List Mgmt. AFLW list changes for 2019 - announcements, discussion, rumours...

[Mkcaptain]

* we have been screwed over

Selection order for the 2018 NAB AFL Women's Draft
ROUND ONE
1 Geelong Cats (compensation pick)
2 Geelong Cats (compensation pick)
3 Carlton
4 Fremantle
5 Collingwood
6 Adelaide
7 GWS Giants
8 Melbourne
9 Brisbane Lions
10 Western Bulldogs
11 Geelong Cats
12 North Melbourne

ROUND TWO
13 Collingwood (compensation pick)
14 Geelong Cats (compensation pick)
15 Geelong Cats (compensation pick)
16 Carlton
17 Fremantle
18 Collingwood
19 Adelaide
20 GWS Giants
21 Melbourne
22 Brisbane Lions
23 Western Bulldogs
24 Geelong Cats
25 North Melbourne

ROUND THREE
26 Western Bulldogs (compensation pick)
27 Carlton
28 Fremantle
29 Collingwood
30 Adelaide
31 GWS Giants
32 Melbourne
33 Brisbane Lions
34 Western Bulldogs
35 Geelong Cats
36 North Melbourne

ROUND FOUR
37 Melbourne (compensation pick)
38 Carlton
39 Fremantle
40 Collingwood
41 Adelaide
42 GWS Giants
43 Melbourne
44 Brisbane Lions
45 Western Bulldogs
46 Geelong Cats
47 North Melbourne

ROUND FIVE
48 Carlton (compensation pick)
49 Carlton
50 Fremantle
51 Collingwood
52 Adelaide
53 GWS Giants
54 Melbourne
55 Brisbane Lions
56 Western Bulldogs
57 Geelong Cats
58 North Melbourne

 

[TradeDraft]

**** we have been screwed over

Selection order for the 2018 NAB AFL Women's Draft
ROUND ONE
1 Geelong Cats (compensation pick)
2 Geelong Cats (compensation pick)
3 Carlton
4 Fremantle
5 Collingwood
6 Adelaide
7 GWS Giants
8 Melbourne
9 Brisbane Lions
10 Western Bulldogs
11 Geelong Cats
12 North Melbourne

ROUND TWO
13 Collingwood (compensation pick)
14 Geelong Cats (compensation pick)
15 Geelong Cats (compensation pick)
16 Carlton
17 Fremantle
18 Collingwood
19 Adelaide
20 GWS Giants
21 Melbourne
22 Brisbane Lions
23 Western Bulldogs
24 Geelong Cats
25 North Melbourne

ROUND THREE
26 Western Bulldogs (compensation pick)
27 Carlton
28 Fremantle
29 Collingwood
30 Adelaide
31 GWS Giants
32 Melbourne
33 Brisbane Lions
34 Western Bulldogs
35 Geelong Cats
36 North Melbourne

ROUND FOUR
37 Melbourne (compensation pick)
38 Carlton
39 Fremantle
40 Collingwood
41 Adelaide
42 GWS Giants
43 Melbourne
44 Brisbane Lions
45 Western Bulldogs
46 Geelong Cats
47 North Melbourne

ROUND FIVE
48 Carlton (compensation pick)
49 Carlton
50 Fremantle
51 Collingwood
52 Adelaide
53 GWS Giants
54 Melbourne
55 Brisbane Lions
56 Western Bulldogs
57 Geelong Cats
58 North Melbourne

Agree, Yet Again we get F**ked over by the AFL

Guess they are more Intrested in Helping Exapnsion Teams and by Doing that Shitting on the Original Teams.

More Proof the AFL Hates us and Run by Morons

 

[barrackers]

Apparently the AFL have given Geelong the first 2 picks in the draft North’s first pick is 12

Yep, because NM signed 4 more players Geelong have been given 4 compensation picks (2 before the first round, 2 before the second round). I assume these picks have been placed here due to the quality difference of the players signed. Similarly NM have been placed last in the draft order, which suggests the AFL believes they hold a stronger list than last years premiers. What a joke the AFL have allowed.

Victorian clubs have been given just ONE compensation pick and the northern clubs extra rookies weighted on the quality lost. Seemingly a completely different assessment of quality was used to dish out these picks. We've been given just pick 13 (pick 9 out of Vic clubs), to give an idea Iilish Ross was the eighth Victorian drafted last year.

The AFL have ****ed this up big time; at the very least our all compensation given to existing clubs should have been brought in one round. The chance to draft someone of similar ilk to Molloy at pick 3 still would have left us behind, but would have been much more palatable and at least given us some chance of retaining the status quo in relation to other clubs and their losses/gains.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-22/aflw-cats-to-get-first-two-picks-in-draft

North Melbourne, which came away from last week's expansion club signing period with a 17-player haul, will have the last selection in each round.

The AFL granted the concession picks to the Cats – who came away from the expansion signing period with 13 players – to enable them to match North's haul.

