maybe. but we would be negotiating from a position of weakness i fear

If they nominate Jack and we take him they don't get any direct benefit, just indirect benefit by making us weaker. We can offer them some direct benefit not to nominate him.

I know we Demon fans think differently, but I wonder if GWS and GC lie awake at night worried about the mighty Demon threat to their flag dynasty - it wouldn't surprise me if they thought they could afford to give us a leg up if it meant direct benefit to them because we're not perceived as a threat.

Negotiation will be "You do not choose Viney and we will not choose Whitfield"

I can't see how that works - the pick we have will be after their picks anyway so who we take with it doesn't impact them.

No we'd need to offer them a player they want at a decent pick discount or a later pick trade that favours them.

As much as there have been countless times when the AFL has annoyed us all, I honestly believe that on this issue they will be leaning on GWS and GC not to dummy big so as to not ruin the romance of the FS rule. Call me stupid or gullible, but I think that they will be saying to them, unless you truly believe that he is top two material (assuming we have pick 3) do not say you will pay a top two pick for him. Otherwise the whole system becomes a farce and any club that is keen to get a father son will thiunk twice about it. For example, say that a player is rated a 15-30 pick and one club bids thier frist round and the father son club is holds pick 8, by rights they will not take the FS and the FS club and AFL loses out on a situation where a great stroy unfolds over time.

So long as JV is not rated top 3 (assuming we have pick 3) i think we could get him with a second round. Lets remember that the old FS rule effectively g'teed this for FS clubs (think Geelong.....). Cant see how other clubs will be so annoyed to effectively vbe bumped down by one pick when I think we all agree that as much as we want to think that the draft is an exact science, it isnt (think Molan etc....!)

Heres hoping anyway! We need all the help and hope we can get.

As much as there have been countless times when the AFL has annoyed us all, I honestly believe that on this issue they will be leaning on GWS and GC not to dummy big so as to not ruin the romance of the FS rule. Call me stupid or gullible, but I think that they will be saying to them, unless you truly believe that he is top two material (assuming we have pick 3) do not say you will pay a top two pick for him. Otherwise the whole system becomes a farce and any club that is keen to get a father son will thiunk twice about it. For example, say that a player is rated a 15-30 pick and one club bids thier frist round and the father son club is holds pick 8, by rights they will not take the FS and the FS club and AFL loses out on a situation where a great stroy unfolds over time.

So long as JV is not rated top 3 (assuming we have pick 3) i think we could get him with a second round. Lets remember that the old FS rule effectively g'teed this for FS clubs (think Geelong.....). Cant see how other clubs will be so annoyed to effectively vbe bumped down by one pick when I think we all agree that as much as we want to think that the draft is an exact science, it isnt (think Molan etc....!)

Heres hoping anyway! We need all the help and hope we can get.

The problem with what you state is that the AFL has said that if the club who the player is F/S for decides the other team has bid too highly, they can force them to use that pick by not nominating.

Thus

GWS have pick 1, nominate Viney.

Melbourne go OK, take him. GWS are then forced to use pick 1 on Viney.

If the Dees then had pick two, they would literally have pick 1 in the draft, as GWS would not be able to choose a player.

I can't see how that works - the pick we have will be after their picks anyway so who we take with it doesn't impact them.

No we'd need to offer them a player they want at a decent pick discount or a later pick trade that favours them.

Who we take does impact them as if we take Whitfield then they ll be forced to take Viney with a #1 draft pick.

If they nominate Jack and we take him they don't get any direct benefit, just indirect benefit by making us weaker. We can offer them some direct benefit not to nominate him.

Unless I'm missing something they absolutely get a direct benefit.

Firstly, Any team which finishes below us on the ladder has the opportunity to bring their standard 2nd round pick forward by a place if we are forced to pick JV with our standard first rounder as opposed to our standard 2nd rounder.

In the case of GWS what compounds this is that they also have a first round compo pick (tied to the 2012 ladder position of Adelaide) which they have activated so from their position they have 2 picks which go up a spot if we use our standard first on Jack. Given it is touted as a strong draft they would directly benefit in the scenario you raise.

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by 1858

If they nominate Jack and we take him they don't get any direct benefit, just indirect benefit by making us weaker. We can offer them some direct benefit not to nominate him.

I know we Demon fans think differently, but I wonder if GWS and GC lie awake at night worried about the mighty Demon threat to their flag dynasty - it wouldn't surprise me if they thought they could afford to give us a leg up if it meant direct benefit to them because we're not perceived as a threat.

The point is we could get viney with a second round pick instead of a pick 3. That is an ENORMOUS advantage (to us) and anyone negotiating with us would know that and would demand a BIG favour.

