2016 Non Crows AFL Discussion thread Part 2

[CrowsB4hoes]

And if clubs refuse?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

They'll sweeten it up enough so one club scabs and does the deal.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

That's pathetic

Should be made to lose their next yearsfirst rounder too

 

[Elite Crow]

Should be made to lose their next yearsfirst rounder too

That's it, otherwise what is the penalty for breaking the rules? You must use your pick?? WTF

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

That's it, otherwise what is the penalty for breaking the rules? You must use your pick?? WTF

Maybe instead of being suspended, Sloane just shouldn't have been able to whack anyone in the head against west coast

 

[Sanders]

The AFL is a professional sport run by amateur fan boys. All CEO's have been inbred.

You think Ross Oakley & Wayne Jackson were inbred fan boys?

Wow.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Shouldn't clubs be able to trade out whatever picks they want? As long as they are only dealing one year in advance that prevents some desperate, under pressure list manager selling out their whole future

 

[tinman]

That's because the AFL are just inventing the rules on the fly.

Last year on trade radio they spent ages going through the official rules of trade week as defined by the AFL

Last year after Geelong traded their 2015 and 2016 first rounders they clarfied on Trade Radio that Geelong will now can only trade first round picks provided that have at least two 1st round picks banked.

Yet now the AFL had done a 180 and allowed Geelong to trade their 2017 pick on the basis that it has to have two first round picks by the end of 2018. Considering that Geelong now only have 1 first round pick banked (2018), what is going to happen if Geelong are unable to source a trade in 17 or 18 for an additional first round pick ?

Hawthorn is another where the rule have changed the rules on the fly rather than stick to their original ruling on the rules.

This is a multi million dollar business FFS. Is it incompetent, corrupt or both?

Who writes the "rules"? The work experience kid?

I love "However, while the rule states that a club must use two first-round picks in a rolling four-year period, it technically meant that the Cats could again trade a first rounder, so long as they could secure two picks at a later draft."

So you CAN just trade out all of your future draft picks and tell the AFL "Hey, we're planning to trade out some gun players in year 4, so we will use two first rounders within 4 years, trust us".

And then get to year 4 and they say "We tried to trade out player X for two first rounders but hey, the deal fell through".

What are the AFL going to do?

If you are going to write rules, and then not use them, and make excuses for it, any reasonable person would ask what is the purpose of the rules?

A. We all know the answers, don't we? The answer is "So we can pull them out and use them when we feel like it".

What a farce. A multi million $ business run by absolute arse clowns. They are unbelievably inconsistent and the same clubs get the benefit every time.

"Free kick hawthorn", "free pick hawthorn", there is at least a strong perception out there that things are rigged. But the AFL hierarchy show an enormous amount of contempt by not investigating these concerns, not addressing them, and even worse, allowing the SAME stuff to continue unabated.

When do they actually accept there is a problem?

 

[Sanders]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...s-in-jaeger-omeara-trade-20161026-gsax71.html

Hawthorn Hawks did not break any AFL rules in Jaeger O'Meara trade

The AFL has rejected as incorrect a report that there were illegalities involved in the trade that sent Jaeger O'Meara from Gold Coast to Hawthorn.

The league responded to a News Corp report on Wednesday via the AFL website, clarifying that the Hawks had acted well within the rules when they traded their second round pick in the 2017 draft to the Suns


The News Corp report claimed that the AFL had broken their own future trading rules by allowing the club to trade that pick, given they had already traded their 2017 first round pick to St Kilda in a separate deal.

Under the rules, clubs that trade a future first round pick are not permitted to trade any other selections in that draft unless they have already traded in a replacement for one of them.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...s-in-jaeger-omeara-trade-20161026-gsax71.html

Hawthorn Hawks did not break any AFL rules in Jaeger O'Meara trade

The AFL has rejected as incorrect a report that there were illegalities involved in the trade that sent Jaeger O'Meara from Gold Coast to Hawthorn.

The league responded to a News Corp report on Wednesday via the AFL website, clarifying that the Hawks had acted well within the rules when they traded their second round pick in the 2017 draft to the Suns


The News Corp report claimed that the AFL had broken their own future trading rules by allowing the club to trade that pick, given they had already traded their 2017 first round pick to St Kilda in a separate deal.

Under the rules, clubs that trade a future first round pick are not permitted to trade any other selections in that draft unless they have already traded in a replacement for one of them.

This is like a politician such as Bronwyn bishop explaining why it was legitimate under the rules to take a work funded helicopter ride for a personal wedding.

Everyone with half a brain knows it fails the sniff test, yet they are arrogant enough to think they can get away with it...

