Strategy Loophole in live trading rules?

[BigFatNorthFan]

Hey trade/draft fanatics, I think I have found a loophole in the new live trading rules that clubs will be able to exploit, thought you might be interested to hear about it. Have written about it here. Let me know what you think.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Let me know what you think.

If your headline and your plug here refer to a loophole, maybe touch on it in the lead instead of a thousand words in.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

(and the loophole doesn't appear to exist): http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-08-10/crystal-ball-how-live-pick-trading-might-look

Once an academy or father-son player is bid on, that player will essentially count as being 'drafted'. It means a club can't attempt to jump in front of a rival team by swapping draft picks after their academy or father-son prospect has already been bid on.

 

[BigFatNorthFan]

If your headline and your plug here refer to a loophole, maybe touch on it in the lead instead of a thousand words in.

Sorry, it often takes me 1000 words to clear my throat.

(and the loophole doesn't appear to exist): http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-08-10/crystal-ball-how-live-pick-trading-might-look

Assume what you're referring to here is Cleary's statement "Once an academy or father-son player is bid on, that player will essentially count as being 'drafted'. It means a club can't attempt to jump in front of a rival team by swapping draft picks after their academy or father-son prospect has already been bid on."

I believe what this means is that if, as per his example, Essendon were to bid on Tarryn Thomas, then North can't make a trade for the pick Essendon is using to make the bid, as having made the bid already, the Dons' pick is considered to be spent.

What I'm suggesting is the opposite - that North could trade their next pick in the order away, and then when they match the bid it would be a case of paying for it with later selections instead.

As per the quote from Patrick Keane in the article, clubs that have been asked to match bids will be allowed to make trades before doing so if they can get a deal done before time runs out - so unless I've been misinformed, yes, the loophole does exist.

They can't 'jump in front' as per Cleary, but they can clear out their next selection.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how it all plays out in practice!

(Apologies for the incredibly slow reply. I tend to lurk around without logging in unless I've got something to say.)