The Mini Draft

[Nasher 33,617]

All this BS scheming and corrupt conduct really does make me like footy less.

This isn't footy, it's footy politics. I love it myself, but if you're not a fan, click the big "X" on your browser and leave it closed until March.

[Nasher 33,617]

Yeah I read something similar.... although it sounds as though gubby and silvagni don't want to trade any of the picks apparently, so as to have a chance of keeping O'meara .... apparently other clubs are not giving enough to them in exchange for the picks

At risk of incurring old55's wrath for failing Mini Draft 101, how does this make any sense? If they're worthless to GWS then not trading them doesn't help them attain O'Meara, it just stops them from picking up players/more draft picks for free. More likely that they're hanging out for the best offers - I wouldn't be in that great a hurry to do the trades either in this case, just make the other clubs sweat for a few days first.

[GRUN DEE 69]

I am quitley confident we can land either O'meara or Crouch. But if GWS are playing hard ball! I say STUFF THE MINI DRAFT.

I would rather use the compo picks next season on ANDREW GAFF.

[Jordie_tackles 354]

It is just Gubby playing hard ball.... yeah like your not gonna trade any this year when the value is higher.

Clubs will want their picks next year for the "super draft" i can see 3 picks going this year personally

Also would find it nice if all 17 other clubs told GWS to get stuffed not giving them anything else

[BAMF 4,413]

At risk of incurring old55's wrath for failing Mini Draft 101, how does this make any sense? If they're worthless to GWS then not trading them doesn't help them attain O'Meara, it just stops them from picking up players/more draft picks for free. More likely that they're hanging out for the best offers - I wouldn't be in that great a hurry to do the trades either in this case, just make the other clubs sweat for a few days first.

GWS has got an elaborate 4 team trade on the go where they have a loop hole to trade away pick 1 in the mini draft and then trade it back in the same trade.

Unfortunatly all teams look like winners. See page 8+9 of the TRADE WEEK THREAD

[Harry Manback 2]

At risk of incurring old55's wrath for failing Mini Draft 101, how does this make any sense? If they're worthless to GWS then not trading them doesn't help them attain O'Meara, it just stops them from picking up players/more draft picks for free. More likely that they're hanging out for the best offers - I wouldn't be in that great a hurry to do the trades either in this case, just make the other clubs sweat for a few days first.

I believe Oucher is referring to this article by the one & only Kim Hackdorn...

http://www.sportsnewsfirst.com.au/articles/2011/10/11/o-meara-could-wait-on-draft/

GW$ would hold-off trading any of the mini-draft picks this year in the hope of finishing last next year & obtaining JOM via pick 1 in the 2012 draft...

Risky tactic though as the likes of Port & GCS are eligible for a PP which would come before GWS 1st pick (assuming they finish bottom, of course), not to mention the fact they will have to auction all four mini draft picks next year which may result in inferior offers to the ones they are receiving now...

Like you say, this may just be another GW$ tactic to push up the trade value of the mini-draft picks, but after seeing the slimy way in which they have conducted themselves thus far, nothing would surprise me...

[Ouch! 2,268]

At risk of incurring old55's wrath for failing Mini Draft 101, how does this make any sense? If they're worthless to GWS then not trading them doesn't help them attain O'Meara, it just stops them from picking up players/more draft picks for free. More likely that they're hanging out for the best offers - I wouldn't be in that great a hurry to do the trades either in this case, just make the other clubs sweat for a few days first.

Yes, it makes sense that they are hanging out for better offers, but also if they hold the picks over to next year. O'Meara, Crouch etc are not on the table, another group of 17 yr olds are, and if GWS win the spoon they can pick O'Meara up next year.

... it's refreshing having another team to loathe other than Collingwood, Essendon, & Carlton isn't it?

[Ouch! 2,268]

I believe Oucher is referring to this article by the one & only Kim Hackdorn...

http://www.sportsnew...-wait-on-draft/

*shudder* I suddenly feel a little unclean

[Roger Mellie 4,148]

It's best not to make enemies of the AFL, because they hold all the cards.