Foundation clubs that lost players to the Roos and Cats have also been allocated compensation picks for the draft, likely to be held in mid-October.

Collingwood will pick at the start of the second round, Western Bulldogs at the start of the third round, Melbourne at the start of the fourth round, and Carlton at the start of the fifth round. Brisbane has been allocated two extra spots for its rookie list, while Greater Western Sydney has been given one extra rookie spot.

In allocating extra picks, the AFL said it had made its decisions based on factors including collective value of players lost and whether the loss of players would damage a club enough to compromise competitive balance.

"As part of this process, AFLW lists were profiled when establishing the agreed four-tier payment model. The combined loss of players for each club then provided an indication of the total impact of the expansion signing period and foundation clubs are to be compensated relative to the total value of players they have lost," the AFL said in a statement.

"In doing so, the AFL reserves the right to alter the 2018 draft selection order or take any other approach to maintain competitive balance throughout the expansion process."

DRAFT ORDER

ROUND ONE
1 Geelong Cats (compensation pick)
2 Geelong Cats (compensation pick)
3 Carlton

4 Fremantle​

5 Collingwood

6 Adelaide
7 GWS Giants​

8 Melbourne

9 Brisbane Lions​

10 Western Bulldogs
11 Geelong Cats
12 North Melbourne

ROUND TWO
13 Collingwood (compensation pick)
14 Geelong Cats (compensation pick)
15 Geelong Cats (compensation pick)
16 Carlton

17 Fremantle​

18 Collingwood

19 Adelaide
20 GWS Giants​

21 Melbourne

22 Brisbane Lions​

23 Western Bulldogs
24 Geelong Cats
25 North Melbourne

ROUND THREE
26 Western Bulldogs (compensation pick)
27 Carlton

28 Fremantle​

29 Collingwood

30 Adelaide
31 GWS Giants​

32 Melbourne

33 Brisbane Lions​

34 Western Bulldogs
35 Geelong Cats
36 North Melbourne

ROUND FOUR
37 Melbourne (compensation pick)
38 Carlton

39 Fremantle​

40 Collingwood

41 Adelaide
42 GWS Giants​

43 Melbourne

44 Brisbane Lions​

45 Western Bulldogs
46 Geelong Cats
47 North Melbourne

ROUND FIVE
48 Carlton (compensation pick)
49 Carlton

50 Fremantle​

51 Collingwood

52 Adelaide
53 GWS Giants​

54 Melbourne

55 Brisbane Lions​

56 Western Bulldogs
57 Geelong Cats
58 North Melbourne

 

[TradeDraft]

Would Cats Trade 1 of those Top 2 Picks then?

 

[barrackers]

NM board unhappy they're last in the draft order, guess they wanted their cake and to eat it too.

 

[Tas]

Apparently the AFL have given Geelong the first 2 picks in the draft North’s first pick is 12

I don't think the AFL rated Geelong's recruitment period very highly.

It was always going to be bad for the rest of the competition if we weren't a foundation club and we were able to freely recruit from the existing pool, given our ties with MU and many of the recruits having affiliations with our club. The MU women's president is our Football Operation Manager and she had a large role not only in working on our bid, but putting our team together.

I think the competition could have been handled better, especially the expansion. I don't think it is particularly fair that some clubs lose up to four key players and other clubs lose little or nothing. I think all should have equally contributed and more importantly, I think the expansion should have been a slower process via the VFLW where clubs start to accumulate priority access to young players and then on the eve of moving from VFLW to AFLW they can recruit some experienced players but the process should have been in consultation with existing clubs, the AFL and the expansion clubs so they could meet their needs, but the drain be applied evenly.

These drafting concessions or penalties seem kind of pointless. What is the point of this coming draft if players can move so easily, it is kind of meaningless and it would be buyer beware if you draft a MU lady in particular.

 

[Tas]

NM board unhappy they're last in the draft order, guess they wanted their cake and to eat it too.

I think it is just amusing that the AFL makes things up on the fly, as far as I am aware, there was nothing suggesting you would get penalised in the draft and they are equating one of the ladies we drafted from the Dogs (Tasmanian) in the 4th round who suffered an ACL in her first game as an equivalent to pick 1 or 2 or end of first round calibre player?

It just seems disorganised without any clear set of rules.

 

[jatz14]

I think it is just amusing that the AFL makes things up on the fly, as far as I am aware, there was nothing suggesting you would get penalised in the draft and they are equating one of the ladies we drafted from the Dogs (Tasmanian) in the 4th round who suffered an ACL in her first game as an equivalent to pick 1 or 2 or end of first round calibre player?

It just seems disorganised without any clear set of rules.

They had got a process to spread the load out, and stop clubs losing to much, while guaranteeing expansion clubs access to some reasonable talent. This would have meant they could have got away without messing around with doing compensations via the draft. However it was the clubs that to a large degree torpedoed that. A lot of the mess since has been on the fly adapting to unfolding events since.

