Should we draft Wayde Skipper ?

[Nickos66]

Griffin
Griffin
Griffin

 

[prattsta]

Griffin

LOL. C'mon it's early days.

Incorrect spelling of Haselby, Tarrent, Robertson, Clark, Keplar, Soloman etc are the ones you need to get onto...

 

[Selggad]

I'm not talking about a second ruckman ie, tandem ruckmen. If Sandi goes down you'll need another one (or probably two). Sandi will probably miss 2 or 3 games next season injured or not. We can't just pencil in losses whenever Sandi doesn't play.

This is just too simplistic. Ok, we've lost 4 games in a row with out Sandi. There are other factors involved. We went though a period where we won every game Pav didn't play even though we were shit at the time. That doesn't mean we should have dropped Pav and we would have won all our games

And what's this "if Sandi goes down you'll need another one" bullshit? We're all in this together.

 

[CamTinley]

Where have you been this past month or so ??
Just letting you know we drafted a guy called Griffen. He's a ruckman, same sort of thing as Skipper, and will be backup if Sandi goes down. Are we now saying we need a backup if Griffen goes down?

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Rucking always is high risk in terms of injury but 2011 will be much more demanding than 2010 for ruckmen. If we were paying Skipper $250,000pa and he was cutting into the salary cap there wouldn't be an argument. If he's on the basic (AFL) wage he has to be better insurance than another midfielder. If we don't get Skipper, his place will get filled by someone else on about the same money.

 

[salim malik]

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Rucking always is high risk in terms of injury but 2011 will be much more demanding than 2010 for ruckmen. If we were paying Skipper $250,000pa and he was cutting into the salary cap there wouldn't be an argument. If he's on the basic (AFL) wage he has to be better insurance than another midfielder. If we don't get Skipper, his place will get filled by someone else on about the same money.

Already have a better version of Skipper in Keplar sowhy bother and wasnt it Skipper who jumped into Sandilands knee so he is definately not welcome in purple

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Don't forget this 15yo, 205cm beast we've got available in the 2012 draft.

Sadly, young Moller is almost certain to be pre-allocated to GWS - as will a couple of other very talented "NSW Scholarship" boyos that current clubs have been developing.

This is one of the main reasons Sydney have set up their own development academy, with their own independent contracting system. Very ordinary result for all the effort that most AFL clubs have been putting into NSW scholarship boys (living in the ACT, it is surprising and very gratifying to see so many Vic and SA/WA clubs helping local ACT/country NSW young kids under the scholarship system) but eyebrow and Angry Ant seem incredibly determined to do it across the board, effectively voiding the scholarship pathways to give GWS a legs up.

FWIW, if he keeps going growth wise on his last couple of years, assuming continued weight training and no injuries, he may well be a 17 yo 85-90kg 212-214cm beast, by the time of the 2012 draft. Which is bigger than Sandi is now, and heavier than a whole bunch of current "key position" players. None of which is to say he is guaranteed to be a gun, but rather to point out how unique he is in terms of his development and size at his age.

On the other hand, maybe Marvin the Martin will use his illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator and shrink poor Moller down to be a 67 kg five foot one hunch-back version of Luke Toia??

 

[Lach72]

He's on a Freo scholarship, so he's ours if we want him

 

[CamTinley]

Already have a better version of Skipper in Keplar sowhy bother and wasnt it Skipper who jumped into Sandilands knee so he is definately not welcome in purple

Well at least he won't do it again, unless it's at training. People only seem to have good things to say about Skipper at the Bulldogs and Hawthorn. Skipper would keep Griffin honest too. Even though Griffin wanted to come home he's still got a job to do.

 

[hedgehog]

He's on a Freo scholarship, so he's ours if we want him

Yeah this.

I believe he's playing in the GWS development team or what not (you can see on the jumper), but as soon as it's draft time he's ours.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

He's on a Freo scholarship, so he's ours if we want him

Nope - hasn't been formally announced yet, but eyebrow & co will be (in effect) voiding all of the scholarships. They will of course make noises about "compensation" and "arrangements" for affected clubs, but the effective result will be that in the 2012 draft, current AFL clubs' NSW scholarship holders will be given "opportunities to remain in NSW" (read lots of extra cash and longer term contracts for the youngsters). All the gipped clubs will get is effectively an extra rookie pick, which can only be used in 2012 - and only if they don't have the full quota of veterans.

Really big time act of bastardy, especially to a cluster of clubs that have consistently taken the time to not just take their full quota of NSW boys every year, but also run camps and training sessions in country NSW/ACT to keep developing the kids who miss out on full scholarships, and sponsor first and second grade ACT/NSW league teams.

