Geelong were literally allowed to trade outside of trade rules by using draft picks they were by the rules supposed to use in the draft as they had used their allowance already. Touhy was the one from memory.
Roast Corrupt AFL Looking To Change F/S Bidding Rules
- Thread starter Rory Walkerfield
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Geelong were literally allowed to trade outside of trade rules by using draft picks they were by the rules supposed to use in the draft as they had used their allowance already. Touhy was the one from memory.
SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
This stuff always goes over my head. Can someone explain like I'm 5 what how these changes would affect the bidding process as opposed to how it is now?
SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
I know it wasn't cool to like them after Tippett and COLA but **** me that was some bullshit. Imagine doing everything by the book and then still getting banned from trading just because the AFL didn't like the outcome.
Hollow Knight
Imperfect vessel
- May 3, 2005
- 97,236
- 109,277
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Scuderia Ferrari, Dallas Cowboys
There is quite a few Victorian father-sons coming in next year. I wouldn't worry about meaningful changes being made in 2024.
- May 16, 2015
- 15,709
- 22,153
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- WWTFC,Chelsea,Glasgow Celtic,Lech Poznan
Only time I have posted on the GC board. They were not too happy with the deal. (all 3 of them.
)
GROTTO
TheBrownDog
- Jul 5, 2013
- 68,641
- 94,368
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There are some boards you can post comfortably without any issues and others not so.Only time I have posted on the GC board. They were not too happy with the deal. (all 3 of them.
Eagles and North are our allies at the moment, lol. You can generally post on there very freely.
Eagles our "brother" Club and North "Our Enemy's enemy is our Friend" Club.
- May 16, 2015
- 15,709
- 22,153
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- WWTFC,Chelsea,Glasgow Celtic,Lech Poznan
What I read on the GC board at the time was good. They couldn't believe that crazy trade to Geelong.
Brasher
Premium Platinum
Does the AFL still heavily influence GC football operations?
If so they basically got GC in a salary cap mess and gave themselves a cheat code.
I think the club and president are to blame for all the crap that happens to us as a club. We need to be proactive in the media and call out this crap or talk to the AFL and tell them to leave it as is or we go to the media. We need to grow a set of balls and push back. Most of the time when we get a bullshit decision, we here no one calling it out or complaining.
We crows need to stand up and tell the AFL and media about the shit we are getting
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
We crows need to stand up and tell the AFL and media about the shit we are getting
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
Has this potential rule change been mentioned in the local media?
Again Ive looked and cant see a single rule change with the father son rule that damages our F/S? Can someone actually outline what the issue is?
- May 16, 2015
- 15,709
- 22,153
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- WWTFC,Chelsea,Glasgow Celtic,Lech Poznan
I believe NGA and academy bidding should start at the beginning of the second round. ATM both are too way out there.
Surely any new rule change would have to be agreed to by the clubs. Lets face it, its not in any clubs best interest to agree to such a change. Leave the F?S rule alone.
Magma
TheBrownDog
this is what the afl needs, more year to year rule changes on drafting.
As far as I can see, there is nothing set in stone yet. Just vague comments about how ridiculous it is that a player receive a bid early in the draft, and clubs can somehow match it with a bunch of late picks.
Which, honestly, is a correct statement. The idea that we can match a bid at pick 17 by giving up picks 46, 56 and 59 is ludicrous. No team in the league would make that trade.
Nick Daicos goes at pick 4, and Collingwood give up picks 38, 40, 42 and 44 to get him. Now compare that to Michalanney. Forget about the players themselves for a second and just look at the picks. Pick 4 vs pick 17... apparently the difference between those two picks is throwing in one additional junk pick. Crazy. Imagine if we traded pick 17 plus some junk pick and got back pick 4... the AFL would investigate us for corruption!
Ugle-Hagan literally went at pick 1, and Bulldogs got him by giving up picks 29, 33, 41, 42, 52 and 54. Again, no club in the league would make that trade, and the Bulldogs only even had two empty spots on their list. So they gave up a couple of crappy second round picks and four picks they weren't even going to use, to get the #1 draft pick.
It's an insane system. Those picks out at 40+ have practically no value. You can bring in a handful of them in for nothing, and end up with a first-round selection? You can match the best player in the draft by just accruing six crappy picks? Why even bother having a bidding system if you're going to allow that?
If the AFL insists on assigning point values to picks and using them to match bids, they really only have two choices. One, make the points fall away much quicker so those later picks have essentially no value. Or two, make it so each subsequent pick you use to match has a penalty weighting. IE the first pick you use is worth its full value, the second pick is worth 80% of its value, the third is worth 60% of its value, etc.
The only issue here is that, naturally, the discussions about changing the system are coming around right as we look set to profit from the system.
