GOOD POINTS RAISED---I'd even throw in the antique back yard dunny..to get Patton...he'd sit well in the pocket alongside Fev,Cook, next year.

Oh! does this antique Back Yard Dunny have a furry lipd liner there JCB-31??? :lol:

Said in Herald Sun, early this week. We will be able to trade our 2 compensation picks to GWS for two 17 year olds. Who they expected would be O'meara & Gartlett.

Every other AFL club was jealous of the situation we were in, so i think it is allowed to be done.

Said in Herald Sun, early this week. We will be able to trade our 2 compensation picks to GWS for two 17 year olds. Who they expected would be O'meara & Gartlett.

Every other AFL club was jealous of the situation we were in, so i think it is allowed to be done.

Again, a HUN article...

It's allowed. But I fail to see how a pick at the end of the first round will be enough to get one of those kids...

They are extremely talented no doubt but that pick, even if it is 'floating' will be pick 19 at best, and that won't cut it. Easily gazumped.

I thought you could trade future picks, Compo picks I know do not come into calculation for Father son, just like priority picks.

So Dr Drake, let me get this right:

Let's say we lose Scully and get two Rd 1 compensation picks.

If we trade with GWS - the result could be:

GWS get Scully and our Rd 1 2012 Pick plus say Bate or Dunn or Morton etc (whatever player we negotiate along with the 17yo trade)

Melb gets a 17-y-o eg: O'Meara, We get Viney for a Rd 2 pick in 2012 and we still keep our Round 1 pick in 2011.

Is that right?

Again, a HUN article...

It's allowed. But I fail to see how a pick at the end of the first round will be enough to get one of those kids...

They are extremely talented no doubt but that pick, even if it is 'floating' will be pick 19 at best, and that won't cut it. Easily gazumped.

Wrong.

One pick is mid first round, to be taken immediately after the first pick of 9th place. In 2012 that = pick 11.

One pick is a first rounder that can be taken immediately after Melbourne's first pick. In 2012 (say we finish 8th) = pick 13.

This is using the Ablett compensation as a guide.

http://aflspace.com/2010/09/29/geelong-get-two-first-round-picks-for-sun-ablett/

Edited July 21, 201114 yr by Sylvia Saint

Again, a HUN article...

It's allowed. But I fail to see how a pick at the end of the first round will be enough to get one of those kids...

They are extremely talented no doubt but that pick, even if it is 'floating' will be pick 19 at best, and that won't cut it. Easily gazumped.

Isnt one a mid first rounder? so say pick 11? that one is very valuable considering the wraps on the 2012 draft, also we got Tapscott at 18 or so, Fyfe went at 20 any first rounder is valued

If this kid is the best thing ever - some have said a better prospect than Scully - why would GWS trade him? in fact why would they trade a better? prospect who costs $900,000 less

If this kid is the best thing ever - some have said a better prospect than Scully - why would GWS trade him? in fact why would they trade a better? prospect who costs $900,000 less

Because they have to. They can only trade them they dont actually have them on their list.

Because they have to. They can only trade them they dont actually have them on their list.

So basically gws trade them to the club that makes the best offer? And if they don't trade they would lose? So if our mid first round pick (plus say morton) was the best offer from all clubs received by GWS, they would trade with us? And if there are four 17 y old picks, is there a ranking system ie: if our offer was best we would have first pick and could pick up o'meara?

So basically gws trade them to the club that makes the best offer? And if they don't trade they would lose? So if our mid first round pick (plus say morton) was the best offer from all clubs received by GWS, they would trade with us? And if there are four 17 y old picks, is there a ranking system ie: if our offer was best we would have first pick and could pick up o'meara?

They can gamble and not trade any picks this year, finish bottom and take O'meara in 2012, they have 2 years to trade these 17yo picks so could trade them all next year for a draft which wont cost them the best player in it.....lachie whitfield is in 2012 i believe so he is still a good #1 if they do trade the picks this year

I read somewhere that if Tom Scully does go we could end up with Jaeger O'Meara. It would involve something like trading our compo picks back to GWS.

Does any have more info?

Also, if indeed Scully goes, I reckon we should throw a huge amount at Pendels next year will be a free agent and was a dees supporter.

Yes, and invite Collingwood to out-money us and offer a billion-squillion for Trengove.

GWS are forced to trade the four 17 year olds. They don't have an option of keeping those players.

I reckon we should trade:

- 1 comp pick +

- Warnock (best key defender not playing regular senior AFL football in Australi imo. With Frawley, Garland, Rivers, Troy Davis and Tom McDonald he's not important for us but would be valuable for them) +

- One of Dunn, Bate or Morton (none of these guys are really in our best 22, Morton still has the most upside out of those 3)

For O'Meara.

LOSE: Scully, Warnock, Bate

GAIN: 1 Compo pick + O'Meara

= not a terrible result at all. That's making the best of a bad situation.

