2016 Non Crows AFL Discussion thread Part 2

[Bicks]

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

It's going to be interesting to see how this will effect Geelong in the long term.

No first round picks in 15, 16 and now 2017 is going to leave a massive hole on their list.

It won't be long before their list is a complete mess, I would say that if Geelong don't win anything next year then Danger is going to be looking back at 2012 as the closest he ever was to a grand final.

I said at the time danger went to then at the wrong time, because the cats should have been harvesting picks for a rebuild for a partial rebuild to replace their aging players. The strategy was all wrong.

 

[GROTTO]

Even if Ports venture intoChina

That's nice, this however is the first AFL game for Premiership points outside of Aus/NZ. Who knows if it'll last or be successful, but it's worth a crack and it's not costing us a whole lot.

Seriously who gives a flying fck about a game in China, I know your Club tries to mask it's on field pathetic performances with these off field side shows.

But bottom line I would hate for the Crows to play game in China or anywhere outside Australia during the H&A season, it's a distraction and will IMO hurt the Powers chances of creeping into the 8.

TBH I'm happy that you guys are playing in China.

Hopefully your team doesn't fly with Malaysian Airlines.

 

[arrowman]

The cats may need to pay a premium as other clubs will know

Even if a club is willing to swap first round picks they'll be betting they finish above Geelong. Which, come to think of it, might not be a bad bet.

 

[Elite Crow]

Don't the rules simply say it means the club won't be able to trade their subsequent first rounder - so in this case their 2018 first?

It's like being caught speeding and the punishment is to keep driving without speeding anymore.

Where's Vader at?

I don't think so, they were allowed to trade 2017s pick as long as they use 2 by 2018. So they need to gain a pick to be able to use the 2.

I've tweeted Keane a couple of times for no response.

 

[FR0GGY]

I don't think so, they were allowed to trade 2017s pick as long as they use 2 by 2018. So they need to gain a pick to be able to use the 2.

I've tweeted Keane a couple of times for no response.

they are probably still writing the rules

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

they are probably still writing the rules

Just sitting their hoping they don't have to make a decision. It's what the AFL does best.

 

[Bicks]

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Could Good Friday get even more boring?

Yes. Yes it could.

 

[Iron]

Someone doesn't understand how column graphs are supposed to work.

 

[Iron]

"No one gives a toss about Port Adelaide" - David Koch 2016.

Beautiful.

 

[subaru]

Gil looking like Jack Burton in Big Trouble In Little China

That avatar !!!!!!!

 

[RePete]

I don't think so, they were allowed to trade 2017s pick as long as they use 2 by 2018. So they need to gain a pick to be able to use the 2.

I've tweeted Keane a couple of times for no response.

Well based on their list void of young talent, and with most their aging players either gone or passed it in 2018, not hard to see them finishing say 14th, getting a top-5 pick and trading it and other picks for picks 17 & 18. Orrr maybe they could trade their 2019 first for a late 2018 first? So many possible ways to screw over their future

 

[Bicks]

 

[Sanders]

Reckon the reason this china shemozzle is a suns home game is that this allows the AFL to compensate them for losing a home game

In effect it's their pay off.

 

[GROTTO]

"No one gives a toss about Port Adelaide" - David Koch 2016.

Beautiful.

#creed
#1870
#theportadelaideway
#torn
#pafc

 

[hey shorty]

I can see Matthew Wright being delisted at the end of next year, that'll be another leading goalkicker gone.

 

[Bicks]

Never change AFL, Never, ever......

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...l/news-story/193b777072a675dccc28411bd0dfecd1

Jaeger O’Meara trade to Hawthorn from Gold Coast remains a source of confusion and discontent in AFL

SAM LANDSBERGER, Herald Sun
5 minutes ago
premium_iconSubscriber only

MULTIPLE clubs remain confused by an AFL ruling which allowed Hawthorn to trade its future second-round pick to secure Jaeger O’Meara.

But league boss Gillon McLachlan on Wednesday declared all clubs and AFL staff were “clear” on rules governing the trading of future picks.

The AFL has conceded it issued incorrect paperwork regarding the O’Meara trade last week, which compounded confusion.



