Can Geelong land all of Hopper, Smith and Ablett?

[dogs105]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-12/the-futurepick-puzzle

"Geelong and Collingwood did not have a first-round draft pick in 2016 and will not have one in their hands when they enter the 2016 trade period either, having used a future first-round draft pick last year to secure Lachie Henderson from Carlton and Adam Treloar from Greater Western Sydney."

"The two clubs will have to make two first-round draft picks before the end of 2018, potentially limiting their immediate options at the trade table this season unless they can trade their way back into the first round."

In 2016 you traded your 2016 pick to GWS. So unless you bring in extra 1st round picks, you cannot be trading them. Reckon you will get a 1st round pick for Motlop?



He's on far less money, so they Rookie list him and only half of that counts towards the cap.

And they dont front load contracts for flogs ever again.

AFL changed the rules to help Geelong last year.

 

[cdcanman]

More Wongs that a chinese phone book.

Does not apply until 2018.

But keep digging for stuff back in 2016 that has since be clarified by the AFL this year.
They cant rookie list GAJ - that would break his contract and make him delisted and free to go anywhere before they could Rookie him.

Not so flash at this.

Go Catters

"The AFL on Thursday confirmed that the onus was on Geelong to find an extra first-round pick to take to either the 2017 or 2018 drafts. Failure to do so would result in sanctions, which could involve trading restrictions." SAM LANDSBERGER, Herald Sun April 6, 2017

For your reference
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...e/news-story/b2ec7c98474c8357fc690fc494dd670b

 

[zb14]

Funny how only Geelong supporters refuse to see how much a campaigner Gary has been to the suns. Gets a heavily front loaded contract and then wants out as soon as the contract value is lower. Hope the campaigner retires, he's tarnished his reputation somewhat in my opinion.

No, we all actually saw it long ago.

Cats fans in 2010: Gazzas sooking about playing fwd as Bomber prepares for life after him

"Neutral" fans in 2010: Poor Gazza, Bombers bullying him not playing him in the role he wants

Cats fans in 2010: Gazza is all about the cash.

"Neutral" fans in 2010: Gazza had no choice. The money is good and he'll "have success" at GC too. Had to leave Geel as relationships had broken down.

Cats fans in 2010: Gazza isn't a leader

"Neutral" fans in 2010-16: hahaha salty Cats fans, Gazza has "enhanced" his reputation, look at his Brownlow, his AA captaincies, MVPs etc.

Now all you hypocrites wanna flip your own script. Too funny. The only thing that pisses you off is the colours Gary wants to wear. We all know it, we all see it. I love that Geelong is so disliked by other fans. We are like the new Collingwood, but with success on the field. Long may the burn continue..!!!

 

[zb14]

It also shouldn't be forgotten that what the Cats were offering in 2010, would still see him the highest paid player at the Cats in 2017. Pretty amazing when you think we've had Selwood on our list and gotten Danger in that time. Yet, neutrals were falling over themselves to say Gazza had no choice but to leave!

 

[STPer18]

If Hopper and Smith both nominate us, we will get it done without much fuss whatsoever. Like most trades these days, it all depends on which club the player in question requests a trade to.

 

[dazbroncos]

"The AFL on Thursday confirmed that the onus was on Geelong to find an extra first-round pick to take to either the 2017 or 2018 drafts. Failure to do so would result in sanctions, which could involve trading restrictions." SAM LANDSBERGER, Herald Sun April 6, 2017

For your reference
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...e/news-story/b2ec7c98474c8357fc690fc494dd670b

Oh god this s**t again...

There was an episode of 360 about 6 weeks ago, perhaps a little longer - that was then followed by a print article - where is GFC sought clarification over the rule from the AFL.

AFL response was the rule comes into play in 2019. We dont have to do s**t about Rd1 picks till then when everyone else will do the same.

Its a non issue. But keep digging.

And Sam was wrong about it then, and its wrong now.

GO Catters

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Potential penalties won't come into effect until 2018 for Geelong, but the rule is already active. Geelong must make 2 first rd selections over the next 2 drafts (2017 and 2018) or they will face sanctions.
The AFL should never have allowed the Henderson trade to go through. The rule that governs this is written poorly which allowed it to happen. Instead of saying 'a club must make 2 first rd selections in every 4 year period', it should say 'a club must at all times possess 2 first rd selections in every 4 year period'. Better yet, they should make it easier by allowing trading of future draft picks as far into the future as clubs want to, but you can't trade first rd picks from consecutive years. Far cleaner, simpler, better.

As things stand, Geelong don't have the necessary selections to be compliant with the rules. In a sense, the AFL have been complicit in allowing Geelong to be in breach of the rules. It's their fault, they should have voided the trade. Good on Geelong for exploiting the AFL's ineptitude.