Ironically, I think the clubs looked at the modest amount they were guaranteed to lose, and thought, stuff that, get rid of the points, and we get to keep all our players. It blew up in their faces, and I am pretty sure all the Vic clubs, plus Brisbane, lost more than they would have under the AFLs points plan.

 

[barrackers]

I think it is just amusing that the AFL makes things up on the fly,

No argument from me about the AFL making rules up on the fly, they've been especially good at this in regards to women's footy. Putting aside junk such as the round 2 knee-jerk memo; not knowing what they were working with in terms of wage and list sizes certainly hurt existing clubs with regards to re-signing players.

as far as I am aware, there was nothing suggesting you would get penalised in the draft

It was pretty clear that the AFL would make up the draft order after existing players were signed. I'm surprised they stuck with the ladder order and merely added a handful of compensation picks. In terms of NM being punished I haven't read any official article and it seems Geelong were more rewarded for not signing as many players.

http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2018-02-19/aflw-the-next-stage
"At the conclusion of the expansion period, the AFL will formulate the 2019 AFLW Draft order and notify clubs of their selections, with the ability to compensate existing clubs who lose current players, as well as afford expansion clubs priority selections."

and they are equating one of the ladies we drafted from the Dogs (Tasmanian) in the 4th round who suffered an ACL in her first game as an equivalent to pick 1 or 2 or end of first round calibre player?

I haven't looked at numbers, but Geelong also signed some of their VFLW players. I agree though that these local signings should have been excluded from the comparison between NM and Geel or perhaps the comparison should have been wage based. In some ways you would have been better off chancing that your Tassie recruits would slide through the draft.

What gets me is Geelong signing 4 less players equals 2 first round & 2 second round compo picks yet losing 4 established players only equals one second round+ compo pick. There seems to be an imbalance in these assessments.

It just seems disorganised without any clear set of rules.

The AFL need to sort their s**t out otherwise they'll disenchant the fledging fans from both new and existing clubs. Allowing players to be signed to longer deals (perhaps 2-3 years) would be a good start, as would doing away with bullshit rules like last touch.

 

[barrackers]

They had got a process to spread the load out, and stop clubs losing to much, while guaranteeing expansion clubs access to some reasonable talent. This would have meant they could have got away without messing around with doing compensations via the draft. However it was the clubs that to a large degree torpedoed that. A lot of the mess since has been on the fly adapting to unfolding events since.

Ironically, I think the clubs looked at the modest amount they were guaranteed to lose, and thought, stuff that, get rid of the points, and we get to keep all our players. It blew up in their faces, and I am pretty sure all the Vic clubs, plus Brisbane, lost more than they would have under the AFLs points plan.

It's not like Collingwood was confident of retaining players either with the below quote given by our coach in March.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...-ends-crows-flag-defence-20180318-p4z4yh.html

“Unfortunately, where this competition’s at at the moment, the existing clubs get no say in who gets poached," Siekman said.

“And it’s scary. Last year we were really disappointed that our two best players (Nic Stevens and Alicia Eva) left our football club, and this year I get really scared and really worried that our top three, top four players, could leave this club. It’s not fair on the existing clubs.

“You can get your heart broken straight down the middle.

“You’d actually love to be a Geelong or North Melbourne."

 

[jatz14]

No argument from me about the AFL making rules up on the fly, they've been especially good at this in regards to women's footy. Putting aside junk such as the round 2 knee-jerk memo; not knowing what they were working with in terms of wage and list sizes certainly hurt existing clubs with regards to re-signing players.


It was pretty clear that the AFL would make up the draft order after existing players were signed. I'm surprised they stuck with the ladder order and merely added a handful of compensation picks. In terms of NM being punished I haven't read any official article and it seems Geelong were more rewarded for not signing as many players.

http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2018-02-19/aflw-the-next-stage
"At the conclusion of the expansion period, the AFL will formulate the 2019 AFLW Draft order and notify clubs of their selections, with the ability to compensate existing clubs who lose current players, as well as afford expansion clubs priority selections."



I haven't looked at numbers, but Geelong also signed some of their VFLW players. I agree though that these local signings should have been excluded from the comparison between NM and Geel or perhaps the comparison should have been wage based. In some ways you would have been better off chancing that your Tassie recruits would slide through the draft.

What gets me is Geelong signing 4 less players equals 2 first round & 2 second round compo picks yet losing 4 established players only equals one second round+ compo pick. There seems to be an imbalance in these assessments.


The AFL need to sort their s**t out otherwise they'll disenchant the fledging fans from both new and existing clubs. Allowing players to be signed to longer deals (perhaps 2-3 years) would be a good start, as would doing away with bullshit rules like last touch.

