AFLW AFLW 2022 - general discussion

[AuTo00Z]

Well that didn't happen.

What the AFL did do was 'instruct' Richmond to trade the no.1 pick for Conti, even though technically she could've just nominated for the draft. Richmond still would've got her, and the Bulldogs would've got nothing.

Yes. The AFL gave Richmond pick #1 during the middle of the trade period under the provision they must use it to trade it for a player (Conti). Richmond didn't have pick 1 at the start of the trade period, and after 4 players from the bulldogs left to expansion teams (the limit a club could lose), the AFL handed them pick 1 to make sure she could still get to Richmond. Had the AFL not intervened and given Richmond pick 1, she either would've stayed or be drafted by Carlton or another club had she delisted herself and entered the open draft.

 

[footscray1973]

I admire your position OG, staying both positive and loyal.

However I disagree it was “always going to happen” at least to the disproportionate extent that it has happened to our particular football club.

You provide the reason in your own post. The AFL(W) has made some very bad decisions. It could have mitigated the damage to each club and yet still had its expansions. It just needed to do what it did for the AFL expansions (GWS & GC) and say there’s a limit to how many top level players a club can lose. This might have required some caps on third party (sponsor) payments and perhaps some equalisation funds doled out to make sure top players missing out on a huge salary increase due to the limits on player movement still get a reasonable reward for staying at their club.

We have every right to be angry and it should be no surprise to the AFLW or the club if many many fans turn their back on the comp.

I really don’t think they care much about us though. And that’s another reason to turn our backs on their comp.

This is probably my main gripe dogwatch. The lack of mitigation is an indictment on the amateur approach by Livingstone and her cronies. They are frankly out of their depth managing anything more than a pub raffle.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Yes. The AFL gave Richmond pick #1 during the middle of the trade period under the provision they must use it to trade it for a player (Conti). Richmond didn't have pick 1 at the start of the trade period, and after 4 players from the bulldogs left to expansion teams (the limit a club could lose), the AFL handed them pick 1 to make sure she could still get to Richmond. Had the AFL not intervened and given Richmond pick 1, Carlton or another club would've.

The AFL allocated priority picks at the end of the first sign and trade period, which was always to be the case. Did the exact same thing in the previous year. No rules were changed to get Conti to Richmond.

Arguably rules were changed to ensure the Bulldogs got the no.1 pick for losing her (some initial reports said the expansion teams would be excluded from the second trade period), but that's not 100% clear.

 

[AuTo00Z]

The AFL allocated priority picks at the end of the first sign and trade period, which was always to be the case. Did the exact same thing in the previous year. No rules were changed to get Conti to Richmond.

Arguably rules were changed to ensure the Bulldogs got the no.1 pick for losing her (some initial reports said the expansion teams would be excluded from the second trade period), but that's not 100% clear.

No, 2019 was the first year there was two trade periods. Geelong did have the first two picks the previous year, but those were given to them before the trade period started (likely because Geelong and North Melbourne had stricter rules for direct signing, and Geelong weren't able to sign as many).

The rules were changed because unless Richmond got pick 1, Conti wouldn't of ended up at Richmond. This was not done to compensate the bulldogs cause the compensation for losing players previously like Kearney and four players in one period (one of which was Katie Brennan) was absolutely pathetic. Her worth would've been accounted for in the compensation had she joined as a direct expansion signing.

And that's the thing. The AFL stated that the rules involving the whole trade, free agency and re-signing period were loose. None of the rules were really solidified and could be changed. They make up and change rules on the run. There's a reason why there's no official rulebook or guidelines like they have for the men's.

 

[Oliver G]

However I disagree it was “always going to happen” at least to the disproportionate extent that it has happened to our particular football club.

You provide the reason in your own post. The AFL(W) has made some very bad decisions. It could have mitigated the damage to each club and yet still had its expansions. It just needed to do what it did for the AFL expansions (GWS & GC) and say there’s a limit to how many top level players a club can lose. This might have required some caps on third party (sponsor) payments and perhaps some equalisation funds doled out to make sure top players missing out on a huge salary increase due to the limits on player movement still get a reasonable reward for staying at their club.

Even if the ASA and player limits existed on some level, every team including us would still lose top-level players (we wouldn't lose as many), but it's inevitable if you are going from scratch (including building academies, under-age competitions) to 18 teams in six years. There is just no way around it with this model.

