The "NEW" trading rules for future 1st round picks

[baldandbroke]

For the article, Google "Stricter trade rules to take effect in 2019"

Every AFL club can trade its future first-round pick with stricter rules to take effect in 2019

... according to the October 2015 document, Determination for the trading of future draft selections, the first four-year block will not come into effect until the 2019 exchange period. <link>​

So, apparently the idea that you needed to use two picks in a four year period was completely wrong? Did all clubs understand this? I'm guessing not, as Geelong's Stephen Wells commented regarding the pick for Tuohy:

“I must admit there was a perception we couldn’t do it here myself,” he said.

“But we did check with the AFL.”​

Good stuff AFL ... couldn't be clearer. Interested to hear what other clubs think of this.

 

[blitzer]

What an absolute load of rubbish. Either the clubs need this rule to 'protect themselves' in which case it should have been implemented from the start and enforced OR they don't need it at all in which case no change is required from 2019. Its not like future trading picks has always existed - they only brought it in 2 years ago. Surely if you bring in a new method of trading draft picks that any safety precautions would be implemented at the time the new method is initiated.

As usual AFL changing stuff on the fly without sufficient consultation with the clubs and other stakeholders.

 

[Grockadoc]

Can we call it the Geelong amendment?

 

[D-N-R]

But isn't the document that states this rule from 2015?

It was a document that the clubs have seen, so why were they unsure about the rule? Sure, the paper's weren't aware of it, but the clubs were.

How is this the AFL's fault?

EDIT: Or did the clubs see this document?

 

[Frank Gallagher]

 

[Frank Gallagher]

But isn't the document that states this rule from 2015?

It was a document that the clubs have seen, so why were they unsure about the rule? Sure, the paper's weren't aware of it, but the clubs were.

How is this the AFL's fault?

A bucket of chips at the G costs 33% less than a bucket of chips from Ethiad (and the Ethiad chips are a smaller serving), who do we blame for that?

 

[Vhaluus]

God the AFL really do love Geelong don't they?

Next step is they're going to implement a 'take backs' rule so that the Hawks can get their draft picks back as long as they give O'Meara back to GC.

 

[baldandbroke]

But isn't the document that states this rule from 2015? It was a document that the clubs have seen, so why were they unsure about the rule? Sure, the paper's weren't aware of it, but the clubs were. How is this the AFL's fault?

EDIT: Or did the clubs see this document?

Yep, that's the question. If the clubs know of this ... then why would Stephen Wells, who I think knows his stuff, be unaware of it?

 

[Giant Strides]

It certainly boggles the mind as to what's going on here.

 

[Thetrader15]

For the article, Google "Stricter trade rules to take effect in 2019"

Every AFL club can trade its future first-round pick with stricter rules to take effect in 2019

... according to the October 2015 document, Determination for the trading of future draft selections, the first four-year block will not come into effect until the 2019 exchange period. <link>​

So, apparently the idea that you needed to use two picks in a four year period was completely wrong? Did all clubs understand this? I'm guessing not, as Geelong's Stephen Wells commented regarding the pick for Tuohy:

“I must admit there was a perception we couldn’t do it here myself,” he said.

“But we did check with the AFL.”​

Good stuff AFL ... couldn't be clearer. Interested to hear what other clubs think of this.

Dimetriou and Anderson

 

[Suma Magic]

The rule was introduced for the 2015 trading season.

It said you have to have 2 first rounders in 4 years.

So given that you could get the two first rounders you require as late as the last second of the 2018 trade period, then surely the 2019 date always made sense?

How else could it have worked? The penalty could only come if teams broke the rule.

It seemed so obvious then and now.

Am I missing something?

 

[Hamingja]

Can we call it the Geelong amendment?

They will go for 4 on the trot and trade next years for Devon Smith.

 

[Roovolution]

One rule for Geelong and one rule for....

Probably just ensuring that Ablett can get back to Geelong......because all football fans would love to see Gary go back home cause you know he's homesick and when players are homesick they should just be allowed to go home.....isn't that right Danger and Bryce? Oh wait no. Only works when a player wants to go back to Victoria. Anyhoo.....

