Calls for Richmond to get priority picks before GC17

[Rosso 59]

I have heard a number of media commentators suggest that Richmond should be eligible for priority picks before Gold Coast get to plunder the draft next year, to save them from years of cellar dwelling. One of the arguments they make is that Melbourne bottomed out at the right time and so were able to reap the rewards of high picks just in time to avoid being screwed by Gold Coast's arrival, whereas Richmond are only now bottoming out.

My response to this is that Richmond have had more top 10 draft picks since 2005 than Melbourne (Deledio,Tambling, Oakley-Nicholls, Cotchin, Vickery and Martin) vs (Morton, Watts, Scully, Trengove), so they can suffer in their jocks!

What do others think? Should the AFL bail Richmond out for being crap at drafting, and allow them a priority pick before GC? Or should they reap what they have sowed and wait for pick 4?

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

I think that the GC and GWS have been granted far too many concessions to start with, so I have no objection to a priority pick going ahead of their multitude in the draft.

Furthermore, I think the bottom teams should be protected from the player-stealing powers the new teams have been granted. It logically follows that the bottom teams have fewer top players, and as such are going to be harder hit should those players be poached. I would suggest that the bottom four sides be protected so as to maintain an even competition. This would still allow GC and GWS access to 12 and 13 good players from other clubs while allowing those in the cellar to keep rebuilding.

[Sir Why You Little 34,762]

I don't think Richmond should be given special treatment because of their insipid drafting and poor culture, yes you may look at helping a group of teams, but not just Richmond.

I would say the same about melbourne to. I do not want the tag basket case to be at our club.

Richmond signed off on these rules with 15 other teams, even though we members had not one word of say which did pi$$ed me right off, but what do you do?

How many more 5 year plans do Richmond want? They cut funding to their Footy Dept while Wallace was coaching, so they can only Blame themselves.

Jordan McMahon put that club back 10 years when that goal sailed thru & poor old KB couldn't understand that logic that day....he will B)

Edited April 13, 2010 by why you little

[Guest Rojik of the Arctic]

Nope to them getting any special treatment and no to us also. Time clubs learnt to sink or swim and last year still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If we (MFC and RFC) want to be taken seriously we need to draft well with what we have been given and we need to convince players to stay and play with us.

I'm not a fan of socialism in the real world so I am not going to be a hypocrite and favour it for my football team. We need to take a leaf out of Essendon's book from the eighties or Hawthorn from the nineties/naughties and make our team the one that people want to play for or support. Asking for concessions will just see us (and the RFC) slide away into obscurity.

[Rogue 585]

If any Clubs deserve the help it's the Clubs that are heading downwards now.

The Clubs already at the bottom had chances to pick up early draft picks in previous years.

Good luck to those about to bottom out - they'll need it.

[grazman 6,610]

The media might want it, but the media want a lot of things that they will never accept responsibility for at the end of the day. They're completely reactionary.

Every club has known about the introduction of the two new teams, and have known what that means in terms of drafting and recruiting. Some like myself, believe that clubs like us took a proactive approach to planning their destiny - ie we list managed our way to get the required draft picks when they were available - some like Richmond just let it happen to them. So to use a rather facetious analogy, you can go out drinking all night and spend all your money and try to navigate your way home in the dark and end up having the living the bejesus kicked out of you and then complain about lawless streets or you can save the last $20 for a taxi or arrange for a friend to pick you up. Rarely is there any reward for people (or football clubs) who fail to plan.

[Gooner 9]

I don't know who came up with this idea, but they haven't done their research. The first round priority pick is available to teams who have less than 16.5 points (four wins). Richmond finished last year with 18 points and are therefore ineligible. If they finish this season with less than 16.5 points, they will get a priority pick after the first round, which is after GC17's picks. The only team who could have a pick before GC17 is us, and we're not going to be tanking in order to get a high pick!

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Yeah, there's a priority system in place already. I'd be interested to know which, if any, Tigers identities were asking for this. I can understand supporters, there's always a few... But I'd be interested to see which "experts" were calling for this, and which ones are Tigers...

I said earlier this year that their list isn't as bad as people say. They have a bit of quality at the top end. I rate Deledio and Tambling relatively highly. Certainly in the same ballpark as the Bruce/McDonald types. In fact those two demons are far less gifted skill wise, and have managed. Cousins is awesome for them. Cotchin and Martin would walk onto any 18 in the league. Nahas is going to be a hum-dinger, love the way he goes about it. I'd recruit Newman in a second, and Vickery will be a ten year ruckman.

At their top end they have few issues. It's after that that they drop off severely. Where we have a bunch of good ordinary players... think McKenzie, Bail, Cheney, Jamar, Jetta, Jones, JoelMac, Moloney, Warnock, Wonna... Their cupboard is bare. And I reckon if you have enough of these good ordinary types doing enough and supporting each other, then many of them start to resemble All Australians... at least in patches. Think McKenzie, Jamar, Warnock... In fact "good ordinary" actually does many of the above listed no justice at all.