 

[crowsontv]

You think Ross Oakley & Wayne Jackson were inbred fan boys?

Wow.

One of the architects of the expansion , was it Alan Schwab , was found dead naked coked up in a hotel room a thousand miles from home and having procurred the services of an escort . Not many organizations can boast that.

 

[crowsontv]

Whilst on official business !

 

[feenix67]

One of the architects of the expansion , was it Alan Schwab , was found dead naked coked up in a hotel room a thousand miles from home and having procurred the services of an escort . Not many organizations can boast that.

F1 except he didn't die.

 

[crowsontv]

I mean I could have some details wrong but I'm pretty sure that he died and a prostitute was questioned at the inquest about it and how the drugs got there

 

[GameofSloanes]

I see the PAPs are on our board again. September must be over and they're back from holidays. Must feel good to be premiership favorites again for next year guys

 

[Sanders]

I mean I could have some details wrong but I'm pretty sure that he died and a prostitute was questioned at the inquest about it and how the drugs got there

Yeah that's right

This is a report from just afterwards before all the other details came out about the drugs hookers etc

 

[crowsontv]

I remember it because I was living in Sydney when it happened not far from the hotel. Sydney in 93 didn't give a fig about AFL so I don't know what the coverage of it was like in the football states. Felt a bit sad for the bloke but I guess my point is you just don't know what may or may not occur behind the scenes in large organizations.

 

[cm_perfect]

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on Port's China push.

It is a side show to Kochie's real passion. Australia/Asian economics.

I once enjoyed a lecture series he gave on the topic in the early 2000s at UniSA.



Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Tapatalk

Good for Kockies brand [emoji106]

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.

That could easily be a Yes Minister episode.

Is there any other professional sport (worldwide) that frequently creates rules then flip flops like a cheap suit on a whim?

If you want to change the rule don't do it in the last 2 days of the trade period. You change it for the following year for everyone.

It's embarrassing

 

[crowsup]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...s-in-jaeger-omeara-trade-20161026-gsax71.html

Hawthorn Hawks did not break any AFL rules in Jaeger O'Meara trade

The AFL has rejected as incorrect a report that there were illegalities involved in the trade that sent Jaeger O'Meara from Gold Coast to Hawthorn.

The league responded to a News Corp report on Wednesday via the AFL website, clarifying that the Hawks had acted well within the rules when they traded their second round pick in the 2017 draft to the Suns


The News Corp report claimed that the AFL had broken their own future trading rules by allowing the club to trade that pick, given they had already traded their 2017 first round pick to St Kilda in a separate deal.

Under the rules, clubs that trade a future first round pick are not permitted to trade any other selections in that draft unless they have already traded in a replacement for one of them.

I don't remember that highlighted part as being part of the rule. But, even if I'm wrong, imho I believe that the last line, if correct, could be interpreted as they could trade out the rest of their picks ; i.e. 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. and only need to trade in a 3rd.

 

[Mike Smyth]

How come there's no flexibility in the rule about paying players outside of the cap. We should ask for our draft picks back

As corrupt as Demie was at least he knew abit about the game whereas as Gill fell into the role, not because of any great ability, but because of his private school connections. Twat and an air head.

 

[Mike Smyth]

I see the PAPs are on our board again. September must be over and they're back from holidays. Must feel good to be premiership favorites again for next year guys

Good on port for trying to find new ways to improve the club regardless of how flawed and corrupt the venture is. However, any success isn't because of their supporterbase its in spite of it. Worst supporters in any sport in Australia.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Good on port for trying to find new ways to improve the club regardless of how flawed and corrupt the venture is. However, any success isn't because of their supporterbase its in spite of it. Worst supporters in any sport in Australia.

Hong Kong or the Chinese own most of our power interests... so probably appropriate they take over port too...

 

[PrideOf]

When do they actually accept there is a problem?

When they stop making a shitload of money.

 

[Big Crow]

Good on port for trying to find new ways to improve the club regardless of how flawed and corrupt the venture is. However, any success isn't because of their supporterbase its in spite of it. Worst supporters in any sport in Australia.

I'm suspicious the whole GC vs Port thing is just a ploy to convince the Chinese population that all AFL chairmen look alike.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Hong Kong or the Chinese own most of our power interests... so probably appropriate they take over port too...

And hasn't that been a roaring success for us. We can only hope for more of the same for port.

 

[GrommoT]

Good on port for trying to find new ways to improve the club regardless of how flawed and corrupt the venture is. However, any success isn't because of their supporterbase its in spite of it. Worst supporters in any sport in Australia.

WHACK!!! Wow, doing a R_50/50_CH are we?