Forget Hopper and Smith (Ablett still not beyond the realms of possibility depending on how much of his salary they are willing to pay), but Geelong will be spending much of the next 2 offseasons trying to acquire a first rd pick.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...e/news-story/b2ec7c98474c8357fc690fc494dd670b

Incorrect the afl decided that because the rule started in 2015 the first 4 years would be exempt and the rule would only start in 2019, ostensibly not to advantage/disadvantage clubs that traded in/out 1st rounders in 2014. I don't agree with this decision btw but that's what they've done.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

He's on far less money, so they Rookie list him and only half of that counts towards the cap.

And they dont front load contracts for flogs ever again.

This doesn't work. They cant move him to the rookie list without his permission it has to be a delist and re-draft. Once they delist him he is free to nominate for the draft (patfull was different as he agreed to be rookie listed and didn't nominate for the ND but ablett won't do that) as his contract is terminated which means he gets to geelong for a lateish pick as no one will use an early pick on him. Not to mention the fact that if they delist him (as a pose to ablett retiring/delisting himself) they are legally bound (under the current rules) to pay out all of his 2018 salary under their 2017 salary cap.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

"The AFL on Thursday confirmed that the onus was on Geelong to find an extra first-round pick to take to either the 2017 or 2018 drafts. Failure to do so would result in sanctions, which could involve trading restrictions." SAM LANDSBERGER, Herald Sun April 6, 2017

For your reference
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...e/news-story/b2ec7c98474c8357fc690fc494dd670b

That article has been shown to be wrong.

 

[CrazyQ]

What's with these calls involving Menzel?

Has he requested to be traded?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

What's with these calls involving Menzel?

Has he requested to be traded?

Menzel is an unrestricted free agent so if he wants to go he will just pick a club no trade needed.

From my understanding he wants to stay but wants more years than the club is willing to currently offer (given he is one knee injury away from retirement i can understand the issue for both parties).

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

The only way Geelong get these done is if Motlop goes, he's the only serious out-of-contract person at Geelong who has decent trade currency. Not sure Motlop is what GWS or GC would be after, so might need to be a three-way trade.

Motlop is a RFA and Geelong apparently don't want him, so would be very unlikely to match any bids. So I'm not sure he'd be traded.

 

[HairyO]

Incorrect the afl decided that because the rule started in 2015 the first 4 years would be exempt and the rule would only start in 2019, ostensibly not to advantage/disadvantage clubs that traded in/out 1st rounders in 2014. I don't agree with this decision btw but that's what they've done.

2015
2016
2017
2018

Is that not 4 years?

The penalties may apply in the 2019 draft but it is based on 2 first round picks over 2015 to 2018.

At the moment Geelong is on zero, so need 2 picks across this year and next.

So Geelong would be happy to lose their 2019 draft pick to get Hopper with their 2018 draft pick?

2 future first picks for a good player.

Bold.

 

[STPer18]

2015
2016
2017
2018

Is that not 4 years?

The penalties may apply in the 2019 draft but it is based on 2 first round picks over 2015 to 2018.

At the moment Geelong is on zero, so need 2 picks across this year and next.

So Geelong would be happy to lose their 2019 draft pick to get Hopper with their 2018 draft pick?

2 future first picks for a good player.

Bold.

Wrong wrong wrong.

 

[bigblackboz]

2015
2016
2017
2018

Is that not 4 years?

The penalties may apply in the 2019 draft but it is based on 2 first round picks over 2015 to 2018.

At the moment Geelong is on zero, so need 2 picks across this year and next.

So Geelong would be happy to lose their 2019 draft pick to get Hopper with their 2018 draft pick?

2 future first picks for a good player.

Bold.

Not how it works big dog. Sounds like ya been laying into too many schmackos.

You can't make a trade without AFL consent. Hence, you can't actually breach this rule. The AFL just blocks ya trade.

Not operative then and the penalty is blocking of trades involving first rounders. Hence, you're made to keep a pick not penalised by losing one.

Keep barking mate ya will soon find that you're in the dog house. Ya spent too much time round Crutchfield. Bark bark

 

[STPer18]

2015
2016
2017
2018

Is that not 4 years?

The penalties may apply in the 2019 draft but it is based on 2 first round picks over 2015 to 2018.

At the moment Geelong is on zero, so need 2 picks across this year and next.

So Geelong would be happy to lose their 2019 draft pick to get Hopper with their 2018 draft pick?

2 future first picks for a good player.

Bold.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...9/news-story/62ac5fa26bb74712ec0a6e84e2e92888

EVERY AFL club is free to trade its future first-round pick in this year’s exchange period.

The Herald Sun has clarified future-pick trading rules and the league has for the first time released its formal guideline document.

It had been widely believed that every club must use two first-round draft picks in every rolling four-year cycle.

