I think Gubby would also have been leading the "small extra concession" of allowing GC & GWS to pre-select players that have previously nominated for the draft.

The ability to then on-trade them, as GC did with Krakouer, would have been largely ignored.

Same with the 4 x 17 year old picks that must be on-traded - that was sold on the concept of it being used to get more mature players as it would be harder the attract them.

I'm willing to bet that GWS secure a handful of future compensation draft picks in these trades, rather than just a host of old players.

Youd think so...its the next best thing in future banking after actual talented young players. Youd think ALL clubs would be keeping thi sin mind as they go about build player assett bases. Hope we are.

I've posted this before but here goes again - I'm struggling to see why people think it's more unfair that Tom Scully can be targeted than it is that Marc Murphy can be targeted? From Carlton's perspective they've invested more in Murphy and are just starting to reap the rewards. If there was a service limit on GC/GWS targets it would need to be pretty long - like the free agency 8 years and that probably doesn't give them sufficient advantage. The fact is they need decent concessions and we're potentially collateral damage - the only way out is a fair compensation deal. I don't think Geelong got that with Ablett - he's worth more that 2 mid 1st rounders and so would Brendan Goddard, Marc Murphy and Tom Scully be.

My second observation is that Demetriou has a reputation for holding a grudge and getting even - I think he retains a special place in his heart for MFC from when he was a lone voice saying that tanking doesn't occur despite significant circumstantial evidence. I'm not expecting any special favours.

Surely the alarm bells must have been ringing as far back as when they (committee reps - club reps) sat at the table to discuss the concessions and the topic of first/second year players came up ?

I wonder what went through CS's mind when GWS announced Gubby Allen was heading up recruiting. Perhaps it was reminiscing of who was leading the charge of the basis of this type of concession?

Gary March by his own admission says they didnt think they would target first and second year players.

And whilst you should never discount anything - the concessions did give (s) access to the best youth in the land via the draft - i can understand the thinking that they would have been targeting more experienced uncontracted players ( and in reality - that is exactly how GC17 went).

I also understand the cap concessions that GWS has but these are only temporary and with Free agency coming in i think they are wise in offering a 20 year old the touted money that was apparently on offer for Martin. It is would be bad for our structure making a 20 year one of the highest paid players at the club and the same must apply to them. ( i would have thought)

I've posted this before but here goes again - I'm struggling to see why people think it's more unfair that Tom Scully can be targeted than it is that Marc Murphy can be targeted? From Carlton's perspective they've invested more in Murphy and are just starting to reap the rewards. If there was a service limit on GC/GWS targets it would need to be pretty long - like the free agency 8 years and that probably doesn't give them sufficient advantage. The fact is they need decent concessions and we're potentially collateral damage - the only way out is a fair compensation deal. I don't think Geelong got that with Ablett - he's worth more that 2 mid 1st rounders and so would Brendan Goddard, Marc Murphy and Tom Scully be.

My second observation is that Demetriou has a reputation for holding a grudge and getting even - I think he retains a special place in his heart for MFC from when he was a lone voice saying that tanking doesn't occur despite significant circumstantial evidence. I'm not expecting any special favours.

On your first observation - I agree and if we agree that free agency is ok at 8 years then the same rules should apply to uncontracted players. GWS anc GC17 are getting an enormous leg up with the draft picks they have access to

Gary March by his own admission says they didnt think they would target first and second year players.

And whilst you should never discount anything - the concessions did give (s) access to the best youth in the land via the draft - i can understand the thinking that they would have been targeting more experienced uncontracted players ( and in reality - that is exactly how GC17 went).

Come on...seriously?

Even if you thought GC/GWS wouldn't target rising stars it is idiotic if you didn't consider the possibility and then argue for appropriate compensation in the event that it did happen.

Maybe the Clubs got railroaded, as has been suggested in this thread, but the 'we didn't expect it to happen' defence is honestly pathetic.

It's not 'we weren't aware...', it's 'we didn't consider the ramifications'.

Exactly. Given the history with White and Buckley, its an inexplicable excuse.

And given MFC had a swathe of young talent, how in the hell did they think they could not be targetted?

Naive.

I think as Gary March said - no one expected the targeting of first and second year players. A semi reasonable assumption considering the pick of the 17 year old and all the draft concessions given.

This is very poor if its true. Staggering in fact.

I think it would be good if the melbourne supporters were informed by the club as to what they were actually doing/saying to the afl about this issue, or are they just sitting back and copping it on the chin. I feel like we have no back bone

Wrong. The Club should be trying to sought out this mess the best they can and when they have it agreed and resolved to advise supporters at that point. You can go and assume that they are sitting back and have no back bone.

