Gold Coast plans to start relocating teenagers

[Dave The Man]

• THE AFL's new Gold Coast side is considering a pre-emptive strike on the 2010 draft by relocating three of the best prospects a year early.

While the GC17 side is yet to be awarded a licence, there are already detailed plans to assemble a group of elite juniors.
The Gold Coast is the only team with access to 17-year-olds next year and can lure a dozen young stars before the 2009 national draft.
In the 2010 draft it has the first three selections, and nine of the first 15.
Already several standout talents have been identified and it is those players Gold Coast coach Guy McKenna hopes to lure a season early.
They would not play with the GC17 side, but might be allowed to train with the club while playing locally.
While the Gold Coast would need the approval of the players and AFL, McKenna is determined to get a start.
"From what we have heard there are three or four no-brainers, and it would be pretty wise of us to get some of them relocated with their schooling and to make the transition smooth," he said yesterday.
"If the rules allow it we would love to get them into schools and settled into a new way of life so it's not such a big upheaval the following year."
McKenna would not comment on who the Gold Coast was looking at, but there are several standouts.
South Australia's Scott Lycett, 16, is a 202cm ruckman/forward already considered the dominant player from the 2010 national draft pool.
West Australia's David Swallow, the 16-year-old brother of Kangaroo Andrew, is considered the dominant midfielder of that level. Both players attend the AIS-AFL Academy.
Ten of the academy squad are 17-year-olds eligible next year only for the Gold Coast side, which effectively means it can skim the best of that season's elite talent.
Also in this year's AIS-AFL Academy are brilliant Tasmanian midfielder Maverick Weller, 16, who is eligible for the Gold Coast next year, and Joseph Groenewegen, the 17-year-old son of ex-Bulldog Robert.
Budding ruckman Groenewegen is eligible for next year's draft but not under the father-son rule because Robert played only 79 games for the Dogs.
AIS-AFL members Rex Liddy and Lewis Moss, both 16, are considered potential stars but are already zoned to Gold Coast.
Moss is an exciting tall forward, while Liddy has been on the radar for years.
McKenna has been coaching the Gold Coast's squad of 47 players for several weeks.
That side will play in the TAC Cup next year.
THE AFL has removed the threat of stripping West Coast of premiership points and draft picks after being impressed by the club's moves to improve its off-field behaviour.
The league had put the Eagles on a 12-month probation to clean up their act.

The Comprmised Draft are Starting

Story Here

 

[greennick]

Why does the GC get access to 17 year olds but nobody else does not? That makes little sense. Further concessions for the GC that are unnecessary. Why have 1/3 of the players that can only be drafted by the GC? They should change that so these kids can't get drafted by the GC if they can't get drafted by anyone else. Fair enough for the local kids, but why do they get to grab WA, SA and Vic kids that no other clubs will have access to. It means these kids could be picked up for next to nothing. On top of all the other high draft picks they get. Hopefully they decide they would rather not nominate than go play in the GC. That would show them.

 

[chook2734]

Are these kids that they are looking at relocating guaranteed a spot in the first GC AFL sqaud? Big move to be making at 16 if there's still a chance you could get the flick before your career has even started.

 

[greennick]

Are these kids that they are looking at relocating guaranteed a spot in the first GC AFL sqaud? Big move to be making at 16 if there's still a chance you could get the flick before your career has even started.

Spot on. How many kids would leave their family and friends to do that?

 

[mick4]

Spot on. How many kids would leave their family and friends to do that?

How old do you think that kids are when they move to boarding school? Would it be any different from Cyril Rioli moving to Melbourne to futher his football carear?

 

[Naughton]

This is why a lot of clubs drafted 17yo's with their last pick this year - the best 17 and 18yo's will be removed from the pool by the Gold Coast over the next couple of years.

Is it fair or right? The AFL doesn't care; they just need the Gold Coast to be a success from Day 1, and will do everything they can to ensure that they're not made to 'earn their stripes' by doing it tough for several years.

I feel sorry for the clubs who'll be on the bottom over the next few years. You really wouldn't want to be rebuilding in 09/10/11.

 

[Vader]

Why does the GC get access to 17 year olds but nobody else does not? That makes little sense. Further concessions for the GC that are unnecessary. Why have 1/3 of the players that can only be drafted by the GC? They should change that so these kids can't get drafted by the GC if they can't get drafted by anyone else. Fair enough for the local kids, but why do they get to grab WA, SA and Vic kids that no other clubs will have access to. It means these kids could be picked up for next to nothing. On top of all the other high draft picks they get. Hopefully they decide they would rather not nominate than go play in the GC. That would show them.

