List Mgmt. Father/Son Eligible Kids List

Remove this Banner Ad

Added to the OP.

Hey Vader, not sure if this is the right thread for this post, but found this article about Ian Perrie who played enough games to qualify any sons as a father-son for us. As he was born in Zimbabwe and is now living back in Perth according to this article, is it reasonable to assume that if he has any sons that they would be eligible to play for one of either West Coast or Fremantle as an NGA, if said rule is still in place?
 

Hey Vader, not sure if this is the right thread for this post, but found this article about Ian Perrie who played enough games to qualify any sons as a father-son for us. As he was born in Zimbabwe and is now living back in Perth according to this article, is it reasonable to assume that if he has any sons that they would be eligible to play for one of either West Coast or Fremantle as an NGA, if said rule is still in place?
Yes, he would be eligible as either F/S or NGA, provided he was actually a member of their NGA.

I guess it's a similar situation to kids who are eligible for F/S selection by 2 (or more) clubs. The kid can choose which one he wishes to go with, or to enter the open draft.

Here's the NGA Qualification rule:
15.8 Qualified NGA Players
(a) For the purposes of this Rule 15, a Qualified NGA Player means a NGA Player who:
(i) was born in Africa or Asia; or
(ii) has a biological parent who was born in Africa or Asia; or
(iii) is an Indigenous Person; or
(iv) is a CALD NGA Player,
and:
(v) has not at any time been registered with AFL as a Player with any Club;
(vi) unless otherwise permitted by AFL, has not entered into a Next Generation Academy Agreement with a Club other than the Club seeking approval of that NGA Player as a Qualified NGA Player under Rule 15.8(d)15.8(d);
(vii) unless otherwise permitted by AFL, has been and continues to be domiciled in the relevant part of the Club’s NGA Region from the period after he first entered into a Next Generation Academy Agreement with the relevant Club;
(viii) unless otherwise permitted by AFL, has participated in at least 10 matches in the TAC Cup competition, SANFL under 18s Macca’s Cup competition, WAFL under 19s Colts competition or the underage national Australian football championships conducted under the auspices of AFL; and
(ix) is approved in writing by General Counsel under Rule 15.8(d).
** I've only included part a), as the other parts aren't relevant in determining whether or not he's eligible.

He qualifies under (a)(ii), but he still needs to meet parts (vii) and (viii).
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Yes, he would be eligible as either F/S or NGA, provided he was actually a member of their NGA.

I guess it's a similar situation to kids who are eligible for F/S selection by 2 (or more) clubs. The kid can choose which one he wishes to go with, or to enter the open draft.

Here's the NGA Qualification rule:

** I've only included part a), as the other parts aren't relevant in determining whether or not he's eligible.

He qualifies under (a)(ii), but he still needs to meet parts (vii) and (viii).
To be honest, I have no idea if he has any sons, though reading that article it sounds like he has children, though no indication is given about their age. Just a thought that if he does that we may not have exclusive access to them in the future, that is all. If they were good enough to get drafted we may get Borlased.
 
To be honest, I have no idea if he has any sons, though reading that article it sounds like he has children, though no indication is given about their age. Just a thought that if he does that we may not have exclusive access to them in the future, that is all. If they were good enough to get drafted we may get Borlased.
Borlase was never going to Port anyway. They didn't have F/S rights over him. His choice was Adelaide, or the open draft.

Perrie's kids will be like Eddie Betts' boys - having the choice between two F/S clubs.
 
Borlase was never going to Port anyway. They didn't have F/S rights over him. His choice was Adelaide, or the open draft.

Perrie's kids will be like Eddie Betts' boys - having the choice between two F/S clubs.

I am aware that Borlase never was, nor should he have been able to go to Port as F/S. My point is that I don’t feel we should have had any special call on Borlase either. Cases like his are not why the NGA rule was introduced. Would argue the same with Perrie’s kids.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
I am aware that Borlase never was, nor should he have been able to go to Port as F/S. My point is that I don’t feel we should have had any special call on Borlase either. Cases like his are not why the NGA rule was introduced. Would argue the same with Perrie’s kids.
They're not the cases that the rules were designed for, but you don't change the rule just because there are a small number of outliers who are also captured by the rule.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Luke Edwards starting hff for eagles this week.

We picked rowey about 12 picks before him.

What's everyone's thoughts on eagles possibly winning on a player we circled for years to be at our club?

Wasn't luke the 'chosen one' out of the Edwards kids?
 
Luke Edwards starting hff for eagles this week.

We picked rowey about 12 picks before him.

What's everyone's thoughts on eagles possibly winning on a player we circled for years to be at our club?

Wasn't luke the 'chosen one' out of the Edwards kids?

I think most are just 'over' the Edwards'. No one gives a s**t anymore.
 
Luke Edwards starting hff for eagles this week.

We picked rowey about 12 picks before him.

What's everyone's thoughts on eagles possibly winning on a player we circled for years to be at our club?

Wasn't luke the 'chosen one' out of the Edwards kids?

By this point Rowe is in the double digits for games played, so I don't particularly think there is much to be upset about.

I did like Luke as a draftee. Not sure on what role he ends up but just looked like a plug and play role player to me everytime I saw him. Shame really.
 
Luke Edwards starting hff for eagles this week.

We picked rowey about 12 picks before him.

What's everyone's thoughts on eagles possibly winning on a player we circled for years to be at our club?

Wasn't luke the 'chosen one' out of the Edwards kids?
It's the standard marketing ploy. Convince people they are getting a bargain to buy something they don't need just because it's cheap.

He would have been a bargain, but excluding injuries he'd be behind a lot of other similar young players, Mackay and at least one of this year's draftees.

If we picked him, there is a good chance he'd not have made the side.

If we didn't need him I'm glad he is getting a go elsewhere.
 
Luke Edwards starting hff for eagles this week.

We picked rowey about 12 picks before him.

What's everyone's thoughts on eagles possibly winning on a player we circled for years to be at our club?

Wasn't luke the 'chosen one' out of the Edwards kids?


I know that this will be seen a troll.

His debut today was very pleasing, looks like we snagged a player late in the draft, thats got a long future with us.

Kids got some composure and is good in heavy traffic.

Oh and no Club ever gets it 100% right we had to watch Alec Waterman kick the sealer against us two weeks ago ........ so yes we F****ed it there too.
 
I know that this will be seen a troll.

His debut today was very pleasing, looks like we snagged a player late in the draft, thats got a long future with us.

Kids got some composure and is good in heavy traffic.

Oh and no Club ever gets it 100% right we had to watch Alec Waterman kick the sealer against us two weeks ago ........ so yes we F****ed it there too.
See my post above. I'm happy for him to get a go, but the club probably wouldn't have given him a game ahead of Mackay, so I'd prefer him to playing somewhere rather than not.

My guess is he wouldn't have played this week if not for a stack of injuries. Did well enough for a debut though.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top