and where did you here this?
There's been no mention of it anywhere
As I said in my previous post, hasn't been announced yet. Wouldn't surprise me if a couple of the clubs are only just being "consulted" about it now by eyebrow. I'm not sure when it will be "announced" but it is all in place behind the scenes now. Much as Gold Coast had a loophole created by the AFL that was around for almost a year before clubs realised.
Vary conditions of registration for 2012 draft, based on state of residence and registration (same conditional elements as current NSW scholarship system).
Let's assume that the AFL is somehow able to terminate the scholarship contract between us and Moller.
They aren't terminating the contract, just varying it to provide that the player can elect to opt out and remain in NSW.
Moller is eligible for the 2012 draft.
Not yet nominated or accepted - and the conditions of nomination would be the most likely regulatory mechanism to achieve the change.
GWS get all their picks in the 2011 draft. Correct me if I'm wrong, but GWS get exactly the same conditions as GC17 did. So GWS won't be able to sign Moller in a way that the GC have signed any of their young players.
How then, are GWS able to sign Moller?
Changes to draft registration conditions, combined with salary cap and rookie list variations for GWS. Or, in layman's terms - "because eyebrow says they can, because eyebrow says having a strong GWS is much more critical to the AFL than a viable NSW scholarship scheme".
No
That defeats the entire purpose of setting up the NSW scholarship system. I highly doubt that would occur. No club would agree to that. I also highly doubt that you are privy to information that AFL club officials are not... Either you're source is dodgy or clubs officials know about it. If the latter, why have so many more NSW scholarships been awarded by clubs this year, if a scholarship is essentially worthless?
I'm not relying on some "source".
As to clubs "agreeing to it", my whole point is that (as with the GC negotiation/signing loophole) current clubs won't even be given the chance to agree. It a done deal, and will be imposed. Nothing any club can do about it. As I said in my previous post, I don't think the clubs had any inkling it was coming, and it is a real kick in the teeth for quite a few clubs that have done the right thing over the last few years.
If you don't believe me, that's cool, millions don't, and never will.
I think I heard GWS get 2 years of concessions as opposed to GC's 1?
I could however be completely be misconstruing something else I heard.
Not sure - I think I understand what you mean, which is that the compensatory picks given to clubs who lose players to GWS can be used over several years, but (as we saw with GC) the concessions can also be traded back to the new club? Is that what you meant? If so I'd agree with you.
I assume that if he wanted to stay in NSW, we could organise a pick upgrade trade with the GWS that ways heavily in our favour (how heavily depends on how highly rated he is) and we could choose to terminate the NSW scholarship contract.
Changes to conditions of draft registration will limit the scope of what we can get - and as I said, the current compensation will be one rookie pick per NSW scholarship player lost. We certainly won't be able to do anything that is slanted in our favour.
If only we'd had the same legs up when we were set up.