13 for Caddy and their 2nd rounder is the least id take.

?? can you expand abit on that ? cheers

If GC bid their no. 2 pick on Viney and we let them have him, then that pick is locked. From that point on they are unable to use it for anything other than taking JV in the draft. They can't trade it, bid with it on another FS candidate or offer it in the mini-draft bidding. If we are forced to cough up our pick 3 for him, the same would then apply to us.

If GC bid their no. 2 pick on Viney and we let them have him, then that pick is locked. From that point on they are unable to use it for anything other than taking JV in the draft. They can't trade it, bid with it on another FS candidate or offer it in the mini-draft bidding.

Correct

If we are forced to cough up our pick 3 for him, the same would then apply to us.

We also have pick 4 which then becomes the 3rd live pick, which we can then do what we want.

Edited September 17, 201212 yr by Rassilon

The number of scenarios laid out in this thread are very interesting to read. From my point of view I see three clubs who all will be sitting back and making a decision on what would be best for them. I don't think GC and GWS would have the mentality of how can I stop MFC from getting so many 1st Rounders in the draft. They would be considering which players do we need to bring to our club for our continued development. Their needs would be first most in their minds because if an AFL club starts trying to worry about what others are doing and try and limit them via draft then to me that is foolish and unprofessional as it is trying to control something that they can not do. I think as other have alluded to MFC will await the positions taken by GWS and GC on 5th October 2012 and decide what to do from there. They may have a couple of options worked out but until they start the F/S Nomination process it all up in the air.

The questions I would be asking is

1. What do GWS lack in regards their current list. Do they need another Inside Midfielder or are they looking to fill other gaps?

2. What do GC lack in regards their current list. Do they need another Inside Midfielder or are they looking to fill other gaps?

If the answer is yes to either of these then they would need to consider the best available player and if it comes out J Viney is that person then they may bid.

I don't see GWS or GC as they both a number of developing midfielders who will get better and better they will be looking to get some older senior players to assist with their core young groups.

If they do call, then I would take JV regardless because he is exactly what we need in our team and would slot into our midfield very easily.

The number of scenarios laid out in this thread are very interesting to read. From my point of view I see three clubs who all will be sitting back and making a decision on what would be best for them. I don't think GC and GWS would have the mentality of how can I stop MFC from getting so many 1st Rounders in the draft. They would be considering which players do we need to bring to our club for our continued development. Their needs would be first most in their minds because if an AFL club starts trying to worry about what others are doing and try and limit them via draft then to me that is foolish and unprofessional as it is trying to control something that they can not do. I think as other have alluded to MFC will await the positions taken by GWS and GC on 5th October 2012 and decide what to do from there. They may have a couple of options worked out but until they start the F/S Nomination process it all up in the air.

The questions I would be asking is

1. What do GWS lack in regards their current list. Do they need another Inside Midfielder or are they looking to fill other gaps?

2. What do GC lack in regards their current list. Do they need another Inside Midfielder or are they looking to fill other gaps?

If the answer is yes to either of these then they would need to consider the best available player and if it comes out J Viney is that person then they may bid.

I don't see GWS or GC as they both a number of developing midfielders who will get better and better they will be looking to get some older senior players to assist with their core young groups.

If they do call, then I would take JV regardless because he is exactly what we need in our team and would slot into our midfield very easily.

Nice analysis. However, trading and drafts will be judged on not what you do with one pick or by selecting one players. Clubs look at the big picture not individual picks and players.

Clubs generally hate to lock themselves into one position or another. Essentially they consider - if this happens we do this - or if that happens we will do this. Flexibility is the key, and doing what is best for your club over the whole draft and recruiting process.

All the same nice post. I agree all clubs will sit down and figure what is best for themselves. Hence, why I think GC & GWS will not make a final decision until they get more information on who is or who isnt available. Locking themselves in too early ie Day 1 in the first 15 minutes may prove to be a fatal error. When last were all the "big" deals done on day 1 - answer never.

IIRC, Luke Ball was able to nominate his remuneration and, as a result he nominated front loaded terms which had been pre-arranged with Collingwood. Ball made himself unavailable for interviews with other clubs and his medicals were also off limits to everyone but the Pies. Ultimately, this made Ball a less appealing prospect to clubs that might otherwise have drafted him.

Since the AFL allowed this to happen, it was not regarded as tampering with the draft and, in the end, Collingwood was able to pick Ball up with a second round selection after several clubs passed on him.

My question therefore is whether a first year player is able to nominate his terms and, if so, could Viney and Melbourne agree to a front loaded contract for two years which would make it prohibitive for GWS or GCS to select him?