What it basically comes down to is weak recruiting after the first 20. The club themselves has come out in the media and admitted they stuffed up. But it'd be pretty shameful (worse than our "tanking" accusations) if they went and ASKED for concessions due to nothing more than poor recruiting. Picks 21-100+ are where recruiters prove their mettle, along with player retention. I admire clubs like Hawthorn who can discard a high-profile pick like Thorp without blinking. The Toigs had held on to way too many, way too long. Their last delist was FINALLY a step in the right direction.

I don't think they'll be pathetic for as long as people suggest. Not with Hardwick in charge. They're where we were in 2007/08.

[Gooner 9]

Richmond's problem isn't quality. It's depth. They finished 9th two years ago because they didn't have a lot of injuries and didn't have to rely on the bottom few of the 22. When they suffered a few more injuries last year and had a few more players drop off in form and in ability as a result of age, they really struggled.

Nonetheless, unless they get lucky with picks, they'll struggle for a few years to come.

Richmond's problem is that by the time all the concessions have finished, their key players will be over 25 and on the downhill slope in terms of improvement.

They'll get a couple of ok picks, but not enough.

However, in regards to the priority pick system, it's designed to make it very hard for teams to get priority picks. As usual the AFL has gone too far in reacting to media comment and changed a decent system to one that is too difficult to get access to.

The old system that had five wins in a single year did allow good sides that suffered from injuries in a particular season to get two high draft picks, although that happened only occasionally. Geelong in '05 is the only example that I can think of. However, in my opinion, they should've changed one aspect, not both. They should have provided priority picks in either two consecutive seasons with five wins or less, or less than four wins in a particular season. However, now that we've finished with it, I have less incentive to care if they correct it in the future.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

The media might want it, but the media want a lot of things that they will never accept responsibility for at the end of the day. They're completely reactionary.

Every club has known about the introduction of the two new teams, and have known what that means in terms of drafting and recruiting. Some like myself, believe that clubs like us took a proactive approach to planning their destiny - ie we list managed our way to get the required draft picks when they were available - some like Richmond just let it happen to them. So to use a rather facetious analogy, you can go out drinking all night and spend all your money and try to navigate your way home in the dark and end up having the living the bejesus kicked out of you and then complain about lawless streets or you can save the last $20 for a taxi or arrange for a friend to pick you up. Rarely is there any reward for people (or football clubs) who fail to plan.

Well said Graz.

I said earlier this year that their list isn't as bad as people say. They have a bit of quality at the top end. I rate Deledio and Tambling relatively highly. Certainly in the same ballpark as the Bruce/McDonald types. In fact those two demons are far less gifted skill wise, and have managed. Cousins is awesome for them. Cotchin and Martin would walk onto any 18 in the league. Nahas is going to be a hum-dinger, love the way he goes about it. I'd recruit Newman in a second, and Vickery will be a ten year ruckman.

At their top end they have few issues. It's after that that they drop off severely. ...

What it basically comes down to is weak recruiting after the first 20. ..

I don't think they'll be pathetic for as long as people suggest. Not with Hardwick in charge. They're where we were in 2007/08.

Bruce and McDonald are on the wane or in the last season. If thats where Deledio and Tambling they have problems. Deledio is very good but fights a lone battle. Tambling is a moderate player who has yet to breakthrough on the confidence shown in him to be drafted at No4. Cousins is another player whose best is behind him is in his final year (if he lasts) and he is a disaster off the field (The Tigers have alot of them). Given our list I think we have Newman covered. Foley on the LTI list is a loss for them. After the top 6 to 10 its ordinary and it reflects 5+ years of carp recruiting and trading under Wallet.

Aside from Foley they dont have any big guns to come back to bolster the list from injury. And the player culture is abysmal with at least 6 ot 7 problems on their list that they need to quickly straighten out or get rid.

They may be trawling near where we were in 2007/2008 but I cant see a ready solution through a re build in the draft like we have.

Richmond's problem isn't quality. It's depth.

No its quality and its spread thin atm.After the first six or so players there is little. They have depth in abundance but its all ordinary. They merely replace NQR with NQR

[Gooner 9]

No its quality and its spread thin atm.After the first six or so players there is little. They have depth in abundance but its all ordinary. They merely replace NQR with NQR

I was referring to the quality of the top five or six as you were, but making the point that there's not much quality, and hence depth beyond that.

[Pates 9,537]

Someone was always going to get screwed by GC17 and GWS, no matter what in every year there has to be one top team and one bottom team. Richmond bottomed out big time for ages, they took a 5 year punt with Wallace and it backfired, big time. Now the only question that the AFL should be asking is that if this was any other side, Melbourne, Sydney, Kanags, Port, or whoever.....would they give them the same treatment to them.

The answer is no, and Richmond should be no different. So if the Tigers are doomed to wallow at the bottom for yonks, the AFL should be held accountable for giving these two new sides such concessions without any regard for the current teams down the bottom. IMO the top draft pick should ALWAYS go to the team down the bottom, if i was going to make any concession, that would be it.

