I know people would love to get the bonus of Viney as a second round pick, but are you really going to be stressed out about taking him with pick 3? He is in all likelihood a top 5 pick regardless, so what is the big issue? We take him with our pick 3 (assuming we wind up with 3 and 4), take whoever we would otherwise have taken at three with our pick four, and we wind up with two very good players. That sounds like a pretty good scenario to me.

I would also like to point out to everyone talking about "handshake agreements" with clubs that the AFL in their infinite wisdom have declared that in this specific case any such deal would be regarded as draft tampering and the club would face sanctions (despite the fact that other clubs have been doing such deals for years). As such, I find it highly doubtful that we would attempt something like that, especially not with GWS, given that they would love to run to the AFL and complain about it just to cause trouble.

Personally, while I can see the appeal of picking Jack up with a second round pick, I will be thrilled to have him in the side regardless and I don't think pick three is too much to pay for him. It's not like there are three outstanding players who are head and shoulders above the rest.

You don't see the difference in taking JV with a second round pick over pick 3 and then having that pick 3 to get a far better player than will be left at pick 24. You don't see it as a big issue.

You don't see the difference in taking JV with a second round pick over pick 3 and then having that pick 3 to get a far better player than will be left at pick 24. You don't see it as a big issue.

Sure it would be great but if I was GCS then I'd bid for him, they need a player like Viney desperately. Really though, why get worked up over something you have no control of? My preference is that we leap frog about 3 teams in front of us so it won't be an issue.

I know people would love to get the bonus of Viney as a second round pick, but are you really going to be stressed out about taking him with pick 3? He is in all likelihood a top 5 pick regardless, so what is the big issue? We take him with our pick 3 (assuming we wind up with 3 and 4), take whoever we would otherwise have taken at three with our pick four, and we wind up with two very good players. That sounds like a pretty good scenario to me.

I would also like to point out to everyone talking about "handshake agreements" with clubs that the AFL in their infinite wisdom have declared that in this specific case any such deal would be regarded as draft tampering and the club would face sanctions (despite the fact that other clubs have been doing such deals for years). As such, I find it highly doubtful that we would attempt something like that, especially not with GWS, given that they would love to run to the AFL and complain about it just to cause trouble.

Personally, while I can see the appeal of picking Jack up with a second round pick, I will be thrilled to have him in the side regardless and I don't think pick three is too much to pay for him. It's not like there are three outstanding players who are head and shoulders above the rest.

The difference between pick 3 and pick 25 could be a choice in the 17 yr old draft.

If as touted, we would be losing out on a Carey or a Mcleod

I know people would love to get the bonus of Viney as a second round pick, but are you really going to be stressed out about taking him with pick 3? He is in all likelihood a top 5 pick regardless, so what is the big issue? We take him with our pick 3 (assuming we wind up with 3 and 4), take whoever we would otherwise have taken at three with our pick four, and we wind up with two very good players. That sounds like a pretty good scenario to me.

I would also like to point out to everyone talking about "handshake agreements" with clubs that the AFL in their infinite wisdom have declared that in this specific case any such deal would be regarded as draft tampering and the club would face sanctions (despite the fact that other clubs have been doing such deals for years). As such, I find it highly doubtful that we would attempt something like that, especially not with GWS, given that they would love to run to the AFL and complain about it just to cause trouble.

Personally, while I can see the appeal of picking Jack up with a second round pick, I will be thrilled to have him in the side regardless and I don't think pick three is too much to pay for him. It's not like there are three outstanding players who are head and shoulders above the rest.

If GWS and GCS's genuine picks 1 and 2 would not be JV, then them not bidding for JV with their no1 or 2 picks, could hardly be described as manipulation. All they would have to do in the FS 'draft' is be honest to their true intentions.

For this reason I think it would be arguable that this is not draft manipulation

In fact, if they did bid for Viney when they didn't really want him as a no 1 or 2 pick then this would arguably be manipulation.

(The above assumes of course that we finish 16th above GCS and GWS)

Quick question. It might have been covered elsewhere but I couldn't see it (I did search). With the F/S bidding, would teams bid for Jack Viney first or Joe Daniher first? And if they bid their first round pick on one and lose, can they bid the same pick for the other? I sort of assume they could but not too sure.

You don't see the difference in taking JV with a second round pick over pick 3 and then having that pick 3 to get a far better player than will be left at pick 24.