But the rule addresses trading a future first-round selection only when a club has used fewer than two first-round picks in the past four drafts.

Even then, clubs can apply to the AFL for an exemption.

And according to the October 2015 document, Determination for the trading of future draft selections, the first four-year block will not come into effect until the 2019 exchange period.

The delayed introduction of future trading rules was so as not to prejudice clubs’ existing long-term list strategies.

Exemptions will be determined based on the age of players brought in through trades and what draft picks the club has used.

Geelong does not have a first-round pick this year, after trading it last year for Carlton’s Zach Tuohy, and last used one in 2014, drafting Nakia Cockatoo at No.10.

But the Cats are allowed to go another two years without using one.

They would also have a strong case for further leeway, after recruiting Patrick Dangerfield and using an early second-round pick last year.

It was reported last October that the Cats had to acquire an additional first-round selection this year or next year to comply with AFL rules.

The Herald Sun this month made repeated attempts to confirm this with the AFL and, after discussions, believed that was the case.

But the Cats then contacted integrity officer Ken Wood, who confirmed the relaxed rules.

After requests from the Herald Sun last week, the AFL handed over the rules, which were signed off by legal counsel Andrew Dillon.

 

[bigblackboz]

Cochrane got more than 20% less for JOM than what he could have got because of his posturing. The final deal was for less pick material than what we probably offered earlier in the trade period, but he said no, and basically was happy for Saints to get the extra pick material as long as it cost us, even though GC could have collected those picks themselves. This is the type of thinking you are going to be dealing with, and in that mindset, the fact that GC have a contract for Gary in 2018 is a massive card, as Cochrane is as likely as not, to come up with a situation where Gary, GC and Geelong all lose. Thankfully for Geelong fans, the only thing they are going to lose in that scenario is missing out on seeing a well loved ex-player return to the club for his final year of footy (although a fit Gary would be handy on the field too, as he is still a very very good player when not hampered by injury).

I do feel sorry for Gary, but it is hard to be too sorry given he chose money over success (although even that assessment may be unfair - perhaps he genuinely liked the idea of trying to get the fledging GC off the ground and into a viable flag chasing team). I feel sorry that he's still in the clutches of the likes of Cochrane and their Dr Nick Riviera medical team.

Yeah JOM has done wonders with your medical team. Don't throw stones on suit ya don't know.

 

[HairyO]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...9/news-story/62ac5fa26bb74712ec0a6e84e2e92888

Okay thanks.

So the AFL didnt even share the rules with the clubs? Bloody hell they are useless. And as for it being the rule as of 2015, Im sure that is their claim. But they probably wrote them in the week following the Herald Sun's request.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Potential penalties won't come into effect until 2018 for Geelong, but the rule is already active. Geelong must make 2 first rd selections over the next 2 drafts (2017 and 2018) or they will face sanctions.
The AFL should never have allowed the Henderson trade to go through. The rule that governs this is written poorly which allowed it to happen. Instead of saying 'a club must make 2 first rd selections in every 4 year period', it should say 'a club must at all times possess 2 first rd selections in every 4 year period'. Better yet, they should make it easier by allowing trading of future draft picks as far into the future as clubs want to, but you can't trade first rd picks from consecutive years. Far cleaner, simpler, better.

As things stand, Geelong don't have the necessary selections to be compliant with the rules. In a sense, the AFL have been complicit in allowing Geelong to be in breach of the rules. It's their fault, they should have voided the trade. Good on Geelong for exploiting the AFL's ineptitude.

Forget Hopper and Smith (Ablett still not beyond the realms of possibility depending on how much of his salary they are willing to pay), but Geelong will be spending much of the next 2 offseasons trying to acquire a first rd pick.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...e/news-story/b2ec7c98474c8357fc690fc494dd670b

Incorrect. But your saltiness over Geelong possibly getting better is noted ... as It is with the rest of you voicing your concerns in this very thread.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

2015
2016
2017
2018

Is that not 4 years?

The penalties may apply in the 2019 draft but it is based on 2 first round picks over 2015 to 2018.

At the moment Geelong is on zero, so need 2 picks across this year and next.

So Geelong would be happy to lose their 2019 draft pick to get Hopper with their 2018 draft pick?

2 future first picks for a good player.

Bold.

I tried to tell you this 2 days ago but it was met with groans from the choir.

 

[STPer18]

Okay thanks.

So the AFL didnt even share the rules with the clubs? Bloody hell they are useless. And as for it being the rule as of 2015, Im sure that is their claim. But they probably wrote them in the week following the Herald Sun's request.

End of the day we can continue trading as much as we please. There's also room, once the rule is properly brought in, to gain permission to continue trading even when breaching the rule.