IIRC, Luke Ball was able to nominate his remuneration and, as a result he nominated front loaded terms which had been pre-arranged with Collingwood. Ball made himself unavailable for interviews with other clubs and his medicals were also off limits to everyone but the Pies. Ultimately, this made Ball a less appealing prospect to clubs that might otherwise have drafted him.

Since the AFL allowed this to happen, it was not regarded as tampering with the draft and, in the end, Collingwood was able to pick Ball up with a second round selection after several clubs passed on him.

My question therefore is whether a first year player is able to nominate his terms and, if so, could Viney and Melbourne agree to a front loaded contract for two years which would make it prohibitive for GWS or GCS to select him?

Players have to agree to take take anything other than the automatic deals for first round players set out in the CBA so GC could just make him sign the automatic 2-year deal. If he doesn't, in fact, if anyone didn't - they would banned from ALL forms of footy for the life of that first automatic contract.

So no, it isn't an option. And nor is letting him go and getting him back in two years - he won't be back.

Edited September 17, 201212 yr by rpfc

IIRC, Luke Ball was able to nominate his remuneration and, as a result he nominated front loaded terms which had been pre-arranged with Collingwood. Ball made himself unavailable for interviews with other clubs and his medicals were also off limits to everyone but the Pies. Ultimately, this made Ball a less appealing prospect to clubs that might otherwise have drafted him.

Since the AFL allowed this to happen, it was not regarded as tampering with the draft and, in the end, Collingwood was able to pick Ball up with a second round selection after several clubs passed on him.

My question therefore is whether a first year player is able to nominate his terms and, if so, could Viney and Melbourne agree to a front loaded contract for two years which would make it prohibitive for GWS or GCS to select him?

New draftee contracts are all set by the AFL. The top picks I think get slightly more money, but the conditions are basically the same across the board.

Gold Coast to make bid:

http://www.sportsnewsfirst.com.au/articles/2012/10/02/gold-coast-pitch-for-viney/

Gold Coast to make bid:

http://www.sportsnew...itch-for-viney/

Why o why did he go to an interview with them

Gold Coast to make bid:

http://www.sportsnew...itch-for-viney/

hardly definitive evidence there mate.... Dodgy info at the best of times. Let them bid. mark my words Viney will be a Demon

Why o why did he go to an interview with them

I doubt that he did. But he may have.

Gold Coast's best result would be to extract some deal from MFC prior to not bidding for JV.

Viewed from that perspective these media articles are just part of the "argie-bargy" of that discussion.

Level heads at both clubs will see Jack at the Dee for second round pick.

Edited October 2, 201212 yr by PaulRB

Gold Coast to make bid:

http://www.sportsnew...itch-for-viney/

According to the notoriously inaccurate Kim Hagdorn.

And even Hagdorn attempted to distance himself with "Viney is believed to have met .... and was told....."

That sounds like he's got some rock solid info.

Need a story on AFL? mmm... Lets do another Viney piece...

Need a story on AFL? mmm... Lets do another Viney piece...

its also been the same with Brendon Goddard. We didnt need to read 400 stories to know he was going.

According to the notoriously inaccurate Kim Hagdorn.

And even Hagdorn attempted to distance himself with "Viney is believed to have met .... and was told....."

That sounds like he's got some rock solid info.

I don't see this 'meeting' as totally unbelievable.

'IF' he did I would expect (I hope?) Jack told them that he would seek a trade back to Victoria as soon as he did his 2 years up there. If GC still draft him after he said that they'd be morons? You don't build a club & culture by bringing in blokes who don't want to be there. It is a huge risk for GC. We shouldn't think they have all the cards to play in this.

I think they will bid.... But no point crying about it, we are very lucky to have pick 4 still, that way we still get one of the top 3 talents, and Viney is in my opinion in the 5-8 range, therefore using 3 isn't that big of a deal.

Not many sleeps now.

Not many sleeps now.

Who can sleep?

6

I think they will bid.... But no point crying about it, we are very lucky to have pick 4 still, that way we still get one of the top 3 talents, and Viney is in my opinion in the 5-8 range, therefore using 3 isn't that big of a deal.

Why are we lucky that we have pick #4 when we have to use pick #3 on Viney?

Turns our Scully compo basically into pick #13 and pick #26. I would take pick #1 anyday over that.

Who can sleep?

Not all of us are with Jen.

Why are we lucky that we have pick #4 when we have to use pick #3 on Viney?

Turns our Scully compo basically into pick #13 and pick #26. I would take pick #1 anyday over that.

You, and your FUBAR logic, have morphed the HWFUA compensation into the Viney pick and that is nonsense.

If the overpriced simpleton was still here we would be wondering about what we do with our first 'live' pick at 26 if Viney is taken at 3.

So we have picks 2 & 3! Woohooo!