GWS Punishment For Whitfield

[footyfan1978]

I think that's why we traded so many bunches of low of picks in 2015, kinda like smaĺl change so we didn't use high picks unnecessarily. Also clubs were happy for us to increase points by trading useless picks of theirs worrh more points, for something of value. This year the AFL said only the same number of picks equal to the number of list vacancies we had could be used. That lurk ended then.
The penalty is real, but in all honesty fair.

Still a mystery how the final draft order allowed you to have 10 draft picks access to despite only 8 list spot vacancies. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-25/indicative-2016-afl-draft-order
So not really sure in 2016 this truly started. In reality GWS could use "useless picks" hidden with points value to get all those yummy picks in top 20. Bit skeptical myself how it worked this draft period but I do trust next one any concessions and loopholes for GWS to exploit are finally over.

I got no real strong opinion on the penalty itself. Sounds roughly fair as personally seemed more a storm in teacup and an integrity issue of ASADA stuff than direct football thing. Just thought it should have been heard before this draft. Seems fishy when my club was in trouble they could not wait to hurry up the hearing and take our first two picks off us a day or so before draft but this time they wanted to wait until after the draft. Whether there is favouritism by AFL because GWS club is a football expansion or not, the perception is that it is not a good look.

But above all that noise and sideshow nonsense I just want to know how they intend to operate this 1000 points penalty. Weird how they were so vague on it in the statement. Maybe they just ask GWS, where do you want the penalty applied. Will be funny if that happens. Most people will have a meltdown.

 

[Bokonon_]

Still a mystery how the final draft order allowed you to have 10 draft picks access to despite only 8 list spot vacancies. http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-25/indicative-2016-afl-draft-order
So not really sure in 2016 this truly started. In reality GWS could use "useless picks" hidden with points value to get all those yummy picks in top 20. Bit skeptical myself how it worked this draft period but I do trust next one any concessions and loopholes for GWS to exploit are finally over.

I got no real strong opinion on the penalty itself. Sounds roughly fair as personally seemed more a storm in teacup and an integrity issue of ASADA stuff than direct football thing. Just thought it should have been heard before this draft. Seems fishy when my club was in trouble they could not wait to hurry up the hearing and take our first two picks off us a day or so before draft but this time they wanted to wait until after the draft. Whether there is favouritism by AFL because GWS club is a football expansion or not, the perception is that it is not a good look.

But above all that noise and sideshow nonsense I just want to know how they intend to operate this 1000 points penalty. Weird how they were so vague on it in the statement. Maybe they just ask GWS, where do you want the penalty applied. Will be funny if that happens. Most people will have a meltdown.

Fair enough
1. "Useless" was a bit arrogant. I know clubs do sometimes pass 4th rounders and exrapolated tòo much.
2. On reflection I think you're right, this year we had traded some low range picks for points already and recall reading somewhere we coukd use them under the old rules.
3. The academy thing is done to death, but I dont think the status quo is sustainable, there is a fairness issue.
4. I get the argument about the slow reaction when they've moved with almost indecent haste before. Think waiting for ASADA to formally commit to their intentions may have been a part if it. Our club has been critical of the slow reaction publicly.
5.I would have preferred a pick ir picks being removed rather than a penalty that in reality wouldn't be applied to a non academy club, because of the perception and transparency.
6. Doubt we'll be in a huŕry to disclose our strategy prior to draft night next year if it's up to us, and I think it might be.

I could easily live with a complete trade ban next year, as long as no-one could leave either
.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Still a mystery how the final draft order allowed you to have 10 draft picks access to despite only 8 list spot vacancies.

Given they changed the rules after we (and other clubs) traded in a number of future draft picks the year before, they grandfathered those traded picks in for this year only.

And we only used six picks anyway so I really don't know what your problem is - oh that's right, facts. Pain the arse when they get in the way of your narrative.

They also changed the rules regarding our list size towards the back end of the year, forcing us to downsize a couple of years ahead of the original rules (that would have brought us into line cap/list size in 2018/19) creating more issues and making us completely change the draft/trading strategy we were probably looking at during the year.

 

[Big Sim is Back]

Just looking at it again, there are other ways for GWS to further reduced the penalty without loss of draft position if there is no restriction on how the point penalty must be distributed.