For example, we traded pick 16 (rd1) for pick 20 (rd2) and Tuohy. Even if we had exhausted all our 1st round trades, the AFL would likely let us make a trade such as this because we're replacing a back-end 1st round for an early 2nd round, a minuscule difference. Similarly, trading a future 1st pick for a 20 yr old Hopper is basically the same as hitting the draft, we're bringing in young talent, so once again you'd think the AFL would have no problem with a trade like that.

 

[cdcanman]

That article has been shown to be wrong.

Evidence please. I'm happy to be proven wrong, it's just that I can't find anything other than posts exclusively from Geelong supporters on a footy forum to suggest this.

Incorrect the afl decided that because the rule started in 2015 the first 4 years would be exempt and the rule would only start in 2019, ostensibly not to advantage/disadvantage clubs that traded in/out 1st rounders in 2014. I don't agree with this decision btw but that's what they've done.

If the first four years are exempt then the rule has been postponed and will only commence in 2019. I think you are just misunderstanding what the AFL have said. What they have said is that nothing that occurred prior to 2015 is to be considered. The first complete 4 year cycle under the new rule is from 2015-2018, no penalties can or will be handed out until the end of the 2018 draft. Geelong aren't guilty of anything yet because they still have 2 offseasons to become compliant with the 2 in 4 year rule. The correction the AFL made was to address the incorrect assumption that was being propagated which was that Geelong were in breach of the rules because they had traded first rd picks prior to 2015. They made it clear that this wasn't being considered, all that was being considered was that currently, if Geelong do not make 2 1st rd selections over the next 2 years, then they will face sanctions in 2019 based on not making 2 first rd selections over the first 4 year cycle of the rule (2015-2018).

Incorrect. But your saltiness over Geelong possibly getting better is noted ... as It is with the rest of you voicing your concerns in this very thread.

Why would I be salty (the most overused, pathetic word in common use atm)? I couldn't give a stuff what Geelong do. Just because our two teams have been rivals doesn't mean I need to have some irrational hatred for them does it? Can't I just be a adult about such things? I have nothing but respect for GFC and how they do business. Good on them for exploiting the AFL's amateur hour attempts at running a professional sporting league.
Why would anything that occurred in 2014 have any impact on a rule that came into effect in 2015? This argument makes no sense. It governs a four year period commencing in 2015 and covering the next four year cycle (2015-2018). NO team is disadvantaged by that. A team that may have traded a 1st rd pick in 2014 would be completely irrelevant given the first four year period being governed by this rule is 2015-2018.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Evidence please. I'm happy to be proven wrong, it's just that I can't find anything other than posts exclusively from Geelong supporters on a footy forum to suggest this.

If the first four years are exempt then the rule has been postponed and will only commence in 2019. I think you are just misunderstanding what the AFL have said. What they have said is that nothing that occurred prior to 2015 is to be considered. The first complete 4 year cycle under the new rule is from 2015-2018, no penalties can or will be handed out until the end of the 2018 draft. Geelong aren't guilty of anything yet because they still have 2 offseasons to become compliant with the 2 in 4 year rule. The correction the AFL made was to address the incorrect assumption that was being propagated which was that Geelong were in breach of the rules because they had traded first rd picks prior to 2015. They made it clear that this wasn't being considered, all that was being considered was that currently, if Geelong do not make 2 1st rd selections over the next 2 years, then they will face sanctions in 2019 based on not making 2 first rd selections over the first 4 year cycle of the rule (2015-2018).

Why would I be salty (the most overused, pathetic word in common use atm)? I couldn't give a stuff what Geelong do. Just because our two teams have been rivals doesn't mean I need to have some irrational hatred for them does it? Can't I just be a adult about such things? I have nothing but respect for GFC and how they do business. Good on them for exploiting the AFL's amateur hour attempts at running a professional sporting league.
Why would anything that occurred in 2014 have any impact on a rule that came into effect in 2015? This argument makes no sense. It governs a four year period commencing in 2015 and covering the next four year cycle (2015-2018). NO team is disadvantaged by that. A team that may have traded a 1st rd pick in 2014 would be completely irrelevant given the first four year period being governed by this rule is 2015-2018.

Point taken but they changed the ruling. It starts in 2018.

 

[hk89]

Yeah JOM has done wonders with your medical team. Don't throw stones on suit ya don't know.

JOM played 5 times more games this year than he did in the previous two years at GC so tracking the right direction.

We can't all have Stephen Dank advising our fitness guru on recovery potions to keep our players on the park. *cough* 2007 *cough*.

 

[dazbroncos]

JOM played 5 times more games this year than he did in the previous two years at GC so tracking the right direction.

We can't all have Stephen Dank advising our fitness guru on recovery potions to keep our players on the park. *cough* 2007 *cough*.

Spare me you idiot.
That's really the best comeback you have?

Hawks fans in Sept - clearly bitter and its getting worse.

GO Catters