Traded Jaeger O'Meara [traded to Hawthorn for pick 10 and GWS's 2017 2nd rd pick] - Part 2

[JackOutback]

Well, you can write this shit and that pinhead Landsberger has:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-26/afl-rejects-queries-over-approval-of-omeara-trade

The AFL is completely fine with the trade and has no problems with Hawthorn. At no point does it say we broke the rules.

The same AFL that said Essendon didn't cheat? They are always spinning to protect their image.

Note: not saying the two incidents are comparable.

 

[Jab]

Is this thread still going on *yawn*

The value of the OMaggot trade will not be known for years

 

[Suma Magic]

Then he clearly got it wrong.

The AFL's media relations manager Patrick Keane rejected any suggestion the League had allowed Hawthorn to work outside the rules.

"The full wording of the rule says it is to be treated as a net result," Keane told AFL.com.au.

"If you trade out a (future) first-round selection, you must have a (future) second-round selection.

"So therefore, once they traded in a second-round selection, they were then able to trade out either that second-round selection or their own second-round selection.

"The club still retains a second-round selection in next year's draft."

The published rule was consistent with his original statement. No one has ever seen the "full wording".

 

[Sixpence]

To be fair, Patrick Keane said that the rules prevented you trading your second. He said this after the end of the trade period.

They did admit there was a mistake around that, it should have been GWS' pick we traded rather than our own. Which ol' Gil and Keane have both said was negligible. We still have a future second round pick to use which is what they mainly care about. Funnily enough, the people who are up in arms over it don't realise that we'd be better holding onto our own as GWS are likely to finish above us next year.

 

[Procrastinator35]

The published rule was consistent with his original statement. No one has ever seen the "full wording".

Except the AFL.

It's interesting, because Dianod & I had a similar discussion the morning after the trade....I thought we'd traded our own out & reasoned that because we'd traded another 2017 2nd round pick in, that made it legal....But I was reading the clubs posted trade-scenario & not the AFL's....Turned out, the AFL one was wrong anyways.

 

[Scotland]

No one really knows what the rules are.

I don't think most people really care that Hawthorn traded out their 2nd pick while trading in another to replace it, but the AFL should at least put out a statement explaining their own rules more clearly. FWIW I think the reaction would've been stronger if they had traded in a 2nd round pick that is expected to be lower than what theirs will be, but that's an aside...

If you trade your future first, you can't trade your future second. Unless you trade in another - apparently. What about if you trade out your first then trade in somebody else's - are you then free to trade out of the second round?

 

[Procrastinator35]

No one really knows what the rules are.

I don't think most people really care that Hawthorn traded out their 2nd pick while trading in another to replace it, but the AFL should at least put out a statement explaining their own rules more clearly. FWIW I think the reaction would've been stronger if they had traded in a 2nd round pick that is expected to be lower than what theirs will be, but that's an aside...

If you trade your future first, you can't trade your future second. Unless you trade in another - apparently. What about if you trade out your first then trade in somebody else's - are you then free to trade out of the second round?

Obviously the 'overall net-result' is the key to it....So your imagined scenario above would be both viable & legal.

Also, it's impossible to know whose pick will be higher or lower, as you're dealing in future picks, prefaced upon a season yet to be played as yet.

 

[Scotland]

Obviously the 'overall net-result' is the key to it....So your imagined scenario above would be both viable & legal.

Also, it's impossible to know whose pick will be higher or lower, as you're dealing in future picks, prefaced upon a season yet to be played as yet.

I think the net result approach is perfectly fine. Future picks are a gamble.

To this point I think most people thought 'net result' applied to first round picks while second round picks was a prescriptive 'no you can't.

If it was me I'd just have the same rules for both.

 

[Procrastinator35]

I think the net result approach is perfectly fine. Future picks are a gamble.

To this point I think most people thought 'net result' applied to first round picks while second round picks was a prescriptive 'no you can't.

If it was me I'd just have the same rules for both.

I'd of thought 'net result' does apply to both, given the Cats were granted permission to trade out another first, for a second in exchange.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

O'Meara, Mearie, Me

In terms of knee injuries - ruptured patella tendons are a professional athlete's worst nightmare

Interesting that the Hawk medicos think they can get him back firing on all cylinders whereas 17 other clubs didn't want a bar of him

 

[Scotland]

I'd of thought 'net result' does apply to both, given the Cats were granted permission to trade out another first, for a second in exchange.

Geelong simply need to use 2 first rounders in a 4 year period and have two years left to do so.

Hawthorn trading out their future first and second was never really discussed in 500+ pages ITT until it happened.

All the AFL need to do is clarify the system to be as we've just discussed. It's not like they're going to reverse the trade and they can't punish a club for a trade that they approved.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Geelong simply need to use 2 first rounders in a 4 year period and have two years left to do so.

Hawthorn trading out their future first and second was never really discussed in 500+ pages ITT until it happened.

All the AFL need to do is clarify the system to be as we've just discussed. It's not like they're going to reverse the trade and they can't punish a club for a trade that they approved.

I don't think there is any hint of impropriety here, on behalf of the Hawks....This is a clear AFL administrative stuff-up.

But we can all derive a wee giggle, at Landsberger & Robbos expense....After all; FreepickHawthorn is their creation.

They also labelled this the 'dodgy-trade-period'....Because dem big bad Hawks landed all 3 trade-targets....Boo-hoo, no fair.

Let it Burn baby, let it burn.

 

[Sixpence]

O'Meara, Mearie, Me

In terms of knee injuries - ruptured patella tendons are a professional athlete's worst nightmare

Interesting that the Hawk medicos think they can get him back firing on all cylinders whereas 17 other clubs didn't want a bar of him

What a load of shit.

