-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Father - Son's
- Thread starter opng
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #2
Yes Darcy Daniher and Jake Williams but the only problem is Essendon and Carlton are also in contention to get these players.
we could have had williams this year if we wanted, i doubt he will come into our calculations.
daniher looks the goods apparently but can't see him knocking back the bombers when he lives around the corner.
i thought david murphy had a promising son coming through the ranks, although i'm not sure how old he is
daniher looks the goods apparently but can't see him knocking back the bombers when he lives around the corner.
i thought david murphy had a promising son coming through the ranks, although i'm not sure how old he is
Roosey's eldest (14) should be within 4yrs?
Hopes *crosses fingers*
Hopes *crosses fingers*
Roosey's eldest (14) should be within 4yrs?
Hopes *crosses fingers*
He's 14 already? Wow, time surely passes by.
He'll play for the Swans for sure. What about his other son? Does he also play AFL?
14?
He doesn't look 14.. more like 10.
He doesn't look 14.. more like 10.
Get Smart 86
Senior List
Will be in Year 7 at school this year.
Makes him either 12 or 13.
Makes him either 12 or 13.
Get Smart 86
Senior List
Also,
if he does become a good enough player, wouldn't Brisbane get to have go at him too, through their links with Fitzroy.
if he does become a good enough player, wouldn't Brisbane get to have go at him too, through their links with Fitzroy.
- Banned
- #9
I think both teams would be eligible for Roos' son.
- Thread starter
- #10
Roosey's eldest (14) should be within 4yrs?
Hopes *crosses fingers*
Roosey's son would be eligble for lions through the games he played for fitzroy e.g jonathon brown(father played required games for fitzroy), but how is he eligble for sydney i thought it was your father had to play 100 games for a club, didnt know anything about coaching record. Roos didnt play 100 games for sydney did he?
- Banned
- #11
I think Roos played more than 100 games but I'm not 100% certain though.
Aw, year 7. That's so cute!
Haha ... thus the cross finder remark....sorry
Dylan plays in the under 14 boys but is not that old 12-13
So sad! Paul Roos only played 87 games for Sydney.
The coupla years in BrisVegas will do him good!
- Banned
- #16
- Banned
- #18
For a son to be eligible to play for the Swans, the father has to play at least 100 games for the Swans.
- Thread starter
- #19
I thought it was your father had to play 100 games and thats it, i find it reducules because say kevin sheedy had a son young enough he would only be eligble for richmond under father - son although he has spent a quarter of his life with the bombers. As for roosey's son going to bris there is a way around it he could be nominated for one of those nsw/sydney scholarships with sydney
Wollongong Represent
Debutant
That's how they'll get anyone in the region over the next few years. There is no doubt that Sydney will probably have the two most talented kids in their program each year. Bothon-Noonan and Craig Bird this year is a fair combo. The other clubs will always be left to pick up the Swans scraps.
Scott Reed was (still is) one very highly regarded and apparently the Swans chased him hard. But he chose to align himself with Collingwood instead of his local team, one he apparently even supports. So it is not a fait-accompli that the Swans will automatically get the cream of the crop.
As for Bird, he may well become a handy AFL player but had he been an obvious star in the making, someone would have drafted him this year, where he was available to all 16 clubs.
As far as Roosey's kids go, there is every chance that the FS will have changed between now and when they become eligible. In particular, there is talk of introducing some kind of bidding system to allocate the true market value to these players, eliminating the situation where clubs like Geelong (Hawkins in 2006), Kangas (Smith in 2005), Eagles (Morton in 2004), Lions (Murphy in 2005 had he not turned them down) pick up top-10 ranked players for practically nothing. If such a system is adopted, it is possible that the qualification periods may be slightly relaxed, since the rule would be more about sentiment and less about supporting a random (and thus inequitable) recruitment anomoly.
Because the idea is to ensure that kids can play for the same club as their father. Not that clubs can get essentially free access to star players.
- Thread starter
- #24
But you just said what i basically said "Because the idea is to ensure that kids can play for the same club as their father." So if you have a bidding sytem then you defeat the perpose of having a father-son rule, now on the other hand if you had to nominate them at say 15 like the new NSW scholarship rule and then have to have them upgraded to full or rookie list status that would be a different story it would show commitment by each club not just "grab him, hes come good" mentality. I do like the idea of a father-son coach rule but it would have to more games than 100, say maybe 200-250.
No, you don't seem to understand how the bidding system would work.
If, say, Sydney nominated Jake Williams (let's pretend he can't also go to Carlton) as a fifth-round selection, the other clubs would be invited to make 'bids' with their selections from earlier rounds. If another club rated him as highly as a second-round pick, then Sydney would be able to 'match' that 'offer' by nominating him with their second-round pick. If they choose not to do so, then the other club is required to choose him at that pick (to prevent clubs making 'bids' for pure nuisance-value reasons). So even if the other club has pick 19 and Sydney pick 32, because of the father-son rule Sydney's gets to name him at that pick.
That way Jake Williams goes in the round of the draft that best reflects his ranking amongst available teenagers, whilst still going to his Dad's club.
Similar threads
- Poll
