Thats the thing though, like another poster just said, it wont stop the vAFL giving PP for ever. Just when we are the ones who need it, it goes. But when Geelong need it oooooooh its back. Take what we can get.
List Mgmt. Should The Eagles Request A Priority Assistance Package at The End of This Year?
- Thread starter KERRPOW
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 25, 2017
- 5,490
- 7,400
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I think we should definitely ask for it but my gut feel is AFL like the way the ladder looks right now with us down the bottom and academy sides or poor clubs like Saints Bulldogs dominating up the top so probably won't give anything of much value to us. It's this reason we should stop going to games. Let the club go poor so the AFL suffer a few years without our injection of money.
Having money is everything with the way the AFL runs the comp. The poor clubs are gifted advantages to climb the ladder. We suffer because we are well off and it actually sucks and puts us at a massive disadvantage then we already have with travel. I think I'd rather be a poor club and get academy picks and fixture advantages to be honest. Look at the draft every year and tell me who's doing the best. It sure as s**t isn't us.
Having money is everything with the way the AFL runs the comp. The poor clubs are gifted advantages to climb the ladder. We suffer because we are well off and it actually sucks and puts us at a massive disadvantage then we already have with travel. I think I'd rather be a poor club and get academy picks and fixture advantages to be honest. Look at the draft every year and tell me who's doing the best. It sure as s**t isn't us.
Last edited:
- Jan 13, 2013
- 23,109
- 45,323
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Expecting us to rocket up the ladder are you?
- Jan 13, 2013
- 23,109
- 45,323
- AFL Club
- West Coast
And you think that's enough to get us off the bottom?
Don't really see how it's premature, I don't see a scenario where we finish higher than 17th.
- Feb 4, 2021
- 490
- 1,227
- AFL Club
- West Coast
This honestly would be my preference too. I like the 'romanticism' of father sons but clubs should have to keep their assigned pick to bid and actually pay market rates for them (no bidding discount).
However, as you have suggested the AFL is highly unlikely to make the draft equitable... So we should be allowed to set up an academy in any area (NSW, QLD, NT etc) we like. If the goal is truly to get more people playing AFL then any additional academy can only help that...
- Oct 9, 2009
- 11,250
- 12,020
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Even if they "reassess" it'll probably only for as long as we're at the bottom of the ladder.
The vAFL changes rules constantly.
I hate the comprimised nature of the AFL and yep it feels unfair that others get it and we dont.
but honestly the afl need to come out and say no more priority picks or assistance packages.
FS no discounts (if i had my way id say no FS, but this is not a popular take) and have more integrity in regards to clubs being able to match with a million low picks.
Academy no discounts and no access for any team in the first round. and before the whole GC/GWS have no FS speil, well they already had more first rounder academies then most clubs have had FS. so just f**k that off already. If were gonna keep the academies (i wish not, how about afl just do the hard yards and invest in grass roots) then every team should have equal access after round 1.
FFS it isn't hard to bring integrity back into the system. These malackas just cant help themselves.
if a team cant swim with the current system --which already rewards being bad -- then let them sink. Bye Felicia.
but honestly the afl need to come out and say no more priority picks or assistance packages.
FS no discounts (if i had my way id say no FS, but this is not a popular take) and have more integrity in regards to clubs being able to match with a million low picks.
Academy no discounts and no access for any team in the first round. and before the whole GC/GWS have no FS speil, well they already had more first rounder academies then most clubs have had FS. so just f**k that off already. If were gonna keep the academies (i wish not, how about afl just do the hard yards and invest in grass roots) then every team should have equal access after round 1.
FFS it isn't hard to bring integrity back into the system. These malackas just cant help themselves.
if a team cant swim with the current system --which already rewards being bad -- then let them sink. Bye Felicia.
