On 11/10/2011 at 01:25, old55 said:

No I don't - but they might have been forced into this strategy because they couldn't attract any good mature players. Ablett was a bit of a special case.

  On 11/10/2011 at 02:04, Oucher said:

True I guess, but to me personally, almost everything associated to the GWS feels slimey, and leaves a bad taste in ones mouth.

• Sheeds, Gubby Allan, Mark Williams all feel like snake oil salesmen,
  
• The Recruiting guy (formerly from Nth) who was stood down for verbalising a fellow recruiter.
  
• The Scully situation,
  
• Basically all wrapped up with the feeling that the AFL will stop at nothing to ensure this club wins a premiership ASAP in order to try and get a foothold in a high risk area.
  

Just doesn't sit well with me.

Regarding GWS's concessions, here is the original article posted Oct 2009 in relation to all of GWS's concessions. It definitely states in it that GWS forfeit the right to access to these 17yolds. It was intended to be used to trade for mature players. Link:

http://www.afl.com.a...px?newsid=86208

But it also clearly states the following:

  Quote

And the AFL, aware of the super-competitive market that awaits in western Sydney, will try to help Team GWS succeed with a greater focus being given to the club’s ability to secure already-established AFL players.

  Quote

More 17-year-olds

In addition to the dozen 17-year-old players from around the country the club will have access to, at the end of 2010 Team GWS will also be given access to four additional 17-year-old selections.

These players, born from January-April 1994, must all be traded during either the 2011 or 2012 trading periods.

Team GWS is expected to trade these youngsters to rival AFL clubs in exchange for older, experienced players. If Team GWS does not trade these players - whom theoretically are all investments to attract more established players - it forfeits its access to those 17 year olds.

  On 11/10/2011 at 00:25, old55 said:

The Age, Big Footy and apparently Trade Radio saying GWS to trade U17 pick 1 (O'Meara) back to themselves via 3rd parties. Go to Big Footy for gory details.

http://www.bigfooty....ad.php?t=881242

If any of this is aloud to happen and GWS get O'Meara, i'll never go to another game or put any of my money back in to this sport!.

Thanks HT for finding that quote,

Clearly we are dealing with a different beast when we talk about GWS they have an age profile of core

recruits they want at the moment and that would be under 23 years age. There appears no willingness

to make a side that is competitive with mature players. GWS is being built on a glut of the youngest

prospects in the land this is against the intention of the rules put in place to bring them to reality

hopefully everyone is playing on the same field GWS aren't playing by the rules.

  On 11/10/2011 at 00:59, Robbie57 said:

7. Incentive to other clubs trading with GWS Giants in the 2011 and 2012 post-season:

GWS Giants to be given access to four 17-year-olds born in the January to April 1994 window, with all players to be traded to other clubs. Selections will be allocated to GWS Giants so the club can trade for established players, but the club will not have access to these 17-year-olds. If the four trades are not completed in the 2011 post-season, the balance of up to four trades may be used in the 2012 trading period.

Seems like no loophole to me just plain English, they are not to have access. Cant see a Judge thinking this is a loophole.

There is a form of loophole but with a risk attached. GWS could trade 1 pick to us for example to use on Crouch with us guaranteeing not to take O'Meara. They then do another trade or don't but with the same guarantee if done. They then hope no one gets a priority pick below their first pick next year and draft him as he has gone back into next year's draft. That would be legal. Their risk is Port or someone else getting a priority pick before their pick for finishing last. No risk on them finishing last.

  On 11/10/2011 at 02:40, Redleg said:

There is a form of loophole but with a risk attached. GWS could trade 1 pick to us for example to use on Crouch with us guaranteeing not to take O'Meara. They then do another trade or don't but with the same guarantee if done. They then hope no one gets a priority pick below their first pick next year and draft him as he has gone back into next year's draft. That would be legal. Their risk is Port or someone else getting a priority pick before their pick for finishing last. No risk on them finishing last.

And what would be their recourse if we turned around and took O'Meara anyway? Surely that guarantee wouldn't be specified in the trade, it'd just be an understanding between MFC and GWS, and as far as I'm concerned, we need to stab them in the back as much as possible.

  On 11/10/2011 at 02:24, tatu said:

If any of this is aloud to happen and GWS get O'Meara, i'll never go to another game or put any of my money back in to this sport!.

Bit extreme, I actually don't think it's all that different from them trading MD 1 to GC for ND 4 - - that's not in the spirit of the mini-draft either.

  On 11/10/2011 at 02:43, Dr. Mubutu said:

And what would be their recourse if we turned around and took O'Meara anyway? Surely that guarantee wouldn't be specified in the trade, it'd just be an understanding between MFC and GWS, and as far as I'm concerned, we need to stab them in the back as much as possible.

Would depend on what is agreed in the deal. It also would paint us as a club that is not to be trusted and that is not what most clubs are about.

  On 11/10/2011 at 03:14, Redleg said:

Would depend on what is agreed in the deal. It also would paint us as a club that is not to be trusted and that is not what most clubs are about.

Yes, I think one look at the Craig interview on DeeTV shows that it wouldn't happen.

  On 11/10/2011 at 03:14, Redleg said:

Would depend on what is agreed in the deal. It also would paint us as a club that is not to be trusted and that is not what most clubs are about.

Surely it'd only paint us as a club not to be trusted when it comes to rubbish AFL concessions to the Blacktown Gnats?

