Father sons 2014

Remove this Banner Ad

dlanod said:
True. They could disband Essendon completely, salt the earth and piss on the ashes at Windy Hill. I doubt he'll want to play there then. I hear salted earth is hell on the knees.

Or we could limit ourselves to discussing what happens within the current penalties given this is the D&T board, not the "is anything more going to happen to Essendon" board.

Personally I suspect that he will nominate for the draft. Most kids these days would, and if he goes to the VFL and doesn't live up to expectations or does a knee all of a sudden he might not even get a chance at the AFL. But if he doesn't nominate, it won't be draft tampering.
Click to expand...

Agree with the last part of the post - not sure about salt and earth part - I am sure they have something to help wth the knee problems.:thumbsu:
 
Wild Bill said:
Looks a lot like draft tampering to me. Wouldn't essendon be better off taking their punishment and moving on in a direction that is within the rules every other team plays within?

Also how sure are people that the kid is desparate to play for essendon? Unless he lived in a cave in 2013 I am sure he is up to speed on what the club has been involved in.
Click to expand...

Actually not everyone shares your opinions on Essendon, not even North's new recruit Trent Dumont:
"I'd love to get drafted by Essendon because it's a great club and to be coached by Hird one day would be a nice bonus,'' Dumont said.
Click to expand...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/w...ful-trent-dumont/story-fnig5e6k-1226759278800
But yeah I reckon Long will nominate next year and take his chances.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Wild Bill said:
What else could the kid say when asked about potentially getting recruited to ess? The good thing is it won't take long to un-essendon him.

Thank goodness Dodo got involved and picked Merrett. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...

He could say "I'd be thrilled to play at any AFL club." I feel for the kid - you just know it broke his heart when he slipped to Essendon's pick and they didn't take him.
 
Wild Bill

as an Essendon supporter who frequents this drafts & trading board, I would be speaking on behalf of all my fellow Essendon supporters in saying we would appreciate it if you could be subjective and not drag the whole ASADA saga onto this board.

As a former mod of this very board, we were thrilled to have kept it such a clean place, somewhere posters could escape from all that bulls***. From now on could you please just post about the subject and not take snide, backhanding comments towards Essendon ("You would hope that he is a 3rd round prospect or you won't get him this year") knowing full well it is a touchy subject with us.

Thank you


Essendon supporters
 
Wild Bill said:
You would hope that he is a 3rd round prospect or you won't get him this year. What type of player is he? Quick midfielder?
Click to expand...

Yoda_ - what was the issue with the orignial post? This was a factual post. The other crap comes from poor responses to it. Start tagging your own posters in that have posted crap on here.
 
Slax said:
And no player is forced to accept a to be selected under Father-Son either, refer Marc Murphy.
Click to expand...

It goes either way.

Essendon supporters have been following his progress and he seems to be highly rated, hence we continue to grasp at straws hoping for the best case scenario and we get him.
 
Wild Bill said:
Yoda_ - what was the issue with the orignial post? This was a factual post. The other crap comes from poor responses to it. Start tagging your own posters in that have posted crap on here.
Click to expand...

Like I mentioned, it may be the truth, but having noticed you've been in the centre of stoushes in the past, you should be well aware that it is a touchy subject and one Essendon fans will get up on there high horses about.
 
Slax said:
And no player is forced to accept a to be selected under Father-Son either, refer Marc Murphy.
Click to expand...

Correct - forgot about Murphy opting to go to the Blues instead of Brisbane - would have been interesting to see what he would have done if another interstate side had the number 1 draft pick.
 
Yoda_ said:
Like I mentioned, it may be the truth, but having noticed you've been in the centre of stoushes in the past, you should be well aware that it is a touchy subject and one Essendon fans will get up on there high horses about.
Click to expand...

Fair enough - will do my best to keep you guys off any horses.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bidding system

In 2007 the AFL made a major amendment for the father-son rule, establishing a bidding system to determine which draft pick a club must give up to secure the potential recruit. The current system works as follows:
  • 1. Individual clubs are free to nominate potential father-son recruits within the eligibility guidelines below.
  • 2. A meeting is held on the Monday before the start of trade week where clubs can bid for the nominated players. Each club has the option to bid, in reverse ladder order, for the nominated players.
  • 3. If a bid is made, the club that nominated the father-son player must use its next available selection if it wishes to retain its hold on that player. If a club nominating the father-son player declines to match the selection nominated, the club with the successful bid must use that selection at the Draft to select the player.
  • 4. Any club that makes a successful bid on a father-son selection must commit to pick the player they nominate.
  • 5. If no bid is made by another club, the club that nominated the father-son eligible player will forfeit its last selection in the draft to select the player.
So therefore, couldn't Essendon use their 3rd round pick on Jake Long if another club bids in the first or second rounds?
I recall Port bid Pick 7 (1st round) on Jack Viney, and we were able to match it with Pick 26 (2nd round).
 
