Father - Son's in this years tac or underage leagues

[CF]

leave the rule alone. It's a good rule that helps create club tradition. The people complaining that Hawkins was an unfair pick because Geelong only had to use their 3rd round pick is silly. If a top 5 player was eligible to come to your club under F/S would you be complaining? I think not.

Let's also remember that not all great footballers come from the top 10 of the draft. James Hird springs to mind. Just because a player is top 10 doesn't automatically guarantee he will be a star of the game.

 

[jimmy35]

Leave it alone or abolish it . One or the other , but personally I'm in favour of leaving it as it stands . It keeps some of the tradition , that is slowly dying out of the game , still in the game .
The only thing that needs to be looked at in my opinion is the criteria for the interstate clubs that are disadvantaged at the moment .

Besides , we've got a little Jett warming up on the runway .

 

[opng]

Get what your saying, but Lets take a different player. Say West Coast bid for Tom Hawkins, geelong would then only have had to use pick 25 odd (if west coast bid pick 16), but if Essendon wanted him with their first rounder, they would make geelong use pick 7. I like the sound of a bidding system, but lets make it second rounder as the highest. That way, the club with the father son selection can still get some benefits....

No im sorry your calculations are out under the system that is being advocated geelong would have to match that bid by west coast(1st round , pick 16) with their first round pick, No.7 (1st round), yes i do totally agree the outcome if essendon bid their 1st round, a club should not have it in their favour in some circumstances and not others it has to be a level playing field, under the bidding system that i would favour if we had to have one, geelongs matching of west coast would be pick23 and the essendon bid would be the same, this is why i favour this system because the advantage is with the club that is eligble to pick the FS and yes it does make the club pay at a reasonable price for the player. If the other bidding system came in i would be willing to say the FS rule would be scapped in five years. And then there is the legal side of it.

 

[Jabso]

The bidding sysem would ruin it. Imagine if Carlton finished last and had #1 pick. Jack Silvagni is tipped to be a top 10 prospect. Essendon finished first and have pick #16. Just to spite Carlton, Essendon or any other club for that matter would bid with no full intentions of signing Jack, just the intention of making sure Carlton have to use their number 1 pick. As much as I hate Carlton, and as much as that would amuse me, it is just stupid, the f/s rule is about as fair as it can be, why give clubs the chance to rort the system.

 

[opng]

The bidding sysem would ruin it. Imagine if Carlton finished last and had #1 pick. Jack Silvagni is tipped to be a top 10 prospect. Essendon finished first and have pick #16. Just to spite Carlton, Essendon or any other club for that matter would bid with no full intentions of signing Jack, just the intention of making sure Carlton have to use their number 1 pick. As much as I hate Carlton, and as much as that would amuse me, it is just stupid, the f/s rule is about as fair as it can be, why give clubs the chance to rort the system.

this why i said if you have to have a bidding sytem make it closest but the FS's club next highest pick in this case pick 17.

 

[DanA]

I reckon the best option would be all those who have a higher pick than you can nominate for the player (eg: if Geelong has pick 7 then 1-6 could nominate for Hawkins and highest nominated pick gets him if you don't take him at 7. If anyone below pick 7 nominates him you can pick him up in the second round). Still gives an advantage to F/S but would mean Geelong would have to use first round for a player like Hawkins.

 

[EB&W Pieman]

Just to spite Carlton, Essendon or any other club for that matter would bid with no full intentions of signing Jack

The rule would HAVE to stipulate that the counter-bidding club would have no option but to take the kid with their nominated selction if the f/s club decided not to.

 

[Whispers]

No, it means that as an Essondon suppoter he was 6 when Steve Wally Wallis played his last game.....against the bombers....if his kid is half the player his dad was I'd sign him up

I reckon I was at Kardinia Park when Wallis played his 250th game for the Doggies. Underated footballer along with Peter Foster who also played for the dogs!

 

[j-ham]

I can guarantee a few changes to the father son rule this year.

There wont be any Tom Hawkins type kids going for a 3rd rounder this year.

You've changed your tune a little.

 

[krisholio14]

for gods sake leave it as is. people are whingeing because we got hawkins with a third rounder and he 'would have been a top five pick'. fair dinkum is it a given hes going to be a star? sure i think he will be, but its not a monty.

lord we have had some success with f/s, but more failures. i mean sure we have got gary ablett and matty scarlett out of it, but then we also took guys like clarke and woolnough who for one reason or another arent playing league footy no more and mark blake, tim callan and nate ablett who are still to prove they are regular senior footballers yet.

and just on the original point of the thread, we will be giving scratcher neals son jacob a good look.

 

[Gets!]

You've changed your tune a little.

Please find a post of mine where I said there would be no changes to the father son rule in 2007

 

[opng]

Another thing with the FS rule has now been altered with the NSW scholarship sceme, if you come under that system a player has a bit more choice where he goes. I'd just like to add that im in favour of the NSW scholarship. So if tom hawkins had been in the sceme he might not have ended up at the cats or the cats could have bypassed the third round pick and taken him for virtually nothing. And this is the change i am in favour of, making it exactly the same as that system because it makes clubs show a bit more commitment instead of a player coming good and taking him. A club has to show some commitment to the boy then pays him a few dollars and has the chance to upgrade him to rookie or full list status. And that their eligbility status/rules are when they are born,e.g chris judd has a son now and hes eligble for the eagles for ever and it cant change at the last minute.