We'll get a super talent in O'Meara who, if drafted in 2012, would be rated top 3 for sure at the moment + another first round pick we can use for the 2012 superdraft!

They can gamble and not trade any picks this year, finish bottom and take O'meara in 2012, they have 2 years to trade these 17yo picks so could trade them all next year for a draft which wont cost them the best player in it.....lachie whitfield is in 2012 i believe so he is still a good #1 if they do trade the picks this year

Now we're talkin'.

If we traded Scully for 2 first Rnd compensation picks, I'd be happy to trade one back to receive the first pick in the 2012 draft, Plus trade our 2nd compensation pick + Morton, + '''''''',,, for O'Meara.

I don't fully get how these compo picks will workout, but I wouldn't mind a crack @ Whitfield, at this early stage.

And I wouldn't mind loading up on 1st Rnd picks of the 2012 draft.

They can gamble and not trade any picks this year, finish bottom and take O'meara in 2012, they have 2 years to trade these 17yo picks so could trade them all next year for a draft which wont cost them the best player in it.....lachie whitfield is in 2012 i believe so he is still a good #1 if they do trade the picks this year

This years 17 yo's have plenty of currency though, clubs will offer a fair bit for a crack at these kids. If next year's batch aren't percieved to be as good by recruiters, the other clubs won't part with much.

I think GWS will strike while the irons hot and wouldn't be surprised if they offer 3 this year. If they can get a few of the first round compo picks back they become major players in next years draft as well. Sheedy seems to be looking long term. Scully, Walker, Ward etc on long term contracts, no doubt heavily front ended, leaving plenty of cap space for their kids to mature into. If it works for them they could be pretty awesome in about 5 years, but they'll be terrible for at least 2.

Any club with a first round compo pick would be mad not to trade it in for an early crack at potential top 3 from what's already being billed as a superdraft. This gives a shot at reasonable compensation if Scully does decide to go, potential star for potential star 3 years behind in development, plus another pick to use somewhere else. Not against using it to try to secure an established player to offset the immediate loss of Scully. I'd prefer to chase someone young though, like a Dangerfield or a Fyfe

Wrong.

One pick is mid first round, to be taken immediately after the first pick of 9th place. In 2012 that = pick 11.

One pick is a first rounder that can be taken immediately after Melbourne's first pick. In 2012 (say we finish 8th) = pick 13.

This is using the Ablett compensation as a guide.

http://aflspace.com/2010/09/29/geelong-get-two-first-round-picks-for-sun-ablett/

Isnt one a mid first rounder? so say pick 11? that one is very valuable considering the wraps on the 2012 draft, also we got Tapscott at 18 or so, Fyfe went at 20 any first rounder is valued

The stupid article says we can get TWO players. I am happy enough with the logic that the mid-round pick and a player might get you one of these 17 year olds.

I do not see how the second compo pick at the end of the first round gets you the SECOND 17 year old, which is where the article become fanciful, if it wasn't there already.

Bate plus comp picks plus Dunn for two seventeen year olds. Bang.

Bate plus comp picks plus Dunn for two seventeen year olds. Bang.

"GWS - So you are offering the compo picks?

MFC - Yeah, and Bate and Dunn.

GWS - Oh, ok. So you are offering the compo picks?"

Stop overrating our depth players, they don't play AFL well.

...but getting Boak or similar would make me feel better about things.

Is there any chance of that happening? I'd be over the moon if that happened.

You can't trade future draft picks even for GWS 17yos - I'm not sure where you got that idea - I'd love to see a source. We can trade the compo picks to GWS though and they have a 5 year life spab so are in effect "future" picks.

The rule for F/S is that you have to give your next available pick after the nominating club's pick. F/S comes before the trade so we will have our regular 1st rounder. It's not clear whether compensation 1st rounders come into play but I suspect they do if you've nominated to use them in that year.

I'm not 100% certain on how the Father/Son works but my understanding was a club, any club had to put in a bid for the player and the Father/Son club had to nominate they were taking the player with their next pick or if they didn't the other club who put in the bid were obliged to take him.

So Melbourne want Viney and the hawks put in a bid for him using their first round pick of say 14, we have pick 10 so our next pick is pick 28 and that's the pick we must use if we declare we will select him F/S.

If we decide that we don't want to use pick 28 because he's dropped off in form we can decline and that would leave the Hawks, as I said holding the bag and they would have to select him with their first round pick.

Is that right?

I'm not 100% certain on how the Father/Son works but my understanding was a club, any club had to put in a bid for the player and the Father/Son club had to nominate they were taking the player with their next pick or if they didn't the other club who put in the bid were obliged to take him.

So Melbourne want Viney and the hawks put in a bid for him using their first round pick of say 14, we have pick 10 so our next pick is pick 28 and that's the pick we must use if we declare we will select him F/S.