Yoda_ said:
You obviously know your stuff, but keep the whole drugs saga off here if you could in the future. :thumbsu:
Click to expand...

Sweet - I just asked Knightmare about him as he did not have Long in the 1st 50 in his 2014 mock draft. KM has a good handle on the kids that are coming through.

Interesting he had Waterman at 6 and Stretch at 13. Looks like these 2 F/S are really highly rated.
 
YouDontKnowJack said:
Bidding system

In 2007 the AFL made a major amendment for the father-son rule, establishing a bidding system to determine which draft pick a club must give up to secure the potential recruit. The current system works as follows:
  • 1. Individual clubs are free to nominate potential father-son recruits within the eligibility guidelines below.
  • 2. A meeting is held on the Monday before the start of trade week where clubs can bid for the nominated players. Each club has the option to bid, in reverse ladder order, for the nominated players.
  • 3. If a bid is made, the club that nominated the father-son player must use its next available selection if it wishes to retain its hold on that player. If a club nominating the father-son player declines to match the selection nominated, the club with the successful bid must use that selection at the Draft to select the player.
  • 4. Any club that makes a successful bid on a father-son selection must commit to pick the player they nominate.
  • 5. If no bid is made by another club, the club that nominated the father-son eligible player will forfeit its last selection in the draft to select the player.
So therefore, couldn't Essendon use their 3rd round pick on Jake Long if another club bids in the first or second rounds?

I recall Port bid Pick 7 (1st round) on Jack Viney, and we were able to match it with Pick 26 (2nd round).
Click to expand...

No, an article saying that they can't do this already been linked in this thread. Presumably this was done specifically to close the loophole of getting a first round talent for a third rounder because they'd been sanctioned.
 
Wild Bill said:
Sweet - I just asked Knightmare about him as he did not have Long in the 1st 50 in his 2014 mock draft. KM has a good handle on the kids that are coming through.

Interesting he had Waterman at 6 and Stretch at 13. Looks like these 2 F/S are really highly rated.
Click to expand...
Just had feedback from a couple of people who have strong links inside essendon football department and they've said no chance on using round 3 pick on him unless he has some sort of unbelievable development this year. They would consider a late pick though as F/S bring out good feelings amongst members and final round picks are generally a massive gamble anyway.
 
Wild Bill said:
Because if any teams use a 1st or 2nd round bid the bombers will lose him. Part of their sanctions. 3rd round bid is their best bid - they can not even trade to get a 1st or 2nd round and use that.
Click to expand...

Not sure that's quite right. If we finish 8th and a team who finishes 6th bids for him in the second round we should rightfully be allowed to use our third round pick on Long.

Although I've heard nothing to suggest that Long is anywhere being drafted in the first two rounds.
 
Yoda_ said:
Like I mentioned, it may be the truth, but having noticed you've been in the centre of stoushes in the past, you should be well aware that it is a touchy subject and one Essendon fans will get up on there high horses about.
Click to expand...

Personally I think that's a problem for Essendon posters. We can't all be stepping on eggshells and around the facts just to avoid ruffling the sensibilities of Essendon posters. How precious! I wasn't aware of the F/S restrictions that the Dons were subject to this year, so I find the information both educational and highly relevant to both the thread and board. To censure what is otherwise relevant info on the basis of it being tied into the supplement scandal is just very poor reasoning IMO.
 
Monkey King said:
Personally I think that's a problem for Essendon posters. We can't all be stepping on eggshells and around the facts just to avoid ruffling the sensibilities of Essendon posters. How precious! I wasn't aware of the F/S restrictions that the Dons were subject to this year, so I find the information both educational and highly relevant to both the thread and board. To censure what is otherwise relevant info on the basis of it being tied into the supplement scandal is just very poor reasoning IMO.
Click to expand...


I will disagree - We have a dedicated board ( HTB ) and each club has there own dedicated thread to discuss the supplement scandal. The rest of BF should be supplement free.
 
yaco55 said:
I will disagree - We have a dedicated board ( HTB ) and each club has there own dedicated thread to discuss the supplement scandal. The rest of BF should be supplement free.
Click to expand...

You can disagree all you want, but I think that's nothing more than blind censorship. Here we have a F/S thread and information presented that is completely pertinent to the thread topic. I don't give a crap about the supplement scandal and don't visit the sub-forum or discussions, but I am interested in how the draft and F/S selections might play out. To shut down relevant info solely on the basis that its foundation lies in the penalties your club copped is ridiculous beyond words.
 
So, leaving aside the ASADA board post issues, the upshot with the position with regard to Essendon is as Wild Bill described.
 
yaco55 said:
Its simple - Its up to the player to decide if he nominates for the draft - And according to the BF draft experts, Long doesn't feature in the top 50 at this stage.
Click to expand...



Maybe he could pull a Jacob Brennan and be taken with Essendon's last pick.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Father sons 2014

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top