- Jun 18, 2016
- 51,702
- 99,084
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth Scorchers
No. We got ourselves in this position. It's up to us to get ourselves out of it. Noone made us do the Kelly trade. Noone made us hand out longer contracts to senior players than we should have post 2018. We'll turn things around without the AFL's help. It just won't happen overnight.
TheHumanShoe
Team Captain
Has anyone actually looked at the players picked with those picks we gave up and the picks after them? They're not exactly world beaters...
The Kelly trade is not the reason why we're doing this poorly, we'd probably be in the same boat if took those picks to the draft.
Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
- Jun 18, 2016
- 51,702
- 99,084
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth Scorchers
No one factor is responsible for where we're at. But the Kelly trade has certainly contributed. FWIW I understand why we made that trade but the signs started to show in 2019 when we blew a top 2 finish to end the home and away season in fifth. It took us another two years of gradual decline (albeit playing finals) for the club to understand we were going in the wrong direction.
Lets look at it from the perspective of even discounting how badly the club has cocked this up.
1. I believe that teams losing players to career ending concussions should receive compensation picks. The AFL are handing out compensation picks for everything else.
2. The AFL deliberately manipulated the system last year and left their 'special sauce recipe' under the previous collective bargaining agreement for their 'calculations' meaning teams all received higher free agency compo than they would have. Even with the extra 500k into the first year of McKay's contract if it was done under the projected payments to players as it should have been McKay would have been band 2 and all of the band 2 players would have been band 3. Effectively granting North pick 3 instead of pick 20
3. North Melbourne have received a future second and third rounder for the 2023 draft, an end of first pick for the 2023 draft and 2 end of first round picks for the 2024 draft as well as 2 extra rookie spots.
4. Academy teams have received huge benefit above everyone else. Turning either picks that were s**t to begin with into first round prospects or in GC case turning 1 high pick into enough draft points to get them 3 first round academy players (including either the second highest rated or equal highest rated player in the draft) plus a future first round pick.
Now most here will know I didn't rate Venables, he hadn't had a 20+ disposal game at any level in 5 years, however he was a first round pick lost to concussion. Sheppard was also lost to concussion. Now sheppard was towards the end of his career however if we go by even nominal afl standard lets say thats an end of first round pick for Venables and a third round pick for Shep due to age etc.
All of the above has meant our picks in particular second round onwards have been sliding for years and last year in what was the worst i've seen a team play discounting first year start ups (even then it's close on %) our second pick was pick 30.
If the AFL had integrity in the draft and no-one else had been receiving huge benefits and or continue to receive huge benefits then I would say no to draft compensation. However even if the club was to spend 40 million of it's cash reserves on 'investments' to make it easier to get players over here via trade and free agency our best likelihood is to end up a mid table side. Even in the last 3 years where we have prioritised the draft and had decent picks at least 50% of those players will fail or at best become roleplayers.
Now if we had finished last and our second round pick was 19 last year and it had worked this way for the past 5+ years then I would be against compensation. However we are at a point whereby we have long standing issues in regards to equality through travel, fixture and academy/trade/fa. It is much harder to get someone to move from an eastern states club to WA than it is for a Victorian club to get a Victorian player to move to a different club in the same city. The player literally just changes facilities and likely for a higher contract but otherwise their lives are almost completely the same. To get a player across to WA the player has to uproot their entire life and if they are Victorian we have a monumental disadvantage in attracting players of quality.
Under the original priority pick system we would have had pick 2 in 2022 and pick 1 as priority picks in 2023. Under the second system we would have had an end of first round pick in 2022 and pick 1 in 2023.
Now we have to be realistic in expectations. We are not going to get GC package or what ended up being a combined 2023 and 2024 package that North got. However if as is likely the club fails to win more than 4 games this year then we sure as s**t should be receiving close. Make it a once off package whereby the club knows it's not getting anymore next year or the year after, we just have to suck it up.
1. A mid first round pick (after all non finalist picks) so pick 11 this year
2. An extra second and third round pick this year that must be used in trade
3. An end of first round pick for next year
4. 2 extra rookie list spots for 3 years.
