No worries, you've raised a genuine example of how the club can try and negotiate a better position. Lets hope something like that can eventuate if we try to go down that road.

I did actually find an article that said the Seaby / Buchanan / Dalziell / Staker deal was done on Monday, then the Barry Hall trade on tuesday, and that pick then somehow "completed" an already done trade, as Sydney gave the received pick to Lions for pick 39.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/85877/default.aspx

The Burgoyne / Williams trade was completed on the Thursday, then on the Friday a subsequent trade was done since Essendon weren't planning to use pick 58 anyway.

A minor after-trade cherry that Hawthorn only used on Rhan Hooper anyway.

So they are strange deals, but there's still a modicum of justification there.

I think we'd need to consider a deal very carefully, or else it could get vetoed in the same vein as the proposed GWS mini-draft trade last year, so GWS could keep O'Meara.

Geelong & Adelaide were both agreeing to get involved & on-trade the pick, in return for a free smaller cherry.

What if we nominate our first rounder to daniher. Then we dont have a first rounder left nd can use our second rounder on Viney.

Or if we tell GWS we ll absorb the risk of nominating to take Daniher so they dont have to, as long as they dont bid for Viney. And hell if somehow we end up with Daniher for pick 3 then i dont see it as a loss.

I really don't think you understand how this process works...

I think we'd need to consider a deal very carefully, or else it could get vetoed in the same vein as the proposed GWS mini-draft trade last year, so GWS could keep O'Meara.

Geelong & Adelaide were both agreeing to get involved & on-trade the pick, in return for a free smaller cherry.

Yeah, at the heart of the matter is whatever trade or complexity of trades occur, if the abstaining of bidding for JV by GWS is deemed (by the AFL) as consideration offered as part of those trades then they (the AFL) will judge it draft tampering you'd imagine.

Yeah, at the heart of the matter is whatever trade or complexity of trades occur, if the abstaining of bidding for JV by GWS is deemed (by the AFL) as consideration offered as part of those trades then they (the AFL) will judge it draft tampering you'd imagine.

I'm so confused.....

But then again I am a blond !!!

I really don't think you understand how this process works...

How does the bidding work? anyone have a link? is it a meeting or do clubs do it anonymously at there own discretion?

Could GWS pass on Viney if we inherit the risk of bidding for Daniher as part of a deal? It will give GWS the same benefit as if they nominate for Viney which is 1 pick higher up the pool.

Same benefit, less risk.

Safe for us to, id take daniher at #3 and then we would get vines with our 2nd rounder.

I'm so confused.....

But then again I am a blond !!!

I'm just saying, if the only reason that GWS don't bid on JV is due to some trade we have with them (either direct or indirect) and the AFL views it as such then they won't approve. Sure they may not be able to prove anything and they may not be able to stop a completely legal trade but they still may take action or they could be a headache down the track as a result.

Surely if it benefits their golden childeren the AFL will turn a blind eye.

But then again they are all for integrity, aren't they?

As others have said, if we rate JV as top 5, we simply take him at #3.

But if we rate him as 5-15, we call Sheedy's bluff and nominate him 2nd round. If GWS bite, they will then have to take JV at #1, handing the 'true' #1 pick (Whitfield?) to GC (who by the way will be their major competitor in the years to come) and the 'true' #2 & #3 picks to us. We get our early picks effectively upgraded by one, courtesy of Sheeds.

TS, also courtesy of Sheeds, will have done us a favour by demonstrating the Vlad-approved behaviour for a #1 draft pick who really wants to play for another club. In his 2nd year, he refuses to sign a contract with the club that picks him #1, while making all the "right" noises, while pulling the club apart in the process, and playing at half-pace for the small part of the season when he's not "injured" (that OP can niggle for years, you know!), then he signs a contract during the trade period for the club he wants to play with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. JV follows the TS script to the letter, and ends up with us in 2015. Everyone will know exactly what he's doing but, having so enthusiastically endorsed TS's behaviour, Vlad can surely do nothing about someone else doing exactly the same.

So at the start of the 2015 season, Sheedy will have effectively given us 3 out of 4 top-15 picks (4 & 12 for TS, plus JV) in the best draft in years, while effectively upgrading our 2 top-5 picks by one position. In the meantime, his #1 pick in that same draft will have vanished into thin air, by means of the exact same strategy that he used to snare TS.

So bring it on!!