I would very much like it if you could point out exactly where I said that Redleg. Perhaps you could actually read my post while you try to do so. I freely acknowledge that getting Viney with a second round pick is a better outcome, but I will in no way be upset to get him with a top 5 pick given that I rate him as a top 5 player.

The difference between pick 3 and pick 25 could be a choice in the 17 yr old draft.

If as touted, we would be losing out on a Carey or a Mcleod

Again, I have stated that it would be a good outcome if we managed to get him in the second round. The point I am making is that if GWS or GC force us to use a first round pick on him, I have no problem with that and will be happy to pick him up at three.

If GWS and GCS's genuine picks 1 and 2 would not be JV, then them not bidding for JV with their no1 or 2 picks, could hardly be described as manipulation. All they would have to do in the FS 'draft' is be honest to their true intentions.

For this reason I think it would be arguable that this is not draft manipulation

In fact, if they did bid for Viney when they didn't really want him as a no 1 or 2 pick then this would arguably be manipulation.

(The above assumes of course that we finish 16th above GCS and GWS)

You could argue that it is not draft manipulation, but given that the AFL have already warned us not to try it, I don't think you'll get very far. As with the Scully Debacle, it's one rule for the rest of the competition and another for MFC.

I

You could argue that it is not draft manipulation, but given that the AFL have already warned us not to try it, I don't think you'll get very far. As with the Scully Debacle, it's one rule for the rest of the competition and another for MFC.

Well luckily they didn't get too specific and we didn't ask for any specifics so I guess that gives us (and the AFL) plenty of room to manoeuvre.

always hilarious whenever the AFL comes the heavy in respect to Draft fixing..etc..

Pot ...Kettle....

always hilarious whenever the AFL comes the heavy in respect to Draft fixing..etc..

Pot ...Kettle....

Yeah, a bit like the AFL says were gonna have some horse trading and we're gonna call it a Draft. And rule no 1 is no horse trading

.-- .... .- - / - .... . / ..-. ..- -.-. -.-

Di-dah-dah Di-di-di-dit Di-dah Dah, Dah Di-di-di-dit Dit, Di-di-dah-dit Di-di-dah Dah-di-dah-dit Dah-di-dah

Makes it more like the AFL D_aft !!

I will be shattered if we decide not to get Jack with pick 3. yes ok we will miss out on a 17 year old who could be a gun but we could also get another morton, Mclean or sylvia who yes is good but not consistent. Why wait for a player to take years to show potential when we know Jack is ready. he is tough, hard at the ball and is a great player. We already know what we will get.

He would be a player that Neeld would love to coach. Imagine a centre square line up of Jones, Moloney if he stays and Viney.

We would be crazy if we let him slip and I reckon his dad would be pretty cheesed off as well. Look at our recruiting in the past, it hasnt been great. Jack is settled into the club. I say just get him. He would be a great father/son pick up better than the last one. Ive been waiting for one of these past players that was a superstar to have a son want to play for this club. Look at geelong, abblett, scarlett and hawkins. JAck Viney would be ready round 1.

I'll say it again, if JV were not the son of a former player, and we passed him up at pick 3, we'd forever be bemoaning the decision to not select a player who typifies exactly what we need.

If you thought the Darling decision was bad... most supporters would spend the next decade calling for TV's head if he were still at the club following the decision.

This could be big news - http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-overhauls-fatherson-bidding-20120627-212vm.html

I'm too tired right now to work out all the potential effects of this, but this article clarifies the bidding process, including a change to the process.

Anyone care to analyse this and give their view on how it affects our chances of picking up JV in the 2nd round?

Actually, having a second read of this, particularly these bits ...

Rather than offer the nominated players to clubs one by one, in reverse ladder order, the league will instead present them as a group.

For example, should the ladder remain the same, Gold Coast will first be asked if it would like to bid its No. 1 pick on any of the nominated players.

Should Gold Coast bid, hypothetically, for Daniher, Essendon would then be asked if it wanted to match the bid with its next available pick. If the Bombers did that, the Suns would then be given the opportunity to bid for one of the other players. Those remaining would be offered to GWS, Melbourne and the rest of the clubs, in reverse ladder order.

... makes me think it won't make an ounce of difference to our chances. We still have to get past two teams who have a chance to spoil the party (assuming current ladder position, of course).

Actually, having a second read of this, particularly these bits ...

Rather than offer the nominated players to clubs one by one, in reverse ladder order, the league will instead present them as a group.

For example, should the ladder remain the same, Gold Coast will first be asked if it would like to bid its No. 1 pick on any of the nominated players.