Losing 4 established players still leaves you with over 20 known AFLW players to play around with.
Geelong have 7 established AFLW players, and another 6 players no better than whats available in the draft. Fact is, they are still well behind other clubs. 2 First round picks and 2 second round picks effectively catches them back up a bit to other clubs.

North have 13 established players, and it is probably considered a very good group, the equal of established teams, plus some new signings. North are going 2 picks behind Dogs, and 3 behind Melbourne, its not a huge disadvantage, especially the way the womens draft is still a much less exact science than the very inexact mens draft.

It still leaves them light on relative to other clubs. I jsut do not see them being the power others do, I think Geelong may well struggle, and North maybe mid table.

 

[Tas]

It was pretty clear that the AFL would make up the draft order after existing players were signed. I'm surprised they stuck with the ladder order and merely added a handful of compensation picks. In terms of NM being punished I haven't read any official article and it seems Geelong were more rewarded for not signing as many players.

http://www.nmfc.com.au/news/2018-02-19/aflw-the-next-stage
"At the conclusion of the expansion period, the AFL will formulate the 2019 AFLW Draft order and notify clubs of their selections, with the ability to compensate existing clubs who lose current players, as well as afford expansion clubs priority selections."

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/kangaroos-confirm-hope-signing-20180521-p4zgk4.html

Article mentioned we were being punished for signing more stars than Geelong, was mooted by officials before the release of the draw. Not that it matters a lot given the limited nature of player contracts atm.

According to: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-21/aflw-roos-cats-start-list-builds-ahead-of-debuts

The rules

North Melbourne and Geelong could not take any more than four players between them from each existing AFLW club – Adelaide, Brisbane, Carlton, Collingwood, Fremantle, GWS, Melbourne and Western Bulldogs – unless agreed to by both the club in question and the AFL.

With all AFLW players out of contract, AFLW clubs had the right to counter any offer put forward by either North Melbourne or Geelong to a player who was on their list in 2018.

The AFL had to agree to any player movement before it is made official.

No compensation terms have been announced by the AFL to clubs which have lost players to expansion teams, although the draft order will be released on May 22.

Some form of compensation may be worked into the draft order or the number of draft picks given to a club.

Open-aged signings (players who weren't on an AFLW list in 2018) must have been aged 18 as of January 1 this year. Clubs can sign open-aged players until the NAB AFLW Draft period.

So, the clubs had the right to counter any offer we made, the AFL also had to approve it and there was a limit on how many could be signed so there were three protection layers involved in existing player movement, as that article stated, there was no compensation terms announced back when the trading rules were released, prior to us taking Kearney. They were meant to just adjust the draft order, something else that was changed on the fly.

I agree Collingwood copped the rough end of the pinapple, the system is just idiotic.

I haven't looked at numbers, but Geelong also signed some of their VFLW players. I agree though that these local signings should have been excluded from the comparison between NM and Geel or perhaps the comparison should have been wage based. In some ways you would have been better off chancing that your Tassie recruits would slide through the draft.

For all intents MU is our de-facto VFLW team, the MU girls train at Arden street twice a week at night, their head coach will be the North coach for 2019.

Of the four players we got from Brisbane, 2 were from MU, one from Tasmania. Stanton the only one from there with no connection. None of the four made the AA squad. Stanton was 2nd in their B&F.

From the Dogs Kearney was from MU, Bannister from Tasmania. No links with Bruton. Only Kearney made the AA squad. Bruton was 6th in the dogs B&F.

From Cartlon we got two lower-key players, no AA players, don't think either made Carlton's top 10 B&F.

We signed three open-aged players; Elisha King (North Cairns), Georgia Nanscawen (Swan Districts) and Ashleigh Riddell (MU's VFLW captain)

Collingwood was the odd-one out, we didn't have any affiliation with any of the four ladies as far as I am aware. Garner, Duffin and King made the AA squad. Garner was #2 in the B&F, Duffin and King were equal #8 and Hope 10. How the AFL allowed 4 of the top 10 is surprising to me.

We didn't get anyone from Crows, Fremantle, Giants or Melbourne.

So we ended up signing 4 MU players and 3 Tasmanians with 10 of the 17 being relatively low-key players, if it wasn't for the 4 from Collingwood it would be pretty meh overall with Kearney, Bruton and Stanton being the only good recognised players. Even with the 4 from Collingwood, that puts us at a total of 4 ladies who made the AA squad, Melbourne still have 7, Bulldogs still have 5, Brisbane still has 6. Most of the clubs retained their AA stars outside of Collingwood yet we are pushed behind the top 4 clubs from the draft yet our list is still considerably weaker imo.

What gets me is Geelong signing 4 less players equals 2 first round & 2 second round compo picks yet losing 4 established players only equals one second round+ compo pick. There seems to be an imbalance in these assessments.