Plus if we finish 3rd last we have to negotiate with TWO other clubs

Try and come up with some win-win examples and we can discuss them

Someone smarter than me suggested we could arrange trade deals (to be executed in the trade period that follows the F/S) that are favourable to GWS and GC on the basis that they don't nominate Jack.

Win-win!

Agreements could easily be made and signed off pre-trade period, just not lodged with the AFL until after the trade period commences.

Wouldn't be the first time.

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by José Mourinho

Why would GWS nominate Viney over Daniher?

Isnt Daniher touted as being higher valued player?, if there going to risk messing up a team then wouldn't they be more likely to try to mess up Essendon?

The point is we could get viney with a second round pick instead of a pick 3. That is an ENORMOUS advantage (to us) and anyone negotiating with us would know that and would demand a BIG favour.

Plus if we finish 3rd last we have to negotiate with TWO other clubs

Try and come up with some win-win examples and we can discuss them

We're not saying it will be easy but it is the only way we take Viney in the second round.

Option 1 - GWS or GC bid for Viney, MFC take him at 3.

MFC Result: Pays abstract overs for a player we really need.

GWS and GC: They make a competitor pay more than full price for a player. No direct benefit.

Option 2 - Enable handshake agreements on trades prior to F/S bidding. Mid to late picks on table. Some fringe players on table.

MFC Result: Ensure Viney is in the second round. Give nothing trades a few weeks later that idiot fans decry and The Footy World © call 'gaming of the system.'

GWS and GC : Get an overbalanced trade for absolutely nothing. Direct benefit.

These are the only options.

Examples: Bennell/McDonald/Davis/Martin/Tapscott/Cook for Pick 75, or Pick 40 for Pick 75 as trading picks for picks is legal now.

Why would GWS nominate Viney over Daniher?

Isnt Daniher touted as being higher valued player?, if there going to risk messing up a team then wouldn't they be more likely to try to mess up Essendon?

GWS bid Pick 1 for Daniher. Essendon locks in pick 12.

GWS bid Pick 1 for Viney. Melbourne locks in Pick 3.

They can do both.

it would be funny if Todd said his son wasn't worth pick #3.

Better yet Jack could say he will take a year off to play tennis if picked up by GWS or Gold Coast.

GWS bid Pick 1 for Daniher. Essendon locks in pick 12.

GWS bid Pick 1 for Viney. Melbourne locks in Pick 3.

They can do both.

2 birds with 1 stone in Sheedy's eyes.

GWS bid Pick 1 for Daniher. Essendon locks in pick 12.

GWS bid Pick 1 for Viney. Melbourne locks in Pick 3.

They can do both.

Personally i don't think multiple bids should be allowed...

This extra pick could be a Dustin Martin or a Trent Cotchin we may lose out on...

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by olisik

We're not saying it will be easy but it is the only way we take Viney in the second round.

Option 1 - GWS or GC bid for Viney, MFC take him at 3.

MFC Result: Pays abstract overs for a player we really need.

GWS and GC: They make a competitor pay more than full price for a player. No direct benefit.

There is actually.

Option 2 - Enable handshake agreements on trades prior to F/S bidding. Mid to late picks on table. Some fringe players on table.

MFC Result: Ensure Viney is in the second round. Give nothing trades a few weeks later that idiot fans decry and The Footy World © call 'gaming of the system.'

GWS and GC : Get an overbalanced trade for absolutely nothing. Direct benefit.

These are the only options.

Examples: Bennell/McDonald/Davis/Martin/Tapscott/Cook for Pick 75, or Pick 40 for Pick 75 as trading picks for picks is legal now.

I would love to see the response of the AFL if such an obvious trade like that was made ie single lower pick for a single higher pick. As you say completely legal and there's nothing he can do about it. The rest of the league would be up in arms too, would be awesome.

As much as there have been countless times when the AFL has annoyed us all, I honestly believe that on this issue they will be leaning on GWS and GC not to dummy big so as to not ruin the romance of the FS rule. Call me stupid or gullible, but I think that they will be saying to them, unless you truly believe that he is top two material (assuming we have pick 3) do not say you will pay a top two pick for him. Otherwise the whole system becomes a farce and any club that is keen to get a father son will thiunk twice about it. For example, say that a player is rated a 15-30 pick and one club bids thier frist round and the father son club is holds pick 8, by rights they will not take the FS and the FS club and AFL loses out on a situation where a great stroy unfolds over time.

So long as JV is not rated top 3 (assuming we have pick 3) i think we could get him with a second round. Lets remember that the old FS rule effectively g'teed this for FS clubs (think Geelong.....). Cant see how other clubs will be so annoyed to effectively vbe bumped down by one pick when I think we all agree that as much as we want to think that the draft is an exact science, it isnt (think Molan etc....!)