 

[sr36]

I don't think there is any hint of impropriety here, on behalf of the Hawks....This is a clear AFL administrative stuff-up.

But we can all derive a wee giggle, at Landsberger & Robbos expense....After all; FreepickHawthorn is their creation.

They also labelled this the 'dodgy-trade-period'....Because dem big bad Hawks landed all 3 trade-targets....Boo-hoo, no fair.

Let it Burn baby, let it burn.

Do you actually believe that Carlton, or the blokes who did the deal, didn't receive anything under the table.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Do you actually believe that Carlton, or the blokes who did the deal, didn't receive anything under the table.

Well, yes....Picks 48, 66 & 70.

Dirty Deeds....Done Dirt Cheap.

 

[HawkMongrel]

lol Landsberger blocked me on Twitter for telling him I wanted to drink his bitter tears when we won a game late on in the season that he clearly didn't want us to win.

Unprofessional git. He and Robbo are cut from the same cloth.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Do you actually believe that Carlton, or the blokes who did the deal, didn't receive anything under the table.

Do you mean SOS and Bolton got the under-the-table equivalent of a 'reacharound' ??

 

[Alley oops]

O'Meara, Mearie, Me

In terms of knee injuries - ruptured patella tendons are a professional athlete's worst nightmare

Interesting that the Hawk medicos think they can get him back firing on all cylinders whereas 17 other clubs didn't want a bar of him

Sour puss. Off course it's a bad injury, maybe almost as bad as accumulated scar tissue for long periods of losing.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Mistake or not, it's the right outcome. The restrictions on trading future picks are to prevent clubs trading everything away and ensure they have a draft presence in case thins don't work out the way they hoped. As long as the net position is the same, who cares if it's their own second round pick or someone else's?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Emma Quayle does a good job of explaining the trade-period machinations here....Without any under-lying agenda.

Unlike the pathetically biased & Tulla-driven HUN.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...of-crazypaced-trade-week-20161026-gsbgbn.html

 

[dewah07]

lol Landsberger blocked me on Twitter for telling him I wanted to drink his bitter tears when we won a game late on in the season that he clearly didn't want us to win.

Unprofessional git. He and Robbo are cut from the same cloth.

 

[The 747]

lol Landsberger blocked me on Twitter for telling him I wanted to drink his bitter tears when we won a game late on in the season that he clearly didn't want us to win.

Unprofessional git. He and Robbo are cut from the same cloth.

 

[HairyO]

Take pick #88 off them...

That is the pick which will define our club over the next decade. We would definitely threaten a court injunction.

Let's not go overboard.

You guys would swap Vickery for Darling, wouldnt you?

Tough gig in Northern states, talking to Stevie J recently and the money he is losing not being in Melbourne to "press the flesh" at sportsmen nights is significantly cutting his earning potential

I can understand the allure of earning an extra 100k for shaking the hand of a few desparados

He would not be earning that much doing sportsmans nights. Clearly that is just ego talking.

They did admit there was a mistake around that, it should have been GWS' pick we traded rather than our own. Which ol' Gil and Keane have both said was negligible. We still have a future second round pick to use which is what they mainly care about. Funnily enough, the people who are up in arms over it don't realise that we'd be better holding onto our own as GWS are likely to finish above us next year.

Im not sure that is a mistake. I would think it is like the requirement to spend 2 x 1st round picks in a 4 year period. I dont think they have to be your own. They could be ones you have swapped for.

What I dont understand is how Geelong dont need to spend 2 x 1st round next year, to meet the requirement of 2 in 4 years.

 

[PizzaChief]

Do you actually believe that Carlton, or the blokes who did the deal, didn't receive anything under the table.

Watch Luke Hodge get traded to Carlton next year for pick 159.. (And Gibson to the saints)

 

[footyfan1978]

Rules do not allow a club to trade out both their first and second rounders of future picks unless they bring in a future pick somehow before that trade of one of those rounds.
Hence where SOS came into it to save the day. Once he got the Marchbank trade done it allowed GWS to on trade the Geelong 1st rounder future pick to Richmond for Deledio they got from SOS in Marchbank trade. The GWS 2nd rounder SOS got he gave to Hawks, which they retained as Gold Coast wanted the more valued Hawks 2nd rounder future pick. If Marchbank trade does not get done it would have been a disaster for 4 or 5 clubs. From what I heard Carlton and Hawks only got in room to do paperwork of their trade deal at 1-39 pm that was the allowing the O'Meara trade paperwork to be done straight after.

I wonder if GWS held out trading Marchbank and Pickett to Carlton as late as possible hoping for Gibbs to goto Crows and then asking that pick 13 for Marchbank and Pickett be handed over.
SOS not bluffing the Crows that Gibbs was going nowhere for anything less than two forms of first rounders I think ended up having a massive effect on all these trades happening so late. Once GWS knew they had no chance of getting pick 13 from us they were willing to accept the lesser 1st rounder of Geelong's for 2017 that SOS got in the Tuohy deal.
Richmond now hold that pick.

Report card for media following where all these future rounders went on final day and reporting correctly.

F

Now three of four days on, but finally now I can give one of the people in the press a pass for this trade period.
Emma Qualye mark upgraded to B+
Landsberger gooes from F to F- after his last 36 hours.
Tried to muddy the waters and make out AFL were outside their own rules.
Pathetic reporting by him.

Emma Quayle does a good job of explaining the trade-period machinations here....Without any under-lying agenda.

Unlike the pathetically biased & Tulla-driven HUN.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...of-crazypaced-trade-week-20161026-gsbgbn.html