I think it highlights how tough it was to actually get good quality people to shift, I think the Collingwood experience was particularly negative, I haven't looked at Geelong's signing that closely but on glance value it seems a lot weaker than ours, but I think our group has been overblown. It seems we have been harshly penalised for signing up no-name Tasmanians, there is still a fair bit of room to fill (30 man squad?). I think the AFL's move to push us that far up the ladder was short-sighted.

The AFL need to sort their s**t out otherwise they'll disenchant the fledging fans from both new and existing clubs. Allowing players to be signed to longer deals (perhaps 2-3 years) would be a good start, as would doing away with bullshit rules like last touch.

Yeah, it is going to be a s**t show next year when they try and force 4 new teams at once, other clubs have at least had a few years to put on some fat, AFL penalising our drafting is going to give us a much leaner second tier. We needed a few years of drafting to establish/balance the list somewhat.

 

[76woodenspooners]

They had got a process to spread the load out, and stop clubs losing to much, while guaranteeing expansion clubs access to some reasonable talent. This would have meant they could have got away without messing around with doing compensations via the draft. However it was the clubs that to a large degree torpedoed that. A lot of the mess since has been on the fly adapting to unfolding events since.

Ironically, I think the clubs looked at the modest amount they were guaranteed to lose, and thought, stuff that, get rid of the points, and we get to keep all our players. It blew up in their faces, and I am pretty sure all the Vic clubs, plus Brisbane, lost more than they would have under the AFLs points plan.

I know I’ve said this before but ...

... IMO was he best way to set this up would have been to have a two tier competition. Give a team in the second tier to all the clubs who want one. Set up a system of promotion and relegation at the end of every season (or simply just have promotion if the AFL ultimately want to end up with just one large comp).

That way everybody is happy. The fans of North, Geelong, Essendon, Richmond, etc, etc are happy because they get a team to cheer for and something of value to compete for (a slot in the top tier next season). The integrity of the comp is maintained because it excludes new teams from being able to win in the top tier immediately. The fans of foundation clubs are happy because they generally get to keep their players. The AFL are happy because they get competitive matches and controlled expansion of the competition.

 

[barrackers]

Losing 4 established players still leaves you with over 20 known AFLW players to play around with.
Geelong have 7 established AFLW players, and another 6 players no better than whats available in the draft. Fact is, they are still well behind other clubs. 2 First round picks and 2 second round picks effectively catches them back up a bit to other clubs.

North have 13 established players, and it is probably considered a very good group, the equal of established teams, plus some new signings. North are going 2 picks behind Dogs, and 3 behind Melbourne, its not a huge disadvantage, especially the way the womens draft is still a much less exact science than the very inexact mens draft.

It still leaves them light on relative to other clubs. I jsut do not see them being the power others do, I think Geelong may well struggle, and North maybe mid table.

Good assessment, one thing I'll say though is that NM's top end is certainly better than ours. A lack of top end talent was one of our weaknesses due to initially targeting the wrong players and compounded by the loss of Eva and Stevens. As seen with how the crows struggled without Phillips this top end talent can really shape how a side performs and there's no doubt that ours has been considerably weakened; no one from the middle of our list let alone bottom was signed by NM.

If the AFL were going to go with the system they did they should have limited the loss to 2 players per expansion side to ensure it's spread equally. Even if the same players left I would have been more comfortable with 2 at NM and 2 at Geelong.

 

[barrackers]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/kangaroos-confirm-hope-signing-20180521-p4zgk4.html

Article mentioned we were being punished for signing more stars than Geelong, was mooted by officials before the release of the draw. Not that it matters a lot given the limited nature of player contracts atm.

I'm still yet to see an official article saying NM were punished. Although it's really a moot point whether Geelong were rewarded vs NM being punished. It's glass half full/half empty stuff.

According to: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-05-21/aflw-roos-cats-start-list-builds-ahead-of-debuts



So, the clubs had the right to counter any offer we made, the AFL also had to approve it and there was a limit on how many could be signed so there were three protection layers involved in existing player movement, as that article stated, there was no compensation terms announced back when the trading rules were released, prior to us taking Kearney. They were meant to just adjust the draft order, something else that was changed on the fly.

The NM article I linked to (written 19 Feb) mentioned compensation however like other things (AFLW initial licences, expansion teams and rules) how this was to be determined lacked transparency. The AFL needed to be more open with fans.

There's been no whispers of the AFL using it's power to veto nor of any club matching an offer. It's not to say it didn't occur and I'm surprised we didn't at least try and hold two of Garner, King and Duffin. Although you don't really want players at your club you don't want to be there.

I agree Collingwood copped the rough end of the pinapple, the system is just idiotic.

My sense is there's something amiss with our women's program, 6 high quality players leaving in 2 years is too many.

For all intents MU is our de-facto VFLW team, the MU girls train at Arden street twice a week at night, their head coach will be the North coach for 2019.