In 2009 they are only able to sign players from QLD & NT.

In 2010 they have a stack of draft picks high in the first round, including the first three selections (assuming they don't trade any of these picks for established players). Presumably the kids they're talking about here, from SA, WA & VIC, would be the ones they are planning to draft then. Personally I think they're getting a bit ahead of themselves and I hope the AFL tells them something similar.

 

[Pykie]

This will only really apply to the middle of the road players.

Why would David Swallow sign for the GC, knowing he could very well stay in Perth through the draft, or move to a more established AFL club?

 

[Vader]

This will only really apply to the middle of the road players.

Why would David Swallow sign for the GC, knowing he could very well stay in Perth through the draft, or move to a more established AFL club?

GC17 have the first three selections in the 2010 draft. If he's one of the top 3 players in his draft class then he'll be playing for GC unless they trade one of those picks for an experienced player.

 

[chook2734]

GC17 have the first three selections in the 2010 draft. If he's one of the top 3 players in his draft class then he'll be playing for GC unless they trade one of those picks for an experienced player.

So they really wouldn't be able to give them any guarantees then. Will be interesting to see how many kids take them up on their offer. If they are good enough, they'll be getting picked up anyway (by the GC or someone else) and can finish school uninterrupted and continue in a pretty good football environment with all the support they need in their home town. Sounds like it really only benefits the club, not the players.

 

[TheFridge]

While the Gold Coast would need the approval of the players and AFL, McKenna is determined

I jolly well hope they were to need the approval of the players - the idea of Guy McKenna at the wheel of a white van driving through the local neighbourhoods streets looking for an young footballers to abduct is a little disturbing

I assume they mean the AFLPA....

 

[EatBig Australia]

GC17 have the first three selections in the 2010 draft. If he's one of the top 3 players in his draft class then he'll be playing for GC unless they trade one of those picks for an experienced player.

The club wouldn't give any guarantees to anyone that they would be picked up. Injuries or form can change dramatically in a couple of seasons of footy. Plus if there is a chance your pick could be traded then I would think a young bloke would be quite reluctant to move states knowinig they may have to move again and had left family, friends and current club for nothing.

 

[DaVe86]

Vader, i know you have explained this a few times to me already...its so damn confusing.


So next year, clubs can only select 18 year olds? That means the draft pool is going to be really shallow?

 

[Asgardian]

In my opinion GC already have enough concessions without them being allowed to relocate kids to suit their purposes before any draft has occurred.

 

[Masten2McKinley]

The club wouldn't give any guarantees to anyone that they would be picked up. Injuries or form can change dramatically in a couple of seasons of footy. Plus if there is a chance your pick could be traded then I would think a young bloke would be quite reluctant to move states knowinig they may have to move again and had left family, friends and current club for nothing.

exactly it would be stupid for them to just move over with no gaurantee they will even get drafted by them.

 

[Vader]

Vader, i know you have explained this a few times to me already...its so damn confusing.


So next year, clubs can only select 18 year olds? That means the draft pool is going to be really shallow?

Yep, that about sums it up.

In 2007, kids had to be born before 30/4/1990 to nominate.
In 2008, kids had to be born before 30/4/1991 to nominate.
In 2009, kids will have to be born before 31/12/1991 to nominate.

This knocks out around 1/3 of the "new" talent - players who haven't previously been eligible for drafting.

The end result of this is that the top end talent should still be present, but (statistically speaking) the draft shouldn't be as deep as usual.

 

[Vader]

So they really wouldn't be able to give them any guarantees then. Will be interesting to see how many kids take them up on their offer. If they are good enough, they'll be getting picked up anyway (by the GC or someone else) and can finish school uninterrupted and continue in a pretty good football environment with all the support they need in their home town. Sounds like it really only benefits the club, not the players.

I agree. To paraphrase one of my previous posts, I hope the AFL tells them to shove the idea where the sun don't shine.

 

[Spitz]

Yep, that about sums it up.

In 2008, kids had to be born before 30/4/1991 to nominate.
In 2009, kids will have to be born before 31/12/1991 to nominate.

