How often has this happened? It just a massive furphy. Give me some examples - it's just not a problem. Unless there's some massive incentive like the GW$s, required kids stay at the clubs they're drafted to.

Lets try the name CHRIS JUDD as an example ... in my system he could have been a Demon from day 1 a one club player.

Yet he was forced to travel interstate by the system.

PS Last year we could of got Gaff ... but again he was forced interstate ... my system works both ways. Its simple ... plus you get kids passionate about the jumper!!!!

The reason it doesn't happen is because the draft system doesn't allow them to go where they want with any certainness in normal years. B)

You have no restriction of trade problems ... you reward club that can sell the virtues of their football club ... its simple on draft day each club gets a list of kids that nominated them in any category & they pick one. Draft depths make ZERO difference.

You have eliminated TANKING. Gone never to come back. Every club is on an equal footing.

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by hangon007

Good idea. So Clubs just "invest" in a young player or their family members? By paper bags of unused notes. Swiss bank accounts. Third party arrangements. Has all the honesty and integrity of the process of persuasion of an IOC or FIFA delegate.

hahahahah ... you are funny at times. Paranoia will kill you. Negativity will kill you.

Nothing stopping them doing that in 2-4 years time NOW .... then all $hit breaks lose.

My system avoids that .... from day 1 ... because you never get into a situation where you take a kid ... then the West Coast or Fremantle get the big boys involved ... or Carlton for that matter. B)

Lets try the name CHRIS JUDD as an example ... in my system he could have been a Demon from day 1 a one club player.

and possibly walking out 2-4 years later

Judd gave WC 6 years, a Brownlow and a flag. You said 2-4 years.

Name the top 10 draft pick REQUIRED players who have left to join another club within 4 years of being drafted from the last 10 years of drafting. Here's a hint - Tambling, McLean, Oakley-Nicholls, Meesen, Bradley and Ray weren't required players at the club they were drafted to. You can't name them because there aren't any. It just DOES NOT happen. Quite the reverse - Leuenberger and Rich signed with Brisbane for example. Stop talking [censored].

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by old55

Judd gave WC 6 years, a Brownlow and a flag. You said 2-4 years.

Name the top 10 draft pick REQUIRED players who have left to join another club within 4 years of being drafted from the last 10 years of drafting. Here's a hint - Tambling, McLean, Oakley-Nicholls, Meesen, Bradley and Ray weren't required players at the club they were drafted to. You can't name them because there aren't any. It just DOES NOT happen. Quite the reverse - Leuenberger and Rich signed with Brisbane for example. Stop talking [censored].

Juddy only stayed because he thought they were in the window ... oh yes and he did genuinely like the joint .... his intention was to ALWAYS to return home. Plus it cost them heaps to only eventually lose him anyway. B) Didn't read that in a newspaper did you.

Had the Eagles been basket cases in the earlier years he would have been gone earlier. B) Didn't read that in a newspaper did you.

Plus is you want a name you fool ... geez their is one under your very nose. B)

So its you talking paper rubbish again. hehehehehe.

They dont leave because in normal years their is no certainess in getting to go where they want. oooooohhhhhh.

My system rewards everyone ... unless you cant sell the virtues of your club & you have to force kids, its simple, plus kids that have outstanding junior years get to the club of their choice .... you have no problems in future years keeping them when Rhinos boys come visiting.

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by hangon007

They'd be open to legal action by teams who believed they deserved a priority pick, but weren't awarded one, based on a panel making an unfair judgment.

Much easier to have a tangible measure... like, say... maximum number of wins over 2 years running?

The AFL are a law unto themselves. Clubs cannot afford to upset them lest they suffer the wrath of the weapon of mass destruction, the fixture, against them. The commission could take submissions from clubs who believed that they deserved a priority pick, and where that pick should be. This would placate they clubs.

The automatic provision of the priority pick is the problem, and must be removed.

Juddy only stay because he thought they were in the window ... oh yes and he did genuinely like the joint .... his intention was to ALWAYS to return home. Plus it cost them heaps to only eventually lose him anyway.

Had the Eagles been basket cases in the earlier years he would have been gone earlier. B) Didn't read that in a newspaper did you.

Plus is you want a name you fool ... geez their is one under your very nose. B)

So its you talking paper rubbish again. hehehehehe.

They dont leave because in normal years their is no certainess in getting to go where they want. oooooohhhhhh.

If Judd's grandmother has a moustache ...

Yeah Scully and Davis are returning home to GWS where they wanted to go when they were drafted in 2009 ...

If Judd's grandmother has a moustache ...

Yeah Scully and Davis are returning home to GWS where they wanted to go when they were drafted in 2009 ...

ok ... paper boy ... have it your way. PS Juddy grandmother was one of us ... please dont refer to her like that. B)

ok ... paper boy ... have it your way. PS Juddy grandmother was one of us ... please dont refer to her like that. B)

Look you can't name 1 top 10 draft pick from the past 10 years who was required and who left to go to another club within 2-4 years. None out of 100, nil, nought, zero, zilch, 0%. Yeah it's a massive concern.

