News Trade week reduced

[Pure_Ownage]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/103276/default.aspx

Due to the GF replay trade week will now start on Tuesday October 5 (one day later than originally scheduled) and run until 2pm on Monday October 11.

 

[Vegas.]

Interesting that they decided to make trade week longer this year, I didn't see much reason for it as club just hold out until the final minute any way. Also didn't see the point in delaying it for a day. If reps from St Kilda and Collingwood aren't there, who cares? Nothing will happen on day 1 anyway.

EDIT: Upon reading the article betterer, the father/son bidding is probably the main reason for the delay.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

You're right, the Doggies doing the Wallis and Libba bidding will probably be the only thing that happens on the first day, although it seems Jacobs to Adelaide is a fair way down the road so it might be done early in trade week.

I think the reason for extending it out to the following Monday is the prevalence of "paperwork missed the deadline" trades in the past, and the AFL realise that with the likelihood of a higher volume of players being traded (not nexessarily big fish, just more numbers) than usual due to the draft situation, there's increased likelihood of more trades missing the deadline, so by giving clubs and managers the weekend as well, it will help with this somewhat.

 

[Vdubs]

You're right, the Doggies doing the Wallis and Libba bidding will probably be the only thing that happens on the first day, although it seems Jacobs to Adelaide is a fair way down the road so it might be done early in trade week.

I think the reason for extending it out to the following Monday is the prevalence of "paperwork missed the deadline" trades in the past, and the AFL realise that with the likelihood of a higher volume of players being traded (not nexessarily big fish, just more numbers) than usual due to the draft situation, there's increased likelihood of more trades missing the deadline, so by giving clubs and managers the weekend as well, it will help with this somewhat.

What is the deal with Father-sons? What does a team need to do to get a player like Wallis? Or is there absolutely no way? Wallis is BRILLIANT

 

[AM]

There's no way the Bullies will be trumped on Wallis he's a potential gun. A general description of the way the father-son rule now works is here.

 

[Vdubs]

There's no way the Bullies will be trumped on Wallis he's a potential gun. A general description of the way the father-son rule now works is here.

Thanks Ammo Man. Reading that, I'm still not getting how any other team can get a player such as Wallis. Is it virtually impossible? What is a practical scenario of how the Dogs will get him?

 

[Vegas.]

Thanks Ammo Man. Reading that, I'm still not getting how any other team can get a player such as Wallis. Is it virtually impossible? What is a practical scenario of how the Dogs will get him?

Let's say the Dees bid their first rounder for him.

The Dogs can then:

Choose to match the bid: They are bound to take Wallis with their next pick after the Dees pick (ie. their first rounder)

Choose not to match the bid: The Dees are bound to take him with their first rounder.

With a gun like Wallis, no other team will be able to get him, as the Dogs will definitely part ways with their first rounder.

 

[Vdubs]

Let's say the Dees bid their first rounder for him.

The Dogs can then:

Choose to match the bid: They are bound to take Wallis with their next pick after the Dees pick (ie. their first rounder)

Choose not to match the bid: The Dees are bound to take him with their first rounder.

With a gun like Wallis, no other team will be able to get him, as the Dogs will definitely part ways with their first rounder.

Again, thanks, get it now. Hasn't happened before, but realistically, Wallis could and should go really early. Wonder if there's some unwritten rule that says you don't bid for a team's F-S. Bit like the code in The Tour De France that on the last day you don't try and beat the Yellow Jersey holder?

Saw a lot of Wallis during the year, and Libber. Something about those Calder Cannons. Those 2 are absolute AFL gun standard, almost , already.

 

[Vegas.]

Happened last year I think with Daniher and the Dons, who were forced to use a first or 2nd rounder on him. There would appear to be no unwritten rule, or else they wouldn't have changed it in the first place. Guarantee that a team will bid a first rounder for Wallis, it would be bad business not to.

 

[Claude Balls]

Has happened twice already IRRC. The Dons had to match a bid for Daniher, and the Dogs had to match a bid for Ayce Cordy.

What I want to know is whether a club can take two father son picks in the one year if both of them are bid on with first rounders by rival clubs.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Again, thanks, get it now. Hasn't happened before, but realistically, Wallis could and should go really early. Wonder if there's some unwritten rule that says you don't bid for a team's F-S. Bit like the code in The Tour De France that on the last day you don't try and beat the Yellow Jersey holder?

Saw a lot of Wallis during the year, and Libber. Something about those Calder Cannons. Those 2 are absolute AFL gun standard, almost , already.

The Dogs were forced to use their first rounder on Cordy after another team (Sydney) bid their first rounder for him.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Has happened twice already IRRC. The Dons had to match a bid for Daniher, and the Dogs had to match a bid for Ayce Cordy.

What I want to know is whether a club can take two father son picks in the one year if both of them are bid on with first rounders by rival clubs.

Yes they can...hence why the Dogs will get Wallis and Libba.

I'm just not sure how the system determines which one is with their first rounder and which one is with their second.

 

[Vegas.]

Yes they can...hence why the Dogs will get Wallis and Libba.

I'm just not sure how the system determines which one is with their first rounder and which one is with their second.

It is an interesting one because, as much as it becomes irrelevant once both players are on the list, I believe the number (or round) you are picked determines your starting salary. The player with the highest bid from another club must be picked first maybe?