This knocks out around 1/3 of the "new" talent - players who haven't previously been eligible for drafting.

The end result of this is that the top end talent should still be present, but (statistically speaking) the draft shouldn't be as deep as usual.

Is that relative to this year?

Wouldn't 09' extend the draft pool by 8 months, going on that example?

So essentially in this years case, it would have moved from 30/4/1991 to 31/12/1990?


Which players would have that proved inelidgable in this years draft?

I know Jack Ziebell is one.

 

[Beats]

Is that relative to this year?

Wouldn't 09' extend the draft pool by 8 months, going on that example?

So essentially in this years case, it would have moved from 30/4/1991 to 31/12/1990?


Which players would have that proved inelidgable in this years draft?

I know Jack Ziebell is one.

That means that there is only 8 months of new kids next year, instead of 12, meaning that the draft is 2/3rds as strong as it was this year.

From the first round I think the ineligible ones for next year were - Watts, Sidebottom, Blease, Johnston, Ziebell

 

[Vader]

Is that relative to this year?

I've given you the dates for this year. I've now added the eligibility date for the 2007 draft as well, for purposes of clarity.

Wouldn't 09' extend the draft pool by 8 months, going on that example?

The '09 draft has 8 months worth of "new talent". Every other year (since last time they changed the age eligibility) had had a full 12 months of "new talent" upon which to draw. That's why next years draft is so badly compromised.

So essentially in this years case, it would have moved from 30/4/1991 to 31/12/1990?

Essentially yes. Any players born between 1/1/91 and 30/4/91 would have been ineligible for the 2008 draft if these rules had been in place.

Which players would have that proved inelidgable in this years draft?

I know Jack Ziebell is one.

I don't have a list of every player's DOB, so I can't give you a comprehensive list of which players would have been ineligible this year. Sorry. Maybe someone else can help on this one.

 

[Pykie]

I've given you the dates for this year. I've now added the eligibility date for the 2007 draft as well, for purposes of clarity.


The '09 draft has 8 months worth of "new talent". Every other year (since last time they changed the age eligibility) had had a full 12 months of "new talent" upon which to draw. That's why next years draft is so badly compromised.


Essentially yes. Any players born between 1/1/91 and 30/4/91 would have been ineligible for the 2008 draft if these rules had been in place.


I don't have a list of every player's DOB, so I can't give you a comprehensive list of which players would have been ineligible this year. Sorry. Maybe someone else can help on this one.

These players would have missed out this year on the new rules, and had another year in the TAC Cup/Champ's:

Jack Watts
Jack Ziebell
Steele Sidebottom (would've missed by 2 days)
Sam Blease
Lewis Johnston
Jarrad Blight
Dan Hannebery
Liam Jones
Steven Motlop
Michael Walters
Heath Campbell
Liam Shiels
Luke Lowden
Shane Savage
Kieren King
Luke Rounds
Caleb Tiller


Fair chunk of talent. A few clubs should be very happy it didn't come in a year earlier.

 

[DaVe86]

But then out of those ineligible picks...Gold Coast gets to recruit them?

What if Gold Coast pass up on recruiting them?

Wouldnt this also hamper the new kids coming through and their ability to be drafted?

 

[HBF]

In 2009 they are only able to sign players from QLD & NT.

In 2010 they have a stack of draft picks high in the first round, including the first three selections (assuming they don't trade any of these picks for established players). Presumably the kids they're talking about here, from SA, WA & VIC, would be the ones they are planning to draft then. Personally I think they're getting a bit ahead of themselves and I hope the AFL tells them something similar.

They'd have to, you'd think. I can't imagine they would field a team mainly of first year players - wouldn't do themselves or the kids any good at all.

 

[Pykie]

So am I correct in saying the Gold Coast would have had exclusive rights to sign that list of players?

Outside of the draft, or still through the normal channels?



Even so, thats ****ing rediculous, ontop of their amount of picks.


You can see whats going to happen.

They will trade off most of their picks for good established players, and snaffle up all the underage talent with picks #70+, as other clubs cant get them.

Am I right in saying that?

 

[Pykie]

Reading the article again, they are able to take them outside of the draft (like they are now) even if they only get some of those players, some of them are still considered monty's for the top 10 next year

The amount of picks they had was already slightly over the top, this just makes it rediculous.

Their list is going to have about 25 top 10 draft picks in it, 3 years into the system.