It seems that there is no real answer to the question, and that tanking will always be around in some form.

For me, the lottery system seems the best and reduces the certainty of the result.

I like the weighted version where if you use 8 teams for example

16th gets 8 balls to be picked from the barrel

15th gets 7 balls etc until 9th gets 1 ball

The AFL could still even add extra balls to a team as a priority pick.

There is still a chance that 9th could get pick 1, and 16th get pick 8, but it is unlikely.

This system gives more benefits to lower placed teams, whilst still not making the ladder position and pick so certain, therefore reducing the definitive result in tanking.

You could only select kids in the first round that nominated you as a preferred club/s.

In a nutshell your solution to tanking is abolish the draft and let kids go to the club they want to - think that tops "Scully to Richmond" - great work Einstein!

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by old55

Two quick points:

1) Leaving priority picks up to the subjective determination of some AFL commission sounds like a bad way to go. Even if this means there's initially no hard and fast 'line' you need to fall under to get the priority pick, there'll soon be precedents that Clubs and the public will demand be followed. Furthermore, I find the subjectivity intrinsically objectionable.

2) If you don't care about whether you finish 12th or 16th then the lottery system still gives you no incentive to try to win 'meaningless' games at the end of the season. It might reduce the incentive to finish 16th, but then so does removing the priority pick or making it less valuable, both of which avoid situations where teams on the bottom fail to get rewarded in the manner we expect from a draft aimed at equalising the competition.

2) If you don't care about whether you finish 12th or 16th then the lottery system still gives you no incentive to try and win 'meaningless' games at the end of the season.

I would think that winning a game is the incentive. Especially for lower placed teams who are starved for wins. And it gives less incentive to try to lose a game, which I believe is the bigger issue.

In a nutshell your solution to tanking is abolish the draft and let kids go to the club they want to - think that tops "Scully to Richmond" - great work Einstein!

LOL.

Interesting idea ... I like it ... just not sure you could sell this to the other clubs.

How would you stop restriction of trade ... How would you stop kids going where they dont want too and possibly walking out 2-4 years later?

Part of it is that you'd see first-round draft picks more likely to be based on need rather than best available. So you'd have the better kids drop further down the draft anyway, because the reality is you're not going to burn 10 consecutive #1 draft picks (for example) on 10 identical midfielders - there's simply no point. So you might have a couple of mids go, then a forward etc. Kids who announce their intentions regarding the go-home factor (example being NicNat) are far less likely to go interstate if they're good enough I think, as clubs will be aware.

The only issue is if it were implemented tomorrow what would happen regarding Port.

Part of it is that you'd see first-round draft picks more likely to be based on need rather than best available. So you'd have the better kids drop further down the draft anyway, because the reality is you're not going to burn 10 consecutive #1 draft picks (for example) on 10 identical midfielders - there's simply no point. So you might have a couple of mids go, then a forward etc. Kids who announce their intentions regarding the go-home factor (example being NicNat) are far less likely to go interstate if they're good enough I think, as clubs will be aware.

The only issue is if it were implemented tomorrow what would happen regarding Port.

My point is

a/ selling the idea to other clubs ... I can see whats in it for us?

b/ How do you stop kids going to where they dont want to go?

Rubbish I said first round ...

Yeah abolish first round - it's unimportant after all.

Just for you old ... I will highlight my FIRST ROUND ... you have a real problem ...

... you could insert a pre-first round selection where every club get a selection ... almost like the GWS mini draft this year, where players get to nominate your club/s. Kids would have to agree to the nomination for that first round.

You could only select kids in the first round that nominated you as a preferred club/s.

Call it an almost reward for the kids that performed brilliant in TAC cup football.

What that effectively would do is force AFL clubs to invest even more in the youth of tomorrow. If you where going to tank it would not ensure you the kids you want ... in fact the kids are less likely to want you.

You would kill tanking ... you would return the integrity to the game ... you reward top performing kids ... you reward AFL clubs that invested in the kids.

Each club only gets 1 player. Kids dont HAVE to nominate a preferences ... they have 3 options.

Tanking GONE for ever. Actually its a incentive NOT to tank. Fair to all.

But I can see why you "mob" dont like it !!!!!!!!!

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by hangon007

Just do a lottery with PP only determined by the commission if a club falls in a heap.

Done.

This sounds about right. An idea might be Lottery for teams 9-17 (next year 18) for top 10 (exciting telly, too! Just like the Masterchef final...only interesting!)then lottery for top 8. Then draft order as per reverse ladder place from 2nd round onward.

Priority Pick is only what Vlad does in the car to his nose when he thinks no one is looking.

Perhaps the AFL could make an extra 2nd round pick available for teams in the bottom 4 for three years (upgrade of their 4th round pick, for example).

Yeah abolish first round - it's unimportant after all.

Tanking would be gone for first round picks (because they would in fact be a clubs second pick in the draft with zero advantages) ... the Scully saga would never be again!!!!

No you call it something else .... so the AFL leave all their current rules in place. Makes it easy.