 

[krisholio14]

Another thing with the FS rule has now been altered with the NSW scholarship sceme, if you come under that system a player has a bit more choice where he goes. I'd just like to add that im in favour of the NSW scholarship. So if tom hawkins had been in the sceme he might not have ended up at the cats or the cats could have bypassed the third round pick and taken him for virtually nothing. And this is the change i am in favour of, making it exactly the same as that system because it makes clubs show a bit more commitment instead of a player coming good and taking him. A club has to show some commitment to the boy then pays him a few dollars and has the chance to upgrade him to rookie or full list status. And that their eligbility status/rules are when they are born,e.g chris judd has a son now and hes eligble for the eagles for ever and it cant change at the last minute.

had this been the case, we would have got tommy to play in the under 18's champs for nsw and claimed him for nothing that way. too easy. and you must remember that tommy has ALWAYS wanted to play league footy for us, so theres no chance of anyone else snaffling him.

 

[opng]

had this been the case, we would have got tommy to play in the under 18's champs for nsw and claimed him for nothing that way. too easy. and you must remember that tommy has ALWAYS wanted to play league footy for us, so theres no chance of anyone else snaffling him.

just using hawkins as an example, thats exaclty what the cats could have done if he was eligble for NSW. It really is such a different FS son rule for NSW players now.

 

[krisholio14]

just using hawkins as an example, thats exaclty what the cats could have done if he was eligble for NSW. It really is such a different FS son rule for NSW players now.

the point im making is that other clubs are bleating because we picked up a 'top 5' player with a third round pick and are calling for rule changes. if we had wanted to, we could have jigged the system to get him for nothing and totally within the rules. so i dont see why we need to change the f/s rule just because we got a possible high pick with a lower one. he hasnt played a game yet either, but it seems theres a lot of clubs out there who think hes going to go alright.

 

[opng]

the point im making is that other clubs are bleating because we picked up a 'top 5' player with a third round pick and are calling for rule changes. if we had wanted to, we could have jigged the system to get him for nothing and totally within the rules. so i dont see why we need to change the f/s rule just because we got a possible high pick with a lower one. he hasnt played a game yet either, but it seems theres a lot of clubs out there who think hes going to go alright.

Yep i totally agree on everything you've said except if you wanted to "jig" the system you couldnt have under the NSW scholarship sceme at the moment, im pretty sure there's a qualifacation period, he couldnt have just went and played for the NSW underage side and qualified, its more like in the next 3 years that FS's will be effected. But the only change ive ever called for is that the FS selection criteria is for when he was born and that clubs have to commit to a possible FS when the player is around 15 just like the NSW scholarship and that way clubs have to show some commitment or the FS goes into the draft pool. you could always make it when the player is signed under that sceme the club commits its third round selection when the FS is eligble to be drafted. Atleast clubs will have to think a bit more about FS selections and not wait for the kid to come good. E.g sydney had david bolton's two sons as possible selections a few years ago and instead of waiting to see if they improved at the last minute they would have had to show a bit more interest earlier in their career and would have to have put a bit more thought into its possible selection of them.

 

[Weaver]

just using hawkins as an example, thats exaclty what the cats could have done if he was eligble for NSW. It really is such a different FS son rule for NSW players now.

Worth mentioning that Hawkins is from just over the border and so not covered by the NSW scheme which basically applies to guys from North of Wagga and is aimed more at Sydney, Wollongong, Newcastle etc.

 

[Philhawk]

Weaver, what are your thoughts on Ben Kennedy?

 

[opng]

Worth mentioning that Hawkins is from just over the border and so not covered by the NSW scheme which basically applies to guys from North of Wagga and is aimed more at Sydney, Wollongong, Newcastle etc.

Yep i totally agree on everything you've said except if you wanted to "jig" the system you couldnt have under the NSW scholarship sceme at the moment, im pretty sure there's a qualifacation period, he couldnt have just went and played for the NSW underage side and qualified, its more like in the next 3 years that FS's will be effected. But the only change ive ever called for is that the FS selection criteria is for when he was born and that clubs have to commit to a possible FS when the player is around 15 just like the NSW scholarship and that way clubs have to show some commitment or the FS goes into the draft pool. you could always make it when the player is signed under that sceme the club commits its third round selection when the FS is eligble to be drafted. Atleast clubs will have to think a bit more about FS selections and not wait for the kid to come good. E.g sydney had david bolton's two sons as possible selections a few years ago and instead of waiting to see if they improved at the last minute they would have had to show a bit more interest earlier in their career and would have to have put a bit more thought into its possible selection of them.

 

[GeeCat]

and just on the original point of the thread, we will be giving scratcher neals son jacob a good look.

Scratcher's year was last year, where he impressed few. He'd still be eligible, but the attention shifts this season to Nankervis, Donohue, and to a lesser extent, Bairstow.

 

[opng]

Scratcher's year was last year, where he impressed few. He'd still be eligible, but the attention shifts this season to Nankervis, Donohue, and to a lesser extent, Bairstow.

how would you rate each of these FS's are any certanties to be drafted?

 

[rotto]

I think that the f/s should be changed to
1. give up a second round pick, then no club can pick them.
2. give up a third round pick, then other clubs can only pick f/s player in the first round.
3. give up a four round pick, then other clubs can only pick f/s player in the first 2 rounds
4. give up a five round pick, then other clubs can only pick f/s player in the first third rounds
5. if not pick in draft , then rookie listed without giving up a pick in the rookie draft.

Clubs can pick as many f/s players as they like. F/S players who are less than third round quality have a chance to go there father's club.

 

[GeeCat]

how would you rate each of these FS's are any certanties to be drafted?

Hard to say at this point in time.

Nankervis and Donohue are would-be bottom-ages, while Toby Bairstow's only really strutted his stuff in his local country leagues (as opposed to the WAFL).

The former two have fair junior football resumes to this point though.

 

[j-ham]

Please find a post of mine where I said there would be no changes to the father son rule in 2007

Way to(intentionally) misunderstand what I said.

 

[Gets!]

Way to(intentionally) misunderstand what I said.

I owned you.