So do we have a definitive word on what's happening with this yet? Does the new team just take the Queensland talent in 2009, then take the big draft picks in 2010? Is that right?

Does anyone know exactly what those picks are? Has it even been announced? Or are they saving that particular chestnut for later in 2010, around the end of the season so they can customise it to better suit the new club?

I've heard conflicting reports. I heard they'd miss out on pick one if there's a PP going before the first round... I've also heard some weird things about the order of picks... something like picks 2,3,5,7,10,11,12,15,17,18,19 etc etc... or something silly like that.

Can anyone confirm if they've actually set in stone what's happening?

I thought it was the first 5, then i think 4 in a row early teens, and then the first 3 at the start of each round.

Edit: According to Big Footy

It's such a joke for them to get picks 1,2,3,5 in what's looking like a strong 2010 draft.

They could have got Watts, Naitanui, Rich and Hurley this year

It's such a joke for them to get picks 1,2,3,5 in what's looking like a strong 2010 draft.

They could have got Watts, Naitanui, Rich and Hurley this year

You can include Rich, Ziebell, Sidebottom, Lynch and Brown too.

Should we just go the whole way through the draft? Obviously a large part of the reason they are given these picks is so they can trade many of them away.

In effect they're being given a "plug and play" lineup, full of the best youngsters in the draft topped up by decent players that can fetch a first round pick

Ok... So next year we won't be able to recruit from Queensland... which is something I can handle. Particularly seeing as many of the early big name's aren't Queenslanders. So we'll get a crack next year at our third bottoming out year in a row, then after that hopefully we won't be relying on the draft as much as we were this, last and next year.... Theoretically.

But does anyone else think the concessions seem a bit, I dunno, steep? If it works the way its supposed to it could be the thing that costs us when we return to the finals, where we belong.

I think a GC team coming it at all is...well...stupid.

The whole thing makes me angry, but that's what's most likely going to happen.

Didn't all the other clubs agree to the proposed draft picks though?

I just realised... this should be in the drafting section... Mods please relocate if you wish.

I believe so. With some degree of hesitation from some parties I believe.

But does anyone else think the concessions seem a bit, I dunno, steep? If it works the way its supposed to it could be the thing that costs us when we return to the finals, where we belong.

I used to also think they were a bit steep but as mentioned many will be trade bait. Used to attempt to lure the young QLD types (Petterd? etc) and readymade QLDers (Riewoldts, Millers) as well as the stars in general. How many highly fancied yet unproven youngsters would it take to secure, say, a Franklin?

Some will be also be duds (although as the draft process keeps maturing this is less likely), and some will get injured. I agree it has the potential to impact the MFC's plans, but the AFL are determined to ensure the GC hit the ground running. We have to work within and/or around that.

I thought it was the first 5, then i think 4 in a row early teens, and then the first 3 at the start of each round.

Not sure about that, but from the AFL website this is what they get.

Round One

1 GC17

2 GC17

3 GC17

4 Club 16 on 2010 ladder

5 GC17

6 Club 15 on 2010 ladder

7 GC17

8 Club 14 on 2010 ladder

9 GC17

10 Club 13 on 2010 ladder

11 GC17

12 Club 12 on 2010 ladder

13 GC17

14 Club 11 on 2010 ladder

15 GC17

16 Club 10 on 2010 ladder

17 Club 9 on 2010 ladder

18 Club 8 on 2010 ladder

19 Club 7 on 2010 ladder

20 Club 6 on 2010 ladder

21 Club 5 on 2010 ladder

22 Club 4 on 2010 ladder

23 Club 3 on 2010 ladder

24 Club 2 on 2010 ladder

25 Club 1 on 2010 ladder

Round Two

26 GC17

27 Club 16 on 2010 ladder

28 Club 15 on 2010 ladder

29 Club 14 on 2010 ladder

30 Club 13 on 2010 ladder

31 Club 12 on 2010 ladder

32 Club 11 on 2010 ladder

33 Club 10 on 2010 ladder

34 Club 9 on 2010 ladder

35 Club 8 on 2010 ladder

36 Club 7 on 2010 ladder

37 Club 6 on 2010 ladder

38 Club 5 on 2010 ladder

39 Club 4 on 2010 ladder

40 Club 3 on 2010 ladder

41 Club 2 on 2010 ladder

42 Club 1 on 2010 ladder

And from the 3rd round onwards in just copies the 2nd round. It is a lot to give them, but without actually forcing them to do so i believe the AFL expect them to trade about 1/2 of the picks. So instead of 9 top 15 picks, they have 4 or 5 & a few older players. From that you can't expect all of there players to make it, but of there top 3, they could get cooney, walker & Sylvia or they could get hodge, ball & judd.

No one knows, but there's no point crying about it, just be glad that we should be improving then instead of a club that's bottoming out and not getting the picks to replenish there list.

I actually feel that MFC could be in a very strong bargening position come this draft.

We may have some middle age players that will suit gold coast very well and we could use this to our advantage. My only concern is any un-contracted players that we may have, but hopefully we can sort that out during next year and early 2010.

Question: -

I know the draft is compromised in the 2010 draft. However, say for example (and its only an example...Melbourne finish bottom in 2009 and 2010. Are Melbourne entitled to a priority pick before their first selection? (If they finish season 2009 and 2010 with 8 or less wins collectively).

