No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[Mitchell Madness]

So right when the hawks are set to benefit from father-son picks, the league is going to change it...

 

[DogDaySonny]

Now you can trade future picks, you can't change the value of the picks for this year.

Clubs need 12 months notice on this.

I reckon 24 months notice. The notice needs to be based on how far out the scouting planning cycles run.

 

[Billyc]

So right when the hawks are set to benefit from father-son picks, the league is going to change it...

How are we set the benefit? This has nothing to do with Hawthorn. Carlton the one who this will hit.

Good policy change.

 

[Billyc]

In the least surprising news of all time, after spending years in bed with gambling companies and subjecting kids to their insidious advertising and influence, Gil McLachlan has taken on the job as CEO of Tabcorp.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

How are we set the benefit? This has nothing to do with Hawthorn. Carlton the one who this will hit.

Good policy change.

There are a bunch of highly talented kids eligible for father son for us, Percy Burgoyne a big one - massive hawks fan, currently playing sanfl

 

[Billyc]

There are a bunch of highly talented kids eligible for father son for us, Percy Burgoyne a big one - massive hawks fan, currently playing sanfl

Massive stretch.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Maybe it’s because I’m sentimental but I don’t see why F/S picks should be lumped in with academy ones. Clubs don’t get get multiple f/s picks year on year like the northern academy players. The Swans and Lions have enough history now to get F/S picks so they don’t need academies to compensate.

I get keeping kids in the AFL system which is why I think any academy player going in the first round shouldn’t come into matching they just go where picked. Interstate clubs who had them in the academy get a cash bonus from the league but the first round of the draft doesn’t get diluted. Father sons can have a similarish system where if one is good enough to go in the first round a team can try and take them but if they do then the f/s club can sacrifice their first draft pick (so long as it’s in round 1 or 2) for the player.

Yes, I do agree. The father son thing is quite perplexing to me.

I think it’s a simple fix which is that we revert to a similar system to what we had 20 years ago where our father son simply arrived on a list for a late pick regardless of how good they are.
The player is either draftable and the club takes them all they’re not and someone else does.

Shenanigans around clubs whingeing that they never had access to Nick Daicos is what really gets under my skin.
It’s like they are just choosing to be completely ****ing idiotically naïve and ignorant because everyone knows that they never had access to Nick and everyone knows that every Collingwood supporter knew that if that kid was good enough, he was going to Collingwood the moment he was born.

It’s really a simple as that. We all know that if a player gets to 100 games that their son is immediately eligible to that club under father son rules it’s not like this is new news.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

There are a bunch of highly talented kids eligible for father son for us, Percy Burgoyne a big one - massive hawks fan, currently playing sanfl

Yeah - long bow being drawn if you are claiming the AFL is out to get us over a policy change that will absolutely piss off their northern club pets. This is a league-wide decision not a evil villain plan to get us.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Yes, I do agree. The father son thing is quite perplexing to me.

I think it’s a simple fix which is that we revert to a similar system to what we had 20 years ago where our father son simply arrived on a list for a late pick regardless of how good they are.
The player is either draftable and the club takes them all they’re not and someone else does.

Shenanigans around clubs whingeing that they never had access to Nick Daicos is what really gets under my skin.
It’s like they are just choosing to be completely ****ing idiotically naïve and ignorant because everyone knows that they never had access to Nick and everyone knows that every Collingwood supporter new that if that kid was good enough, he was going to Collingwood the moment he was born.

It’s really a simple as that. We all know that if a player gets to 100 games that their son is immediately eligible to that club under father son rules it’s not like this is new news.

Plus you can't tell me that a majority of father/son picks who have grown up loving their father's club aren't going to be itching to be traded out if they get picked up by a floundering club in the draft. Sure, not all of them will - but if you think the go-home factor is bad with some players now it will be even worse for kids who have grown up assured they will play at their dad's club.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Yeah - long bow being drawn if you are claiming the AFL is out to get us over a policy change that will absolutely piss off their northern club pets. This is a league-wide decision not a evil villain plan to get us.

Not saying they're out to get us. I'm just saying every time we are set to benefit its just after another club has and they change the rules.

Geelong had half their players on the 10-year rule which had half their contracts out of the cap. It got changed after their 07 flag. In 2009 we had a bunch about to hit that mark

Neither are the league out to get us. Both are a Greek tragedy in terms of timing

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Not saying they're out to get us. I'm just saying every time we are set to benefit its just after another club has and they change the rules.

Geelong had half their players on the 10-year rule which had half their contracts out of the cap. It got changed after their 07 flag. In 2009 we had a bunch about to hit that mark

Neither are the league out to get us. Both are a Greek tragedy in terms of timing

Fair call - granted I reckon the Lions and Carlton have way more to lament on this one if the changes do come in this year. Watching Carlton suffer is a nice cushioning of any blow we might cop.

 

[cryptor]

Not saying they're out to get us. I'm just saying every time we are set to benefit its just after another club has and they change the rules.

Geelong had half their players on the 10-year rule which had half their contracts out of the cap. It got changed after their 07 flag. In 2009 we had a bunch about to hit that mark

Neither are the league out to get us. Both are a Greek tragedy in terms of timing

We got McCabe and Dear last year before the rule changed. Probably our best F/S haul to date. Perfect timing to pick up multiple F/S.