Of the four players we got from Brisbane, 2 were from MU, one from Tasmania. Stanton the only one from there with no connection. None of the four made the AA squad. Stanton was 2nd in their B&F.

From the Dogs Kearney was from MU, Bannister from Tasmania. No links with Bruton. Only Kearney made the AA squad. Bruton was 6th in the dogs B&F.

From Cartlon we got two lower-key players, no AA players, don't think either made Carlton's top 10 B&F.

We signed three open-aged players; Elisha King (North Cairns), Georgia Nanscawen (Swan Districts) and Ashleigh Riddell (MU's VFLW captain)

Collingwood was the odd-one out, we didn't have any affiliation with any of the four ladies as far as I am aware. Garner, Duffin and King made the AA squad. Garner was #2 in the B&F, Duffin and King were equal #8 and Hope 10. How the AFL allowed 4 of the top 10 is surprising to me.

We didn't get anyone from Crows, Fremantle, Giants or Melbourne.

There's doubt that NM have worked hard on women's footy with the MU/NM partnership going back years prior to the AFLW competition being announced. We had a much looser and newer relationship with Diamond Creek? and the Eastern Devils.

Hope signed with MU half way through last VFLW season (from StKilda Sharks), although I suspect this was the start of her move away from Collingwood. It was rumoured all AFLW season that she wouldn't be with us in 2019.

King was AA in 2017, but had a poorer year in 2018 as we struggled to find the right balance and the last touch rule quelled her dominance. Duffin has started both AFLW seasons slowly, but worked into each year and finished 2018 as one of our best. I think each is better than the 2018 B&F results suggest.

So we ended up signing 4 MU players and 3 Tasmanians with 10 of the 17 being relatively low-key players, if it wasn't for the 4 from Collingwood it would be pretty meh overall with Kearney, Bruton and Stanton being the only good recognised players. Even with the 4 from Collingwood, that puts us at a total of 4 ladies who made the AA squad, Melbourne still have 7, Bulldogs still have 5, Brisbane still has 6. Most of the clubs retained their AA stars outside of Collingwood yet we are pushed behind the top 4 clubs from the draft yet our list is still considerably weaker imo.

I think it highlights how tough it was to actually get good quality people to shift, I think the Collingwood experience was particularly negative, I haven't looked at Geelong's signing that closely but on glance value it seems a lot weaker than ours, but I think our group has been overblown. It seems we have been harshly penalised for signing up no-name Tasmanians, there is still a fair bit of room to fill (30 man squad?). I think the AFL's move to push us that far up the ladder was short-sighted.

I sense the AFL focused on the difference between your list and Geelong's. In terms of the core draft order I think it would have sat better with everyone had they announced this before signings kicked off; awarding more compo picks if need be.

Quality at the top has been telling in respect to results the previous two seasons and I think you've done well there. With a young comp there also should be enough depth in the draft via U18 players and mature aged selections outside of the AFLW to form a solid middle/bottom core. We have a few older players in our VFLW side that look good enough to be play AFLW next season even if they lack a bit of class.

Not surprisingly the squad size still hasn't been announced, although it was 27 + 3 rookies (including 2 new to AFL) last year.

Yeah, it is going to be a s**t show next year when they try and force 4 new teams at once, other clubs have at least had a few years to put on some fat, AFL penalising our drafting is going to give us a much leaner second tier. We needed a few years of drafting to establish/balance the list somewhat.

It's too many teams too soon, but all the players you pre-signed came by choice, which should help with retention. The same could have been said of Hope and King, but with the MU alignment your women's structure/program should be strong from the outset. I don't think the AFL will go with the same system again, or at least I hope not.

 

[Mkcaptain]

What burns me is that we're being punished for the fact our players left for expansion clubs rather than non expansion clubs. All four players individually had great trade value.
King first round
Garner first round
Duffin first round.
Hope second round.

But since they left for expansion clubs all we get is one lousy second round draft pick. (Worse than the equivalent pick last year given there are more Victorian clubs drafting players this year)

The AFL cared so much about the equity of the competition last year they were blocking Carlton's attempts to trade for Taylor Harris until a suitable deal was found. Why have they dropped the ball this year?

 

[Darkyprotector]

I don't think the AFL rated Geelong's recruitment period very highly.

It was always going to be bad for the rest of the competition if we weren't a foundation club and we were able to freely recruit from the existing pool, given our ties with MU and many of the recruits having affiliations with our club. The MU women's president is our Football Operation Manager and she had a large role not only in working on our bid, but putting our team together.

I think the competition could have been handled better, especially the expansion. I don't think it is particularly fair that some clubs lose up to four key players and other clubs lose little or nothing. I think all should have equally contributed and more importantly, I think the expansion should have been a slower process via the VFLW where clubs start to accumulate priority access to young players and then on the eve of moving from VFLW to AFLW they can recruit some experienced players but the process should have been in consultation with existing clubs, the AFL and the expansion clubs so they could meet their needs, but the drain be applied evenly.

