News Melbourne warned against draft tampering

[LeverPuller]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...-over-jack-viney/story-e6frf9jf-1226350390440

For christ's sake. The AFL just love to shit on us don't they? First the bullshit on third party payments with $cully and now this?

GWS making a bid at pick #1 to force us to use pick #2 isn't draft tampering when that might be forcing us to jump in advance?

 

[milkVealer]

Would anyone dare to say the 'T' word?

 

[CTHORANGE]

I think the 'warning' was more from Garry Lyons comments that we should strike some kind of a 'deal' with GC and GWS so they wont bid for JViney.... but Lyon doesnt even work for our club, so the warning seems out of line in my opinion.

what S*!#s me more is that GWS already nicked our last number one draft pick, now they want to throw another punch at us? doesnt seem to be much friendship or comaraderie amongst the teams anymore, it's like watching politicians knife each other.

 

[Jade]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...-over-jack-viney/story-e6frf9jf-1226350390440

For christ's sake. The AFL just love to shit on us don't they? First the bullshit on third party payments with $cully and now this?

GWS making a bid at pick #1 to force us to use pick #2 isn't draft tampering when that might be forcing us to jump in advance?

But that is how the system is designed to work.

Hypothetically, if GWS bid #1 for him, the Demons need to make a decision as to whether or not he is worth pick #2.

If they don't believe he is, than GWS have locked him in with #1 and you guys get the first 'live' pick; but lose Viney. This is all very hypothetical of course, based on ladder positions that will very likely change prior to the end of the year.

We are essentially in the same boat with Daniher; however the critical difference is that the pick we will be forced to use at the moment appears to be quite a bit down the order from yours. Either way, our first pick will be used on him - absolutely resigned to that.

Honestly, considering Viney is already touted as a top five pick, AND you have the distinct advantage of being able to develop him this year, what's the big deal if you use your first pick?

For the few that feel a little hard done by over the likelihood of using that pick it looks on the outside to be a bit of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

As for the warning; remember it's only that. By the sounds of it he's a gem (I haven't seen him play yet); and you'll be a better side for it.

 

[LeverPuller]

But that is how the system is designed to work.

Hypothetically, if GWS bid #1 for him, the Demons need to make a decision as to whether or not he is worth pick #2.

If they don't believe he is, than GWS have locked him in with #1 and you guys get the first 'live' pick; but lose Viney. This is all very hypothetical of course, based on ladder positions that will very likely change prior to the end of the year.

We are essentially in the same boat with Daniher; however the critical difference is that the pick we will be forced to use at the moment appears to be quite a bit down the order from yours. Either way, our first pick will be used on him - absolutely resigned to that.

Honestly, considering Viney is already touted as a top five pick, AND you have the distinct advantage of being able to develop him this year, what's the big deal if you use your first pick?

For the few that feel a little hard done by over the likelihood of using that pick it looks on the outside to be a bit of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

As for the warning; remember it's only that. By the sounds of it he's a gem (I haven't seen him play yet); and you'll be a better side for it.

It's two things. The first is that it's the second time in twelve months the AFL have threatened Melbourne with sanctions over something that was previously legal or certainly a loophole - first with third party payments to Judas (Chris Judd anyone? No?) and now shutting a loophole that was very much there to be utilised.

The second part is whether he's actually worth pick ONE or not. I'm not doubting how good he is at all, but if we were to finish 17th and GWS then bid with PICK ONE on him it's a huge problem as everyone knows it's effectively a dummy bid.

Plus the point is in there that clubs are allowed to lobby GWS and GC to bid for Viney but Melbourne aren't allowed to lobby/offer sweeteners to stop that?

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Finding it hard to imagine the AFL are out to white-ant the Demons now - I'd have thought the history of the last 5 years makes that impossible, as does the fact that off-field, we're amongst the strongest clubs in the league now in all respects.

But this behaviour coming from them still looks pretty disturbing to me.

And as you say, this is the second such incidence in 12 months.