[13thflag 0]

No to Richmond and no also to any of these so called new teams. With GC17 they should have to build up a team over a number of years not just take the best of the cream from the top.

[Hobbits's 17]

richmond have bottomed out now? where have some people been the last 8 years?

[dee-luded 2,958]

I think that the GC and GWS have been granted far too many concessions to start with, so I have no objection to a priority pick going ahead of their multitude in the draft.

Furthermore, I think the bottom teams should be protected from the player-stealing powers the new teams have been granted. It logically follows that the bottom teams have fewer top players, and as such are going to be harder hit should those players be poached. I would suggest that the bottom four sides be protected so as to maintain an even competition. This would still allow GC and GWS access to 12 and 13 good players from other clubs while allowing those in the cellar to keep rebuilding.

Thats a good point 'RalphiusMaximus'. I like that.

I like both points 'RalphiusMaximus'.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Some time ago Richmond looked like they were going to fold and they launched their S.O.S. (save our skins) Campaign, they had tin rattlers at all grounds and most supporters despite their allegiance contributed. They got themselves out of trouble and up and running again which was good.

Quite some time later they were in reasonable shape but there were some other clubs in trouble, ours included, and their then President Leon Daphne said the league shouldn’t support them they should be left to sink if they weren’t viable.

I have never forgotten that, so as far as I’m concerned they, as well as Port whose supporters canned us for getting handouts can disappear and I wouldn’t be in the slightest bit disturbed. If you reckon our supporters are fickle just look at theirs, Richmond have a huge support if they are winning but you could fit them in to a telephone box if they start to lose.

[Binmans PA 26,373]

Poor drafting is no one's fault but Richmond's. If they'd drafted well in the first place, they wouldn't be where they are now. So no. They shouldn't be allowed more top picks. I would say the same if it were Melbourne. It might be unfair that GC are awarded massive concessions, but we've known this for a couple of years now.

Edited April 14, 2010 by AdamFarr

[dee-luded 2,958]

I don't think Richmond should be given special treatment because of their insipid drafting and poor culture, yes you may look at helping a group of teams, but not just Richmond.

I would say the same about melbourne to. I do not want the tag basket case to be at our club.

Richmond signed off on these rules with 15 other teams, even though we members had not one word of say which did pi$ed me right off, but what do you do?

How many more 5 year plans do Richmond want? They cut funding to their Footy Dept while Wallace was coaching, so they can only Blame themselves.

Jordan McMahon put that club back 10 years when that goal sailed thru & poor old KB couldn't understand that logic that day....he will B)

It wouldn't be special treatment, it would be the same as we had 'why you little' .

[furious d 447]

It wouldn't be special treatment, it would be the same as we had 'why you little' .

No it wouldn't, it would be the same as giving us Nicnat and losing Blease.

Ninthmond(wouldn't they love to return to those days) aren't eligible for a first round PP next year, they finished with more than 4 wins. As many have said, beating Carlton in rd 22 2007 cost us, same as beating us last year will cost the tiges.

It would be special treatment(cheating) but they won't win more than 4 this year and if they repeat it in 2011 I think they should be given a PP before GWS gets its first pick.

[GOLF 13]

"As many have said, beating Carlton in rd 22 2007 cost us, same as beating us last year will cost the tiges."

True, fd. But did the Richmond coach who beat us then come onto the MFC staff this year?

[Sir Why You Little 34,762]

It wouldn't be special treatment, it would be the same as we had 'why you little' .

How is it the same as the MFC, don't be ridiculous-Richmond have been rebuilding (badly) since 1983. They have had multiple chances to recruit & Draft well, but they & they alone have stuffed up (which has been admitted by them)

So please do not put the MFC in the same basket as Richmond ever.

[Felix 92]

How is it the same as the MFC, don't be ridiculous-Richmond have been rebuilding (badly) since 1983. They have had multiple chances to recruit & Draft well, but they & they alone have stuffed up (which has been admitted by them)

So please do not put the MFC in the same basket as Richmond ever.

Bingo mate.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

Thats a good point 'RalphiusMaximus'. I like that.

I like both points 'RalphiusMaximus'.

I'm puzzled. Is there some special significance being conveyed here with the inverted commas?

[beelzebub 22,271]

Quite frankly though I empathize with the plight of the toiges they aretheir own worst enemy. Opportunities have been squandered. We've had to work it out and so can they. Good luck in that but i love this club not theirs, it's up to you Richmond, get it right or perish ... No special drafts for you .

[IvanBartul13 2,564]

Quite frankly though I empathize with the plight of the toiges they aretheir own worst enemy. Opportunities have been squandered. We've had to work it out and so can they. Good luck in that but i love this club not theirs, it's up to you Richmond, get it right or perish ... No special drafts for you .

The Tigers deserve a priority picks just as we did. When you say "We've had to work it out" what are you saying? That we needed to be so bad to get the high picks and rebuild. Why shouldnt Richmond get that opportunity. In any case the AFL cant give the Tiges the number one pick because Gold Coast have already committed to drafting David Swallow.