Aish should belong to the Crows.

[Geoffa32]

I personally think the idea of a Norwood/Sturt/South etc player being F/S for us is not the true intent of the actual rule.

The idea is to allow a son to play at the club his dad played for. These guys did not play for our football club. In time we will get our true F/S players and we will watch the sons of players we watched play for our club. This is the intent of the F/S rule and why I like it.

Which is why I was not too upset that we "lost" Gibbs after a couple of Bigfooty Port posters did the research to prove he was not eligible due to his father not player the required games in the time window and get this to the AFL for them to overrule and allow Gibbs to go to the (still) struggling Carlton. Just found it petty/pathetic that someone put in the time and effort of going through all those old Budgets to stop a rival getting such a player.

 

[Geoffa32]

As distinct from what we've done with the F/S academy?

http://www.afc.com.au/news/2012-01-15/crows-father-son-academy

 

[NTRabbit]

That's nice but not at all relevant to the point. We've already seen it with other f/s who are eligible for two clubs that clubs take the early initiative. Cloke, Daniher, Murphy for example.

I don't think there will ever be another situation like the Cloke one. Collingwood committed to Travis so early they drafted his hapless older brothers first as contra to David Cloke to get him. David was the one who set the ironclad "all brothers one club" rule to Richmond and Collingwood, knowing full well Travis was always the best of them.