For example: -

Round One

1 GC17

2 GC17

3 GC17

4 Club 16 on 2010 ladder

5 GC17

6 Club 15 on 2010 ladder

7 GC17

8 Club 14 on 2010 ladder

9 GC17

10 Club 13 on 2010 ladder

11 GC17

12 Club 12 on 2010 ladder

13 GC17

14 Club 11 on 2010 ladder

15 GC17

16 Club 10 on 2010 ladder

Do Melbourne in this example get, picks 4 and 6? With Pick 4 being a priority pick.

I sincerely hope this doesn't happen, and I don't believe it will, but I thought I would just ask in case it happened to any side...

GC17 could totally manipulate the draft, by figuring out which players a club is likely to take & using their picks before then to take those players, even if they aren't the best available at that stage.

This only works is clubs draft on a "needs" basis, but i think all clubs do to some extent.

They can also play with other clubs by leaving talented players with question marks on the board, giving those clubs a dilemma (as with a depleted draft you wouldn't want to take speculative picks) & possibly managing to get said quality players at a later pick making it less of a gamble.

What I mean is, its not a case of "they could have Watts, Naitanui, Hill, Hurley, Rich, Ziebell, Sidebottom & Lynch"

Its more a case of "they could manipulate it even further and end up with Watts, Naitanui, Hill, Hartlett, Hurley, Yarran, Rich & Vickery"

I actually feel that MFC could be in a very strong bargening position come this draft.

We may have some middle age players that will suit gold coast very well and we could use this to our advantage. My only concern is any un-contracted players that we may have, but hopefully we can sort that out during next year and early 2010.

Unless the GC want to become the Brisbane Bears of the 21st century, why would the GC want middle aged NQRs from a bottom side?

I would have thought this year might have sobered some naive minds about the strength of trade week. Seemingly not.

If, and only if, GC decide to trade any of their picks then they are going to be very selective and commercially challenging on who they chase. At this point I cant see one MFC player who would stand out as a likely trump for GC that would attract a top pick.

Do Melbourne in this example get, picks 4 and 6? With Pick 4 being a priority pick.

I sincerely hope this doesn't happen, and I don't believe it will, but I thought I would just ask in case it happened to any side...

While I believe it is possible we could have a tough year in 2009, I would be very concerned if we were in the bag for a PP in 2010.

While I believe it is possible we could have a tough year in 2009, I would be very concerned if we were in the bag for a PP in 2010.

Agreed. If we were in contention for a PP pick in 2010 i'd want my money back & i'd want to lynch Bailey, Schwab & the board.

Thankfully i'd put my house on it that we won't be.

Why are we already talking about next years draft? As far as i remember there is premiership season in between now and then?

If I was a new club, and someone offered me all the picks they mention there? I'd be taking every one and running. I'd even trade a pair of late ones to get the ones that fill in the gaps.

Agreed. If we were in contention for a PP pick in 2010 i'd want my money back & i'd want to lynch Bailey, Schwab & the board.

Thankfully i'd put my house on it that we won't be.

So who do you think is going to be 16th?

So who do you think is going to be 16th?

St. Kilda

St. Kilda

Hmm. I scoffed at first... but that's not the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard. I find it nearly impossible to pick the spooner, cos they always seem to come out of nowhere.

I'm picking us for 16th, mostly because our working list won't be HUGELY different, and I'm certain winning will be secondary to development the same way it was on '08. It got us the spoon last year, and I think it'll do the same this year as we've gained a lot of young layers who'll need time and gym work, and if anything, we've only really lost a player in CJ... If we DO get off the bottom it'll be because of:

- We returned early to pre-season training.

- We had a LOT of youth last season that will be that much better after 12-24 months in the game (steep development)

- You'd have to assume our injury list wouldn't be as bad.

Hmm. I scoffed at first... but that's not the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard. I find it nearly impossible to pick the spooner, cos they always seem to come out of nowhere.

I'm picking us for 16th, mostly because our working list won't be HUGELY different, and I'm certain winning will be secondary to development the same way it was on '08. It got us the spoon last year, and I think it'll do the same this year as we've gained a lot of young layers who'll need time and gym work, and if anything, we've only really lost a player in CJ... If we DO get off the bottom it'll be because of:

- We returned early to pre-season training.

- We had a LOT of youth last season that will be that much better after 12-24 months in the game (steep development)

- You'd have to assume our injury list wouldn't be as bad.

St. Kilda have traded youth & draft picks away in return for recycled players the last 3 years or more.

They can't sustain this & are doing it at the wrong time too with the tainted drafts - they have set themselves up for a big fall

St. Kilda have traded youth & draft picks away in return for recycled players the last 3 years or more.

They can't sustain this & are doing it at the wrong time too with the tainted drafts - they have set themselves up for a big fall

Mmm. I don't usually like the childish garbage where one clubs supporters get stuck into another club... but in this case, I look forward to the day.

The other problem with the GC is they can take one uncontracted player from a club without having to trade for them. An AFL committee will decide the players worth either 1,2 or 3 rd and award a pick to the club that can use it in the next three years. The player has to agree to moving to the GC but they have the salary cap to blow other clubs out of the water.