So PP COULD stay ... or they COULD go. But those picks would now equate to the 8 game rule over two years to

Pick 19 .... but if you lost that two years down the track ... the $hit wouldn't hit the fan.

Plus it then all comes back to development. Still FAIR to all. Plus you still reward to top performing kids, plus you put the onus on club to sell their virtues before they have to commit their first pick. No more Scully BS ever ... ever. Plus you eliminate go home factors for first rounders ... forever, yes forever. If you lose a second pick its not so painful.

1/ MY System ... Clubs Incentive Programme - I pick per club. KIDS get to nominate club/s or no preference, clubs only allowed to take 1 kid each, done before the draft.

2/ Round 1

3/ Round 2

4/ Round 3

5/ Round 4 etc

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by hangon007

Frankly tanking is so difficult to differentiate from legitimate list management and involves so few that I say turn a blind eye to it. A team that has won four games in two consecutive years is in a mess. I think it adds to the entertainment. And that's all football is these days. It's theatre. The compromised fixture, eg. only small clubs go to skilled stadium, big clubs get the 'G' and are protected from interstate travel. The competition side is the A the biggest failing of the AFL. The admin cares not, the press don't care, so what's wrong with a little tanking for the rest of us plebs. As I say its not a competition, its simply theatre.

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by Harrisonrules

It's a natural cycle teams are up teams are down look at where Brisbane is now after they

dominated for half a decade.

They call it tanking, it's a sexy media word for player management.

There is 3 phases a side can be in

In the hunt - premiership contenders (should be able to win at least one final guaranteed) Coll, Geel, Hawth, Carl, WCE

Bottoming out - List clean out required (need to rebuild overhaul the list) Bris, Port, Adel, WestBull

There abouts - Mixture of holding contending and rebuilding. This is where the majority of lists sit.

If your bottoming out you have to know what you've got playing players out of position to find out if their adaptable is essential.

I'm not concerned with tanking its obvious where list are if your stupid enough to waste money gambling more full you.

I'm for an as even competition as quickly as possible for everyone.

Look at players lost to these new franchises it has only been under performing sides that have lost players further diluting their talent

If you want a competition rather than a farce the priority pick must stay.

Remember you have to be crap for 2 years to receive any significant advantage.

Each club only gets 1 player. Kids dont HAVE to nominate a preferences ... they have 3 options.

Yeah right:

Coniglio nominates West Coast

Patton nominates Collingwood

no-one nominates Port

the only player who doesn't nominate a club is Ashley Sampi

That's going to work out just great

Frankly tanking is so difficult to differentiate from legitimate list management and involves so few that I say turn a blind eye to it. A team that has won four games in two consecutive years is in a mess. I think it adds to the entertainment. And that's all football is these days. It's theatre. The compromised fixture, eg. only small clubs go to skilled stadium, big clubs get the 'G' and are protected from interstate travel. The competition side is the A the biggest failing of the AFL. The admin cares not, the press don't care, so what's wrong with a little tanking for the rest of us plebs. As I say its not a competition, its simply theatre.

I agree with this thats why my system still works. Commission would never have to make a ruling on tanking or list management ... or is a team simply just not good enough.

You would never never hear the word again.

Clubs would be mad to lose games just for pick 37 year 1 ... but they still get it if its genuine need but you have no reason to get AFL involved. There would be a massive risk top kids would not nominate them if they "tanked".

Clubs would be mad to lose games just for pick 19 over 2 years ... but they still get it if its genuine need but you have no reason to get AFL involved. There would be an even greater risk if you did "tank" over two years kids would not nominate you.

Tanking would be gone.

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by hangon007

Yeah right:

Coniglio nominates West Coast

Patton nominates Collingwood

no-one nominates Port

the only player who doesn't nominate a club is Ashley Sampi

That's going to work out just great

hahahah ... you clearly miss the point. Top kids get rewarded, no tanking, no go home factor prior to you using your picks.

If Collingwood are good enough to get the kid to exclusively nominate them ... well thats the kids choice. The kid is not forced to make a choice ... only if HE wants too.

But its fair for all ... its the kids choice, you are forcing them to do nothing.

Dont forget it will work both ways .... what if this year Patton nominated US ... because he doesn't want to go interstate. Hello ... its up to GWS sell the virtues of their club. Better to convince the kid prior to using your first pick ... no Scully saga ever, no Judd go home factor ever. No Trengrove factor ever, no Gaff being forced interstate and missing out playing for the Demons ever.

PLUS you know every first pick you use in EVER draft forever more is playing for the jumper, is passionate about your club.

Plus the AFL never need to determine the diffrence between tanking & list management.

None of this change the order rubbish ... the 12th side still can force kids to go where they dont want just because they have the first pick.

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by hangon007

Yeah right:

Coniglio nominates West Coast

Patton nominates Collingwood

no-one nominates Port

the only player who doesn't nominate a club is Ashley Sampi

That's going to work out just great

Ohhhhh and I should add the biggest one ... funny you mention the name Coniglio

NO CHANCE EVER OF THE AFL losing a kid to cricket because he is FORCED interstate ... that ones for you Andrew. B)

Edited August 8, 201114 yr by hangon007