If we decide that we don't want to use pick 28 because he's dropped off in form we can decline and that would leave the Hawks, as I said holding the bag and they would have to select him with their first round pick.

Is that right?

yes thats my understanding as well, all comes down to his rating next year top ten or not, also with us committing so heavily clubs may force our hand even if he isnt quite worth our pick... what is 3-4 positions in actual draft order to sign the "son of a gun MFC captain" we will pay our first rounder

I'm not 100% certain on how the Father/Son works but my understanding was a club, any club had to put in a bid for the player and the Father/Son club had to nominate they were taking the player with their next pick or if they didn't the other club who put in the bid were obliged to take him.

So Melbourne want Viney and the hawks put in a bid for him using their first round pick of say 14, we have pick 10 so our next pick is pick 28 and that's the pick we must use if we declare we will select him F/S.

If we decide that we don't want to use pick 28 because he's dropped off in form we can decline and that would leave the Hawks, as I said holding the bag and they would have to select him with their first round pick.

Is that right?

Yes that's right.

AFL Player Rules

4.2.7 Father/Son Listing Forego Draft Selection

(a) Prior to a Club including an eligible player(s) on its Primary List in accordance with Rule 4.2.5, each other Club, at such time as determined by the General Manager Football Operations, shall have the opportunity to nominate the draft selection they would be prepared to utilise in order to select that Player(s) at the next AFL Draft Selection Meeting.

(B) In the event another Club(s) nominates a draft selection under Rule 4.2.7(a), the Club desirous of including the eligible player on its Primary List in accordance with Rule 4.2.5, may withdraw its application for inclusion of the eligible player on its Primary List. If the Club withdraws its application for inclusion of the eligible player on its Primary List then the Club which has nominated the lowest draft selection under Rule 4.2.7(a) shall include the Player on its Primary List and forfeit that draft selection at the National AFL Draft Selection Meeting.

© In the event another Club(s) nominates a draft selection under Rule 4.2.7(a) and the Club desirous of including the eligible player on its Primary List in accordance with Rule 4.2.5 does not

withdraw its application under Rule 4.2.7(B), the Club shall include the Player on its Primary List and shall forfeit its next draft selection at the National Draft Selection Meeting after the lowest selection nominated by another Club under rule 4.2.7(a).

(d) If no Club nominates a draft selection under rule 4.2.7(a), the Club shall forfeit its last draft selection at the National Draft Selection Meeting.

(e) In the case of multiple eligible Players, if no Club nominates a draft selection under rule 4.2.7(a), the Club shall forfeit its last and each previous draft selection at the National AFL Draft Selection Meeting.

I'm afraid it doesn't say anything about compo picks so it's not clear if our next pick was a compo pick whether that would be in the frame. It just says next draft selection so I'm assuming that it would be until advised otherwise. The point might be moot because one compo pick is AFTER our pick and the other is after the non-finals teams so they're likely to be close together anyway.

Why dont we throw in Jamar, Watts & Slyvia if the bloke is that good.

Some of you blokes are incredible, the way you talk about our players really makes me wonder if you do support Melbourne.

These trade suggestions are laughable at best or more likely just coming from the clueless. Just get off our players backs.

All for what ... a 17 yo Wets Australian kid who we would lose in 2-3 years anyway with 99% of the attitudes around here.

Why dont we throw in Jamar, Watts & Slyvia if the bloke is that good.

Some of you blokes are incredible, the way you talk about our players really makes me wonder if you do support Melbourne.

These trade suggestions are laughable at best or more likely just coming from the clueless. Just get off our players backs.

All for what ... a 17 yo Wets Australian kid who we would lose in 2-3 years anyway with 99% of the attitudes around here.

I support the club. The players are secondary. I want a premiership not a bunch of 300 gamers.

I support the club. The players are secondary. I want a premiership not a bunch of 300 gamers.

We wont have a club if you dont retain our playing group. Our current playing group his a bias towards the young, I have no problems with that. However, the last thing we need is a further increase in the bias. We need to keep & increase the maturity of our playing group as a combined unit. In other words we need more games in to this collective group ... not less.

Otherwise all we will become is a development club ripe for the picking. We cant sustain that moving forward. We need success or we will financially fall further & further behind. So if you truly want to "support" the club start getting behind the whole collective group.

Edited July 22, 201114 yr by hangon007

We wont have a club if you dont retain our playing group. Our current playing group his a bias towards the young, I have no problems with that. However, the last thing we need is a further increase in the bias. We need to keep & increase the maturity of our playing group as a combined unit. In other words we need more games in to this collective group ... not less.

Otherwise all we will become is a development club ripe for the picking. We cant sustain that moving forward. We need success or we will financially fall further & further behind. So if you truly want to "support" the club start getting behind the whole collective group.

You do realise we HAVE to lose 3 players off our list - it's an AFL rule.

Which 3 would you lose and what for?