Richmond to take Cousins (Part II)

[CrippsonBlue]

Re: Collingwood: Officially the biggest sooks in the AFL

Now after a re-assessment of Polak, it has been determined that he will most likely not take the field in 2009, meaning Richmond will be 1 player down for next season.

That is why the system is in place whereby you place him on the LTI list, elevate another player to the senior list, and thus you will not be 1 player down.

If Richmond are granted the second pick, it won't make a difference to the clubs in the PSD draft as all the clubs get their pick before the Tigers.

Wrong. Assuming one of those players is Cousins, then the other player you select may likely have been rookied by another club...and thus, it will make a difference.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Re: Collingwood and Freo no to Polak on Rookie List

I love all this talk of Richmond breaking or bending 'the rules'.

The rules say Richmond can make a request or proposal to the commission.

The rules say the Commission, after consulting the clubs, can grant or reject that request.

So whatever happens, Richmond will be following the rules.


All Richmond are doing is going to the Commission and saying "We have this situation, we believe it's similar to other situations that have happened in the past would would like you to do the same thing you did then."

The Commission can agree or disagree with that, but there is nothing 'wrong' about asking.

As for the timing, obviously, there is no set time for 'extraordinary requests', and while I think everyone would have been happier if this had happened before the draft, but there is no requirement for it to be so.

We submitted our request before final list lodgements when you're still allowed to alter your list. You've submitted it after the lodgement date. Therein lies the difference.

 

[Chism]

Re: Collingwood and Freo no to Polak on Rookie List

We submitted our request before final list lodgements when you're still allowed to alter your list. You've submitted it after the lodgement date. Therein lies the difference.

Correct Amondo we have a winner

And that is the reason it should be rejected by the AFL and Richmond made to use there existing pick.

 

[Deledio2Conca]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

I'm sure it's already been mentioned, but its not up to what the clubs think, the AFL at the end of the day makes the decision. It would take a lot more than a couple of clubs do disagree to get this revoked.

 

[bodazoka]

Re: Dockers 'no' to Polak rookie bid

Didnt Freo winge about Richmond doing something similar last season.

 

[Lach72]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

I think they want Yze...wallet doesn't want to get trumped...

 

[telsor]

Re: Collingwood and Freo no to Polak on Rookie List

We submitted our request before final list lodgements when you're still allowed to alter your list. You've submitted it after the lodgement date. Therein lies the difference.

As I said at the end, there is no set time for an extraordinary request ( by definition, there can't be ), therefore we didn't miss the 'due date' for that request.

I agree earlier would have been preferred, but it isn't required.

 

[test123]

Re: Dockers 'no' to Polak rookie bid

Didnt Freo winge about Richmond doing something similar last season.

Did Richmond have another player hit by a tram last year?

 

[jayjones1]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

I think they want Yze...wallet doesn't want to get trumped...

i think your right

 

[ManWithNoName]

Re: Collingwood and Freo no to Polak on Rookie List

As I said at the end, there is no set time for an extraordinary request ( by definition, there can't be ), therefore we didn't miss the 'due date' for that request.

I agree earlier would have been preferred, but it isn't required.

You've known about Polaks condition and the likelihood of him playing football in 2009 for months. You've suddenly realised you can use it to your advantage to get two picks in the PSD and made a request at the last second.

This isn't about Polak for Richmond.

 

[FIGJAM]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

Why are they whinging? They easily could've taken Cousins if they wanted, but they chose not to and now they are going to try and stop the Tigers from getting him

I think this is a case of 'if we can't have him, no-one can'

I have been too busy to follow this closely, but it would appear to me that it would be unjust in the sense that Richmond would be effectively granted Pick 1 in the Rookie Draft for moving a bloke, who unfortunately got hit by a tram (whilst out on the town!), to the last rookie spot and would otherwise be on the long term injury list.

Comparisons with the Rama case are a serious stretch no matter how unlucky each bloke was.

Trade the last rookie selection for the first one...hmmm...how is this fair again?!!?

I'm all for Cousins playing again (at someone elses risk/reward), but you can't tell me that this is normal.

What if a player at Monday training does a season ending knee? I presume that club can get a PSD pick as well. He's in an equally unlucky a position as getting hurt in public!

If the AFL agree to this, then Richmond should forgo their Pick 8 and downgrade their second pick to the end of the second rookie round. That's the only way to see some balance.

 

[test123]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

I have been too busy to follow this closely, but it would appear to me that it would be unjust in the sense that Richmond would be effectively granted Pick 1 in the Rookie Draft for moving a bloke, who unfortunately got hit by a tram (whilst out on the town!), to the last rookie spot and would otherwise be on the long term injury list.

Comparisons with the Rama case are a serious stretch no matter how unlucky each bloke was.

Trade the last rookie selection for the first one...hmmm...how is this fair again?!!?

I'm all for Cousins playing again (at someone elses risk/reward), but you can't tell me that this is normal.

What if a player at Monday training does a season ending knee? I presume that club can get a PSD pick as well. He's in an equally unlucky a position as getting hurt in public!

If the AFL agree to this, then Richmond should forgo their Pick 8 and downgrade their second pick to the end of the second rookie round. That's the only way to see some balance.

It's pleasing to see that not everyone is as stupid as Richmond thinks they are. Unfortunately it appears a large number of clubs are.

 

[Hawthorn United]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

It's pleasing to see that not everyone is as stupid as Richmond thinks they are. Unfortunately it appears a large number of clubs are.

Not just clubs, seems as if the media are treating this as a simple Cousins debate. Clubs opposing it has nothing to do with him at all. It's all about not giving Richmond a bonus pick.