I'd imagine that most clubs wouldn't be too disappointed to have that image.....

Can't see a loophole myself. Plainly worded English for mine.

I don't like the idea of this "loophole" I personally think it's cheating the system!

GWS to keep Jeager O'Meara is quite greedy in my opinion!

Anyways, I doubt that the AFL will allow it to happen....but I could be wrong?!

  On 11/10/2011 at 07:05, Supreme_Demon said:

I don't like the idea of this "loophole" I personally think it's cheating the system!

GWS to keep Jeager O'Meara is quite greedy in my opinion!

Anyways, I doubt that the AFL will allow it to happen....but I could be wrong?!

I don't Think GWS has much of a problem with cheating the system. they are already exploiting the rules that the clubs agreed too with un-contracted players now this.

GWS have made an absolute mockery of the Draft.....What a joke the AFL is becoming.

The AFL will lose it's advantage over other sports, if this corruption continues.......AFL supporters won't take this forever!

  On 11/10/2011 at 07:11, Dan Fantastik said:

I don't Think GWS has much of a problem with cheating the system. they are already exploiting the rules that the clubs agreed too with un-contracted players now this.

Sheedy had no qualms diddling Brisbane, drafting Mal Michaels after he had told Brisbane he was retiring, so I doubt this would even rate a blimp on his "Scruples Meter" in fact I doubt he and Greater Western Scum have one between them.

I thought that a player cannot be traded twice in the one trade period, only picks can be. Surely that rules out this O'meara deal.

  On 11/10/2011 at 07:11, Dan Fantastik said:

I don't Think GWS has much of a problem with cheating the system. they are already exploiting the rules that the clubs agreed too with un-contracted players now this.

AFL will clearly move goal posts to suit its agenda. For the AFL to be complicit in this tampering of the rules after the fact is abhorrent. With free agency coming in next

year this is only going to get worse wait and see rules bent to cheat the system next year as well. GWS are definitely off the christmas card list

I haven't seen the rules, but if they say that GWS cannot use the mini-draft picks but can only trade them away to other clubs, then I can't see how the AFL could uphold any GWS scheme to use the mini-draft pick by acquiring it back via a trade.

If the rule says that GWS cannot use the mini-draft picks, then to me it is irrelevant whether they have re-acquired the picks via a trade…they still cannot use the picks.

If the rule is framed differently then I can understand there may be a literal argument that GWS are not prevented from trading the mini-draft picks and then acquiring them back. However rules cannot be interpreted purely on a literal basis. It would seem to me to be pretty clear that the purpose of the rule is for GWS to be allowed to trade the mini-draft picks to acquire picks/players from other clubs to help their list build and that the mini-draft picks are not to be used by GWS. Therefore even if there is some possible 'loophole' in the wording of the rules I would have thought that given the purpose of this particular concession the GWS scheme would not be allowed.

The rules are there to prevent GWS from not trading the picks and using them for themselves. The rules don't state that GWS can't trade them out and then back again.

GWS motives are completely contrary to "the vibe" of the rules. I'm sure they know that, but couldn't care less.

There needs to be an independent arbiter to determine who the best deal is for each mini draft pick in isolation. The mooted deals smack of one deal (i.e. GWS keeping mdp1) subsidising unders on another (i.e. mdp2). If another party offers a better deal for pick 2, they should be obliged to take it which may have the cascading effect of scuttling the deal for pick one.

AFL should have stated that the mini draft picks cannot be on traded once awarded to the club that bids the highest..... easy.

The picks also are supposed to go to the highest bidder, surely if GC offer up a compo and pick 4 the GWS cannot ignore this and give it to another club for pick 16 or whatever the deal involves...

Oucher correct, the AFL have to sign off on ALL trades and this 4-6 club deal to get GWS o'meara is very murky waters. Now all clubs not involved in this trade must hope that the AFL takes the stance of shooting down the proposal so that the mini draft go's back to being about who supplies GWS the single best offer for first crack at 17yr old because as it stands now what is rumored to be on offer to GWS is a long way short of GC's bid of pick 4 in this years draft. The AFL need to make a stand here but unfortunately they appear so focused in bending over to ensure GWS is a success they will likely let them get away with it.

Also though the other option for Melbourne would be attempt to take the place of one of these 4 clubs to get involved i.e at present Crows involved with thier pick 10 and compensation pick and in return expecting to secure a 17 yr old (kennedy i beleive) and get GWS pick 14 as well. If your Melbourne and really want Crouch who many beleive to be not far behind O'meara then why not just do pick 12 + 1 comp pick for Crouch and leave GWS with pick 14. This way you get an elite kid that under normal circumstances would be a top 5 pick anyway......and still have a 1 first rnd selection next year + J.viney...

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

My twitter feeds from thesport journos telling me that afl has knocked this gws nonsense on the head. Looks like grubby and his dodgy plans finally getting short shrift from their bankers at the afl.

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

I would be very surprised if the AFL let it go ahead. They, after all, have to sign off on any trades that happen and can easily just say no - regardless of any technical loopholes.

If GWS had used the rest of the concessions in the way they were designed by looking to get older players and trading for experience to help them be competitive from the outset, then the AFL may have been more willing to let the O'Meara deal go through. But because they have gone against the AFL wishes so much, I don't expect them to give any favours in this situation.

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