Father Son rule being changed again?

[Ants]

In the Age:

Caroline Wilson | May 21, 2008

THE AFL is looking at softening the father-son rule just one year after introducing the controversial bidding system as one of a series of conciliatory gestures to the 16 clubs that will be forced to sacrifice draft picks and uncontracted players to the competition's two new teams.

The league has taken on board a proposal from North Melbourne to reduce the father-son games requirement from 100 back to 50 although football operations boss Adrian Anderson conceded the AFL might even look at a lower number of games required for eligibility.

Confirming the North proposal, Anderson said: "The Kangaroos have been very vocal about the father-son rule. They rightly point out that if you have a bidding system in place then perhaps it is fair enough to lower the games to 50 or even 20.

"We've consulted all 16 clubs now and we are looking at a number of ways to compensate the 16 existing clubs. The father-son rule is just one that would benefit existing clubs but not the 17th and 18th teams."

The AFL's working party overseeing the creation of two new playing lists will meet for the first time next week and includes representatives from the Brisbane Lions, Collingwood, Fremantle, Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney.

Along with revising the most romantic rule in football, the proposals aimed at compensating the existing clubs the AFL is considering include:

■Eliminating the rule requiring clubs to delist a minimum of three players at the end of each season;

■Supplementing rookie lists by up to three extra rookies per club;

■Compensating the bottom clubs by giving them access to earlier draft picks than first mooted in the first model which allowed each new club access to the top five draft choices.

North Melbourne chief executive Eugene Arocca said his club would put its father-son proposal to the AFL on Friday. "Our footy department will get together to formalise our proposal," he said.

"There are various models we are looking at but personally I think anything lower than 50 games could dilute the meaning of father-son.

Arocca said the Kangaroos would also request lists be extended to include up to six extra players be they rookies, scholarship players or international players.

"The (father-son) bidding system, in our view, could perhaps be relaxed to the point that nothing lower than a second-round draft pick was sacrificed," Arocca said.

However Kangaroos coach Dean Laidley was more bullish. "It was one of a number of small ways we believe the existing clubs could get something back from what they are sacrificing. I reckon if you have a former player with a son you want to draft, then let the club draft him," he said.

"We're not talking about forever. If you are looking at losing high draft picks for three years then relax the father-son rule for five years."

While several clubs have proposed the new Gold Coast and Sydney teams be eliminated from the father-son bidding system, only North put forward the games requirement reduction proposal.

Should the AFL approve the change it would be the 13th change to the rule since it was introduced in 1967. North Melbourne is anticipating several forthcoming father-son opportunities, notably the offspring of 217-game centre half-back Ian Fairley who has two sons.

Football operations general manager Donald McDonald has a talented 13-year old son and also played the required number of games for the Kangaroos. Laidley, the father of a 17-year-old TAC Cup footballer, misses out on the current cut-off by one game. Laidley played 99 games for North Melbourne.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/fatherson-rule-to-ease/2008/05/20/1211182803000.html

Personally I see 50 games as too few. However, I do think some other things (such as time spent on the list, club and league awards) should count towards the games limit.

And it looks like the AFL's initial draft concessions for the new clubs was an ambit claim to give it bargaining power - as many predicted.

 

[JeffDunne]

The AFL's working party overseeing the creation of two new playing lists will meet for the first time next week and includes representatives from the Brisbane Lions, Collingwood, Fremantle, Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney.

Qld, NSW, WA, Vic, Vic country & Tassie all get representation but none from SA?

 

[Ants]

Well, I only noticed that Essendon wasn't there!

 

[TheMase]

Qld, NSW, WA, Vic, Vic country & Tassie all get representation but none from SA?

It says 'includes'. Not 'limited to'.

 

[LordLucifer]

FFS, when will they ever leave something alone and stop fiddling with them.

The way it was set up prior was fine yet they have dabbled and forked it up, and now they are going to rejig it a third time. Talk about incompetence & mismanagement !!

I started a thread back in April about this whole thing stating how the Bulldogs are going to get ripped off blind.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=428318

Now if they go through with these proposed changes, the Doggies will have a right to take the AFL to court, this will be nothing short of discrimination !!