And they make all the rules.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,368]

At risk of incurring old55's wrath for failing Mini Draft 101, how does this make any sense? If they're worthless to GWS then not trading them doesn't help them attain O'Meara, it just stops them from picking up players/more draft picks for free. More likely that they're hanging out for the best offers - I wouldn't be in that great a hurry to do the trades either in this case, just make the other clubs sweat for a few days first.

I just wrote a post which was deleted in response so this is a truncated version.

If GWS don't trade any MD picks they leave O'Meara & Crouch available for next year. Now even if GWS don't get pick 1 next year they will still benefit as the player that would've gone pick 1 (Whitfield?) will then be available for them at pick 2 or 3 if the team with pick 1 (Port or GC?) chooses O'Meara or Crouch. They may be willing to forego pick 4 this year in a weak draft (and one in which they have a monopoly any way) to all but ensure they get one of O'Meara, Crouch or Whitfield (or whoever the number 1 player is come next draft) next year.

A bit Machiavellian but that is what these guys (Sheedy, Allen, Williams) are renowned for.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,368]

Risky tactic though as the likes of Port & GCS are eligible for a PP which would come before GWS 1st pick (assuming they finish bottom, of course), not to mention the fact they will have to auction all four mini draft picks next year which may result in inferior offers to the ones they are receiving now...

Don't think they HAVE to trade these mini-draft picks. It is just another option for them to help build their list. If they don't want to or don't get enough for them they can choose to use all 4, 1 or none.

[markc 975]

AFL blocks O'Meara 'super-trade'

http://www.afl.com.a...80/default.aspx

good to see

now the fun starts again

Edited October 11, 2011 by markc

[cooko 124]

Gubby not happy

[H_T 3,049]

AFL blocks O'Meara 'super-trade'

http://www.afl.com.a...80/default.aspx

good to see

now the fun starts again

This isn't over yet reading between the lines:

The Giants haven't been altogether ruled out of trading into the mini-draft, with Anderson stressing that it was only Tuesday's proposed trade that had been knocked back.

"It really in our view was a scheme that involved the 17 year-old picks returning to GWS," he said.

"We just weren't satisfied that what was put to us today was a genuine on-trade of those picks."

Gubby will go back to the drawing board and try for a Plan B.

[Axis of Bob 11,875]

The important thing in this is the 'spirit and intent of the law', which the AFL has shown can be used as a reason to block a trade.

Hence, trading the under 17 picks cannot be done with the intention of receiving them again. It must be, as Anderson put it, 'coincidental'.

I dare say that they will have to tart this up pretty heavily in order to get it through the AFL, since Anderson seemed pretty positive about the picks being used for what they were intended to be used for. They will OK a trade of MD picks for draft picks (although they'd prefer not to) but they don't seem to be at all happy about them coming back to GWS.

I think GWS will spend tomorrow trying to tart up another deal like that, but then end up trading them normally on Thursday.

As I said, they would be pissing off the AFL no end by their insistence on only going for young players. The AFL is trying to get them to be competitive, which is why they gave them these concessions. For the AFL to see these concessions being thrown back into their faces, with the full knowledge that GWS will be awful for the next few years (against AFL wishes), will not be impressing them one bit.

I'm reminded of a phrase about things you shouldn't do to the hand that feeds you.

[H_T 3,049]

With two days until the deadline, I wonder if they will look at not-so-much as getting involved in another "scheme" (as in this "super trade instance") in the 17yo pick returning to GWS, but masterminding a genuine trade for the 17 yo pick and somehow getting it back in another 'separately' lodged genuine trade.

That's how I read it when I see the statement - "The Giants haven't been altogether ruled out of trading into the mini-draft".

Whether that happens or not and whether it "satisifies" the AFL is another thing. They're looking for a "genuine on-trade" of those picks.

I hope I'm wrong and I hope they resign themselves to doing what was intended when the concessions were drawn up.

[Apocalypse XXXI 243]

So in effect the AFL is saying to GWS that it can try again but not be so blatant about what they're doing.

Fair dinkum. There's so much hypocrisy and lies about the system that the mind truly boggles!