 

[Lach72]

and where did you here this?

There's been no mention of it anywhere

 

[hedgehog]

Nope - hasn't been formally announced yet, but eyebrow & co will be (in effect) voiding all of the scholarships. They will of course make noises about "compensation" and "arrangements" for affected clubs, but the effective result will be that in the 2012 draft, current AFL clubs' NSW scholarship holders will be given "opportunities to remain in NSW" (read lots of extra cash and longer term contracts for the youngsters). All the gipped clubs will get is effectively an extra rookie pick, which can only be used in 2012 - and only if they don't have the full quota of veterans.

Really big time act of bastardy, especially to a cluster of clubs that have consistently taken the time to not just take their full quota of NSW boys every year, but also run camps and training sessions in country NSW/ACT to keep developing the kids who miss out on full scholarships, and sponsor first and second grade ACT/NSW league teams.

But how?

Let's assume that the AFL is somehow able to terminate the scholarship contract between us and Moller.

Moller is eligible for the 2012 draft. 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?

As a zone selection?

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?

 

[Lach72]

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=91527

He has been doing some work with GWS, but is aligned with us

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/78662/default.aspx

 

[Nickos66]

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.

 

[hedgehog]

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.

We've got another one too, don't we? Big key forward with good skills, Tom Head I think?

 

[Clay Davis]

and where did you here this?

There's been no mention of it anywhere

Rumour around the traps in NSW. Most people know about it. They want local NSW/Sydney boys to be members of the new team, because it will give it a boost.

 

[hedgehog]

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.

I think GWS had two years to sign uncontracted players (2010 + 2011) whilst GC had 1 (2010), that might have been what you're thinking of??

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

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.

But how?

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".

As a zone selection?

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.

 

[hedgehog]

Vary conditions of registration for 2012 draft, based on state of residence and registration (same conditional elements as current NSW scholarship system).

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.

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".

Sorry, can you expand on this?

According to wikipedia...

When a scholarship listed player reaches the minimum draft age (currently 18 years old), he can be selected by their club directly to either the senior or rookie lists, bypassing the draft process.

Forget registrating for the draft, that whole process is skipped. The issue here is whether the AFL can step in and terminate our contract with Moller. IF(huge if) they can, then the draft registration process shouldn't come into it.

They aren't terminating the contract, just varying it to provide that the player can elect to opt out and remain in NSW.

OK, that resembles something that could work. That is by no means a "pre-allocation", as you said at the very beginning. Even still, it's no guarantee.

Assuming what you said is true...

We've paid Moller a scholarship of around $60k, flown him over for training sessions at the club and probably loads of behind the scenes stuff preparing his family and what not. If despite all that he's going to move back to GWS after his first contract is up, then what's the point in having him over here for 2 years? I'd prefer we don't **** around with the kids life. If he acknowledges what we've done and wants to come, then there's nothing GWS or anything can do. (Unless the contract is terminated by the AFL)

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.

Mate, it's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I don't think the general public would be privy to information that is essentially costing AFL clubs hundreds of thousands of dollars in sponsorship money, plus wasted time by recruiters. If it's just come out recently, then maybe, but still.

If only we'd had the same legs up when we were set up.

Amen to that, regardless if this new 'rule' is true.

 

[Centurions]

FWIW, i tweeted Emma Quayle to ask her and this is the reply she gave and she is usually pretty spot on when it comes to this stuff:

emmasq Emma Quayle
@
yep clubs can keep their existing players but its been wound up and replaced by the new academy that Roos is gonna work with

 

[Freomaniac]

Skipper is ahead of Bradley and Clarke. If you saw the game or look at the stats from R21, 2010 you would know that. Griffen is about the same as Skipper.

I think you need three good/adequate ruckmen that's all.

Leigh Matthews had McDonald (career ave 17 hit outs per game), Charman (career ave 17 hit outs per game) and Keating (career ave 13 hit outs per game) throughout the triple Premiership era and might have had one flag instead of three if he hadn't.

Injuries usually happen when you least need them. We need to be in a position to win a flag in the next three seasons, Clarke is three years away from being able to contribute in a finals campaign. That's why we played Sandilands, badly injured, in the Geelong final.

Skipper would be on a one year, base wage contract, not a Mundy type contract so there's not much downside.

Crows had Shaun Rehn, Ben Marsh and David Pittman in the 97 and 98 flags.

Port had Matthew Primus, Brendon Lade and Dean Brogan in 2004 but one of them I think it was Primus didnt play in the grand final with a knee injury.