Should Gold Coast bid, hypothetically, for Daniher, Essendon would then be asked if it wanted to match the bid with its next available pick. If the Bombers did that, the Suns would then be given the opportunity to bid for one of the other players. Those remaining would be offered to GWS, Melbourne and the rest of the clubs, in reverse ladder order.

... makes me think it won't make an ounce of difference to our chances. We still have to get past two teams who have a chance to spoil the party (assuming current ladder position, of course).

It just clarifies that:

1. Teams can bid for more than one player with the same pick assuming the previous bid(s) failed.

2. Teams cannot 'bid away' their pick. Eg. Melbourne bids Pick 3 on Daniher and the Bombers say 'Whatevs' - we couldn't get that through if GC or GWS bids for Viney and we decide to take him - we would have to use Pick 3 on Viney. It's convoluted so don't be concerned if anyone doesn't follow.

It just clarifies that:

1. Teams can bid for more than one player with the same pick assuming the previous bid(s) failed.

2. Teams cannot 'bid away' their pick. Eg. Melbourne bids Pick 3 on Daniher and the Bombers say 'Whatevs' - we couldn't get that through if GC or GWS bids for Viney and we decide to take him - we would have to use Pick 3 on Viney. It's convoluted so don't be concerned if anyone doesn't follow.

I don't know if point 1 is right RP. It looks to me that it is doing the total opposite. Gold Coast get presented a group of players, are asked "do you want to use your number 1 pick on any of them?" they say "no", then it goes to GWS, who are asked "do you want to use your number 2 pick on these players?", and so on.

I actually like the concept and will save a lot of dummy bids being put in.

Yeah, absolute certainty that Viney will be our first picked player now.

What a farce!

Doesn't really make a difference, but it's still good to see it clarified.

Yeah, absolute certainty that Viney will be our first picked player now.

What a farce!

How is it? I must be misreading it. It is taking away the opportunity for Clubs to bid on multiple players with 1 selection. I'll try and explain it in words - apologies if it doesn't sound right!

In the past, the bottom team have the Number 1 draft pick (still occurs!). They are then asked, "would you use that on Jack Viney?". If they say "Yes", then the F/S club (ie Melbourne) have the right to select him with their first pick after the one being offered by the GC. If we take Viney, then Gold Coast are asked "here's Joe Daniher, do you want to use your first pick on him?". If they say "Yes", then Essendon have the right of reply. In other words, they are getting mulitple cracks at F/S players with their number 1 pick.

The proposed change will mean that GC will be asked "Ok, you have Pick 1, which F/S PLAYER are you willing to use that pick on?". If they nominate Viney, we have the right of reply. If they nominate Viney, it means Essendon won't have to worry about GC bidding on Daniher with the Number 1 pick, meaning they can't bid for him again until their 2nd round pick. That doesn't mean GWS can't pick him with the Number 2 pick.

How'd I go? Hopefully that explains how I am reading it - I could be wrong with my interpretation. But I do believe it favours (slightly) the Club with the F/S pick, and so it should. It should favour them slightly, but not unfairly to other teams.

I don't know if point 1 is right RP. It looks to me that it is doing the total opposite. Gold Coast get presented a group of players, are asked "do you want to use your number 1 pick on any of them?" they say "no", then it goes to GWS, who are asked "do you want to use your number 2 pick on these players?", and so on.

I actually like the concept and will save a lot of dummy bids being put in.

thats also how i read it.. Will be rather interesting to see how it pans out. I always suspected wed have to use 3 on Viney anyway and so be it. But Im not sure this wil actually stymmie us in the manner the AFL seems to be hoping ( conspiring ) to do so.

The way I also read it is we DONT have to play a trump...if it isnt required....could be wrong but.

But GWS & GCS aren't stupid and won't bid for Daniher because they know a bevy of other clubs will bid for him before Essendon's pick, and the bombers won't let him go.

GWS & GCS only need concern themselves with JV, and making sure we pay the maximum for him provided it doesn't adversely affect their net result.

Our job is to make it in their best interests to NOT bid for JV, by offering them the very pick they'd be forcing us to use in a deal weighted in their favour, and/or a deal where they essentially get something for nothing.

In this way, pick 3 becomes a lot like a mini-draft pick.

We won't be left alone to use it ourselves - it will only have any tangible value if we use it in a trade (to GWS or GC).

Obviously we forfeit the 2nd round pick for JV in that case, but you'd expect to get a much better return for pick 3, even if it is a deal weighted in the other party's favour.