...

I would not expect any sympathy what so ever from Vlad given what we were obviously doing 2 years ago.

Come on...seriously?

Even if you thought GC/GWS wouldn't target rising stars it is idiotic if you didn't consider the possibility and then argue for appropriate compensation in the event that it did happen.

Maybe the Clubs got railroaded, as has been suggested in this thread, but the 'we didn't expect it to happen' defence is honestly pathetic.

Well pathetic may be the word - but March brought it up and was then supported by two other clubs - after the event.

The press didnt bring it up before the event when the concessions were discussed and there has only been shock horror after the event. The first rumblings was from Richmond when Martin was apparently approached which was late year - not evident early in the year because all of GC17's approaches were to mature players

So pathetic maybe, but wouldnt be the first oversight by clubs and it wont be the last

So pathetic maybe, but wouldnt be the first oversight by clubs and it wont be the last

Its a bad oversight. Almost on the par of salary cap breaching.

I would have thought the first consideration of any CEO is what would be the impact of the rule on my Club's list and what would I be compensated with?

On that basis, the lights should have been flashing at MFC. Given past experiences with high draft picks that have walked from their first club.

Exactly. Given the history with White and Buckley, its an inexplicable excuse.

Are you on the White and Buckley bandwagon as well...

This is so different.

1/ Buckley stated upfront that he wanted to play for Collingwood - wrongly or rightly there was a get out clause in his contract

2/ Jeff White was miserable and wanted to come home ( you dont remember him being ridiculed for crying on the phone to his mum ?) - he was never going to stay in Freo - if he didnt come to the Dees he would have gone to another Victorian club

Its a bad oversight. Almost on the par of salary cap breaching.

I would have thought the first consideration of any CEO is what would be the impact of the rule on my Club's list and what would I be compensated with?

On that basis, the lights should have been flashing at MFC. Given past experiences with high draft picks that have walked from their first club.

name them - name first year players ? second year players ? even third year players ? name them

I seem to remember the Vote for the expansion teams was taken in one night, rather Quickly.

Wouldn't suprise me at all if a lot of the details were railroaded by the AFL, under the guise of Financial Security for all.

I remember waking up to the news of "All 16 clubs have unanimously voted for 2 extra teams"....Bit like the GST vote!!!!

At the time it didn't sit well, and i don't think the CEO's of any club have explained it all to the members....yet.

Voting for GWS is just beyond insane. But it's too late now.

Edited June 16, 201114 yr by why you little

Its a bad oversight. Almost on the par of salary cap breaching.

I would have thought the first consideration of any CEO is what would be the impact of the rule on my Club's list and what would I be compensated with?

On that basis, the lights should have been flashing at MFC. Given past experiences with high draft picks that have walked from their first club.

I hope people saying things like the above aren't accusing our Admin in particular and are not engaged in the all too common MFC bashing. (Not accusing RR here, just many posters seems to think they would do better than our people close to the action.)

As an earlier post pointed out, the arrangement the clubs (not just us!) agreed to is worse for clubs who have put several years into developing a top player only to find him snatched away. Are all the CEO's blind to these flashing lights, or did they have no choice?

Voting for GWS is just beyond insane. But it's too late now.

I agree with you on the insane. I may be proven wrong but i see irony in calling pathetic - an oversight of the rules that have allowed this farcical situation with young players to happen, yet we are not questioning - GWS in the league at all - WTF ???????????

White, Buckley and Grant for starters. Schwab was even involved in the White deal.

So it begs the question: Why didn't MFC assess the potential of the rule against the talent on our list?

For all that was sacrificed to get the young talent, we have potentially squandered the benefit frivolously.

I seem to remember the Vote for the expansion teams was taken in one night, rather Quickly.

Wouldn't suprise me at all if a lot of the details were railroaded by the AFL, under the guise of Financial Security for all.

I remember waking up to the news of "All 16 clubs have unanimously voted for 2 extra teams"....Bit like the GST vote!!!!

On one hand you seem to remember but then remember waking up.... Do you know if it was drink spiking??

FWIW, both the GST and expansion of the AFL was in the media for at least 2 to 3 years. You must have dozed for a while.

At the time it didn't sit well, and i don't think the CEO's of any club have explained it all to the members....yet.

Voting for GWS is just beyond insane. But it's too late now.

Its a decision that was not subject to members approval nor should it have been. However Club officials should be kept accountable for their actions in regard the AFL decision.

