Anyone noticed the Hun reporters come here get an idea and then use it to get a story.

Veale deal anyone ?

No-one is tampering with the draft.

The much maligned 'Veale Deal' that allowed WB to pick up Rawlings in the draft to keep a deal between NM and Hawthorn occuring is in a similar vein to the trade I am envisioning.

If the AFL want to tell us we cannot convince clubs to overlook Viney for reward then we just do it surreptitiously with GWS and GC - let the AFL prove it and hold all the clubs accountable...

Until Demetriou comes out and explains the lengths to which they will go to stop us - we do it.

Remember - by the time a trade comes around that everyone is hand-wringing and whinging about - Jack Viney will be a Demon.

What happens if both picks 1 and 2 in this years super draft are going to be your franklins/Judd's and these players have the ability to lead the club for the next 10 years???

Im suggesting that if gws or gc want to nominate viney then we call their bluff and give them viney.

We in return get either pick 1 or 2 in the super draft instead of viney who might be considered 5-10.

Wouldn't we want to best player in the land for our club regardless of family affiliation?

Yes, it would be a low act to tell viney that he is now going to western Sydney however jack and Todd might agree to it?

Thoughts???

What happens if both picks 1 and 2 in this years super draft are going to be your franklins/Judd's and these players have the ability to lead the club for the next 10 years???

Im suggesting that if gws or gc want to nominate viney then we call their bluff and give them viney.

We in return get either pick 1 or 2 in the super draft instead of viney who might be considered 5-10.

Wouldn't we want to best player in the land for our club regardless of family affiliation?

Yes, it would be a low act to tell viney that he is now going to western Sydney however jack and Todd might agree to it?

Thoughts???

Todd would say take number 1, Jack can come back in 2 years.

And sheeds and grubby can wear egg on their face.

Todd would say take number 1, Jack can come back in 2 years. And sheeds and grubby can wear egg on their face.

Todd would not say that at all.

I am not going to tell you what he would say - as Demonland is a family forum - but you would definitely see that vein on his neck 'jut' out.

If Gws and gc bid for viney at 1 & 2 and we say cool, we will have him in 2 years when he chooses not to sign on with you guys and just walks onto melbournes list, and they decide that they shouldn't waste a draft pick on a player who is extremely likely to up and go, would that mean they can take him with their 2nd round pick before ours, of if they don't take him does that mean we get him at pick 25 or whatever?

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.

no i'm not proposing we revert to old system. I can't imagine why you thought i would be proposing that.

the f/s rule was always seen as somewhat f a "bonus" to clubs and a token towards tradition

the old system was just too cheap and was rightly scrapped

the new system is full of iniquities,

imagine if we finished say 4th, We'd get jv for about pick 16 instead of around pick 3

so why is that the more successful a club is the cheaper the pick for a (high rated) FS? Is this equitable?

A better system would be an independent panel rate all the FSs and the club then uses its next highest pick based on that rating

that way you always pay unders (even if only slight)

on the current system which encourages mischief we look like being the first club to pay overs for a FS

If the AFL want to tell us we cannot convince clubs to overlook Viney for reward then we just do it surreptitiously with GWS and GC - let the AFL prove it and hold all the clubs accountable...

Exactly. I don't think any one here who has proposed striking a deal with GWS and GC was suggesting we first go to the AFL for approval. If it's a win-win-win deal no-one tells. The trades with GWS and GC have to look reasonable. Something like olisik's U17 draft deal would be hard to definitively call draft ta,mpering - it could just be a good deal.

Exactly. I don't think any one here who has proposed striking a deal with GWS and GC was suggesting we first go to the AFL for approval. If it's a win-win-win deal no-one tells. The trades with GWS and GC have to look reasonable. Something like olisik's U17 draft deal would be hard to definitively call draft ta,mpering - it could just be a good deal.

Yes, and when Damian Barrett's bird face asks Gubby Allan and Scott Clayton why they didn't bid for Viney, they can just say 'we are pretty happy with the prospects at Pick 1(2) and we didn't feel that Jack was in that category.'

Off to trade week - put Pick 3 into the 17 year old draft. We get one for our trouble, GC gets one for shutting up, and GWS gets Pick 3 and some vegies.

Everyone goes home happy and the entire football world can kiss my ring.

First shutting the $cully loophole and now this [censored].

Do the AFL like us being cellar dwellers?

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

This might end up being a non event.

at the end of this weekend it is more than likely we will be second from the bottom. if gws and gc play out a draw we will be stone motherless last. a sobering thought.

We won't finish last and the AFL will not get involved unless one of the three clubs makes a proposed deal public.

The HUN will speculate and we will equivocate, but the AFL won't legislate.

We won't finish last and the AFL will not get involved unless one of the three clubs makes a proposed deal public.