Since the bye in 2021 the club are current 7 wins and 48 losses. For the past 2 seasons we have had a percentage well below 60, meaning complete non competitiveness. Things are likely to stay the same or similar even with the above package for a few years before the club can start moving up the ladder in even a remotely close to fair scenario. Even in 2021 we literally only beat 1 team that played finals and that was very early on in the year. Post bye we lost to 17th and 18th. s**t 17th beat us by 45 points at Optus.
If you take into account the clubs mistakes and non competitiveness as part of the scenario as has been the case for the most recent cases in NM and GC then the club should be receiving much more. Add free agency, academy dilutions and it should be even further.
The above is enough to give us a minor leg up but not enough that it outrages the competition or makes it unfair for teams that aren't and having been making finals for years.
1. I believe that teams losing players to career ending concussions should receive compensation picks. The AFL are handing out compensation picks for everything else.
2. The AFL deliberately manipulated the system last year and left their 'special sauce recipe' under the previous collective bargaining agreement for their 'calculations' meaning teams all received higher free agency compo than they would have. Even with the extra 500k into the first year of McKay's contract if it was done under the projected payments to players as it should have been McKay would have been band 2 and all of the band 2 players would have been band 3. Effectively granting North pick 3 instead of pick 20
3. North Melbourne have received a future second and third rounder for the 2023 draft, an end of first pick for the 2023 draft and 2 end of first round picks for the 2024 draft as well as 2 extra rookie spots.
4. Academy teams have received huge benefit above everyone else. Turning either picks that were s**t to begin with into first round prospects or in GC case turning 1 high pick into enough draft points to get them 3 first round academy players (including either the second highest rated or equal highest rated player in the draft) plus a future first round pick.
Now most here will know I didn't rate Venables, he hadn't had a 20+ disposal game at any level in 5 years, however he was a first round pick lost to concussion. Sheppard was also lost to concussion. Now sheppard was towards the end of his career however if we go by even nominal afl standard lets say thats an end of first round pick for Venables and a third round pick for Shep due to age etc.
All of the above has meant our picks in particular second round onwards have been sliding for years and last year in what was the worst i've seen a team play discounting first year start ups (even then it's close on %) our second pick was pick 30.
If the AFL had integrity in the draft and no-one else had been receiving huge benefits and or continue to receive huge benefits then I would say no to draft compensation. However even if the club was to spend 40 million of it's cash reserves on 'investments' to make it easier to get players over here via trade and free agency our best likelihood is to end up a mid table side. Even in the last 3 years where we have prioritised the draft and had decent picks at least 50% of those players will fail or at best become roleplayers.
Now if we had finished last and our second round pick was 19 last year and it had worked this way for the past 5+ years then I would be against compensation. However we are at a point whereby we have long standing issues in regards to equality through travel, fixture and academy/trade/fa. It is much harder to get someone to move from an eastern states club to WA than it is for a Victorian club to get a Victorian player to move to a different club in the same city. The player literally just changes facilities and likely for a higher contract but otherwise their lives are almost completely the same. To get a player across to WA the player has to uproot their entire life and if they are Victorian we have a monumental disadvantage in attracting players of quality.
Under the original priority pick system we would have had pick 2 in 2022 and pick 1 as priority picks in 2023. Under the second system we would have had an end of first round pick in 2022 and pick 1 in 2023.
Now we have to be realistic in expectations. We are not going to get GC package or what ended up being a combined 2023 and 2024 package that North got. However if as is likely the club fails to win more than 4 games this year then we sure as s**t should be receiving close. Make it a once off package whereby the club knows it's not getting anymore next year or the year after, we just have to suck it up.
1. A mid first round pick (after all non finalist picks) so pick 11 this year
2. An extra second and third round pick this year that must be used in trade
3. An end of first round pick for next year
4. 2 extra rookie list spots for 3 years.