White, Buckley and Grant for starters. Schwab was even involved in the White deal.

So it begs the question: Why didn't MFC assess the potential of the rule against the talent on our list?

For all that was sacrificed to get the young talent, we have potentially squandered the benefit frivolously.

Not sure on Grant - you may well be right on him.

However you decided to completely disregard what is documented about White to Melbourne and Buckley - they are both in no way shape or form comparible to what is being discussed here

I agree with you on the insane. I may be proven wrong but i see irony in calling pathetic - an oversight of the rules that have allowed this farcical situation with young players to happen, yet we are not questioning - GWS in the league at all - WTF ???????????

16 Yes votes in one night.....To me there is a rat involved....i think it was a situation of "Pick one of these" All of them bad...."Which one is the least Bad?" We will vote for that one.

The league does not need to worry about Victoria....We will support our clubs regardless.

We are being Royally screwed though, i have no doubt.

Not sure on Grant - you may well be right on him.

However you decided to completely disregard what is documented about White to Melbourne and Buckley - they are both in no way shape or form comparible to what is being discussed here

Put simply they were 1 to 2 year players that chose to leave the Club they were drafted by. The reason for leaving is neither here nor there.

Its happened before. There is a precedent. In fact Schwab was involved in the White deal. So why it could not have been considered in the assessment of the rules is a disaster.

So it begs the question: Why didn't MFC assess the potential of the rule against the talent on our list?

For all that was sacrificed to get the young talent, we have potentially squandered the benefit frivolously.

Im not letting the administrations off the hook - I honestly think that this wasnt thought thru and should have been.

Why didnt any club assess the rule ?

North with Bastinac

Richmond with Martin

MFC with Scully Trengove etc

These three clubs are at least negligent in the questioning of the rules at the time.

Maybe Cam was incensed at what March said after the event because he didnt want to look like a dick

Im not letting the administrations off the hook - I honestly think that this wasnt thought thru and should have been.

Why didnt any club assess the rule ?

North with Bastinac

Richmond with Martin

MFC with Scully Trengove etc

These three clubs are at least negligent in the questioning of the rules at the time.

Maybe Cam was incensed at what March said after the event because he didnt want to look like a dick

It's exactly why the vote was taken so Quickly....All 16 Presidents should have debated this for weeks and weeks. But that is not what the AFL wished..and they hold the cash.

Put simply they were 1 to 2 year players that chose to leave the Club they were drafted by. The reason for leaving is neither here nor there.

Its happened before. There is a precedent. In fact Schwab was involved in the White deal. So why it could not have been considered in the assessment of the rules is a disaster.

I agree 100% - it is a disaster.

But i see those two differently.

We are essentially in violent agreement - you believe the CEO's involved in formulating the rules should have seen this coming.

I believe they didnt but agree they should have.

[

Im not letting the administrations off the hook - I honestly think that this wasnt thought thru and should have been.

Why didnt any club assess the rule ?

North with Bastinac

Richmond with Martin

MFC with Scully Trengove etc

These three clubs are at least negligent in the questioning of the rules at the time.

Maybe Cam was incensed at what March said after the event because he didnt want to look like a dick

Agree.

I just feel we had more to lose than any other club with Scully, Trengove and Watts.

We should have rallied the other Vic Clubs because clearly they all have something at stake.

It's exactly why the vote was taken so Quickly....All 16 Presidents should have debated this for weeks and weeks. But that is not what the AFL wished..and they hold the cash.

Truly do you ever stop to actually get the true facts of what actually happened? Rather than concocting naive (and while I was asleep) conspiracy theories that even the most foolish person would say "I think there's something not right here".

Truly do you ever stop to actually get the true facts of what actually happened? Rather than concocting naive (and while I was asleep) conspiracy theories that even the most foolish person would say "I think there's something not right here".

That's just it Rhino....Nobody knows the true Facts, and that's why certain clubs have been screwed, although i am sure you will now write 10 elongated paragraphs telling me i am wrong.

Off ya go....

Edited June 16, 201114 yr by why you little

I agree 100% - it is a disaster.

But i see those two differently.

We are essentially in violent agreement - you believe the CEO's involved in formulating the rules should have seen this coming.

I believe they didnt but agree they should have.

Great debate by both of you - I'm amazed and stunned at these revelations....now I'm completely stressed.

[

Agree.

I just feel we had more to lose than any other club with Scully, Trengove and Watts.

We should have rallied the other Vic Clubs because clearly they all have something at stake.

I didnt think about it at the time - but can i say at the least, I am retrospectively appalled that these rules were not closely examined and challenged?