There absolutely should've been a limit on how many top-level players teams can lose but playing devil's advocate how do you grade it? Would it be via pay scale or actual performance? Of our marquee players only Brennan has left. Kearney, Bruton, Conti, McCarthy and Toogood were never marquee (tier 1) players.

If you were to grade it by performance Kearney and Conti were the only true top-level players to leave via expansion. Bruton and McCarthy were solid players but were never close to the top bracket with us. Toogood has slowly risen through the ranks and is now comfortable in our top 5.

There is no doubt we've been treated very poorly, the way we were compensated for Kearney was insane and we have every right to be angry about that and the whole Birch / Groves situation didn't do us any favours either.

It's very clear that the AFL currently gives next to no ***** regarding the foundation teams and there never really was a fully-fledged plan, just listen to Burke or Starcevich but there was never really a scenario where we kept Kearney, Bruton, Conti, McCarthy and Toogood this late in the piece.

The signs have been clear for a while now and that's the prioritising of getting all 18 teams into the competition at any cost to existing teams.

I also think our preference in recent drafts to go young instead of drafting a mix of young and senior talent hasn't helped with the perception of the Dogs list. We have a seriously talented group of under 21s and if we can keep them together we will pose a serious threat in the coming years. Even in these dark hours I have faith that we can turn it around and I'll be very interested to see how use picks from Huntington and Toogood.

 

[Oliver G]

This is probably my main gripe dogwatch. The lack of mitigation is an indictment on the amateur approach by Livingstone and her cronies. They are frankly out of their depth managing anything more than a pub raffle.

Completely agree, there are so many in the broader community that have shown themselves that they would be much better suited to the job. Someone like a Debbie Lee would be perfect although I wouldn't want to lose her.

 

[Teen Wolf]

No, 2019 was the first year there was two trade periods. Geelong did have the first two picks the previous year, but those were given to them before the trade period started (likely because Geelong and North Melbourne had stricter rules for direct signing, and Geelong weren't able to sign as many).

The rules were changed because unless Richmond got pick 1, Conti wouldn't of ended up at Richmond. This was not done to compensate the bulldogs cause the compensation for losing players previously like Kearney and four players in one period (one of which was Katie Brennan) was absolutely pathetic. Her worth would've been accounted for in the compensation had she joined as a direct expansion signing.

Once the FA expansion signing period ended, the AFL allocated priority picks where they deemed appropriate. In both years. And the rules that allowed them to do that were set out well ahead of time, before they even knew Conti was going to leave.

Conti's decision to leave impacted what priority picks would be handed out, but the AFL didn't need to change any rule to assign said no.1 pick.

there's no official rulebook or guidelines like they have for the men's.

Yes there are. But it just so happens that the most blatant instance of rules-on-the-run were applied in the case of Courtney Hodder, who did not meet the criteria of a rookie selection but the AFL allowed it anyway. An obvious decision intended to favour Brisbane and screw over the Suns, though you won't hear Craig Starcevich complain about that.

 

[AuTo00Z]

Once the FA expansion signing period ended, the AFL allocated priority picks where they deemed appropriate. In both years. And the rules that allowed them to do that were set out well ahead of time, before they even knew Conti was going to leave.

Conti's decision to leave impacted what priority picks would be handed out, but the AFL didn't need to change any rule to assign said no.1 pick.


Yes there are. But it just so happens that the most blatant instance of rules-on-the-run were applied in the case of Courtney Hodder, who did not meet the criteria of a rookie selection but the AFL allowed it anyway. An obvious decision intended to favour Brisbane and screw over the Suns, though you won't hear Craig Starcevich complain about that.

Yes, they did, but they didn't do it in-between trade periods. They either gave it before or after the trade period. And the expansion clubs weren't meant to be able to participate in the second trade period (Big names, big moves: 2019 AFLW Trade Period preview)

The pick 1 was excessive and was only pick 1 so that Richmond can guarantee they get Conti, and the expansion clubs weren't supposed to be part of the second trade period. The compensation picks were meant to be used in the draft, but yet the AFL gave Richmond pick 1 under the provision to use it to trade for players.

The AFL did change the rules. There's no denying that. And it was done purely to benefit Richmond.