These drafting concessions or penalties seem kind of pointless. What is the point of this coming draft if players can move so easily, it is kind of meaningless and it would be buyer beware if you draft a MU lady in particular.

Any time I'm wrong let me know

Was keeping a coach at melbourne uni

Pattern emerging

Not really aiding the devopment of women's footy are they .
Seems as your admitted previous arrangements were exploited

How many jobs
How much under the table for mo


Funny she went to Melb uni last year

Classy manipulation by desperados

 

[Darkyprotector]

What burns me is that we're being punished for the fact our players left for expansion clubs rather than non expansion clubs. All four players individually had great trade value.
King first round
Garner first round
Duffin first round.
Hope second round.

But since they left for expansion clubs all we get is one lousy second round draft pick. (Worse than the equivalent pick last year given there are more Victorian clubs drafting players this year)

The AFL cared so much about the equity of the competition last year they were blocking Carlton's attempts to trade for Taylor Harris until a suitable deal was found. Why have they dropped the ball this year?

Nicole supports who

 

[Darkyprotector]

I'm still yet to see an official article saying NM were punished. Although it's really a moot point whether Geelong were rewarded vs NM being punished. It's glass half full/half empty stuff.



The NM article I linked to (written 19 Feb) mentioned compensation however like other things (AFLW initial licences, expansion teams and rules) how this was to be determined lacked transparency. The AFL needed to be more open with fans.

There's been no whispers of the AFL using it's power to veto nor of any club matching an offer. It's not to say it didn't occur and I'm surprised we didn't at least try and hold two of Garner, King and Duffin. Although you don't really want players at your club you don't want to be there.


My sense is there's something amiss with our women's program, 6 high quality players leaving in 2 years is too many.



There's doubt that NM have worked hard on women's footy with the MU/NM partnership going back years prior to the AFLW competition being announced. We had a much looser and newer relationship with Diamond Creek? and the Eastern Devils.

Hope signed with MU half way through last VFLW season (from StKilda Sharks), although I suspect this was the start of her move away from Collingwood. It was rumoured all AFLW season that she wouldn't be with us in 2019.

King was AA in 2017, but had a poorer year in 2018 as we struggled to find the right balance and the last touch rule quelled her dominance. Duffin has started both AFLW seasons slowly, but worked into each year and finished 2018 as one of our best. I think each is better than the 2018 B&F results suggest.


I sense the AFL focused on the difference between your list and Geelong's. In terms of the core draft order I think it would have sat better with everyone had they announced this before signings kicked off; awarding more compo picks if need be.

Quality at the top has been telling in respect to results the previous two seasons and I think you've done well there. With a young comp there also should be enough depth in the draft via U18 players and mature aged selections outside of the AFLW to form a solid middle/bottom core. We have a few older players in our VFLW side that look good enough to be play AFLW next season even if they lack a bit of class.

Not surprisingly the squad size still hasn't been announced, although it was 27 + 3 rookies (including 2 new to AFL) last year.



It's too many teams too soon, but all the players you pre-signed came by choice, which should help with retention. The same could have been said of Hope and King, but with the MU alignment your women's structure/program should be strong from the outset. I don't think the AFL will go with the same system again, or at least I hope not.

The only reason nm is involved with Melb uni women's was the ground use age agreement signed when the government tipped in the amount of money

Multi sport community facility

Adelaide , freo , gws all lose no one

Cluster * should have been all traded with extra picks allowed for expansion teams

First 14 picks split between and then trades
Pick 1 for garner and king
Pick 2 for Kearney
Pick 3 duffin hope
Draft conscesions for tassie and belerine peninsula players

It's a friggin joke

 

[Tas]

Any time I'm wrong let me know

Was keeping a coach at melbourne uni

Pattern emerging

Not really aiding the devopment of women's footy are they .
Seems as your admitted previous arrangements were exploited

How many jobs
How much under the table for mo


Funny she went to Melb uni last year

Classy manipulation by desperados

I should probably stop you before you even start if your post consists entirely of a combination of baseless accusations and other things that are allowed in the AFLW and all clubs take advantage of, including Collingwood. I am sure Collingwood do everything humanly possible within the rules to keep players like Molloy happy, but there is limited scope, you can't keep everyone happy with financial inducements alone because there is a limited capacity to do so.

If we didn't exist it would have been harder for a club like Brisbane to lose the players they did, our license created the opportunity for a go-home factor and it is probably going to be greater with more Victorian clubs coming the following year.

Collingwood players didn't have that same kind of motivation, you would have to ask the club why so many women were eager to leave and what the relationship is like with your players, how many that have left to join us would have left regardless if other Melbourne clubs gave them the opportunity?

Our ties with MU is no different to teams that have VFLW teams.