GWS also have Carlton's 2017 1st Rounder. Hypothetically, if the Blues take the spoon and this becomes Pick 1 (3000 points), GWS could decide to give up 482 points = 2518, which would still be Pick 1 (as Pick 2 is worth 2517 points).

The same principle could be applied to their own 1st round pick, as well as their 2017 2nd rounders from the Saints and Collingwood to further minimise the impact of any point loss.

GWS have Geelong's 2017 first rounder, which they gave to us for Tuohy and our 2017 second rounder.

 

[BK Eaglesfan]

Much as I want to be outraged, I'm struggling. This actually does seem like one of those damned if they do, demanded if they don't scenarios for the AFL. If it had been a straight pick, people would be pointing to the likelihood of GWS finishing high and hence any pick in a given round being low. Do it this way and people are working out all the ways GWS can screw the system in advance.

The fine, ignoring all the commentary about who is paying it, personally I reckon anyone using the Scott example to make their case the fine is too low is hurting their own argument.

$20k LESS for playing Chinese whispers that result in calling umpires cheats in an official press conference versus two club officials helping a silly kid stay off the radar in case of a drug test? Serious issue yes and both of them should have know better. I agree it warranted serious punishment and the club needed a big whack at the draft table (however that was to be structured - but still believe no structure would have appeased people) but compared to a coach using his conference to claim umpires are cheating? Reckon the fine portion of the punishment actually looks OK for North.

 

[footyfan1978]

And we only used six picks anyway so I really don't know what your problem is - oh that's right, facts. Pain the arse when they get in the way of your narrative.

What is it with people jumping to conclusions in Christmas week? Drinking I guess and posting at same time. All i have regarding this year's picks is queries. Not narrative. Talk about building assumptions with having a silly narrative going on in your own head. Sounds like overly defensive narrative in your own head to jump to conclusions so readily without understanding the nature of the mystery of 10 picks for 8 list spots.
You certainly have no information to solve this mystery of why they were only club allowed more picks than list spots.

Them taking only 6 picks further highlights just how many of the hidden picks beyond their list vacancy spots available were simply utilised to jump ahead in draft cue. They did not use 2 spots which all clubs can do but then used 2 more picks in points value to grab very early hidden picks in top 20. Smartly given the concessions/loopholes AFL left open for them this draft period. If you got more picks than list spots clearly you can manipulate getting higher up in order above clubs that did not have that extra picks hidden. GWS had 2 more beyond the vacancy. Very simple really. 10 is two more than 8. It indeed is a mystery why the nominal draft order had 10 instead of 8. Only using 6 does not solve that mystery.

 

[footyfan1978]

I could easily live with a complete trade ban next year, as long as no-one could leave either
.

If I was GWS picking a ban, that would be the one I would chose.
There is no one in a hurry to trade anyway at GWS. I would not be if I was them.
More a case of hold into as much talent as you can fit under the salary cap.

 

[Bokonon_]

If I was GWS picking a ban, that would be the one I would chose.
There is no one in a hurry to trade anyway at GWS. I would not be if I was them.
More a case of hold into as much talent as you can fit under the salary cap.

Everythings a risk. In some ways I prefer 2014 when you could see it coming without the nerves about having to do it. I get the blues tradition and successful club history, but maybe a bit like where you guys are
now with the right coach and waiting for it to come together

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

It indeed is a mystery why the nominal draft order had 10 instead of 8. Only using 6 does not solve that mystery.

Did you miss the bit where I said that future picks traded in before the change in rules were grandfathered?

Wasn't just us either. That grandfathering stood for all 18 clubs.

Not a mystery at all.

Not even close to a mystery.

 

[footyfan1978]

Did you miss the bit where I said that future picks traded in before the change in rules were grandfathered?

I read that. What has that got anything to do with having 2 more draft picks than list spot vacancies?