Heres hoping anyway! We need all the help and hope we can get.

You're too, too nice! You need to spend 5 minutes with Range Rover - he'll help you understand how it really works.

GWS bid Pick 1 for Daniher. Essendon locks in pick 12.

GWS bid Pick 1 for Viney. Melbourne locks in Pick 3.

They can do both.

Can they make 2 bids?

There is actually.

That direct benefit is simply giving them another name to call out in the late teens that might be slightly better than the one they would call out. I believe it is a negligible benefit, especially in this Teenage Lottery Draft © that we have in the AFL.

The other negligible benefit is making us pay, and that is why we should offer the sweeteners.

I would love to see the response of the AFL if such an obvious trade like that was made ie single lower pick for a single higher pick. As you say completely legal and there's nothing he can do about it. The rest of the league would be up in arms too, would be awesome.

This is the power play that Dr Gonzo is looking for, not a bluff that won't be bought. Sheedy would agree, given enough benefit, maybe the GC could be coaxed into it...

Who we take does impact them as if we take Whitfield then they ll be forced to take Viney with a #1 draft pick.

You're not making any sense - we won't get a chance to take Whitfield.

If we finish 16th and they nominate Viney the picks will be 1: GWS, 2: GC, 3: MFC=Viney, 4: MFC, 5: 15th finishing team

If we finish 16th and they don't nominate Viney the picks will be 1: GWS, 2: GC, 3: MFC, 4: MFC, 5: 15th finishing team .... Round 2 MFC: Viney

Our picks are after their picks either way, they'll take Whitfield either way.

Can they make 2 bids?

As soon as Essendon say we will take Daniher, GWS can make another bid.

That is my understanding as it is a 'meeting' setting that requires back and forth to ascertain who has rights to whom, and not a deadline where bids are made at one time and finalised then and there.

I'm scared that we are creating too much hype around the poor kid (Jack Viney).

Will he become the next Jack Watts next year if he doesn't perform up to our elevated standards we are unfairly setting for him?

I can see threads full of hundreds of comments from us arguing, bickering and verbally slaying one another (just like the Watts thread) about whether Jacks gonna make it or not, and what draft pick we should have used to pick him up in light of how he is/isn't performing on the field.

eeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkkk!

Unless I'm missing something they absolutely get a direct benefit.

Firstly, Any team which finishes below us on the ladder has the opportunity to bring their standard 2nd round pick forward by a place if we are forced to pick JV with our standard first rounder as opposed to our standard 2nd rounder.

In the case of GWS what compounds this is that they also have a first round compo pick (tied to the 2012 ladder position of Adelaide) which they have activated so from their position they have 2 picks which go up a spot if we use our standard first on Jack. Given it is touted as a strong draft they would directly benefit in the scenario you raise.

No that's not right, there'll still be the same number of picks before their pick, someone else will take Viney with one of those picks and quite possibly before the Adelaide pick. Viney will absolutely go in the first round so there's no "bringing their 2nd round pick forward" it's still pick 21 and Viney goes in an earlier pick to either us or someone else. Even if your logic was right - say Viney went after the Adelaide pick - that advantage they're getting is a 1 pick upgrade - bfd - we'd need to offer them something better than that.

GWS bid Pick 1 for Daniher. Essendon locks in pick 12.

GWS bid Pick 1 for Viney. Melbourne locks in Pick 3.

They can do both.

Are you sure on that scenario rfpc? They get to rebid straight away?

Also, in your scenario, I didn't think Essendon had to lock in Daniher until it was their turn to bid

I would love to see the response of the AFL if such an obvious trade like that was made ie single lower pick for a single higher pick. As you say completely legal and there's nothing he can do about it. The rest of the league would be up in arms too, would be awesome.

We could do something less obvious like give them our 3rd rounder for their 5th and 6th rounder which they have no intention of using anyway. We don't have to use the picks we trade for either.

You're not making any sense - we won't get a chance to take Whitfield.

If we finish 16th and they nominate Viney the picks will be 1: GWS, 2: GC, 3: MFC=Viney, 4: MFC, 5: 15th finishing team

If we finish 16th and they don't nominate Viney the picks will be 1: GWS, 2: GC, 3: MFC, 4: MFC, 5: 15th finishing team .... Round 2 MFC: Viney

Our picks are after their picks either way, they'll take Whitfield either way.

I'm impressed I knew there always was hope for you. (I could feel it in my guts) ... I'm sure we will get a few "curve balls" probably other teams sticking their fat noses in where they dont belong. But they dont have the gunpowder we have.

Keep up the good work

Edited April 26, 201213 yr by Dr Who