We should've put Beau Dowler on the rookie list after he was drafted so we could also draft an uncontracted player as a bonus.

 

[telsor]

Re: Collingwood and Freo no to Polak on Rookie List

You've known about Polaks condition and the likelihood of him playing football in 2009 for months. You've suddenly realised you can use it to your advantage to get two picks in the PSD and made a request at the last second.

This isn't about Polak for Richmond.

I'm not saying it is, although that's not to say new information hasn't come up about his condition/prognosis recently...It almost certainly has as the nature of that kind of injury means recovery tends to be an uneven process.

Yes, of course Richmond will 'gain' from this request...We wouldn't have made it otherwise. I'm just saying there is nothing wrong with asking, or with the process we're following, and it's for the Commission to judge if the request is reasonable.

Remember, what we 'gain' is (roughly) equivilent to pick 90 in the draft, so it's not a massive bonus.

 

[Deledio2Conca]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

Exactly, we're made to look like the bad guys, but if it is approved then we have done NOTHING wrong.

If it gets rejected I think it would be fair to say maybe we were trying to bend the rules, but lets just wait it out and see what happens.

 

[LC_15]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

It's pleasing to see that not everyone is as stupid as Richmond thinks they are. Unfortunately it appears a large number of clubs are.

It's pleasing to see that everyone else posts under their real poster id rather than the gutless new "test123" created in dec 2008.

Don't bother posting your opinion if you're not will stand by it with your real colours. Just plain gutless.

 

[Zeke]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

Exactly, we're made to look like the bad guys, but if it is approved then we have done NOTHING wrong.

If it gets rejected I think it would be fair to say maybe we were trying to bend the rules, but lets just wait it out and see what happens.

Is drink driving only illegal if you get caught?

 

[Deledio2Conca]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

Thats not what I said. All I said was if it gets approved, its obviously OK. If it doesn't then we were/are trying to bend the rules.

 

[megladon]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

Maybe to many people are reading this all wrong, Richmond left Polak a listed player, let him return and do a pre season without the extra stress of being moved off the main list , 3 months on and it is now apparent he wont be playing for a least 12 months, forget Cousins and draft picks, 2 PSD picks, big deal what does that give you a delisted player or a kid passed over in the ND, Ricmond would have been better off moving Polak earlier and getting another ND pick, they appear to have done the right thing all the way along

 

[Zeke]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

Thats not what I said. All I said was if it gets approved, its obviously OK. If it doesn't then we were/are trying to bend the rules.

Nice bet hedging.

Comfortable up there on the fence, or do you enjoy the feeling of a picket up the arse?

 

[Deledio2Conca]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

All it is, is speculation at this point regarding what the AFL will do.

So IMO it's stupid of people to be saying "They're bending the rulz ZOMG!!!111 when they don't know enough about the situation.

Nice bet hedging.

Comfortable up there on the fence, or do you enjoy the feeling of a picket up the arse?

Wouldn't enjoy it nearly as much as you like to hear your own voice it would seem.

 

[test123]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

Maybe to many people are reading this all wrong, Richmond left Polak a listed player, let him return and do a pre season without the extra stress of being moved off the main list , 3 months on and it is now apparent he wont be playing for a least 12 months, forget Cousins and draft picks, 2 PSD picks, big deal what does that give you a delisted player or a kid passed over in the ND, Ricmond would have been better off moving Polak earlier and getting another ND pick, they appear to have done the right thing all the way along

What if the player they want to select was not in the ND? Rumours suggest that Gourdis is the player they have committed to. He didn't nominate for the ND. Richmond know he won't be available at their first pick in the rookie draft, so they have to take him in the PSD, or they miss out. The request to move Polak was made after all other clubs had finalised their lists and after Gourdis unexpectedly nominated for the PSD. Coincidence?

 

[Bone71]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

One problem with Richmond moving Polak to the rookie list is that it will set precedent, unlike the Rama case which was one of truly extra-ordinary circumstances.

That's fine if the AFL and the clubs are happy with teams gaining extra compensation every time a player is seriously injured outside football commitments.

However, this is not a situation that has just happened nor is it reasonable to compensate pre-season and not mid-season, if we are going to claim a club is disadvantaged at the start of the season then surely any time a long term injury happens outside the game a club should be immediately eligble to select a replacement for it's list.

 

[StringyDog]

Re: Collingwood: Officially the biggest sooks in the AFL

If no other club takes Cousins on and Richmond do then good on them.

NO other club should have a bitch about it as ALL of them have had an opportunity to take him.Personally i think he is a risk but good luck to him and the Tigers if they get him.

Its not the Tigers fault as Polak is still recovering from his injuries .

I think Collingwoods Mcguire should be looking over his shoulder after Collingwood lost millions of $$$$$$$$ this year , more than any other club.He and Malthouse should be replaced .

PS: funny if the Bombers get him first .

Proving once again that most Essendon fans are knobs in the highest order, you clearly don't get it as Richmond already have a pick and could take cousins, no one is complaining about taking cousins as no other club wants him what some clubs are opposing is that Richmond is trying to get a second pick in the draft through a loophole in system where a precedence has been set. Not to worry as they are looking at Cousins with tunnel sight and have not investigated properly like other clubs did and there is a good chance it will blow up in there face, either through his chronic hamstrings or other issues.

 

[megladon]

Re: Collingwood and Freo say no to Polak on Rookie List

If that is the case it would appear Gourdis was the player who took the hit for Polak, proberbley seen as the player most under the radar that they could redraft early, his delisting didnt make any sense at the time, once again if that is the case if you now have players and the club supporting an injured teamate it make Richmonds case stronger and Gourdis deserves his senior relisting cannot see anything underhanded or an unfair advantage for Richmond