I think it is essential that pick 3 is included in any trade deal, because that precludes one or both of the teams reneging on letting JV slip through.

Surely for any deal to be agreed, it would need to be signed off before the F/S bidding, but dated for it to be within the trade period, and therefore legal. If pick 3 is not included, they could theoretically reneg and hold us to an inequitable deal.

It also would need to be pre-signed to provide some form of a guarantee for GWS & GCS that we won't secure JV in the 2nd round, then reneg ourselves on the following trade deal.

Also it is likely, if such a deal were to go ahead, that pick 3 would be the best value any club would offer GWS for one of the mini-draft picks.

Surely they'd want to instead give us a kid like Devon Smith for pick 3, but we must insist on the mini-draft pick, even if it's pick 2.

They'll go through with it in the end, because they won't get another better offer.

I don't care how much Sheedy despises us.

It's in GWS' best interests to deal with us, and he isn't the only one pulling the strings.

It'd be negligence to ignore our deal out of the spite of 1 man.

The proposed change will mean that GC will be asked "Ok, you have Pick 1, which F/S PLAYER are you willing to use that pick on?". If they nominate Viney, we have the right of reply. If they nominate Viney, it means Essendon won't have to worry about GC bidding on Daniher with the Number 1 pick, meaning they can't bid for him again until their 2nd round pick. That doesn't mean GWS can't pick him with the Number 2 pick.

Note sure if that's right.

"Should Gold Coast bid, hypothetically, for Daniher, Essendon would then be asked if it wanted to match the bid with its next available pick. If the Bombers did that, the Suns would then be given the opportunity to bid for one of the other players. Those remaining would be offered to GWS, Melbourne and the rest of the clubs, in reverse ladder order."

How is it? I must be misreading it. It is taking away the opportunity for Clubs to bid on multiple players with 1 selection. I'll try and explain it in words - apologies if it doesn't sound right!

In the past, the bottom team have the Number 1 draft pick (still occurs!). They are then asked, "would you use that on Jack Viney?". If they say "Yes", then the F/S club (ie Melbourne) have the right to select him with their first pick after the one being offered by the GC. If we take Viney, then Gold Coast are asked "here's Joe Daniher, do you want to use your first pick on him?". If they say "Yes", then Essendon have the right of reply. In other words, they are getting mulitple cracks at F/S players with their number 1 pick.

The proposed change will mean that GC will be asked "Ok, you have Pick 1, which F/S PLAYER are you willing to use that pick on?". If they nominate Viney, we have the right of reply. If they nominate Viney, it means Essendon won't have to worry about GC bidding on Daniher with the Number 1 pick, meaning they can't bid for him again until their 2nd round pick. That doesn't mean GWS can't pick him with the Number 2 pick.

How'd I go? Hopefully that explains how I am reading it - I could be wrong with my interpretation. But I do believe it favours (slightly) the Club with the F/S pick, and so it should. It should favour them slightly, but not unfairly to other teams.

I think you are reading it wrong.

Should Gold Coast bid, hypothetically, for Daniher, Essendon would then be asked if it wanted to match the bid with its next available pick. If the Bombers did that, the Suns would then be given the opportunity to bid for one of the other players. Those remaining would be offered to GWS, Melbourne and the rest of the clubs, in reverse ladder order.

I believe this change just allows the lower ranked team to have first 'dibs' on players. I thought that was the case anyway, but I guess newspapers need to be filled.

The Suns could name all the F/S picks at one, have them all go to their repective clubs before anyone else has a chance to nominate a player.

Although I guess this way is a time saver as you can get right to the point of who is in the best position to get the player.

I may be in the minority, but I say f**k any secret deals with any club. If they (ie GC or GWS) want to go down that dummy bidding to force us to pay premium, we have 2 decisions - force them to use that pick on Viney and miss getting the "true" number 1 or 2 picks, or we are the ones being forced.

I think the comments coming from the MFC about there being ne certainty of us picking Viney with our first pick, shows to me that they want nothing to do with any secret deals with anyone. Planting the seed of doubt in the minds of the GCS and GWS team is as much as we can do, and as much as I want this football club to be involved in.

I ask the question, if you were the Gold Coast recruiters sitting there with the number 1 pick firmly in your hands at the end of the year, would you throw in a dummy bid for Viney, woth the risk of actually getting him. More to the point, with the bigger risk of missing out on Whitfield?

The MFC have had ample time to come up with ways to deter other teams picking Viney too early. We are in a position (on the ladder) where we only have a couple of teams to consider.