Demons warned on draft tampering

[red and blue forever 1,058]

An AFL spokesman said yesterday any attempt by Melbourne to reward clubs for overlooking Viney would incur a severe penalty for draft tampering.

buggers our chance at striking a deal.

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

That is ridiculous. We should be able to strike a deal that could send a player such as Bate to GWS or GC so they overlook Viney.

It's completely unfair that other clubs have been able to secure players like Ablett, Shaw, Cloke and Hawkins with low picks and we will have to give up a very high pick for our F/S selection.

[Footynut 302]

Just a question....can we trade pick 3 for a great player elsewhere thereby enabling us to pick Viney with our second rounder?

Sorry I'm guessing this has been done to death on another thread...

[Nasher 33,617]

Just a question....can we trade pick 3 for a great player elsewhere thereby enabling us to pick Viney with our second rounder? Sorry I'm guessing this has been done to death on another thread...

Nominations happen before the trade period, so no.

[Footynut 302]

Thanks....gee we really have been continually shafted at the draft table the last few years...then again if we had have picked better...

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

If we win the spoon, then we'll only need to give up a second rounder...

This might end up being a non event.

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

If we win the spoon, then we'll only need to give up a second rounder...

This might end up being a non event.

As humiliating as it would be, I would not be at all surprised if we did win the spoon.

[Nasher 33,617]

As humiliating as it would be, I would not be at all surprised if we did win the spoon.

Uhh... I would.

[Good Times Grimes 2,396]

Uhh... I would.

The games against GWS and GC will be very interesting...at the moment I think GWS would give us a run for our money and if Ablett is fit and firing GC might too. We SHOULD beat both of those teams, but we will be demoralized after what is likely to be an 0-11 start and GWS will be eager for their first win and will know we are ripe for the picking.

[beelzebub 23,388]

So its OK for Collingwood to make deals but not us ???

[Rob Mac...... 638]

Wouldn't we & others have picked Luke Ball if he hadn't indicated that if anyone other than Collingwood picked him he'd not play, so he slid all the way down the draft until Collingwood got him?

[MadAsHell 4,217]

An AFL spokesman said yesterday any attempt by Melbourne to reward clubs for overlooking Viney would incur a severe penalty for draft tampering.

buggers our chance at striking a deal.

Just another case of the AFL having their cake and eating it to.

Wouldn't GWS nominating Viney with Pick 1 when he isn't considered the no. 1 kid in the country also draft tampering??? And what about the alleged Victorian clubs lobbying GWS and GC to nominate Viney, surely that's draft tampering also?

So either all are cases of draft tampering or none are. Absolute rubbish if we can;t arrange a deal like that!

[daisycutter 29,797]

So its OK for Collingwood to make deals but not us ???

Exactly, more hypocrisy

And I would have thought that e.g. GWS nominating JV in the FS draft if he wasn't a no. 1 prospect and they preferred another could be seen as draft tampering also.

Doing a deal with GWS just to bid "honestly" is hardly draft tampering

Show some balls MFC and threaten AFL with court action (won't happen of course)

[Nasher 33,617]

Wouldn't GWS nominating Viney with Pick 1 when he isn't considered the no. 1 kid in the country also draft tampering???

How would that be draft tampering?

[daisycutter 29,797]

How would that be draft tampering?

are you serious nasher?

edit: because it is an obvious false bid

Edited May 8, 2012 by daisycutter

[Nasher 33,617]

are you serious nasher? edit: because it is an obvious false bid

It's not a false bid. They can quite easily be held accountable for it. If (when) we choose not to hold them accountable for it it's because we value Jack enough not to.

[Guest José Mourinho]

The ratings of kids is so subjective that you'd never have a chance in hell of proving that.

Anyone got a source?

[daisycutter 29,797]

It's not a false bid. They can quite easily be held accountable for it. If (when) we choose not to hold them accountable for it it's because we value Jack enough not to.

if you can't see it's a false bid when (if) JV is not the top draft pick then I can't help you

[Guest José Mourinho]

Found it:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/demons-warned-on-draft-tampering-over-jack-viney/story-e6frf9jf-1226350390440

[Nasher 33,617]

if you can't see it's a false bid when (if) JV is not the top draft pick then I can't help you

The point of that rule is to force clubs to pay market worth for father sons. If GWS bid pick 1 and force us to use pick #3 (or whatever), then that's what they've done. Our choice is to take it or leave it, we're not forced or trapped in to doing anything. Not only is it legal within the rule, I think it's perfectly within the spirit of the rule.

[MadAsHell 4,217]

How would that be draft tampering?

It's tampering becaue it's altering the way the draft will play out. It means someone who would be taken at say 25 (Melbs 2nd round possibly) goes at 3 instead.

If all recruting experts and the what not come out and say that Whitfield is clearly the no 1 pick and GWS nominate Viney as number 1 just to alter who Melbourne and there for other clubs recruit, it's tampering.

[Guest José Mourinho]

if you can't see it's a false bid when (if) JV is not the top draft pick then I can't help you

Well, it's subjective.

But in just the same way, it's subjective whether he is worth less too.

So good luck to the AFL proving they did rate him that high.

The key is involving a trade that sees our first pick used, and getting the first mini-draft pick in return.

[daisycutter 29,797]

The point of that rule is to force clubs to pay market worth for father sons. If GWS bid pick 1 and force us to use pick #3 (or whatever), then that's what they've done. Our choice is to take it or leave it, we're not forced or trapped in to doing anything. Not only is it legal within the rule, I think it's perfectly within the spirit of the rule.

who said it was illegal?

we all know it is "legalised draft tampering" but we also know the afl is a law unto itself and won't do anything to stop obvious false bids

[Nasher 33,617]

It's tampering becaue it's altering the way the draft will play out. It means someone who would be taken at say 25 (Melbs 2nd round possibly) goes at 3 instead.

If all recruting experts and the what not come out and say that Whitfield is clearly the no 1 pick and GWS nominate Viney as number 1 just to alter who Melbourne and there for other clubs recruit, it's tampering.

But this is exactly the scenario the current father son rule was designed to cater for - to prevent clubs from being able to pick up gun father son selections at rock bottom prices. If Viney is clearly rated as a top 10 pick, how is it "more fair" that we get him for 25?

Let's be honest. Those who reckon this is draft tampering are just pissy because we might have to pay pick #3 or so for Viney. If it looked like we might finish 9th on the ladder all we'd hear is the sound of crickets.

[Nasher 33,617]

who said it was illegal? we all know it is "legalised draft tampering" but we also know the afl is a law unto itself and won't do anything to stop obvious false bids

You may notice I also said I thought it was perfectly within the spirit of the rule. Daisy, am I to presume that you are proposing we revert back to the old rule of clubs being able to just use their last pick on F/S picks then? Because that's the only solution I can see that doesn't introduce subjectivity, i.e. treating it on a case-by-case basis, which is just a recipe for disaster.