Has the father-son rule change swung too far the other way?

[Theo X]

Melbourne got permission from the AFL to play Viney in the VFL for Casey with the assurance they'll take him in the draft (similar to GC with Swallow) and he ended up getting his jaw broken. The AFL should force Melbourne to use their first available pick (Dees aren't fooling anyone with their empty threats of not picking him anyway).

We know you're anti-Melbourne, and Vlad's a bit of a dictator but this is meant to be a serious discussion.

 

[Starburns_]

Does anyone have a definite answer whether Melbourne could be forced to use one of their compo picks on Viney if GC and GWS pass on him?

 

[Bluelegs]

Does anyone have a definite answer whether Melbourne could be forced to use one of their compo picks on Viney if GC and GWS pass on him?

We won't have to. Why would we? You take the best available. Viney is currently ranked mid to late top ten.

 

[Danair]

We know you're anti-Melbourne, and Vlad's a bit of a dictator but this is meant to be a serious discussion.

Swallow played for GC a year before he was drafted with the assurance they were going to use their first pick on him, they risked injury or a form slump, I see no difference with Viney playing for Casey so Melbourne should do the same.

I'm not "anti-Melbourne", I'm anti-tanking.

 

[CF]

But Geelong did get a massive leg up from F/S. Knowing Hawkins was in the third round meant they were able to draft Selwood.

At least we never tanked!

 

[Starburns_]

We won't have to. Why would we? You take the best available. Viney is currently ranked mid to late top ten.

No, I meant in the case that GWS and GC pass on him and someone between you and your mid-first round compo pick bids on him, would you have to use that pick on him, or your 2nd round pick? I've read before on here that compo picks are exempt from F/S bidding, but also read the opposite too. Just wondering if anyone knows which is correct?

 

[Bluelegs]

No, I meant in the case that GWS and GC pass on him and someone between you and your mid-first round compo pick bids on him, would you have to use that pick on him, or your 2nd round pick? I've read before on here that compo picks are exempt from F/S bidding, but also read the opposite too. Just wondering if anyone knows which is correct?

Well use our next pick, if we use 3 and 4 on other players the afl wont take a player off us.

 

[Tas]

Father-Son rule should be abolished.

After next year...

 

[GOAUS!]

The FS concept is one of the best rules concerning the draft. For these guys to be able to play for the same side as their old man would be a buzz for them. I played for the same country side as my grand dad and also my dad and all won flags. We all have a close connection to the club not many people will ever have and I can see the value in it.

If anything I believe they should lessen the games to 50 needed before they qualify.

As for the picks needed to get these kids into their side, I like the current rules as it puts a better value on the kids worth instead of getting them too cheaply.

The process isn't perfect, it never will be, however the current rules are fairer while making the lead up to the selection process intriguing.

Would have been handy a few years ago, the dogs would have picked up Ben and Sam Reid.

 

[blitzer]

The father-son rule is great in its current form, one of the few things the AFL has got right. The advantage to clubs is minimal (in most circumstances, sure some clubs can get lucky but you can get lucky in the draft itself too) whilst still preserving the link of clubs to their previous players. It's a great, historical tradition of our game.

Melbourne just simply need to decide if Viney's worth their first pick. If he's not then they can make the somewhat cold-blooded decision to pick another kid they rated higher after already committing to Viney or else follow through with their original intentions and get a highly rated kid in Viney. Either way I don't see Melbourne really suffering, they just want to be greedy and have their cake and eat it too, quite frankly they've had loads of top picks in the last 10 years anyway, so I don't have a great deal of sympathy for them.

 

[Tulip]

We've pretty much, by allowing him to play for Casey, affirmed that he will play AFL next year. Much in the same way as you delist a player with the intention of putting them on the rookie list, bit hope another club will pick them up first.

Viney wasn't good today, I really want us to take him but we'll see how his carnival goes I'd say before speculating to seriously.

 

[Starburns_]

Well use our next pick, if we use 3 and 4 on other players the afl wont take a player off us.

Where did I say the AFL would take a player off you? So you're saying you'd use the mid-round compo on him?

 

[Andy_Mac]

Swallow played for GC a year before he was drafted with the assurance they were going to use their first pick on him, they risked injury or a form slump, I see no difference with Viney playing for Casey so Melbourne should do the same.

I'm not "anti-Melbourne", I'm anti-tanking.