Edit: In retrospect, my post would probably not be all that clear to a five year old. Sorry about that
no, they demanded he be sacked.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 81,002
- 164,635
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #144
Me too
The way I've rationalised the whole drafting system is that one day during the off-season you wake up, open the newspaper and find out there are some new players on our list
Was there even any proposal put forward? The article I read limited to the rules being reviewed.
Brasher
Premium Platinum
I then go to this board to see if we did any good.
Scorpus
Moderator
- Apr 16, 2014
- 62,437
- 166,693
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Moderator
- #147
As far as I can see, there is nothing set in stone yet. Just vague comments about how ridiculous it is that a player receive a bid early in the draft, and clubs can somehow match it with a bunch of late picks.
Which, honestly, is a correct statement. The idea that we can match a bid at pick 17 by giving up picks 46, 56 and 59 is ludicrous. No team in the league would make that trade.
Nick Daicos goes at pick 4, and Collingwood give up picks 38, 40, 42 and 44 to get him. Now compare that to Michalanney. Forget about the players themselves for a second and just look at the picks. Pick 4 vs pick 17... apparently the difference between those two picks is throwing in one additional junk pick. Crazy. Imagine if we traded pick 17 plus some junk pick and got back pick 4... the AFL would investigate us for corruption!
Ugle-Hagan literally went at pick 1, and Bulldogs got him by giving up picks 29, 33, 41, 42, 52 and 54. Again, no club in the league would make that trade, and the Bulldogs only even had two empty spots on their list. So they gave up a couple of crappy second round picks and four picks they weren't even going to use, to get the #1 draft pick.
It's an insane system. Those picks out at 40+ have practically no value. You can bring in a handful of them in for nothing, and end up with a first-round selection? You can match the best player in the draft by just accruing six crappy picks? Why even bother having a bidding system if you're going to allow that?
If the AFL insists on assigning point values to picks and using them to match bids, they really only have two choices. One, make the points fall away much quicker so those later picks have essentially no value. Or two, make it so each subsequent pick you use to match has a penalty weighting. IE the first pick you use is worth its full value, the second pick is worth 80% of its value, the third is worth 60% of its value, etc.
The only issue here is that, naturally, the discussions about changing the system are coming around right as we look set to profit from the system.
Edit: In retrospect, my post would probably not be all that clear to a five year old. Sorry about that
The points system is dumb because it's based only on player salaries. Because there's a minimum player salary of around $100k and the max player salary is around $1M that limits the total range to around 10x.
But does that align with how likely you are to get a good player early in the draft versus late? I'd say the chance is much greater than 10x.
And does the salary data factor in players no longer listed? It doesn't appear so in their PDF.
For example the average career games for pick 3 is 165, while for pick 50 it's less than 50 games.
The points system says pick 3 is worth 8.1x that of pick 50. But if the average pick 3 plays 9 seasons at $600k p/a versus the average pick 50 playing 3 seasons at $130k it means pick 3 should really be worth more like 14x that of pick 50. And that's just based on salary and career length.
It should also be based on the opportunity and probability of getting a quality player at that pick. How much more likely are you to get a gun with a top 5 pick versus pick 50? Probably >20x more likely. Most clubs don't even use pick 65 for example, how does that pick hold any value?
There also also multiple picks in the 50s where no player has ever been selected at that pick that's a gun like you often get at pick 1 to 5. Even as early as like pick 35 there are selections where no club has ever found a gun using that pick.
The system should be set such that 3rd round picks and later are practically worthless. You should have to bundle up 20+ of those picks to get top 5 value. For picks in the 30s you should have to bundle around 7-10 of those picks.
Brasher
Premium Platinum
Should just allow clubs to retain full points value for the same number of picks they have list spots for.
All other draft picks are discounted by 50%.
Prevent a team trading a high pick for a bunch of lower picks because they won't have the same value.
All other draft picks are discounted by 50%.
Prevent a team trading a high pick for a bunch of lower picks because they won't have the same value.
Thank you, here’s something for you to munch on,
Since moving to the midfield in the last 3 games, Nick (the seagull) Daicos has averaged 8.7 clearances per game.
(A lazy 29 disposals 2 goals and 11 clearances last night)
Thats more than the 2023 per game averages of Lachie Neale (8.5), Darcy Parish (8.2), Matt Rowell (7.9), the Bont (7.6), and Liberatore (7.6).The five leading clearance players in the competition,
Checksider
All Australian
- Jul 23, 2023
- 778
- 1,579
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Well this was predictable as hell. As soon as non-Vic clubs start to benefit they go ahead and review the rules.
With more Victorian club F/S selections on the horizon still it will be interesting to see how they try to thread the needle.
With more Victorian club F/S selections on the horizon still it will be interesting to see how they try to thread the needle.