I am only aware of Kearney being given a job at the club with the Huddle, this is all above board and the AFL was well aware of it, the AFL had to approve every signing and knew exactly what we offered to each player. We just do not have the capacity to lure players with absurd offers and every club had the opportunity to make counter offers.

Claims we are making under the table payments are laughable, if there is one club you can trust to play within the rules, it is us. We don't have the money for under the table payments and they are not needed for the AFLW. Like most of the other clubs, what will be paid for the AFLW will largely come from the AFL's allocation for clubs with AFLW teams.

 

[Darkyprotector]

I should probably stop you before you even start if your post consists entirely of a combination of baseless accusations and other things that are allowed in the AFLW and all clubs take advantage of, including Collingwood. I am sure Collingwood do everything humanly possible within the rules to keep players like Molloy happy, but there is limited scope, you can't keep everyone happy with financial inducements alone because there is a limited capacity to do so.

If we didn't exist it would have been harder for a club like Brisbane to lose the players they did, our license created the opportunity for a go-home factor and it is probably going to be greater with more Victorian clubs coming the following year.

Collingwood players didn't have that same kind of motivation, you would have to ask the club why so many women were eager to leave and what the relationship is like with your players, how many that have left to join us would have left regardless if other Melbourne clubs gave them the opportunity?

Our ties with MU is no different to teams that have VFLW teams.

I am only aware of Kearney being given a job at the club with the Huddle, this is all above board and the AFL was well aware of it, the AFL had to approve every signing and knew exactly what we offered to each player. We just do not have the capacity to lure players with absurd offers and every club had the opportunity to make counter offers.

Claims we are making under the table payments are laughable, if there is one club you can trust to play within the rules, it is us. We don't have the money for under the table payments and they are not needed for the AFLW. Like most of the other clubs, what will be paid for the AFLW will largely come from the AFL's allocation for clubs with AFLW teams.

You confirmed that your group has been actively encouraging people to join and Melb uni don't have a great record in this. Keeping a prime example

Youre aware The afl run a soft cap on footy club spending

My understanding is ALL recruits will be utilised in promoting the game for the afl in tassie and promo money has been allocated for same which is a huge leg up
Same as hickey
Same as taub
Same as phillips
Same as Staunton and eva

Notice how Harris does auskick
We don't have a ruck coach due to the soft cap and no one gets extra cash due to same

We don't get the promo development dollars to the same extent as we don't have the so called growth area


But hey keep sending us to promote the game to moe , nt and god knows where else mandurah

 

[Tas]

The only reason nm is involved with Melb uni women's was the ground use age agreement signed when the government tipped in the amount of money

Multi sport community facility

That isn't true. The redevelopment of Arden Street was agreed to in 2005 and had no scope for womens football specifically, the project was expanded in 2007 and it included indoor basketball court, much larger gym (that is also available to the public) and much greater space for administration facilities. These facilities were used primarily by us but Fencing Victoria and I think the Melbourne Tigers (basketball) were also based there. We had a lifetime lease on the oval and area where the administration buildings are, the rest the Melbourne City Council managed, part of the overhaul was for us to be the caretaker of the entire reserve, including the pools.

Our interest in women's football started in 2010. We ran the AFL Girl's Academy for girls between 10-14 and the Victorian Country program for young females, also hosted the Youth Girls Carnival every year. That lead us to engage with Melbourne University who also develop girls across many different age levels, our work was partly with the development of girls at MU but also with coaching staff and administration staff. MU trains twice a week at Arden Street, they have access to NMFC staff and players, Ben Brown is someone who spends a lot of his own time helping players.

Women's football at Arden Street is a whole different ball game, we have received approval from Melbourne City Council for a $10m expansion of the facilities to incorporate women's football which should be completed early next year. The AFL was keen to have another AFL standard oval to play games at, the practice match during the pre-season with a MU/Tasmanian team against Darebin received the thumbs up by the AFL, the new development will create the changing rooms and facilities for women's football and the playing of AFLW matches here, including umpiring and media facilities.

 

[Tas]

You confirmed that your group has been actively encouraging people to join and Melb uni don't have a great record in this. Keeping a prime example

Youre aware The afl run a soft cap on footy club spending

My understanding is ALL recruits will be utilised in promoting the game for the afl in tassie and promo money has been allocated for same which is a huge leg up
Same as hickey
Same as taub
Same as phillips
Same as Staunton and eva

Notice how Harris does auskick
We don't have a ruck coach due to the soft cap and no one gets extra cash due to same

We don't get the promo development dollars to the same extent as we don't have the so called growth area


But hey keep sending us to promote the game to moe , nt and god knows where else mandurah

Source of these claims?

 

[Harry O]

I assume Collingwood will get 2 new marquee players in this trade period to replace those that have left?

 

[TradeDraft]

I assume Collingwood will get 2 new marquee players in this trade period to replace those that have left?

I say Molloy would get 1 of them and I think Lambert was the Other from last season that was a Marquee