The HUN will speculate and we will equivocate, but the AFL won't legislate.

The only way GWS or GC would be running to the AFL saying "those naughty Demons made us an offer on the Viney deal" is if we offered them an insulting deal.

no i'm not proposing we revert to old system. I can't imagine why you thought i would be proposing that.

...

A better system would be an independent panel rate all the FSs and the club then uses its next highest pick based on that rating that way you always pay unders (even if only slight) on the current system which encourages mischief we look like being the first club to pay overs for a FS

I thought you were suggesting reverting to the old system because I thought that you could not possibly be suggesting regulation because that idea is absurd - but it seems that you were. An "independant" assessment of a player's worth is, as I said in my previous post, asking for trouble. This system, while imperfect, makes some allowance for clubs to make its own judgement about a player's worth. Under your proposal, I think you'd see the worst of both worlds because the assessment is going to be imperfect - you'd get players whose values are over-valued and it would discourage clubs from taking this option, and you'd get players who were under-valued and you're back where you started with Ablett Jr, Scarlett and Hawkins going to Geelong basically for free.

That we might "overpay" (I use this term very generously - really we're not overpaying, just not getting him cheap like some want) for Viney is byproduct of us being crap on the field. It's not because GWS are "tampering".

Excuse me for my foggy trade rules knowledge, but if Viney were to go to GWS or GC wouldn't it be virtually impossible to get him back on the list in the near future? i.e would he have to go back on the national draft?

First shutting the $cully loophole and now this [censored].

We would never have been able to match the Scully deal.

The AFL did give us 2 PPs for Scully which was a good outcome.

The weight of $$$ has taken the sting out of Scully. MFC may have dodged a bullet on that one depending on what we do with the 2PPs

The only way GWS or GC would be running to the AFL saying "those naughty Demons made us an offer on the Viney deal" is if we offered them an insulting deal.

Exxactly

Storm in a teacup. At the moment clubs make choices in the draft based not only on the player's merits but also on what they think other clubs after them might do. Haven't we been told that Gysberts (or maybe someone else) went earlier than expected because Melbourne believed a club with a pick after ours would otherwise claim him? The only difference here is that clubs know for certain we want Viney. And that's a fair trade off for us having the guarantee that no-one else has that we can select him.

It's a much fairer system than the third round draft pick option which saw Geelong get Scarlett, Blake and at least one Ablett, Collingwood a couple of Shaws and Clokes, and presumably Essendon got Watson and maybe Fletcher (although he's been around so long he might have been recruited under an even older scheme).

That we might "overpay" (I use this term very generously - really we're not overpaying, just not getting him cheap like some want) for Viney is byproduct of us being crap on the field. It's not because GWS are "tampering".

I don't agree - they would be bidding for Viney not because they want him at #1 but because we're committed to him - it may not be "tampering" but it's certainly not within the spirit of the rule which is to cause us to pay fair value.

Excuse me for my foggy trade rules knowledge, but if Viney were to go to GWS or GC wouldn't it be virtually impossible to get him back on the list in the near future? i.e would he have to go back on the national draft?

Father-son rule!

In all seriousness, why wouldn't that be a possibility?

I doubt it's already in the rules, but I'm sure that once the AFL got wind of it, they'd change them.

Of course, we'd never forfeit Viney for 2 years anyway, and I dare say that if we did, he'd be so [censored] off we would pay for it dearly.

Father-son rule!

In all seriousness, why wouldn't that be a possibility?

I doubt it's already in the rules, but I'm sure that once the AFL got wind of it, they'd change them.

Of course, we'd never forfeit Viney for 2 years anyway, and I dare say that if we did, he'd be so [censored] off we would pay for it dearly.

We could send him undercover and he could just hurt players in the intra club matches! Imagine Gws #1 draft pick jack viney destroys smaller Gws recruits in intra club match, leaving their list decimated!

But seriously if he was picked up by one of them what is to stop him having compassionate leave or not resigning on after his initial two years.

The other thing is we could trade our first round pick from next year for him, as otherwise they would get nothing

I don't agree - they would be bidding for Viney not because they want him at #1 but because we're committed to him - it may not be "tampering" but it's certainly not within the spirit of the rule which is to cause us to pay fair value.

Is the net result not to cause us to pay fair value?

pretty sure deals will be made. Dont know why AFL is thretening MFC and not GWS and GC who are also as likely to approach the MFC to make a deal to get something for almost free.

AFL cant prove anything if its a handshake agreement.

I also think the Herald Sun is pathetic for taking stories from demonland, the paper is losing my respect by the day.

AFL wouldnt penalise there prized franchises GWS and GC for making a deal to get something for almost free. MFC have nothing to worry about.