Making rules up again Gill? What's it like being a clown in charge of a circus Gill?

Changing rules so Geelong can get what they want not once but twice now. Chris Scott must give great he**.

 

[D-N-R]

Yep, that's the question. If the clubs know of this ... then why would Stephen Wells, who I think knows his stuff, be unaware of it?

It's not immediately clear if this document had been released to the clubs, but as it is the guidelines for trading, it would make sense if it was. We don't know if other clubs were unaware of this. Perhaps Geelong was the only club that happened to trade enough to be affected by the criteria. The article only mentions it 'not being made public', not that it was kept from the clubs.

There is also this quote from the article;

The future-pick document also demands that club boards authorise the trading of a future first-round selection before the trade period.

Why would you want clubs to follow certain guidelines if you then don't tell the clubs? This suggests that it has been given to the clubs.

Perhaps it should be Geelong who are under the spotlight here for not reading the document rather than the AFL.

 

[Damon_3388]

Perhaps it should be Geelong who are under the spotlight here for not reading the document rather than the AFL.

If the trading of future picks requires league approval, shouldn't the league then be rejecting any deals which would put a club outside of the guidelines?

Also, what's the penalty then meant to be for trading away too many draft picks? Losing more draft picks?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

So we haven't done anything wrong. Good news I guess.
Another rule made on the run though, the most amateurish professional sporting body in the world.

 

[D-N-R]

If the trading of future picks requires league approval, shouldn't the league then be rejecting any deals which would put a club outside of the guidelines?

Also, what's the penalty then meant to be for trading away too many draft picks? Losing more draft picks?

But the stricter guidelines don't start until 2019, so there was no need for the league to do anything. And even then, according to the article linked to the OP, the AFL can approve a trade (or not) based on a whole bunch of other criteria, if that trade goes beyond the hard limit set by the AFL.

So, there would be no penalty if clubs went beyond the limit because they would need approval in the first place.

 

[chris9753]

My understanding is that there was a bit of a stuff up in the original wording which went something like ....if you break the rule (trading > 2 firsts in a 4 yr period) a penalty (banned from trading more first round picks) will be imposed. Geelong didn't break the rule until trading for Tuohy (i.e. their third first round pick) and hence they are now banned from trading their next first round pick.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Can we call it the Geelong amendment?

Would prefer it to be known as the Devon Smith Rule

 

[The 747]

A bucket of chips at the G costs 33% less than a bucket of chips from Ethiad (and the Ethiad chips are a smaller serving), who do we blame for that?

And the MCG chips taste better. Why is it so? Isn't it the same mafia who run both?

 

[The 747]

Yep, that's the question. If the clubs know of this ... then why would Stephen Wells, who I think knows his stuff, be unaware of it?

I imagine because he knows his stuff he doesn't bother trying to understand the AFL rules, he just calls them to check things. It's a mess, but fine by me. All I really care about it is can we trade our first this year?

 

[aCunningPlan]

This sounds like a monumental stuff up by the Herald Sun's so-called journalists in comprehending the rules more than anything.

 

[baldandbroke]

I don't think Geelong have done anything wrong here, no way.

BUT I do think the Cats were as surprised as anyone that the AFL allowed the misunderstanding to perpetuate.

Basically the "rule" is - you shouldn't trade all your future picks away, but if you can give us a good enough reason we will ok it. Feels like the pirate code ...

 

[Seeds]

A bucket of chips at the G costs 33% less than a bucket of chips from Ethiad (and the Ethiad chips are a smaller serving), who do we blame for that?

Your poor diet.

 

[Seeds]

One rule for Geelong and one rule for....

Probably just ensuring that Ablett can get back to Geelong......because all football fans would love to see Gary go back home cause you know he's homesick and when players are homesick they should just be allowed to go home.....isn't that right Danger and Bryce? Oh wait no. Only works when a player wants to go back to Victoria. Anyhoo.....

Making rules up again Gill? What's it like being a clown in charge of a circus Gill?

Changing rules so Geelong can get what they want not once but twice now. Chris Scott must give great he**.

You get that Ablett didn't get back to Geelong this year right?