 

[strategy]

Its all to suit the Victorian sides again

 

[AngelEyes]

FFS, when will they ever leave something alone and stop fiddling with them.

The way it was set up prior was fine yet they have dabbled and forked it up, and now they are going to rejig it a third time. Talk about incompetence & mismanagement !!

I started a thread back in April about this whole thing stating how the Bulldogs are going to get ripped off blind.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=428318

Now if they go through with these proposed changes, the Doggies will have a right to take the AFL to court, this will be nothing short of discrimination !!

Everyone has the right to take someone to court. However, that doesn't mean they stand a chance in hell.

I don't think the AFL should make any changes. A minimum of 100 games is a good amount. I don't think 50 games is enough. Fifty games can be as little as two seasons and is very acheivable in three.

Just leave the rules the same for once! Do you reckon the Roos want it changed because of Laidley's son?

 

[markr]

Perhaps link the bidding to how many games the father played. Like a 200 gamer's son can't get bid anything higher than a third rounder, a 100 gamer can't go higher than a second rounder and a 50 gamer can be bid up to a first rounder.

That would ensure that a legend's sons would play for his club, while blokes that just had a 50 odd games they would get him but would need to pay what he's worth.

 

[fusion]

Perhaps link the bidding to how many games the father played. Like a 200 gamer's son can't get bid anything higher than a third rounder, a 100 gamer can't go higher than a second rounder and a 50 gamer can be bid up to a first rounder.

That won't happen - they are trying to make the draft more even with the bidding system, and that would be a reversal by the AFL.

I think 100 games is a reasonable amount - 50 does seem too few. There will always be players who miss out, as a limit has to be set somewhere. With Laidley stuck on 99 games, and having a son at draft age, it does seem a bit harsh - but I bet there a heap of players who only played 49 games.

Should games coached also be taken into consideration? What if Kevin Sheedy had a son coming through the system - should he be eligible for Essendon (as well as Richmond)? I wouldn't have a problem with if they wanted to introduce that.

Overall, I don't have a big problem with the current system - but I can understand that with the bidding system, it does allow relaxation of the eligibility criteria, as market value has to be paid.

 

[Toxic Avenger]

I think they can alter this rule and still keep it fair. 100 games should still be a minimum number of games for the father to have played however you don't have to limit it to one club. As long as the father has played at least 50 games with a club then the son can choose to pick which club he wants to play for (like the Clokes).

Now that trading is a regular occurance, more and more players will probably end up between 100 - 200 games but over 2 or 3 clubs. Why should their sons miss out on this rule?

In most cases the son will probably end up at the club that the father played most of his games with or the club that the father was more stringly alligned too anyway.

 

[mark73]

Everyone has the right to take someone to court. However, that doesn't mean they stand a chance in hell.

I don't think the AFL should make any changes. A minimum of 100 games is a good amount. I don't think 50 games is enough. Fifty games can be as little as two seasons and is very acheivable in three.

Just leave the rules the same for once! Do you reckon the Roos want it changed because of Laidley's son?

No, I see it as a small way of making sure the other clubs have some recourse for when the two new teams will be raping the drafts. However, it doesn't surprise me that thats how you saw it.

 

[Cap]

Qld, NSW, WA, Vic, Vic country & Tassie all get representation but none from SA?

i think they were trying to see the look on Triggys face wen the rule rules have Gibbs and Co being eligible for the crows but a whole host of up and coming players not
Becasue that seems to go for us.

 

[rooboy]

Old man Gibbs would be spitting in his cornflakes reading that.As I am.

 

[CF]

They have changed the father son rule recently because Geelong was benefitting too much from it so they had to stop that. Now they want to go backwards because clubs are worried about not getting high draft picks while the new clubs establish themselves. This would be a hypocritical decision to the highest degree in my books.

I have never known an organisation that fiddles with the rules as much as the AFL.

 

[Altum Volantes]

I'm pretty Laidley's lad would be eligible for WCE as well as Dean played at least 50 games for the club.

 

[MarkT]

I am all for making it easier for sons to join their fathers club but if clubs are conned into thinking that is softens the concessions for the new clubs they don’t deserve any help. If the rules are relaxed for everyone then it is of no advantage to anyone. There may or may not be a few extra decent players able to be picked by the odd club but it applies equally to all and doesn’t change the player pool available to the existing clubs. The issue is access to the top picks over a period of time. The AFL seem to be considering addressing that which is a separate issue.

