Huge Rumour

[jj1978]

Has anything happened with this issue or does it look like it was all just a rumor and no action will be taken?

Until you hear from the mouth of the board, take it as rumour.

 

[len_jet]

Until you hear from the mouth of the board, take it as rumour.

it was in the paper last week that carlton have submitted the submission etc... its isn't a rumour. The case is due to the rule changing from 5 or less games to 4 or less games... and then they complicated it by making that you need this to happen two years in a row. Last year was governed under a different set of rules and they should be enforced until this new rule has been in place for two years which then it takes full effect. That will be the case and it would not suprise me if they take this to court! The blues have a strong case and IMO could be a great start to the year should they beat the AFL in the surpreme court! screw the AFL

 

[drusswaylander]

it was in the paper last week that carlton have submitted the submission etc... its isn't a rumour. The case is due to the rule changing from 5 or less games to 4 or less games... and then they complicated it by making that you need this to happen two years in a row. Last year was governed under a different set of rules and they should be enforced until this new rule has been in place for two years which then it takes full effect. That will be the case and it would not suprise me if they take this to court! The blues have a strong case and IMO could be a great start to the year should they beat the AFL in the surpreme court! screw the AFL

I don't think there is any doubt as to the fact an application has been made, but the grounds of the appeal are what we are unclear on. Even if this was true mate and we won, unfortunately in the end they would get us again They want us to suffer for as long as possible as an example to the rest of the comp.

What they don't see is that a strong Carlton is actually good for the competition We have done our time, let us back up off the canvas

 

[Hells K1tch3n]

it was in the paper last week that carlton have submitted the submission etc... its isn't a rumour. The case is due to the rule changing from 5 or less games to 4 or less games... and then they complicated it by making that you need this to happen two years in a row. Last year was governed under a different set of rules and they should be enforced until this new rule has been in place for two years which then it takes full effect. That will be the case and it would not suprise me if they take this to court! The blues have a strong case and IMO could be a great start to the year should they beat the AFL in the surpreme court! screw the AFL

The new rules were brought in before the start of the 2006 premiership season, you dont have a leg to stand on.

 

[Fanatico]

The new rules were brought in before the start of the 2006 premiership season, you dont have a leg to stand on.

then what about the priority pick of 2002?

 

[parrot]

then what about the priority pick of 2002?

That's the real question. There may be some legal difficulties here for the AFL. I'm hoping our Board have the courage to stand up to AD and his cronies on this issue.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The new rules were brought in before the start of the 2006 premiership season, you dont have a leg to stand on.

That's not the issue though is it. We actually qualified under the new rules for 2006 but they incorporated 2005 after the fact and after we had already missed the qualifying mark.

It's like saying to you guys, we'll give you a bonus if you win consecutive flags, starting 2006 after you have been knocked out of the finals.

 

[len_jet]

It's like saying to you guys, we'll give you a bonus if you win consecutive flags, starting 2006 after you have been knocked out of the finals.

i've been searching for an analogy when trying to explain the situation to people... thats a perfect one! good work!

 

[smithos]

That's not the issue though is it. We actually qualified under the new rules for 2006 but they incorporated 2005 after the fact and after we had already missed the qualifying mark.

It's like saying to you guys, we'll give you a bonus if you win consecutive flags, starting 2006 after you have been knocked out of the finals.

The possible exception being that teams by nature of their organisation strive for finals and sucess. No team enters a season with the goal to finish last, so it's not really changing the goalposts in that sense. All clubs were aware that the rules put in place prevented any team from earning a pre draft pp in 2006, so the only chance we'd have of changing the post 1st round pick to a pre round 1 one would be by some AFL pardon, which will never happen. The 2002 situation is a different kettle of fish though.

 

[audas]

Theres too many posts on this puppy to wade through now. So appologies if this is covered, but, riddle me this:

If we get the 2nd round from 2002 why would we lose our pick 17 this year ?

In my books we should get 1,2, 17, 19 etc ?

 

[len_jet]

Theres too many posts on this puppy to wade through now. So appologies if this is covered, but, riddle me this:

If we get the 2nd round from 2002 why would we lose our pick 17 this year ?

In my books we should get 1,2, 17, 19 etc ?