With the AFLW in particular, they will always play it loose with rules and change and make up rules on the run to benefit certain teams cause bigger clubs being successful attracts more attention than if a smaller club is successful. The AFL, clubs and players themselves have even said there is often a lot of uncertainty about the rules.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Yes, they did, but they didn't do it in-between trade periods.

What would have happened differently in 2019 if that first trade period didn't exist (like 2018)? Nothing. The AFL still would've been able to give Richmond the no.1 pick at the conclusion of the FA expansion signing period, which the Tigers would then still use to get Conti.

And the expansion clubs weren't meant to be able to participate in the second trade period

I already explained that Richmond being allowed to participate in the second trade period just meant the Bulldogs would get the no.1 pick.

If Richmond were excluded from the second trade period, Conti would've just nominated for the draft and the Tigers would use the no.1 pick on her that way. Therefore it was only the Bulldogs that benefitted from Richmond participating in the second trade period.

The AFL did change the rules. There's no denying that. And it was done purely to benefit Richmond.

I'm refuting it with facts.

 

[AuTo00Z]

What would have happened differently in 2019 if that first trade period didn't exist (like 2018)? Nothing. The AFL still would've been able to give Richmond the no.1 pick at the conclusion of the FA expansion signing period, which the Tigers would then still use to get Conti.


I already explained that Richmond being allowed to participate in the second trade period just meant the Bulldogs would get the no.1 pick.

If Richmond were excluded from the second trade period, Conti would've just nominated for the draft and the Tigers would use the no.1 pick on her that way. Therefore it was only the Bulldogs that benefitted from Richmond participating in the second trade period.


I'm refuting it with facts.

That's wrong, because the AFL gave Richmond pick one so that Richmond can get Conti, while the bulldogs get some form of compensation. Conti wouldn't of left if the bulldogs would get zero compensation, hence why she didn't join via regular expansion signings the first day free agency opened up (the last 3 players signed by expansion clubs was about a week into free agency period). And also, even though the AFL did favor Richmond, they did want to compensate the bulldogs cause they changed the rules, hence why the pick 1 was under the provision that it be traded for a player. The AFL wouldn't of given it if there was any doubt they would use it for anything other than a trade for a player.

And it's pretty clear the AFL were favoring richmond, hence why they changed the rules so that they got pick 1 and were able to participate in the second trade period.

 

[Teen Wolf]

Conti wouldn't of left if the bulldogs would get zero compensation

Yes she absolutely would have, and the AFL could have let that happen. But on this occasion, the AFL helped the Bulldogs out a bit.

And it's pretty clear the AFL were favoring richmond, hence why they changed the rules so that they got pick 1 and were able to participate in the second trade period.

It's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

If Blackburn had left it would have been it for me.

The fact that Issy, is moving to study is acceptable and Lamb and Blackburn have turned down big offers to stay means they deserve our support. At least this is the last of the expansion clubs, so we have lost Toogood, but we should get some good picks for her and Issy.

 

[footscray1973]

If Blackburn had left it would have been it for me.

The fact that Issy, is moving to study is acceptable and Lamb and Blackburn have turned down big offers to stay means they deserve our support. At least this is the last of the expansion clubs, so we have lost Toogood, but we should get some good picks for her and Issy.

Like we did for Kearney?!
Club is losing an AA forward, although at least GWS have to trade.
Who knows what will happen with Toogood, who is an established consistent forward. If she walks to Essendon, compensation will be laughable. 4 new clubs will get priority picks before Bulldogs get a look in. It's a sh1t-show.

 

[Sentinel]

The simple and obvious solution is to shut the team down and rejoin 12 months later with all the privileges of an expansion teams. Imagine the type of names we could bring in - Conti, Kearney, Toogood, Birch, Bruton, Lambert, Brennan...

 

[Testekill]

We can't afford to take picks into the draft, we can't afford to get younger. If we're losing two key forwards then we have to aggressively chase one to bring back. Morris-Dalton isn't awful but she's still in that developing phase and needed Huntington & Toogood as a foil.

 

[gordo2016]

What we need now is some seasoned campaigner to replace Toogood who wont coast anything. Some people may laugh at this but would it worth getting Mo Hope for a season? Looked it up and she has just turned 34, could have something left and something to prove. Tell her to start training now and see how she goes getting fit enough.

