Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVI

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why isn't pick 25 reasonable for Henry?

7 pick downgrade on a guy who has not broken into a best team and who isn't going to any time soon is about right, isn't it?
 
Why isn't pick 25 reasonable for Henry?

7 pick downgrade on a guy who has not broken into a best team and who isn't going to any time soon is about right, isn't it?
I think the Pies want him
and I think given they've seen a contender nab a top kid for 19, and are in likelihood about to land pick 7 for peanuts, they're holding their ground.

Might cut their nose to spite their face, but doubt Henry makes it past everyone to get to Geelong in PSD.
And the net gain for the Pies is Geelong don't get stronger.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Am i reading the Bears-Cats pick swap correctly, seems quite one sided in Brisbane's favour?

Is this the kind of swings and roundabouts that allows the cats to get away with deals we can't comprehend ever coming our way?
 
Am i reading the Bears-Cats pick swap correctly, seems quite one sided in Brisbane's favour?

Is this the kind of swings and roundabouts that allows the cats to get away with deals we can't comprehend ever coming our way?
AFL picks and chooses when it cares.
example - port can't give up an F1 and later picks from same draft for a kid that was gonna cost the Crows 2x top 6 picks and a late 1st.
GCS can send 2x top 10 picks to the cats for a pick in 50s....3 years after they were handed a mother load of picks....which they also gave away to a large extent.
 
AFL picks and chooses when it cares.
example - port can't give up an F1 and later picks from same draft for a kid that was gonna cost the Crows 2x top 6 picks and a late 1st.
GCS can send 2x top 10 picks to the cats for a pick in 50s....3 years after they were handed a mother load of picks....which they also gave away to a large extent.
The Port no deal is a disgrace. Clearly a case of the AFL trying to block to protect the stinkboners. Hawks were allowed to do it IIRC and the rule was "oh as long as they end up with somebody's first/second rounder" so that should tick it as legal.

And the exception of considering the trade based on the player's age is there to allow trades exactly like the JHF One. It isn't as if trading in a teenage former pick 1 is compromising Port's future for the present.
 
The Port no deal is a disgrace. Clearly a case of the AFL trying to block to protect the stinkboners. Hawks were allowed to do it IIRC and the rule was "oh as long as they end up with somebody's first/second rounder" so that should tick it as legal.

And the exception of considering the trade based on the player's age is there to allow trades exactly like the JHF One. It isn't as if trading in a teenage former pick 1 is compromising Port's future for the present.
The Hawks did get the second before they traded both.

Also that has always been the rule since they brought it in.
 
The Port no deal is a disgrace. Clearly a case of the AFL trying to block to protect the stinkboners. Hawks were allowed to do it IIRC and the rule was "oh as long as they end up with somebody's first/second rounder" so that should tick it as legal.

And the exception of considering the trade based on the player's age is there to allow trades exactly like the JHF One. It isn't as if trading in a teenage former pick 1 is compromising Port's future for the present.
It was the Cats I believe who were able to bend the rules/get them re-interpreted.
Can't remember what the deal was for though.
 
The Hawks did get the second before they traded both.

Also that has always been the rule since they brought it in.
Nah they didn’t. I remember the 90 minutes I spent trying to untangle that one, and every badgering me to update the draft order as if I had more access to information than they did. The Hawkes definitely didn’t have both picks for a little while before the second batch of papers went through.

I think if they have one coming in and the paperwork is lodged then the AFL can do an exemption though and logically that’s fair, but it was stupid at the time since it wasn’t the rule everyone else thought they were playing with.

The main problem back then is that the AFL’s trade radio rule update ad that played 15 times an hour was pretty clear that it was your own picks you had to keep. That trade moved the bar and made it possible to trade out your own pick so long as you acquired someone else’s.
 
The Hawks did get the second before they traded both.

Also that has always been the rule since they brought it in.
That was the trade that had the "as long as they don't leave the room trade week is still going" rule invented, wasn't it?

Also we've been told you can break the future pick trading rules and the penalty is simply inability to trade future picks in further drafts.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I don’t think we’ve had clubs and players openly talking about meeting opposition clubs while under contract/mid-season before.

Finally dispelling the myth it seems.

Adelaide’s list manager talking about meeting with Jason Horne-Francis;


Luke Jackson met West Coast and Freo during the bye;
 
AFL have said the cats have to give GCS a second round pick as part of the Bowes deal. GCS want future picks and the cats don’t have an F2. Currently have pick 25 and could get 33 for Esava. Be hard to get Bowes and Henry done.
 
AFL have said the cats have to give GCS a second round pick as part of the Bowes deal. GCS want future picks and the cats don’t have an F2. Currently have pick 25 and could get 33 for Esava. Be hard to get Bowes and Henry done.
Might be time to give Jack another call?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top