just offer #100?)
- It implies the nominated club has to beat the best pick put out by another club (rather than using their next pick).
If I'm right and this is wrong, then its damn poor form of The Age. No wonder people are so confused about the rule if the media can't get it right.
Oh, and on another point, Darcy is described as a CHF. I was under the impression he'd been switching forward & back, and had spent more time playing back?
OldStyle2007
6 Sep 2007, 15:27
How the AFL could bring in this law but not scrap Priority Picks is beyond me
The Age has an article on Darcy here http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/bidding-war-looms-for-daniher/2007/09/05/1188783319904.html?page=2 (I don't think anyone's posted it yet?)
It clarifies a few things, such as that he's being courted by both Sydney & Essendon, and hasn't decided yet.
But what really riles me is this:
he must select between Essendon and Sydney, then the winning club must choose to accept the player by first nominating him as a father-son selection, then announcing what selection it will use to take him in the national draft.
From there, the losing father-son club and the remaining 14 clubs have the chance to bid against the winning club. The winning club then has the last bid should another club — or clubs — nominate a higher draft selection than the initial bid.
This does not agree with what I've read on the AFL site, or read here. Issues appear to be:
- I did not think the nominated club puts in an 'initial' bid (why wouldn't they just offer #100?)
- It implies the nominated club has to beat the best pick put out by another club (rather than using their next pick).
If I'm right and this is wrong, then its damn poor form of The Age. No wonder people are so confused about the rule if the media can't get it right.
Oh, and on another point, Darcy is described as a CHF. I was under the impression he'd been switching forward & back, and had spent more time playing back?
Plays predominantly forward though played back in Nationals. Only plays back for Cannons if Trengove and Dulic are unavailable.
- It implies the nominated club has to beat the best pick put out by another club (rather than using their next pick).
This is actually correct.
Say Geelong thought he was worth their first round draft pick. Essendon would then have to offer up their own to snare him.
ChipDouglas
6 Sep 2007, 16:55
This is actually correct.
Say Geelong thought he was worth their first round draft pick. Essendon would then have to offer up their own to snare him.
If Geelong bid a first round pick then Essendon would have to use their second round pick.
vinnie_vegas69
6 Sep 2007, 16:56
This is actually correct.
Say Geelong thought he was worth their first round draft pick. Essendon would then have to offer up their own to snare him.
Incorrect.
Teams have to use their NEXT pick AFTER the highest bid.
i.e. If Richmond had a F/S kid coming through, and Carlton bid pick #3 for him, Richmond would only have to use pick #17 to match it, not pick #2.
Incorrect.
Teams have to use their NEXT pick AFTER the highest bid.
i.e. If Richmond had a F/S kid coming through, and Carlton bid pick #3 for him, Richmond would only have to use pick #17 to match it, not pick #2.
Sorry guys this is correct. Got this info from a Sydney recruiter and when I questioned him on it, he was dead certain.
No wonder people keep needing to ask about this rule!
The Royal Sampler
6 Sep 2007, 18:24
FWIW I agree with Vinnie on what I've read. The AFL should really put the process up on their site, it's got everyone confused.
ChipDouglas
6 Sep 2007, 22:15
Sorry guys this is correct. Got this info from a Sydney recruiter and when I questioned him on it, he was dead certain.
Sorry, you and the Sydney recruiter (who should be sacked) are both wrong. In 2007 an amendment was made to the F/S rule. Under the changes every club in the competition nominates the pick they would use to select the player in question, and the club wishing to use the father/son rule must use its next available pick after the lowest nominal pick by the other clubs to secure the player.
ps: You can look it up on wikipedia
TFLUA-Tiger
6 Sep 2007, 22:43
That's exaclty what he's saying.. that he made a mistake and the Sydney recruiter corrected him..
My opinion of you lessens every time you open your mouth Chip.
"If you ain't got something nice to say, don't say nothin' at all"
ChipDouglas
7 Sep 2007, 00:20
That's exaclty what he's saying.. that he made a mistake and the Sydney recruiter corrected him..
My opinion of you lessens every time you open your mouth Chip.
"If you ain't got something nice to say, don't say nothin' at all"
My bad, but I'll finish by by posting that I haven't opened my mouth once, what I have done is type text, I have a lesser opinion of someone who can't make that distinction.
Kaiser Powser
7 Sep 2007, 17:56
I hate to be a whingey bitch, but we got shafted on the new PP rules last year and now we get shafted by the FS rule.
While I agree with the PP rule, (although not what Carlton are getting now) I am not sure this father son rule will work. I liked the idea of a 3rd round pick, even if the kid was a gun.
vinnie_vegas69
7 Sep 2007, 19:16
I'll finish by by posting that I haven't opened my mouth once, what I have done is type text, I have a lesser opinion of someone who can't make that distinction.
met·a·phor (mĕt'ə-fôr', -fər)
n.
1. A figure of speech in which a word or phrase that ordinarily designates one thing is used to designate another, thus making an implicit comparison, as in “a sea of troubles” or “All the world's a stage” (Shakespeare).
2. One thing conceived as representing another; a symbol: “Hollywood has always been an irresistible, prefabricated metaphor for the crass, the materialistic, the shallow, and the craven” (Neal Gabler).
Seriously, you're being a bit of wanker Chip... Maybe just calm it down a little.