The F/S rule should be very simple. If a player’s old man played for a club at all he should be free to that club in addition to the senior list for his first 2 year contract but 100% in the salary cap from day 1. All that has to happen is some sort of statistically comparable SANFL and WAFL arrangement for Adelaide, Freo and WCE. Port should get access to Port players under the same rules as Vic clubs. When Adelaide and co have been in existence long enough the SANFL and WAFL rules should cease. Give a comparable player access deal to the new teams based on geography for a while to encourage local player use. GC get a zone and Brisbane get Fitzroy and Bears players. Western Sydney get a zone and Sydney get Sydney/South Melbourne players.

 

[Catsace]

Perhaps link the bidding to how many games the father played. Like a 200 gamer's son can't get bid anything higher than a third rounder, a 100 gamer can't go higher than a second rounder and a 50 gamer can be bid up to a first rounder.

That would ensure that a legend's sons would play for his club, while blokes that just had a 50 odd games they would get him but would need to pay what he's worth.

I'd be happy with that. Geelong's recent father/sons have been Woolnough (100+ games), Scarlett (180+ games) `David Clarke (200+ games) Gary Jr (240+ games) Tom Hawkins (180+ games) Mark Blake (170+ games) and now Donohue (100+ games). All of Geelong's father/son selections have been to genuine servants of the club.

 

[Catsace]

They have changed the father son rule recently because Geelong was benefitting too much from it so they had to stop that. Now they want to go backwards because clubs are worried about not getting high draft picks while the new clubs establish themselves. This would be a hypocritical decision to the highest degree in my books.

I have never known an organisation that fiddles with the rules as much as the AFL.

I would also suggest that despite Collingwood's success with T.Cloke, H.Shaw and a lesser extent R.Shaw, it is only because that Geelong have had success with Scarlett, Gary Jr and had also Mark Blake and at the time had Tom Hawkins lined up that the rule was changed to the bidding system. Basically changed because of the statistical fluke that Geelong's former players have talented sons who play footy.

I'm O.K with the bidding system, and to be honest i'm just happy the father/son rule exists anyway. I am sure fans of all clubs who have sons of former stars playing for them take an extra delight at their performance. Watching Gary (And Nathan) play is a thrill for me, having seen Gary Sr's entire career, we get to see the same name and the same thrills continue again just a decade later. Fantastic for footy fans in general.

 

[scooter600x]

I'd be happy with that. Geelong's recent father/sons have been Woolnough (100+ games), Scarlett (180+ games) `David Clarke (200+ games) Gary Jr (240+ games) Tom Hawkins (180+ games) Mark Blake (170+ games) and now Donohue (100+ games). All of Geelong's father/son selections have been to genuine servants of the club.

Tim Callan?

 

[Catsace]

Tim Callan?

He doesn't count anymore!!!!

 

[The Royal Sampler]

North Melbourne chief executive Eugene Arocca said his club would put its father-son proposal to the AFL on Friday. "Our footy department will get together to formalise our proposal," he said.

"There are various models we are looking at but personally I think anything lower than 50 games could dilute the meaning of father-son.

Has anyone heard any news arising from the meeting with the AFL today?

 

[doggiesin08]

They change the rule a year before we can get Cordy for a 3rd rounder and then maybe change again too late for us to have us eligible for Rance or Reid. Despite this I am happy with Ward and Everitt but it would have been nice to be presented the option.

 

[sootyfive]

I think they can alter this rule and still keep it fair. 100 games should still be a minimum number of games for the father to have played however you don't have to limit it to one club. As long as the father has played at least 50 games with a club then the son can choose to pick which club he wants to play for (like the Clokes).

Now that trading is a regular occurance, more and more players will probably end up between 100 - 200 games but over 2 or 3 clubs. Why should their sons miss out on this rule?

In most cases the son will probably end up at the club that the father played most of his games with or the club that the father was more stringly alligned too anyway.

 

[sootyfive]

Not so. Poor north missed out big time with josh kelly