He's allowed to play as we've committed to drafting him, that doesn't mean that we can't allow ourselves to be outbid. Either way he's playing afl footy next year.

 

[pazza]

would have more bullshit like WCE who are training potential father-sons and putting them into "development" programs before high school has even started.

And what is wrong with that? I can't see a problem - perhaps in 10 years time, Fremantle could do it themselves (they should have played Bootsma the older more and they'd have him now!)

 

[El_Scorcho]

I absolutely love the concept of the rule, and it's executed pretty well at the moment.

Ultimately if a player is worth a fair bit then other clubs will bid for him and you'll be forced to pay pretty close to market value, which is absolutely fair enough. It ensures sons get to the clubs of their fathers without giving the Geelong advantage. If you aren't willing to give up a high pick then the son goes to a club that values him more.

 

[themidlandmaster]

Does anyone have a definite answer whether Melbourne could be forced to use one of their compo picks on Viney if GC and GWS pass on him?

Compo picks are not applicable to the father son rule. Going on the current ladder, is GWS and GC do not bid, then melbourne will use their second round pick.

 

[Starburns_]

Compo picks are not applicable to the father son rule. Going on the current ladder, is GWS and GC do not bid, then melbourne will use their second round pick.

Thanks, can they be traded?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Thanks, can they be traded?

Father son bidding occurs prior to trade week, which is to stop a club say trading their first and second round picks and then only having to use their third rounder on a FS. So by the time trade week starts all the F/S is done.

 

[Igloo]

Thanks, can they be traded?

Compo picks? Yes. But everything to do with F/S is done before trade week, if you mean to include it in that.

 

[Starburns_]

Father son bidding occurs prior to trade week, which is to stop a club say trading their first and second round picks and then only having to use their third rounder on a FS. So by the time trade week starts all the F/S is done.

Yeah, I'm just wondering if GWS finish above Melbourne. Whether it's possible for Melbourne and GC to come to some sort of understanding (much like the "Veale deal") where GC pass on bidding for Viney and a favourable trade for the suns is made. Due to the price of Viney dropping, it becomes a win-win for both.

I know it's draft tampering, but who's to say they wouldn't consider it?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Yeah, I'm just wondering if GWS finish above Melbourne. Whether it's possible for Melbourne and GC to come to some sort of understanding (much like the "Veale deal") where GC pass on bidding for Viney and a favourable trade for the suns is made. Due to the price of Viney dropping, it becomes a win-win for both.

I know it's draft tampering, but who's to say they wouldn't consider it?

Depends how much they veil it.

I.e. if it's a deal where the Suns win but it's still an actual deal, i.e. we will trade you player x for a 2nd rounder (when that player is really worth a 1st) if you avoid Viney, maybe, if it's just giving GC picks (or whatever) for nothing then it won't get through, obviously.

I would imagine that either way the afl will be all over it as they'll know the potential for some tampering here, so it would have to be a pretty smartly structured deal to get through.

 

[Starburns_]

Depends how much they veil it.

I.e. if it's a deal where the Suns win but it's still an actual deal, i.e. we will trade you player x for a 2nd rounder (when that player is really worth a 1st) if you avoid Viney, maybe, if it's just giving GC picks (or whatever) for nothing then it won't get through, obviously.

I would imagine that either way the afl will be all over it as they'll know the potential for some tampering here, so it would have to be a pretty smartly structured deal to get through.

Yeah, it would have to be similar to what you're describing. It would be easier if they were doing such a deal with GWS, because GWS have the mini-draft picks to offload, but that scenario requires GC to finish 16th (and GWS to finish last), which is unlikely.

 

[festa1234]

http://www.heraldsun...f-1226412715126





"He (Todd) has got his lips shut about a few things, I don't think he's telling me too much," Viney said.


"He's just told me that if they don't reckon I'm worth what they have to use, then they won't pick me.


"I've just got to try and work hard this year and hopefully make it worthwhile at the pick."


A likely first round bid from Greater Western Sydney will mean the Dees will have to use their first choice, (currently No. 3) to pick the 178cm clearance machine.


While Viney said he would be "initially disappointed" to leave the club he has been training at in part for the past two years, the under-18 gem was happy to get an opportunity at any AFL club.

 

[Andy_Mac]

Your call Kevin.

 

[jknothimjustafan]

I always thought a 2nd rounder was about right. 3rd rounder not enough, current rule too much.