AFL media manager Patrick Keane tweeted after trade deadline that Gold Coast received GWS’s future second-round pick in the O’Meara trade, because Hawthorn was forced to keep its own.

The paperwork distributed by the league also stated that the Hawks on-traded the Giants’ pick to the Suns.

But the AFL now says Hawthorn swapped pick No. 10 and its own future second-rounder for the midfield jet.



Clubs contacted yesterday by the Herald Sun were split as to whether Hawthorn had been allowed to trade its future second-round selection after earlier offloading its future first-round selection.

One called for an official inquiry, believing the O’Meara deal was illegal and questioned the presence of AFL figures in the trade room.

Another club powerbroker believed the AFL was facing pressure to get the O’Meara trade done, because it didn’t want to “stoke the fire” as it thrashes out a new pay deal with the AFL Players’ Association.



A third club wondered whether the AFL was hesitant to let the possibility of O’Meara joining Essendon for free through the pre-season draft materialise.

Suspicions also rose as to why the O’Meara trade, among others, did not lob on the official board until well after the 2pm deadline.

But four list bosses agreed that “from go to whoa” clubs have been able to do what Hawthorn did.

“That’s my understanding. As long as you trade in another pick in that round, it’s OK,” one said.

“It’s a bit silly in that you can bring in pick 36 and trade 19, but it’s clear enough I think.”

The conflicting understanding highlight the ambiguity surrounding trade rules, which clubs said had not been updated since being introduced last year.

It is believed Collingwood was open to offloading its first and second-round picks last year after bringing in St Kilda’s second-round selection for Nathan Freeman.
Instead, Brisbane Lions chose the Saints’ future second pick instead of the Pies’ in exchange for James Aish.

The Hawks gave Gold Coast its choice of future picks and when it was confirmed the second on offer belonged to GWS, the Suns opted for Hawthorn’s.

“I don’t think that’s correct at all (that clubs don’t understand the rule),” McLachlan said on Wednesday.

“The rules are clear. The (O’Meara) trade was perfectly legal and I don’t think there’s any grey in that.

“If anyone needed clarification they spoke to (integrity officer) Ken Wood during the process and I think they got pretty clear answers.”

McLachlan dismissed the bungled paperwork as an “administrative error”.

“I reckon people could be happy to make a clerical error and I think it’s a little overhyped,” he said.

Geelong recruiting boss Stephen Wells admitted during trade period he was unaware his club could trade its first pick in 2017 after offloading its first pick in 2015 and 2016.

That loophole helped the Cats secure Zach Tuohy.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Never change AFL, Never, ever......

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...l/news-story/193b777072a675dccc28411bd0dfecd1

Jaeger O’Meara trade to Hawthorn from Gold Coast remains a source of confusion and discontent in AFL

SAM LANDSBERGER, Herald Sun
5 minutes ago
premium_iconSubscriber only

MULTIPLE clubs remain confused by an AFL ruling which allowed Hawthorn to trade its future second-round pick to secure Jaeger O’Meara.

But league boss Gillon McLachlan on Wednesday declared all clubs and AFL staff were “clear” on rules governing the trading of future picks.

The AFL has conceded it issued incorrect paperwork regarding the O’Meara trade last week, which compounded confusion.



AFL media manager Patrick Keane tweeted after trade deadline that Gold Coast received GWS’s future second-round pick in the O’Meara trade, because Hawthorn was forced to keep its own.

The paperwork distributed by the league also stated that the Hawks on-traded the Giants’ pick to the Suns.

But the AFL now says Hawthorn swapped pick No. 10 and its own future second-rounder for the midfield jet.



Clubs contacted yesterday by the Herald Sun were split as to whether Hawthorn had been allowed to trade its future second-round selection after earlier offloading its future first-round selection.

One called for an official inquiry, believing the O’Meara deal was illegal and questioned the presence of AFL figures in the trade room.

Another club powerbroker believed the AFL was facing pressure to get the O’Meara trade done, because it didn’t want to “stoke the fire” as it thrashes out a new pay deal with the AFL Players’ Association.



