Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. Contracts. Trades. Draft. Other Assorted Crap. 2020 Edition

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.

What a Joke
Is that article even accurate? I thought the only penalty for not using the required picks is that you can't trade future picks for a draft. Then again, both Cats and Hawks technically breached previous rules and AFL gave them an exemption.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Is that article even accurate? I thought the only penalty for not using the required picks is that you can't trade future picks for a draft. Then again, both Cats and Hawks technically breached previous rules and AFL gave them an exemption.
That was my understanding as well, there is no penalty as such (I.e. fine or draft penalty), just that you are severely restricted in future trading until you correct the situation.

That said, if there is a penalty it would be completely counterintuitive to slap a draft-pick based penalty on a club (we want every club to have at least 2 high picks developing, as you don't have any we are going to push you further down the order in the future...) - so it would have to be financial. Pretty sure we can afford it!

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Hope this clears up the Grey talk ..

099941cd49f34de658457822acafa023.jpg



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
I'm curious, which part of the salary cap/club expenses etc etc pays for the host family setup for interstate draftees?

For example, i'm presuming it's more expensive for the club to draft Mitch O'Neil and set him up in a host family for example, than a Perth kid?

Do the Perth kids get offered the host family option? Do the draftees themselves pay for the host family/food etc out of their wage? I mean someone has to.


Wonder if this shapes our draft strategy at all, clearly it has to be factored in :think:



Might delete my account.
 
Is that article even accurate? I thought the only penalty for not using the required picks is that you can't trade future picks for a draft. Then again, both Cats and Hawks technically breached previous rules and AFL gave them an exemption.

Nope, Roar gets it wrong once again.

There is no penalty... other than you can't trade your next first rounder if you haven't satisfied the criteria in the previous four years.

 
Nope, Roar gets it wrong once again.

There is no penalty... other than you can't trade your next first rounder if you haven't satisfied the criteria in the previous four years.


But that article is also clearly incorrect:

"The Bombers have transformed themselves into a premiership threat in the past year"

:confused: :laughing:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I'm curious, which part of the salary cap/club expenses etc etc pays for the host family setup for interstate draftees?

For example, i'm presuming it's more expensive for the club to draft Mitch O'Neil and set him up in a host family for example, than a Perth kid?

Do the Perth kids get offered the host family option? Do the draftees themselves pay for the host family/food etc out of their wage? I mean someone has to.


Wonder if this shapes our draft strategy at all, clearly it has to be factored in :think:



Might delete my account.

Players drafted from interstate are paid a relocation allowance plus parents travel costs based on actual costs. They also have a living allowance (a bit over $10k) to reimburse actual costs

These expenses aren’t included in the salary cap but I can’t find if they’re included in the football department cap

At a guess I’d say the host family get the living allowance and that the costs are outside the football department spending cap

Anytime I’ve heard someone from the club talk about drafting players from outside WA they’ve said it isn’t a factor unless they’re deciding between two equally rated kids

Nothing in our draft history suggests we deliberately avoid players from outside WA
 
I'm curious, which part of the salary cap/club expenses etc etc pays for the host family setup for interstate draftees?

For example, i'm presuming it's more expensive for the club to draft Mitch O'Neil and set him up in a host family for example, than a Perth kid?

Do the Perth kids get offered the host family option? Do the draftees themselves pay for the host family/food etc out of their wage? I mean someone has to.


Wonder if this shapes our draft strategy at all, clearly it has to be factored in :think:



Might delete my account.

So Mitch O'Neill is moving back to Tas because he's been eating too much food and the club can't afford it? Is that the rumour?
 
So Mitch O'Neill is moving back to Tas because he's been eating too much food and the club can't afford it? Is that the rumour?

He was seen causing a ruckus in the Death Star Canteen.

 

What a Joke

The Roar publishes articles from a very broad range of people so there will be stuff that’s kinda stupid if it’s not written by one of their staff writers

This comment by Josh Elliot who’s a regular writer for the Roar is a pretty accurate summation


My understanding of these rules is that they only pertain to whether or not a club is allowed to trade their future picks, ie, if you haven’t used at least two first rounders in the last four years, you’re not allowed to then trade your future selections.

Even then the AFL will grant exceptions if clubs apply for them, and WCE, being a well-run and generally successful club, would almost certainly get one of they asked, I suspect.

Of course, this is only my understanding on the rules – the AFL has never really offered a great deal of clarity about how they work. At any rate, I doubt WCE would get into any kind of serious trouble.

If nothing else they could make the argument that they may not have used a first rounder in the 2019 draft, but did use four second-rounders, which should be considered more than equivalent.
 
The Roar publishes articles from a very broad range of people so there will be stuff that’s kinda stupid if it’s not written by one of their staff writers

This comment by Josh Elliot who’s a regular writer for the Roar is a pretty accurate summation


There is no punishment, just restrictions on trading first rounders. The author didn't even read his own link to the regulations...



- Clubs must make at least two first-round selections in each four-year period. If they don't, they will face restrictions from trading any further first-round draft picks.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I think Sumich also said the so called "issues" with Stack were exaggerated as he said there was a minor problem with being late to training but that was it and was also understandable given his personal situation at the time.
Nah the players in the u18s WA team and many of the support staff thought that stacks position should go to someone else who was more committed to the team . So many very dedicated kids miss out .
Sumich overruled them and stack played for what ever reason . Prrobably due to his talent. More than just missing or being late to training
 
Whilst having one of the older lists on average we have 24 players 24 years or younger .
This includes barrass rioli ryan sheed duggan and cole .

Then you have the young developing talls in allen brander williams rotham edwards and jamerson.

We have hardly neglected our list in the way of the next generation.

It would be nice to have another young gun mid on our list but they would seriously struggle to get game time atm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top