 

[Jade]

It's two things. The first is that it's the second time in twelve months the AFL have threatened Melbourne with sanctions over something that was previously legal or certainly a loophole - first with third party payments to Judas (Chris Judd anyone? No?) and now shutting a loophole that was very much there to be utilised.

Couldn't agree more. I think the Judd deal is an absolute disgrace. Whilst the AFL has not said it (because doing so would be an admission it should not have been allowed in the first place); it's like will quietly slip out of the game.

The second part is whether he's actually worth pick ONE or not. I'm not doubting how good he is at all, but if we were to finish 17th and GWS then bid with PICK ONE on him it's a huge problem as everyone knows it's effectively a dummy bid.

But it isn't. If he isn't worth #1, and Melbourne declines to use it's next pick than GWS are stuck with him. It's only a dummy bid if Melbourne are 100% going to take him regardless - and that makes him WORTH anything.

Plus the point is in there that clubs are allowed to lobby GWS and GC to bid for Viney but Melbourne aren't allowed to lobby/offer sweeteners to stop that?

Any inducement of another club is draft tampering. Would be difficult to prove of course. If Essendon said to GWS; "look, you guys place a bid on Viney and in return we'll overlook player X at pick 30-ish" that is just as guilty as you guys doing the same (or anything else) to get them NOT to bid.

 

[RedLegs#5]

Honestly, f*ck them.

That is all.

 

[The Professor]

GWS making a bid at pick #1 to force us to use pick #2 isn't draft tampering when that might be forcing us to jump in advance?

Cause you can't prove GWS don't rate Viney as pick 1.

It's their rating. Not the media's, not fans.

The doubt for GWS is 'will we screw ourselves by passing on lock top 3 'Coniglio/Bennell/Day' type and Viney possibly leaving in 2 years.

The doubt for MFC is with GWS having 10 billion early picks already, they can risk it.

No club wants MFC to have pick 3, 4, 12 and Viney as second round pick so GWS will bid.

Let's see how good Viney is against his peers.

 

[The Goon]

Does it real make any difference what GWS do? Forgive me if this is an ignorant comment, but if he is top 5 as all reports suggest you're going to have to use one of your top 2 picks on him regardless of what GWS do. Or am I missing something?

 

[rhaz]

Not surprised at all, not sure what all the anger is about. We already tampered with the draft in previous years by tanking for picks. We are no way being '****ed over' by the AFL.

The only ones to blame are the club itself for being so terrible this year. If we were 4-2 and looking like finishing close to the top 8 no-one would care about having to take Jack with our first pick.

The fuss over taking Viney astounds me. People are constantly raving about how good a player he is yet taking him with pick 3~ (when we'll have the very next pick after that as well!) is apparently unfair.

 

[Viney]

But that is how the system is designed to work.

Hypothetically, if GWS bid #1 for him, the Demons need to make a decision as to whether or not he is worth pick #2.

If they don't believe he is, than GWS have locked him in with #1 and you guys get the first 'live' pick; but lose Viney. This is all very hypothetical of course, based on ladder positions that will very likely change prior to the end of the year.

We are essentially in the same boat with Daniher; however the critical difference is that the pick we will be forced to use at the moment appears to be quite a bit down the order from yours. Either way, our first pick will be used on him - absolutely resigned to that.

Honestly, considering Viney is already touted as a top five pick, AND you have the distinct advantage of being able to develop him this year, what's the big deal if you use your first pick?

For the few that feel a little hard done by over the likelihood of using that pick it looks on the outside to be a bit of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

As for the warning; remember it's only that. By the sounds of it he's a gem (I haven't seen him play yet); and you'll be a better side for it.