Any F/S we pick up this year is also largely unaffected as we hadn’t already lined up the picks we’d have used to match like other clubs have.

And finally, this rule change is likely going to make it a lot harder for Brisbane to be able to take Cooper Hodge if they have other academy players that will now cost them more to obtain. Similarly Port have multiple F/S possibilities this year so Ky is now more likely to make it to us.

If anything this change is great for us and the timing couldn’t be better.

 

[The Golden Glenferrie]

Should be the old way F/S was set up.

It was simple.

Now everything is about ****ing points and compo

 

[KermitJagger]

Should be the old way F/S was set up.

It was simple.

Now everything is about ****ing points and compo

The point system is by far the most annoying thing the AFL have ever brought in, if only for the conversation it creates.

Every year you've got someone complaining about giving up a Top 10 pick in points for a certain player, as though anyone with a Top 10 pick would trade it for 3 picks in the second round.

 

[scrim reaper]

I honestly couldn't care if father son picks just automatically appeared on your list, it's a unique and beautiful tradition in our game that contributes to clubs having a rich history that fans can truly feel invested in. Couldn't care less about Geelong winning a flag with heaps of them, in fact it makes it more palatable for mine. Same with Daicos and Darcy killing it at their respective clubs.

That said I am fine with the discount being removed so the price is steeper.

The academies are now completely overtuned though, I'm not much of a conspiracy guy in the slightest but it certainly feels as if Northern academies will continue as they are until GCS are gifted a flag.

 

[VernonSpots]

This is only a good thing. Making the "price" for F/S and Academy will do two things
1) ensure the Club actually pays a fair price and doesn't get a complete leg up. The "leg up" is already there by virtue of having ability to guarantee the selection, which has inherent value
2) Minimises risk of other clubs making early selections knowing the f/s club will just bid. That is, now heightened risk the club won't bid and you are "stuck" with a player you may not have wanted and who probably doesn't want to be there

 

[Billyc]

This is only a good thing. Making the "price" for F/S and Academy will do two things
1) ensure the Club actually pays a fair price and doesn't get a complete leg up. The "leg up" is already there by virtue of having ability to guarantee the selection, which has inherent value
2) Minimises risk of other clubs making early selections knowing the f/s club will just bid. That is, now heightened risk the club won't bid and you are "stuck" with a player you may not have wanted and who probably doesn't want to be there

Agree. The benefit of F/S and Academy is priority access. The discount on top is not fair.

 

[Lawsy]

Not saying they're out to get us. I'm just saying every time we are set to benefit its just after another club has and they change the rules.

Geelong had half their players on the 10-year rule which had half their contracts out of the cap. It got changed after their 07 flag. In 2009 we had a bunch about to hit that mark

Neither are the league out to get us. Both are a Greek tragedy in terms of timing

I'm pretty sure the 'Veteran Rule' was for 2 players to have 50% of their salary outside of the cap and every team was able to use the rule to benefit them as much as was possible.

In 2007, the cats wouldn't have had many, if any players eligible, maybe Harley. We had Crawf, Vanders and Dixon, I think guys like Buckley, Hird and Voss were still playing then so they would have been eligible.

I thought it was a good Salary Cap rule that helped keep veterans at 1 club. Were it still around, it would be hard to argue that we wouldn't have kept Hodge, Mitchell and Lewis around instead of helping them with a retirement fund at another club.

 

[hawkinoz]

Game of inches.

If Bailey Scott

8

Bailey Scott

Age

24

Ht

186cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

D/M

Career

Season

Last 5

D

10.6

3star

K

5.8

2star

HB

4.9

4star

M

3.1

3star

T

1.5

3star

MG

155.6

2star

D

8.0

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.5

3star

T

1.8

3star

MG

114.8

2star

D

11.8

3star

K

6.0

3star

HB

5.8

4star

M

3.6

4star

T

1.2

3star

MG

171.6

3star

had not played on, would Ump have called free for infringement. Given 2 people ran on to teh mark, I would ay a decent chance for that as other umps would have chipped in.

 

[smish]

Game of inches.

If Bailey Scott had not played on, would Ump have called free for infringement. Given 2 people ran on to teh mark, I would ay a decent chance for that as other umps would have chipped in.

It's play on or 50. Shouldn't have been any middle ground.

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

It's play on or 50. Shouldn't have been any middle ground.

It was never play on and should have been 50. Gerard Healy's commentary on this if you listen carefully, indciates he must have backed $$$$ collignwood on the day.

 

[smish]

It was never play on and should have been 50. Gerard Healy's commentary on this if you listen carefully, indciates he must have backed $$$$ collignwood on the day.

Scott moved quite substantially off his line

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Scott moved quite substantially off his line

LOL, what line?

The pies players were on top of him before he could even get back to form one.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

It was never play on and should have been 50. Gerard Healy's commentary on this if you listen carefully, indciates he must have backed $$$$ collignwood on the day.

Nah. He was playing on. Would've been. Loud as hell so he wouldn't have heard the whistle for the mark, neither would the pies players

He then proceeded to play on before any ump could pay 50 (you no longer have to take the full 50 if it is paid - play on is effectively advantage)

 

[scrim reaper]

AFL concedes umpire error late in Roos v Magpies thriller

The AFL has given its verdict on the umpiring in Collingwood's narrow win over North Melbourne

www.afl.com.au

boy oh boy wowee