Should Father Son be exrended

[BUBBALOUIS]

A report in the papers today, suggests Wayne Jackson is sympathetic to arguments put forward by Graham Cornes that players having played a required number of games in the SANFL prior to the formation of the AFL should be available under the father/son rule. His argument being the SANFL was the equivalent of the then VFL. At first glance i was a bit horrified, but surely someone having played 200 odd games for Sturt for example and a life member should rightfully expect there son to remain in Adelaide? However will this mean all SANFL clubs will qualify for either of the Adelaide AFL teams? Will this discrimanate further? Should we have father/son rule at all? Should the father/son rule begin with the AFL formation? What do you guys think

 

[Darky]

I think once a club has been in the competition for 18 or 20 years, it should lose father-son rights based on the father's record in the WAFL and SANFL (and other state competitions), and revert to VFL/AFL club records.

In other words, WAFL players sons would be eligible for West Coast until say 2007, or Fremantle until 2015, otherwise they'd have to go through the draft.

I don't think it'd be fair if in 40 years time the non-Victorian sides are getting 20 year olds under the F/S rule, based on 100 WAFL or SANFL games and zero AFL games.

 

[magpie_joffa]

HEY BUBBA WHAT DOES EXRENDED MEAN?...lol

------------------
good ole collingwood for ever,we know how to play the game,side by side we stick together to uphold the REAL magpies name,see the barrackers are shouting,as all barrackers should,YES the premiership's a cakewalk for the good ole collingwood.
http://www.mp3.com/joffa

 

[BUBBALOUIS]

Originally posted by collingwood_joffa:
HEY BUBBA WHAT DOES EXRENDED MEAN?...lol

LOL, thanks Joff, thats what the Chinese masseuse said i should do the other day! Dont think she was being rude do ya Joff!!

 

[mantis]

Father son rule should definitely be retained, the Bombers champs from the 80's sons must all be getting close to being old enough to play AFL.

Darky, I think your idea on the rule for interstate clubs is pretty sound, 20 years from entry into the AFL sounds pretty fair.

------------------
RED & BLACK, THE COLOURS OF FENG SHUI

 

[The invisible mullet]

Darky has nailed it - you could make an argument for 18 years though as well.

 

[ptw]

this is one of my pet topics....It really makes me mad that say Russell Ebert's son would not have the right to play for Port. Or Mark William's son would have the right to play for Brisbane but not Port (unless he coaches for 5 years or something....(which is looking more likely now than 6 months ago !!)

I think you could solve it by saying that the player (father) must have played 50 games or 100 games, whatever, in the WAFL PRIOR to 1987 and the SANFL prior to 1990. It would then die out naturally as these players got on.

I don't think you could just single out Port, but it is a bit hard to take given that we are the same club which played in the SANFL (ie the guy who played 200 games for Sturt never played for the Adelaide Football Club). Tim Evans played for the Port Adelaide Football Club....the same one which is now in the AFL, but his son's have no rights to play there.


grrrrrr


ptw

 

[Grave Danger]

So many paradoxes. Some people complain that the AFL is ruining football by economic rationalism. Others reckon that things like the salary cap and draft are more at the socialist end of the spectrum.

Then there's the father-son rule. It seems that heredity still rules (for the lucky few anyway).