Since the bye in 2021 the club are current 7 wins and 48 losses. For the past 2 seasons we have had a percentage well below 60, meaning complete non competitiveness. Things are likely to stay the same or similar even with the above package for a few years before the club can start moving up the ladder in even a remotely close to fair scenario. Even in 2021 we literally only beat 1 team that played finals and that was very early on in the year. Post bye we lost to 17th and 18th. s**t 17th beat us by 45 points at Optus.
If you take into account the clubs mistakes and non competitiveness as part of the scenario as has been the case for the most recent cases in NM and GC then the club should be receiving much more. Add free agency, academy dilutions and it should be even further.
The above is enough to give us a minor leg up but not enough that it outrages the competition or makes it unfair for teams that aren't and having been making finals for years.
You missed compensation picks - these should have never existed. If you lose a player through free agency, your compensation is the money you now have to get someone else. That should be it.
And get rid of points completely.
You want a FS or academy player? Then you have to use your next pick after a bid - no stacking low picks to get them.
Could be so simple and straight forward.
Do fs/ academy nominations & bids pre draft, then these are locked in for draft day.
Back to the question though
1) it's a bad look even talking about it after 1 rnd.
2) if we are that bad, as dodgy as they are, Pyke wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't request one. But again... End of season, not now
It would take 10-15 years. We would likely see a few of our current high rated picks hanging on as old stagers by the time we had a team competing for top 4 with the second generation of the rebuild being the drivers for success.
Hindsight is great.
We should have done the Brander - Kelly trade a year earlier.
Should of traded Gaff to North for high picks.
And a couple of other trades / retirements that should have been actioned. In hindsight.
All that played a part - but ultimately the thing that really killed us was unprecedented injury levels over consecutive years, on the back of a pandemic the club didn't handle well.
Dom sheed pocket
All Australian
- Aug 15, 2023
- 844
- 1,643
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Just quietly the lowest pick in the Kelly trade was pick #38 in 2019 draft (Nick Bryan). Chad Warner was pick #39.
We could have held our nerve and kept one of those 2nds and gotten Tim Kelly + Chad Warner.
Imagine that.
* pride.
Clubs shouldn't get draft concessions for being crap. The whole point of the draft is that you get higher picks for finishing lower on the ladder. Getting access to talent hasn't been North's issue, and it hasn't been ours. The issue is typically around developing talent... and in our case, keeping players on the park. I would much prefer if under-performing clubs were given soft-cap relief. This would give us more resources for support staff.
Not sure if injury management is included in the soft cap, but I feel like it shouldn't be. Players' careers are on the line, they shouldn't get sub-standard treatment for injuries because a club is worried about breaching the soft cap.
Not sure if injury management is included in the soft cap, but I feel like it shouldn't be. Players' careers are on the line, they shouldn't get sub-standard treatment for injuries because a club is worried about breaching the soft cap.
Dom sheed pocket
All Australian
- Aug 15, 2023
- 844
- 1,643
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Agree with this, but as I argued in another thread, the club has continually refused to pull any levers available to it in previous years.
Barrass would have netted us pick 3 as a RFA in 2022, but we decided to sign him at the end of 2021 when Sydney came knocking.
Signing Duggan for 3 years in 2021 instead of 1 year to take him to FA (or putting him out for trade bait).
Not trading Barrass last year.
Not trading Darling 2021-22.
West Coast refuses to generate capital needed to assist its own list rebuild, they’ve been frustratingly recalcitrant and had their head in the sand about where they are at.
Now people on this board think the club should be thrown a freebie by AFL.
Last edited:
No. We should be provided the same assistance other clubs get. Including finalists and grand finalists. They are benefiting from academy access EVERY YEAR , multiple free agents and father sons.
Clubs like the Swans and Lions will never bottom out because they are landing top quality academy kids at a 50% discount every year.
That's the reason why we now should get some form of assistance. The best teams are getting it and we are stone motherless last.
Similar threads