100% agree

In an ideal world, we'd be using out 3rd / 4th round pick as was the old way, but reality is, this is the deal

He's valued as a top 5 pick, we'll more than likely have 2 top five picks, we'll take him with one and move on

If the tables were turned, we'd be screaming out for our club to f'k up the opposition by bidding

 

[lose]

well guys the way were going at the mom we might not have to worry.. no one can bid against us when we have pick 1..

am only jkn guys it's ok.. can't this shit and draft discussion at least wait till round 15.. we really need to win a couple of games

 

[Viney]

well guys the way were going at the mom we might not have to worry.. no one can bid against us when we have pick 1..

am only jkn guys it's ok.. can't this shit and draft discussion at least wait till round 15.. we really need to win a couple of games

Unfortunately the way things have gone this year, it seems all we have to look forward to is the draft

Having said that, I's like to see some wins and be talking about using our first pick, pick 10 on Viney, as opposed to debating if it's going to be pick 1, 2 or 3

 

[Bluelegs]

It's two things. The first is that it's the second time in twelve months the AFL have threatened Melbourne with sanctions over something that was previously legal or certainly a loophole - first with third party payments to Judas (Chris Judd anyone? No?) and now shutting a loophole that was very much there to be utilised.

The second part is whether he's actually worth pick ONE or not. I'm not doubting how good he is at all, but if we were to finish 17th and GWS then bid with PICK ONE on him it's a huge problem as everyone knows it's effectively a dummy bid.

Plus the point is in there that clubs are allowed to lobby GWS and GC to bid for Viney but Melbourne aren't allowed to lobby/offer sweeteners to stop that?

Too risky. Big 'go home' factor if we let them have him.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

It's the mistake Melbourne made by signing him so many years ago

If he broke a leg and could never play you guys would still be required to draft him

Honestly, I feel for yas, but gotta take the good with the bad I'm afraid

 

[Viney]

It's the mistake Melbourne made by signing him so many years ago

If he broke a leg and could never play you guys would still be required to draft him

Honestly, I feel for yas, but gotta take the good with the bad I'm afraid

I don't think that would be the case, I'm sure there'd be out clauses within the contract and would be conditional

Reality is, we had to sign him up to ward off Adelaide who wanted him to nominate in the 17 year old mini draft

 

[LBJ6]

I don't mind giving up pick 3 for him, we would have pick 4 anyway. He looks worth it too, so it's a non issue.

 

[mrmonkey]

I don't mind giving up pick 3 for him, we would have pick 4 anyway. He looks worth it too, so it's a non issue.

I Agree with this. Plusit looks bad now that we're 17th but come october it probably be a non issue. Also early draft picks don't always work out.

 

[Rudeurrection]

Can we tell him not to nominate for this years draft and have another season at Casey so we can take him in a weaker draft?

 

[Tommy D]

Or come interview time at draft camp, he could just say that he will only sign a 2-year contract with either GWS or GC and then leave when it expires.

That's of course assuming we finish 3rd last.

 

[Black Diamond]

Is it really a major issue to pay pick 3 for a player who is worth pick 12? I don't think so, especially not when you've already put the effort in which you guys have.

In any case, if you guys finished top 4 and thus had a very late pick, you'd be laughing if GWS put a bid in because you'd be paying unders for him. It's your own ladder position which is hurting you atm.

 

[LBJ6]

Is it really a major issue to pay pick 3 for a player who is worth pick 12? I don't think so, especially not when you've already put the effort in which you guys have.

Melbourne need midfielders, and he is rated as one of the top 3 midfielders in this draft so I don't really see a problem. Get him at 3 and another highly rated kid at 4. Then there should also be some good quality at our next compo pick (11?).

Viney is exactly what we need, we need players like him who are tough, courageous and fearless at the footy to change the current culture of the club - so this whole thing is a non issue. I'm really looking forward to him playing next year.

 

[wowlace]

I honestly do not think this will be an issue come the end of the season. We will start to win games soon and I can see us getting a roll on at the end of the season.

 

[Black Diamond]

We will start to win games soon and I can see us getting a roll on at the end of the season.

Crossed my mind too. Could do a Richmond circa 2010, only string more wins together since you've got more talent than they did back then.