Good, he didn't. All three are attack-minded.My greatest fear is that Ken will insist on a defensive minded player at 5 or 10. I'm not sure he could help himself.
I'm happy.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Good, he didn't. All three are attack-minded.My greatest fear is that Ken will insist on a defensive minded player at 5 or 10. I'm not sure he could help himself.
So whatever happened to the Lachie Veale Deal ruling whereby each trade must stand on its own as an equitable trade for both parties?Apparently the data analyst at Sydney came up with the idea this morning and the head recruiter was a bit suss on the whole thing but they cleared it with the AFL. Were told that as long as it was different picks involved in the second trade it was fine.
I can see them getting games next year, purely by being better outside options than Amon. They are also talented enough to actually deserve the chance. Wait and see who does well over pre season though I guess.Are any of our new recruits a chance to play AFL next year? Or do we have some growing and waiting to do?
Are any of our new recruits a chance to play AFL next year? Or do we have some growing and waiting to do?
Well it's not fine. It's BS and standard Swans. Afl can get fked.Apparently the data analyst at Sydney came up with the idea this morning and the head recruiter was a bit suss on the whole thing but they cleared it with the AFL. Were told that as long as it was different picks involved in the second trade it was fine.
It's within the rules so by definition is fine. Clever by the Swans - and if Port did it we'd all be patting ourselves on the back for being clever.Well it's not fine. It's BS and standard Swans. Afl can get fked.
I just realised the trade Sydney did with West Coast... blatant cheating. How the **** is that allowed?
What Sydney did was clever and there’s really no way the AFL can fix it. It’ll show them not to mess with the rules so much.
Also I hope Port do it next year.
There should be some KPDs available in the rookie draft. Hopefully we draft one or two.As much as i like Rozze, we are shockingly thin in tall back spots...
Could still have a convoluted three-way though. Pre Blakey bid:I'm not mad at Sydney or West Coast, I'm mad at the AFL for not closing that loophole in the first place. Typical of them to go gung-ho into a new idea without thinking of the consequences.
They can fix it very easily. Only one live trade with each club per draft. Fixed.
Pick 85 (b4 the academy/father son picks)Do we still have one more pick in the draft?
Wish we got him, seem we * up two Dads would have been good to see how we would go with RCD.Richmond draftee Riley Collier-Dawkins was raised by RCD
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-21/i-can-see-how-its-not-typical-draft-prospects-family-tale
Good on him, I hope he can help destroy every homophobic red herring argument there is about gay parents and adoption
Could still have a convoluted three-way though. Pre Blakey bid:
Syd get west coasts future 3rd
Wce get 26
Post Blakey bid:
Wce get Adel's future second
Adel get 22
Next pick:
Sydney get 21
Adel get Sydney's future second and west coasts future third.
Something like that. Whenever there are future picks involved, the clubs can justify the consumerate value clause by arguing they need the pick more next year.
The real issue the AFL need to address is that the points system falls apart when you compare stacks of picks... There is no way that 3 3rd rounders would be traded for a top 10 pick, but that's essentially what these academy matches are doing.
They should instigate a rule where to match you must use at least one pick within 18 places of the bidded pick. That way Sydney would have to keep their first rounder for Blakey, or keep 26 and risk an early bid on him seeing them miss out.
And thats the real point... If an academy/father son pick is rated in the first round, it shouldn't be a fait accompli that the club tied to them gets them. There has to be occasions where they either can't afford to match, or they choose not to match.
It's absolutely ridiculous at the moment and really there's little difference to the Heeney situation that the points were brought in to fix (in some ways it's worse). You get priority access, but it shouldn't mean you get a ******* free lunch.
You just know the AFL will bring in something like this in 2020 though, and we will pay fair cop for Schofield. That's the real problem with the AFL always changing the rules without thinking about the consequences; the rules never actually last long enough to balance out in the long run... The whole league is ****** at the moment, run by an absolute cretin.
Or you could just not have live pick trading at all, because the extremely long trade period is for that.
Live trading is a great idea because it can allow teams to get players they really want and didn’t know would be available.
I posted above an incredibly simple solution that fixes everything.
Live trading is a great idea because it can allow teams to get players they really want and didn’t know would be available.
I posted above an incredibly simple solution that fixes everything.
There's a difference between being ok with it, and not liking it but its not against the rules.Doubt it, AFL has to sign off on trades so they must be ok with it.