Or Viney could become disheartened with the dees for not picking him and his father might clear out his office.. but I like your hypothesis

If the AFL is serious about integrity and the F/S process working properly to ensure the sons of guns play for their father's team they should change the rules so clubs can't be forced to use first round picks. It would prevent this situation occurring and the advantage to the clubs receiving the players isn't ridiculous like Geelong drafting Hawkins at 41 and Scarlett at 45

If the AFL is serious about integrity and the F/S process working properly to ensure the sons of guns play for their father's team they should change the rules so clubs can't be forced to use first round picks. It would prevent this situation occurring and the advantage to the clubs receiving the players isn't ridiculous like Geelong drafting Hawkins at 41 and Scarlett at 45

Why can't there be an independent process (ie. using people like Kevin Sheehan) to determine JV's worth rather than risk other club's pulling a dodgy to make us pay over the odds? Other clubs are hardly an independent party in assessing the value of a player in this scenario...

We are the only ones who can make us pay over the odds- If he is only worth pick 5-10 and we use 3 then that is on our heads.

As others have said, if we rate JV as top 5, we simply take him at #3.

But if we rate him as 5-15, we call Sheedy's bluff and nominate him 2nd round. If GWS bite, they will then have to take JV at #1, handing the 'true' #1 pick (Whitfield?) to GC (who by the way will be their major competitor in the years to come) and the 'true' #2 & #3 picks to us. We get our early picks effectively upgraded by one, courtesy of Sheeds.

TS, also courtesy of Sheeds, will have done us a favour by demonstrating the Vlad-approved behaviour for a #1 draft pick who really wants to play for another club. In his 2nd year, he refuses to sign a contract with the club that picks him #1, while making all the "right" noises, while pulling the club apart in the process, and playing at half-pace for the small part of the season when he's not "injured" (that OP can niggle for years, you know!), then he signs a contract during the trade period for the club he wants to play with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. JV follows the TS script to the letter, and ends up with us in 2015. Everyone will know exactly what he's doing but, having so enthusiastically endorsed TS's behaviour, Vlad can surely do nothing about someone else doing exactly the same.

So at the start of the 2015 season, Sheedy will have effectively given us 3 out of 4 top-15 picks (4 & 12 for TS, plus JV) in the best draft in years, while effectively upgrading our 2 top-5 picks by one position. In the meantime, his #1 pick in that same draft will have vanished into thin air, by means of the exact same strategy that he used to snare TS.

So bring it on!!

I don't think you understand either.

We simply nominate that we want to take him as a Father-Son selection, not which round.

Every other team then gets to nominate which pick, if any, they are willing to use on him.

Then it comes back to us - we have a choice of either "matching" and taking him with our next available pick (non-compo), or we let the other team have him for that pick they nominated.

We have no say over what round he is selected in - only if we want him or if we don't.

... hence the need for cloak & dagger style dealings to tamper with the draft.

We can publicly state that we won't take Viney with our 1st round pick. That would be our bluff.

If we have pick 3 and only GWS and GC ahead of us, only they can force our hand to use our 1st round pick.

Neither of these teams has a chance to bluff. They MUST take him if we say no.

But they can call OUR bluff, and make us either take him with pick 3 or let them have Viney.

They don't then get to say "no, sorry Vlad, we were just bluffing - we don't really want him."

They are bound to take him if we don't.

People talking about the integrity of the FS rule really need to think about its whole concept.

It is designed to manipulate at the time Zoning regulations, and now drafting regulations. It is not an even process to start with, and the only issue people have is that we may be forced to over spend rather than under spend on the JV situation.

In saying this, i agree with some that it is a big risk to offer more than its value if you are GWS or GC,

GWS by risking Whitfield and gifting him to GC who also will receive O'meara as a huge boost as it is next year, and become their major competitor,

GC will risk a potentially better player and gift them to us, plus the player who would be ranked 3rd.....also a risk if Viney isnt that good......

So what is it worth by giving us a top 5 pick for pick 20? that is the Risk/Reward scenario and one which managers of all descriptions get paid the big bucks to make decisions on....will be interesting.

would GWS risk Whitfield and gift GC another number 1.....would be hard to say yes to.

Will GC risk similar value towards us, knowing we can take picks 2-3 as 3-4 effectively......

Im liking our position more and more,

all of course appart fomr the 6 months between now and then which means we win about 4-5 games......if we are lucky

People talking about the integrity of the FS rule really need to think about its whole concept.