 

[Sentinel]

What we need now is some seasoned campaigner to replace Toogood who wont coast anything. Some people may laugh at this but would it worth getting Mo Hope for a season? Looked it up and she has just turned 34, could have something left and something to prove. Tell her to start training now and see how she goes getting fit enough.

She's about 2 months away from giving birth so not sure how well her training program will look.

 

[gordo2016]

She's about 2 months away from giving birth so not sure how well her training program will look.

Sorry mate for my lack of research, I retract my view.

 

[W W Biscuit]

We can't afford to take picks into the draft, we can't afford to get younger. If we're losing two key forwards then we have to aggressively chase one to bring back. Morris-Dalton isn't awful but she's still in that developing phase and needed Huntington & Toogood as a foil.

Maybe someone like a Sarah Perkins from the Gold Coast? Melbourne girl, turning 29 years old soon, experienced and a beautiful kick of the ball.

 

[TBOW]

Expected but still extremely disappointing.

On the forward front we'll have at least two options from already listed players in Gamble and Pritchard who are both equal or greater in height than Huntington and Toogood.

Pritchard is the one the keep an eye on, had a fantastic end to the season and a good contested mark, would be keen to try her as a permanent forward.

Just like with our men's team we have an abundance of midfielders but short in the KPP stocks.

Whatever we get for Huntington and whatever compensation we get for Toogood has to go to the best KPP those picks can buy either upfront or by trading our picks. We invested heavily in young talent over the last 2 drafts so I'd say we can afford to prioritize senior talent this time around.

There are plenty of talls waiting in the wings at other clubs and in the state leagues and if we play our cards right we may be able to snag a diamond in the rough.

Of course replacing the likes of Toogood and Huntington is about as far from ideal as it gets but I'm going to try and stay optimistic as hard as that is. A week ago it was looking like we'd lose Blackburn, Huntington, Lamb and Toogood.

I wonder if we were preparing for this outcome by trialing Hartwig forward against Collingwood? I can't see her being the answer based on that game.
I thought Jemima Woods showed a bit when she got called up, and didn't both Newton and Grant play KPF in juniors? I feel like Newton could possibly still play that role at the top level although all of these girls are a little undersized.

Maybe we just go back to playing Lochland and Mcleod's paddock. It seemed to be pretty effective a few years back.

Unfortunately I think we are going to have to endure a couple of years of pain. I guess our 3 flags by 2025 plan is out the window.

 

[TBOW]

We can't afford to take picks into the draft, we can't afford to get younger. If we're losing two key forwards then we have to aggressively chase one to bring back. Morris-Dalton isn't awful but she's still in that developing phase and needed Huntington & Toogood as a foil.

To be fair those first few girls drafted are having a massive impact in their first years. Bringing in someone like Rowbottom or Prespakis JNR would instantly improve our team.
I am clinging to some hope that we end up with the picks to get Montana Ham from the Jets but that seems unlikely unless the AFL hands out compensation picks ahead of the expansion picks. Maybe our best hope is that Sydney need to trade a high pick to get some of these players from GWS, and then GWS pass that pick on to us for Huntington.

I'm not sure how we would go about poaching another KPF when we can't even hold on to the ones we have.

 

[Oliver G]

To be fair those first few girls drafted are having a massive impact in their first years. Bringing in someone like Rowbottom or Prespakis JNR would instantly improve our team.
I am clinging to some hope that we end up with the picks to get Montana Ham from the Jets but that seems unlikely unless the AFL hands out compensation picks ahead of the expansion picks. Maybe our best hope is that Sydney need to trade a high pick to get some of these players from GWS, and then GWS pass that pick on to us for Huntington.

I'm not sure how we would go about poaching another KPF when we can't even hold on to the ones we have.

Getting Ham would be amazing but agree that's very unlikely unless we trade up our picks. There are solid KPPs in the state leagues if you look hard enough. Bohanna was signed as a replacement player and finished 5th in the leading goalkicker award.

 

[Oliver G]

Scott calls time on her career. Someone we could always rely on down back, especially in our premiership year.

 

[MYOB]

Scott calls time on her career. Someone we could always rely on down back, especially in our premiership year.

You are 100% correct. She was so reliable.

 

[Oliver G]

You are 100% correct. She was so reliable.

We've really missed her over the past two seasons too, terrible luck with injuries.