17 is our current priority pick. The rule states should you win less than 4 games two year in a row, your priority pick for the 2nd year is then before the 1st round. Therefore should we win this battle we would get 1, 2, 19 etc

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

17 is our current priority pick. The rule states should you win less than 4 games two year in a row, your priority pick for the 2nd year is then before the 1st round. Therefore should we win this battle we would get 1, 2, 19 etc

Disagree

Word through the grapevine is that we are contesting the removal of the 2002 PP.

Meaning we would end up with (should we win of course):

1, 2, 17, 19, 35

 

[len_jet]

Disagree

Word through the grapevine is that we are contesting the removal of the 2002 PP.

Meaning we would end up with (should we win of course):

1, 2, 17, 19, 35

if thats true thats great, i just thought we were contesting the change in the rule and trying to prove that a two year rule cant really take effect until it has been in place two at least two years.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The possible exception being that teams by nature of their organisation strive for finals and sucess. No team enters a season with the goal to finish last, so it's not really changing the goalposts in that sense. All clubs were aware that the rules put in place prevented any team from earning a pre draft pp in 2006, so the only chance we'd have of changing the post 1st round pick to a pre round 1 one would be by some AFL pardon, which will never happen. The 2002 situation is a different kettle of fish though.

I agree. We believed we would win more than 4 games this year anyway so the PP thing was not a concern when the rule changed. In hindsight, when we realise that we are bad enough to deserve it and that we would have it were it not for a rule that changed to deliberately make us ineligible, the full damage is realised.

 

[Pafloyul]

Even if you factor in 2005 we still don't qualify for a PP before the first round because it is 20 points or less over two consecutive years, you can’t just conveniently add the figures together.

However, it is our priority pick from 2002 that is in question here.

 

[Funkalicous]

17 is our current priority pick. The rule states should you win less than 4 games two year in a row, your priority pick for the 2nd year is then before the 1st round. Therefore should we win this battle we would get 1, 2, 19 etc

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the picks we're contesting. Some aren't sure whether we're after the lost 2002 pick, or if we're trying to upgrade this year's pick. I don't think anyone can say with any certainty which pick we're after. Some might claim to have inside knowledge, but how easy would it be to misinterpret some of the hush squabblings within our board. We just won't know until either the AFL or Carlton make a statement about it.

IMO there's a case for both. I reckon the AFL are making things very difficult for Carlton.

 

[RoK]

17 is our current priority pick. The rule states should you win less than 4 games two year in a row, your priority pick for the 2nd year is then before the 1st round. Therefore should we win this battle we would get 1, 2, 19 etc

OMG and FFS we are going for the 02 PP that they took .

1,2,17,19.

Easy to work out

 

[len_jet]

OMG and FFS we are going for the 02 PP that they took .

1,2,17,19.

Easy to work out

The fact that we have left that chase for that pick till now is a joke. A more respectful and better case is and should be mounted for the upgrade of this years priority pick.

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

The fact that we have left that chase for that pick till now is a joke. A more respectful and better case is and should be mounted for the upgrade of this years priority pick.

My take on it all is - the case was left untill now because Collins was pretty much the AFL's puppet. They were blackmailing him - by threatening to expose his role in the entire 'paper bag' scandal.

Therefore, he didnt challenge anything layed out by the AFL and pretty much just rolled over for them without much fuss.

Another theory could be that Carlton knew about the strength of this draft for some time - and deliberatly chose now to challenge for the pick - so that it applies to the 2006 "super draft".

 

[DIG]

OMG and FFS we are going for the 02 PP that they took .

1,2,17,19.

Easy to work out

I'm being a bit technical here but that's impossible - would have to be 1,2,18 and 20.

But i agree, not sure what this talk of getting last years PP is about.

Just on that, I still think it's a friggn joke we don't get the PP before round 1, surely we have the worst team in the comp since 2000 after winning back to back wooden spoons. The qualification is too harsh now.

 

[Bluebear]

We contested the current rule change earlier this year to get a concession to include last year as the first of two years under the new rule. That submission failed.
We have re-submitted something to the AFL - some seem to inside info thats its with regards to the 2002 PP.
The media seem to think it was another submission regarding the current rule change.
IMO the first seems more likely, if only fot the fact that nothing has changed rules wise since the first submission on the rule change, so why would we re-submit the same case? Maybe the media assumed that when they found out we were submitting a case that it was for this year again - not thinking that in fact it could be for the 2002 PP.
Interesting that nothing has been spoken of yet by the AFL or CFC.
Whichever case we are pleading it doesn't look to have been dismissed out of hand.
I promised myself I wouldn't dream........too late.