Great look making sure Battle couldn't attend the BNF.
Why would he go he doesn't want to play with blokes there.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Great look making sure Battle couldn't attend the BNF.
Its a BNF for the 2024 season, which Battle played for the Saints, his decision next year shouldn't have any bearing on him being allowed to attend thr BNF lol. Showing how petty they are as a footy club imo.Why would he go he doesn't want to play with blokes there.
Its a BNF for the 2024 season, which Battle played for the Saints, his decision next year shouldn't have any bearing on him being allowed to attend thr BNF lol. Showing how petty they are as a footy club imo.
If they were getting an undeserved top 10 pick for him I'm sure he would be allowed to attend.Ohhhh, I'm a bit slow. Is this whole begging bowl routine by Basset aimed at trying to get the AFL to give them band 1 compo for Battle? lol
How is it on him? He hasn't left yet.Well he has declared he has no interest in being around the people in the room. Battle made the decision to leave so its on him.
People comparing the Naicos to Lashcroft situation.
Collingwood finished 17th the year they got Naicos. The only team that could have taken him before us is North Melbourne. We were a basket case team getting the number 1 pick. Brisbane won the Premiership and finished 1st, and are taking the number 1 draft pick - This is where I agree with this guy that the system is broken.
Teams finishing in the top 4 should relinquish all father-son picks in the first round. And a similar rule should apply to academies - top 4, and no early academy picks for you. Top 4 teams are already good teams to make it that far, they don't need top ups of number 1 draft picks.
Matter resolved.
How is it on him? He hasn't left yet.
He didn't say ditchI fully agree with the Saint's president.
Ditch the father sons.
It currently means some with players in the draft effectively get to choose their club, while most don't. Daddy boys need to hard up and carve out their own path, or seek a trade where the club that picked them is compensated at a market rate.
We can't continue to have top picks undermining a key equalisation measure.
As I see it, the main stakeholders attached to F/S are older supporters reminiscing about players from a bygone era. Does anyone think it's sad that Dunkley didn't play for Sydney on Saturday??
And have the academies run by the AFL. If it's for the development of the game, then the AFL should run it with their deep pockets.
That's not what he said though.I fully agree with the Saint's president.
Ditch the father sons.
It currently means some with players in the draft effectively get to choose their club, while most don't. Daddy boys need to hard up and carve out their own path, or seek a trade where the club that picked them is compensated at a market rate.
We can't continue to have top picks undermining a key equalisation measure.
As I see it, the main stakeholders attached to F/S are older supporters reminiscing about players from a bygone era. Does anyone think it's sad that Dunkley didn't play for Sydney on Saturday??
And have the academies run by the AFL. If it's for the development of the game, then the AFL should run it with their deep pockets.
And for what, they just shit their pants whenever they get to the grand final too.Sydney lost a GF got Heeny then finished top 4 got Mills. The year they got gifted Blakey they split their first round pick for the points and kept an early pick for Rowbottom.
If father son is about the romance of the son playing where his dad was a rusted on player, a change they should introduce is to restrict it to sons of one club players.
Dad plays 150 games for club A, but at the end of his career is off to play 30 games for another club, yeah he didn't love club A so much, or they didn't love him. Club A don't get his son.
It's even worse of dad plays 100 for two clubs and his son gets to choose which one his dad loved most? Spare me
Less need when GWS and GC are there to raid.Is there data to back this up? How many players have Swans and Lions lost to “go home factor” under their current coaches - and is that more than Victorian clubs?
The processes that contribute to creating F/S selections are so innumerate and intangible that is it effectively governed by randomness. If something is non-biased (that is having no weight, malice or favour in any direction) as randomness is, it is fair - rather in the case of this discussion its better to say it is not unfair.
An open draft for all would be a delightful idea if you don't value the Father/Son-Club connection at all
Is it unfair St Kilda have botched draft picks and haven't hit the jackpot on the draft year after year? Does the unfair distribution of premiership flags across the league concern you?
Sook harder.Weird - no one gave a shit when we were crap for 15 years. Also noticed no one was kicking up a stink when we lost 5 players for nothing in one year. If it’s all about fairness why was no one screaming please help the lions then? Took 5 players, put development in and then sold at half price- that was ok though wasn’t it! Was ok when Marc Murphy knocked back the lions wasn’t it?
Have you ever explained gun culture to a Seppo? They see it as laughable that Skippy's can't own fully automatic machine guns. Your argument has been ruled irrelevant.Have you ever explained the father son rule to an epl or nba fan?
In my experience, they see it as laughable and can’t comprehend how such a rule exists in a professional sport.
We don't make the rules, just abide by them.The issue isn’t the access. It’s the cost.
Imagine actually needing to pay the equivalent cost for Libba West JUH Darcy & Croft etc
There is a difference between equality and equity as well.There's a difference between equalisation and unequalisation. If you don't understand that then I'm not sure your comments are going to add to this thread.
25 years ago wood de doop as a Fitzroy father son , and yeah definitely a bandwagonerThe audacity to call me a pelican while not even knowing one of your greatest ever players in Jonathan Brown is a father-son selection.
Congratulations on outing yourself as a bandwagon-jumping moron lmao.
"We are here to just make up numbers, we have a lack of access to proper talent long term," looks over at playing group, "Oh but not you guys, you guys are the tops," as he gives them a thumbs up.Gee that will fill the players with confidence for next season, knowing they're just making up numbers...
Apologies you're right, meant innumerable.I don't think "innumerate" means what you think it means.
I should reiterate my first response where I do agree revising the discount clubs get for the F/S selection as the main benefit should be to be able to bid on the player if they are selected. Personally I believe the value of that connection does give a team more of a "right" to that player (whether real or not, at least in the case of Collingwood our club is quite active in the development of some of these Moores/Daicos x2 and put genuine time and resources into getting them ready for the rigours of AFL).What does the father/son-club connection have to do with it, though? Clubs can still draft sons of old players if they want to keep bloodlines at their club. Man City managed to keep the ancestral club connection with the Haalands without needing a special rule for it.
And that's fair to disagree, I see why you do. I think it's just that - if you see it as negative enough of an outcome to dismantle it or not. I don't at all and not just due to our success with it as mentioned before (P.S people mention both Daicos bros here, but forget Josh was picked at 57 in 2016 - we didn't even need to bid on him every club just passed him up twice).But overall, sure, that's a reasonable point. What you're saying then is it's fine if the premier gets discounted access to the #1 pick because it was random that they got it. I disagree with that, and I think it's enough of a negative outcome that I would dismantle the entire system.
Sook- who Sooking, , won the flag and about to get Levi and Marshall, let’s not forget about Kiddy either- he was an academy boy. My point was every one was happy for that stuff to go down and no one screamed foul because it didn’t hurt them. Now - the whole comp is uneven ha ha. Maybe just worry about your rabble - get em off the nose beers, Clarry off the pokies and try to convince everyone Tracc wants to be there. Anyway I’m off to watch the replay.Sook harder.
3 of the players you traded were plodders. Your coach at the time was accused of physically abusing your players, got sacked and suddenly your players didn't want to leave anymore! Coincidence? Sure!
Reports were the AFL warned your board that extending Leppa's contract was a mistake, and when you did it anyway and fired him shortly afterwards the AFL had to chip in half a million dollars for paying out his contract (you already owed them 13 million at the time).
Also fairly sure you got a priority pick which helped you net Charlie Cameron?
You got plenty of help.