NOTHING!!!!
Hence you added no new information to solve the mystery.
Maybe I have had too many drinks myself and have wrongly worked out 10 - 8 = 2

 

[footyfan1978]

Everythings a risk. In some ways I prefer 2014 when you could see it coming without the nerves about having to do it. I get the blues tradition and successful club history, but maybe a bit like where you guys are
now with the right coach and waiting for it to come together

As far as I can tell with salary cap squeeze it was already starting to show even if not many people noticed this off season. There is a reason GWS traded all their 2014 draftees away. I do not think many footy fans have caught onto why. GWS have been run like a well oiled machine with list management. Gets tougher next year when all concessions completely gone. As long as the list managers continue to follow foundations set in place by those before them GWS should be in strong position for a good decade like Geelong were in past decade and Hawks more recently. I will be interested how they handle it at the end of era of Cameron's, Patton's, Devon Smith types in 10 years time. Until then party time for end of this decade and start of new one. Hopefully my boys challenge early next one. Make the most of it whilst we are down.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

I read that. What has that got anything to do with having 2 more draft picks than list spot vacancies?

NOTHING!!!!
Hence you added no new information to solve the mystery.
Maybe I have had too many drinks myself and have wrongly worked out 10 - 8 = 2

Seriously - how are you not getting this?

Teams can trade players for picks - sometimes they trade one player for two picks. By doing this they open up one list spot but end up with two picks ie: more picks than list spots available. Is it so hard to conceive that a team that trades several players for multiple picks can wind up with ten picks but only eight spots available?

NOT THAT DIFFICULT.

Lots of times in the past teams can and have gone into a draft with more picks than they have list spots available. In the case of teams with academies that was useful because you could then combine two picks for one player depending on the points needed to match.

They have now changed the rules to say that you can only go into a draft with the same number of picks as you have list spots available. It's a recent change. So recent they had to grandfather the picks traded for before the change was made.

NOT A MYSTERY!!!!

 

[footyfan1978]

Seriously - how are you not getting this?

You clearly not even understanding the question.
Does the number 10 and 8 mean anything to you. Do you understand 10 minus 8 equals 2.
When you acknowledge where the question started, you will see why there is a mystery. Until then you are rambling on about something not even addressing the question I posed.

Tell me what this means to you and we will start to get on same page of understanding.

"This year the AFL said only the same number of picks equal to the number of list vacancies we had could be used."

 

[Chocoholic]

You clearly not even understanding the question.
Does the number 10 and 8 mean anything to you. Do you understand 10 minus 8 equals 2.
When you acknowledge where the question started, you will see why there is a mystery. Until then you are rambling on about something not even addressing the question I posed.

Tell me what this means to you and we will start to get on same page of understanding.

"This year the AFL said only the same number of picks equal to the number of list vacancies we had could be used."

The AFL said that this draft would be an exception as clubs didn't know this before the last trade period as it was decided mid season this year. AKA AFL ****ed up and said don't worry about it this year.

So from next draft on you are correct on.

 

[footyfan1978]

The AFL said that this draft would be an exception as clubs didn't know this before the last trade period as it was decided mid season this year. AKA AFL stuffed up and said don't worry about it this year.

So from next draft on you are correct on.

Thanks mate. Someone solved the mystery finally. Figured it would be something simple. So there was no restriction of picks in this years draft dependent on list spots. People have been saying there was but you showing it starts in 2017 instead.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Just looking at it again, there are other ways for GWS to further reduced the penalty without loss of draft position if there is no restriction on how the point penalty must be distributed.

GWS also have Carlton's 2017 1st Rounder. Hypothetically, if the Blues take the spoon and this becomes Pick 1 (3000 points), GWS could decide to give up 482 points = 2518, which would still be Pick 1 (as Pick 2 is worth 2517 points).

The same principle could be applied to their own 1st round pick, as well as their 2017 2nd rounders from the Saints and Collingwood to further minimise the impact of any point loss.

Oh yes, good thinking! they'd burn through most of the 1000 points painlessly.

AFL needs to clarify urgently the limits on how the -1000 points can be distributed.

 

[BigBen_JRC]

I keep changing my chain of thought. Firstly I get annoyed thinking how the AFL is going a little light on GWS.

Then I think about the situation and realise that the AFL have probably gotten this about right.

Take off your jaded 'AFL Love child' glasses, it's hard I know but let's keep this in perspective a. Little shall we

 

[Testekill]

As far as I can tell with salary cap squeeze it was already starting to show even if not many people noticed this off season. There is a reason GWS traded all their 2014 draftees away. I do not think many footy fans have caught onto why. GWS have been run like a well oiled machine with list management. Gets tougher next year when all concessions completely gone. As long as the list managers continue to follow foundations set in place by those before them GWS should be in strong position for a good decade like Geelong were in past decade and Hawks more recently. I will be interested how they handle it at the end of era of Cameron's, Patton's, Devon Smith types in 10 years time. Until then party time for end of this decade and start of new one. Hopefully my boys challenge early next one. Make the most of it whilst we are down.