[Dockett 32 1,239]

In view of what transpired yesterday, closing this individual trade loophole is simply a micro issue, I trust after it has been caught out , that the AFL has provided greater clarity to the clubs around what is within the spirit of the new meaning of being "on traded" and what is actually allowable. Daily rule altering like we have seen with the third party deviation and now this simply indicates they don't think things through well enough and look like theycouldn't organise a country pie stall.

[Redleg 41,737]

According to the Age GWS actually wanted to get 2 U17 picks back with the promise that another pick taken would not be used on O'Meara. While it is clear that the AFL don't like the look of this it has left the door ajar. Unbelievable.

[Lutz 76]

That's how I read it redleg.

I think GWS would have to engineer a bloody convincing trade for it to appear as if gaining the O'Meara pick wasn't the original intention.

I really hope they try to pull it off, but end up having one of the teams reneg and ruin their plans.

That would be bliss.

Oh, and the trades they are setting up make it look a lot like a trade for these picks, and less of a blind auction or a tender.

[Robbie57 2,022]

That's how I read it redleg.

I think GWS would have to engineer a bloody convincing trade for it to appear as if gaining the O'Meara pick wasn't the original intention.

I really hope they try to pull it off, but end up having one of the teams reneg and ruin their plans.

That would be bliss.

Oh, and the trades they are setting up make it look a lot like a trade for these picks, and less of a blind auction or a tender.

They will try but the message is clear and any club going into a deal with be on notice it will fall over.

Pleased to see the AFL doing the right think in the situation.

[H_T 3,049]

So in effect the AFL is saying to GWS that it can try again but not be so blatant about what they're doing.

Fair dinkum. There's so much hypocrisy and lies about the system that the mind truly boggles!

That's how I read it Apocalypse XXXI.

When I read two years ago (~Oct 2009) along the lines of that the AFL will do what is best and whatever they can to make GWS competitive in "the best interests of the game", I often wondered what it amounted to. Now I know.

[old55 23,800]

A bit Machiavellian but that is what these guys (Sheedy, Allen, Williams) are renowned for.

Yeah, the AFL have created Frankenstein's monster at GWS. They've written fairly loose rules with good intentions which rely on on good faith execution and then puit a bunch of crooks ... errr mavericks ... in charge in Allan and Sheedy who'll manipulate them every which way. GWS is a very tough project and I don't blame Allan or Sheedy for using any bit of leverage they think they can gain - their aim is to make GWS successful in a very hostile and competitive environment - the AFL wants GWS to be successful too but they let the monster off the leash with some unintended consequences. The AFL could've written the MD rule to require only player trades with greater than 3 years service and no draft picks or on-trading but that may have been too restrictive and you'd see the O'Meara pick going to Collingwood for Toovey or Carlton for Bower.

[beelzebub 23,388]

The AFL couldnt give a toss about the 'spirit or intent' of its rules. It's only concerned with outcomes. It wants what it wants. The House of Shonky aka AFL house is more concerned about how things look than how things actually play.

Its known about al the loopholes since day dot because it wrote the rules with the intent of allowing manipulation to take place, probably even 'off-the -record' encouraging it.

In looking at all this we mustnt lose sight of the AFL's objective. Its to win in the heartland of NRL at all cost. All things , people and clubs are or can be collateral damage in this pursuit. Before any go dismissing this as conspiracy stuff just look at what has transpired to date. How much bending of rules or outright disregard for them has already happened. GWS have been operating outside the rules since its inception. Even when caught it just gets pushed over.Unbelievable really.

Do people think its by accident that Gubby and Sheedy are the string pullers entrusted to shape and press-gang a GWS into existence ? No its because they are reknown for going outside the square.

As some suggest it would have been very simple to write tight rules. But they didnt, they didnt want them tight.

Rule number 1...dont trust the AFL.

All subsequent rules follow from understanding Rule #1.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,368]

Exactly - there would have been an easy way to make this particular rule air tight. All you would have to state is that these mini draft picks must be bid for. Once the bidding has concluded these picks must be used by the club that won them and cannot be used as part of a subsequent trade (or on-traded). Fairly simple and still allows GWS to be able to trade them for picks if that's what they would prefer rather than players. The AFL deliberately writes their rules as loose as possible so that they can manipulate the interpretation to their advantage as circumstances require.