It is designed to manipulate at the time Zoning regulations, and now drafting regulations. It is not an even process to start with, and the only issue people have is that we may be forced to over spend rather than under spend on the JV situation.

In saying this, i agree with some that it is a big risk to offer more than its value if you are GWS or GC,

GWS by risking Whitfield and gifting him to GC who also will receive O'meara as a huge boost as it is next year, and become their major competitor,

GC will risk a potentially better player and gift them to us, plus the player who would be ranked 3rd.....also a risk if Viney isnt that good......

So what is it worth by giving us a top 5 pick for pick 20? that is the Risk/Reward scenario and one which managers of all descriptions get paid the big bucks to make decisions on....will be interesting.

would GWS risk Whitfield and gift GC another number 1.....would be hard to say yes to.

Will GC risk similar value towards us, knowing we can take picks 2-3 as 3-4 effectively......

Im liking our position more and more,

all of course appart fomr the 6 months between now and then which means we win about 4-5 games......if we are lucky

I doubt GWS would be too concerned about what GC would end up with - it's all about getting the best net result for themselves, and then you start worrying about keeping down your opposition.

Neither would risk pick 1 or 2 on Viney, if they thought he wasn't worth it, but then again I doubt they see it as a risk.

We will take him where ever we have to, it's that simple.

It's Jack, not Tom

Tom Viney is Jack Vineys unborn, not conceived and not even imagined son that we hope will be a gun and that we can draft under a Father Son rule. Expect a 30 page thread about the boy soon...

What if we finish 15th in standings, there are 3 teams that can bid above us.

I doubt GWS would be too concerned about what GC would end up with - it's all about getting the best net result for themselves, and then you start worrying about keeping down your opposition.

Neither would risk pick 1 or 2 on Viney, if they thought he wasn't worth it, but then again I doubt they see it as a risk.

We will take him where ever we have to, it's that simple.

If you know Whitfield is a clear 1, and Viney maybe a 5 the i imagine you would be very aware of how much better a player you will be gifting your closest opposition

If you know Whitfield is a clear 1, and Viney maybe a 5 the i imagine you would be very aware of how much better a player you will be gifting your closest opposition

But why would they care about what GC end up with?

It's all about the opportunity cost for GWS, no one else.

I would love for nothing more than for GWS to screw themselves by picking up JV with pick 1, then watch him come home to us in 2014. Sweet delicious irony.

So, are you telling us they know just as much of say Whitfield, as they do of Viney ?

Because if they "firmly believe he is the no.1 of any year" they'll need to know as much of other candidates as they do of JV.

Absolutely correct.

I can tell you that has come straight from the club. They believe he will be the best footballer to come through this draft no question.

Where the hell do you get this from??

I deal directly with key club people and they have told me. Surely you don't expect me to reveal who?

I'm telling you this is the case. Believe it or not.

But why would they care about what GC end up with?

It's all about the opportunity cost for GWS, no one else.

I understand that you are saying strong organisations let competitors worry about their actions, and this is great.

But imo if you are taking what would be radical action forcing us to use pick 3 with a risk of having to lose abetter player at 1, you would be thinking about that for starters.

But also that you will be giving the best player to you competitor, if you dont consider this then i guess you would be doing one of the hot topics of the MFC a few weeks ago regarding, research into actions.

edit - i think it is something which would be considered, you obviously feel differently, we can disagree on the topic as both a plausible.

I would love for nothing more than for GWS to screw themselves by picking up JV with pick 1, then watch him come home to us in 2014. Sweet delicious irony.

Personally i'd love nothing more than for us to draft him like we are going to, and he plays 200+ brilliant games for us as a one club player.

Absolutely correct.

I can tell you that has come straight from the club. They believe he will be the best footballer to come through this draft no question.

I deal directly with key club people and they have told me. Surely you don't expect me to reveal who?

I'm telling you this is the case. Believe it or not.

OK then .. NOT.

Don't get me wrong, I believe it's quite possible that you have gotten information straight from a person or persons at the club. I just think the way you have interpreted it, or more precisely, reinterpreted it, is not acurate.

Those commentators who a paid to hold unbiased professional opinions on young draft talent are talking about him anywhere from top five to top dozen or so. But the club as a whole, or at least those who matter, are convinced he is absolutely the best kid in the draft? I call bull dust.