All of their 2014 draftees, Ahern & Palmer were traded almost entirely for the salary cap relief.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

The AFL said that this draft would be an exception as clubs didn't know this before the last trade period as it was decided mid season this year. AKA AFL stuffed up and said don't worry about it this year.

So from next draft on you are correct on.

What he said. It's what I said.

Thanks mate. Someone solved the mystery finally. Figured it would be something simple. So there was no restriction of picks in this years draft dependent on list spots. People have been saying there was but you showing it starts in 2017 instead.

What is it with you?

I tell you exactly what he tells you - that the AFL grandfathered in the future picks traded from last year, before the rule change, simples. No mystery.

My first post to you was

Given they changed the rules after we (and other clubs) traded in a number of future draft picks the year before, they grandfathered those traded picks in for this year only.

But you then have repeated goes at me and yet thank him for telling you exactly what I told you?

Is it because he's a Geelong supporter and I'm a Giants supporter? What's the deal?

I told you the answer ages ago.

 

[TwoMinuteCrane]

So there was no restriction of picks in this years draft dependent on list spots. People have been saying there was but you showing it starts in 2017 instead.

Actually, my understanding is, there was a restriction on draft pick versus list spots this year. There was the new rule to contend with. It was only if you had future picks on your books from last year (ie: before the rule change) that you could have more picks than spots. Those were protected and didn't affect the new rules.

Because what happened was that they changed the rules and the clubs who had extra picks went "wait a minute. We traded all these players for all these picks and now you're saying we can't use them?" And the AFL went "oh yeah, forgot about those - ok you can keep them this year only"

But if you didn't have these suddenly protected future picks, you were restricted by the new rule to having the same number of picks as spots as per the new rule.

Which meant that this trade period no team (including the Giants) could go out and get more picks to add to their bundle. It wasn't open slather. You had to be holding the extra picks already.

 

[Bokonon_]

As far as I can tell with salary cap squeeze it was already starting to show even if not many people noticed this off season. There is a reason GWS traded all their 2014 draftees away. I do not think many footy fans have caught onto why. GWS have been run like a well oiled machine with list management. Gets tougher next year when all concessions completely gone. As long as the list managers continue to follow foundations set in place by those before them GWS should be in strong position for a good decade like Geelong were in past decade and Hawks more recently. I will be interested how they handle it at the end of era of Cameron's, Patton's, Devon Smith types in 10 years time. Until then party time for end of this decade and start of new one. Hopefully my boys challenge early next one. Make the most of it whilst we are down.

We'll be keeping an eye you guys, and dont bother asking for any more KPD's we coukd be digging our own grave there.

 

[footyfan1978]

We'll be keeping an eye you guys, and dont bother asking for any more KPD's we coukd be digging our own grave there.

lol. Do not worry. Think we are right for KPD's for next while. We will only go after a Dylan Shiel Hopper or Devon Smith type .if gettable

 

[Bokonon_]

lol. Do not worry. Think we are right for KPD's for next while. We will only go after a Dylan Shiel Hopper or Devon Smith type .if gettable

Cant blame you for trying

 

[footyfan1978]

What he said. It's what I said.

Nah, mate, you were crap at understanding the nature of the question and explaining any answer. Thankfully another person fully understood why there was a conflict between what Wempster reported of "This year the AFL said only the same number of picks equal to the number of list vacancies we had could be used." and that not being the case at the national draft. Your silly rant did not address the conflict of having 10 picks when only 8 liist spots were vacant. He at least understood, yeah, the AFL stuffed up and that what is said above is not strictly correct. He got that, you did not. You might have thought in your own mind you were good at explaining the conflict of what was reported earlier. You just rambled on about grandfather's and narratives...lol...Like that really helped explained the mystery of having more picks than list spots. I trust you are not a teacher in school answering students questions as a good teacher understands where questions are coming from and answers them in that light.

 

[footyfan1978]

Cant blame you for trying

I believe one is gettable.