A third club wondered whether the AFL was hesitant to let the possibility of O’Meara joining Essendon for free through the pre-season draft materialise.

Suspicions also rose as to why the O’Meara trade, among others, did not lob on the official board until well after the 2pm deadline.

But four list bosses agreed that “from go to whoa” clubs have been able to do what Hawthorn did.

“That’s my understanding. As long as you trade in another pick in that round, it’s OK,” one said.

“It’s a bit silly in that you can bring in pick 36 and trade 19, but it’s clear enough I think.”

The conflicting understanding highlight the ambiguity surrounding trade rules, which clubs said had not been updated since being introduced last year.

It is believed Collingwood was open to offloading its first and second-round picks last year after bringing in St Kilda’s second-round selection for Nathan Freeman.
Instead, Brisbane Lions chose the Saints’ future second pick instead of the Pies’ in exchange for James Aish.

The Hawks gave Gold Coast its choice of future picks and when it was confirmed the second on offer belonged to GWS, the Suns opted for Hawthorn’s.

“I don’t think that’s correct at all (that clubs don’t understand the rule),” McLachlan said on Wednesday.

“The rules are clear. The (O’Meara) trade was perfectly legal and I don’t think there’s any grey in that.

“If anyone needed clarification they spoke to (integrity officer) Ken Wood during the process and I think they got pretty clear answers.”

McLachlan dismissed the bungled paperwork as an “administrative error”.

“I reckon people could be happy to make a clerical error and I think it’s a little overhyped,” he said.

Geelong recruiting boss Stephen Wells admitted during trade period he was unaware his club could trade its first pick in 2017 after offloading its first pick in 2015 and 2016.

That loophole helped the Cats secure Zach Tuohy.

I thought I was reading a spackler spoof...

 

[Elite Crow]

I thought I was reading a spackler spoof...

Hah, it does read like that doesn't it? The AFL has to be right up their with our political parties as the most inept organisations in the country.

 

[adelaidecrows]

I thought I was reading a spackler spoof...

The AFL is a professional sport run by amateur fan boys. All CEO's have been inbred. The AFL need to go outside and get fresh talent and ideas in. Target someone who runs the EPL or NFL, NBA etc. Just bring the AFL into the professional era for goodness sake.

 

[conVINCEd]

I don't think so, they were allowed to trade 2017s pick as long as they use 2 by 2018. So they need to gain a pick to be able to use the 2.

I've tweeted Keane a couple of times for no response.

Sure but what is the punishment if they can't land another first rounder? [probably what you're asking Patrick]

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the penalty is simply making the club hold their first pick the subsequent year (and probably the year following) to fulfil the 2 first rounders in 4 years requirements.

 

[Large 1]

I don't think so, they were allowed to trade 2017s pick as long as they use 2 by 2018. So they need to gain a pick to be able to use the 2.

I've tweeted Keane a couple of times for no response.

Their solution will be to swap their 2019 1st (and maybe a sweetener) for another teams 2018 first. Then they have 2 firsts in 2018 and are fine.

2015(0), 2016(0), 2017(0), 2018(2), 2019(0)...no 4 year period without 2 pick.

They could even trade out their 2020 and 2021 1st and still be fine using 2 first round picks in 7 years!

In other words, the rule is a f##king joke! And the penalty will likely be stopping them from 1 years of future trading if need be.

 

[Jetwa5h]

Their solution will be to swap their 2019 1st (and maybe a sweetener) for another teams 2018 first. Then they have 2 firsts in 2018 and are fine.

2015(0), 2016(0), 2017(0), 2018(2), 2019(0)...no 4 year period without 2 pick.

They could even trade out their 2020 and 2021 1st and still be fine using 2 first round picks in 7 years!

In other words, the rule is a f##king joke! And the penalty will likely be stopping them from 1 years of future trading if need be.

And if clubs refuse?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[Elite Crow]

Sure but what is the punishment if they can't land another first rounder? [probably what you're asking Patrick]

I'm sure I've read somewhere that the penalty is simply making the club hold their first pick the subsequent year (and probably the year following) to fulfil the 2 first rounders in 4 years requirements.

That's pathetic