Carlton Request Priority Pick

[jnrmac 20,055]

They have 3 number 1 draft picks and a number 2 draft pick. Played finals in 13.

Yeah, give em one. they deserve it.

[mauriesy 7,261]

We were very, very lucky to get #3 for Frawley last year and it has set a bad precedent. We should be thankful #3 was an effective PP.

IMHO, the picks of all the teams outside the eight should be 'inviolate', and any priority picks only given after those. Pushing teams like Melbourne, GC or St Kilda back from #6 to #10 or worse doesn't help equalise the competition.

Anyway, I just think Carlton's PP application is an ambit claim, crying poor to maximise their chances of getting high compensation for the possible loss of Kreuzer. Sort of like "if you don't think we deserve a priority pick, then the first two picks will do".

[Dockett 32 1,239]

Brisbane Lions correct last year re priority picks when they were anti us getting one after winning 40 games or something in 9 years. On that basis current requests ridiculous. Don't recall Carlton supporting us either last year.

As for attempting to lift the value of Kruezer, cant argue with that, we would too if in that position, but the market will ultimately decide re size of contract offered, amongst other things. But a Frawley he aint.

[Little Goffy 14,460]

they shouldn't qualify until they have won 10 wooden spoons

did get a good laugh though

probably doing it to itry and nfluence any fa compo

Yep, I fear that is the real formula for how PP and compensation picks are allocated.

'Amount of stink kicked up' balanced against 'amount of stink that would be kicked up'.

Calling it a compensation pick for losing Kruezer/Luenberger/Frawley is the expedient way to do it.

Personally, I don't care so much. Carlton and Brisbane are definitely swimming in the fecal lane and a priority pick may be needed just to get them to a point of being viable.

Then again, they should each be dumping about 12 from their list, and have a whole lot of salary cap space.

The AFL is in a slow-burning crisis, with as many as five teams completely broken in 2016.

It is confusing that Melbourne probably isn't one of them.

[Juicebox 628]

I try not to take any pleasure at the expense of others misfortune. But seeing Carlton finish last is just... So good.

They are a slimey, shady and downright dirty organisation. The longer they stay down the bottom the better.

Back on topic. No, they should not get a priority pick.

[SaberFang 7,151]

I try not to take any pleasure at the expense of others misfortune. But seeing Carlton finish last is just... So good.

They are a slimey, shady and downright dirty organisation. The longer they stay down the bottom the better.

Back on topic. No, they should not get a priority pick.

I'm so grateful this draft doesn't have any standout players the way that Petracca and Brayshaw were. Makes it all the more likely Carlton pick another thoroughly average spud like Gibbs with pick 1.

A trained monkey could've gotten the guns at GWS with the ridiculous amount of picks they were gifted; let's see if Silvagni has any clue what he's doing now he's forced to endure a heartbreaking single pick per round.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Lamashtu

[jnrmac 20,055]

We were very, very lucky to get #3 for Frawley last year and it has set a bad precedent. We should be thankful #3 was an effective PP.

IMHO, the picks of all the teams outside the eight should be 'inviolate', and any priority picks only given after those. Pushing teams like Melbourne, GC or St Kilda back from #6 to #10 or worse doesn't help equalise the competition.

Anyway, I just think Carlton's PP application is an ambit claim, crying poor to maximise their chances of getting high compensation for the possible loss of Kreuzer. Sort of like "if you don't think we deserve a priority pick, then the first two picks will do".

How many times does this need to be explained?

[Born to Run 204]

So Trigg thinks because Carlton are a big club, that it's important that they get back up the ladder for the good of the competition and game. Spare me.

I suppose he thi is smaller clubs should always hold up the bottom of the ladder. Get [censored]

[Kumamoto_Ken 1,531]

So Trigg thinks because Carlton are a big club, that it's important that they get back up the ladder for the good of the competition and game. Spare me.

I suppose he thi is smaller clubs should always hold up the bottom of the ladder. Get [censored]

Typical Carlton mindset.

Bunch of [censored].

[SaberFang 7,151]

How many times does this need to be explained?

I think we all understand the compensation system and the reason we got pick 3 as band 1 compensation. The point we're making is the AFL made a mistake setting the threshold for band 1 compo so low; $625k x4 years is peanuts in modern contracts; from memory the previous threshold set for band 1 compo was $700k x4 years (Dale Thomas).

In this respect, it's hard not to think the AFL assisted us by lowering the threshold and taking into account a lot of other considerations they usually wouldn't. We're all glad they did and pick 3 was fair compensation for the situation we were in BUT it set a really bad precedent that is coming home to roost now. The respect paid to our dire situation last year has been ignored by other clubs who now demand the same treatment. This is largely because the AFL wasn't transparent in their decision-making last year (well, any year).

[Dee-licious 1,949]

What I love here is the citing of the bad record for Bris and Carlton. In comparison we have less wins in the past 3/4 years. So does that mean we can have one? What about GC - I'm sure they have won about as many as Carlton as well in that period. I know people were [censored] that we asked for one, but seriously - it is 1 year. We were there for 10!

[mrtwister 652]

Personally, I think Carlton being crap is better for the AFL. They'll get more opposition supporters through the gates to watch their team smash them than they will having Carlton supporters come back to the games if they win more than half a dozen games.

Edited September 11, 2015 by mrtwister

[Redleg 40,843]

We were very, very lucky to get #3 for Frawley last year and it has set a bad precedent. We should be thankful #3 was an effective PP.

IMHO, the picks of all the teams outside the eight should be 'inviolate', and any priority picks only given after those. Pushing teams like Melbourne, GC or St Kilda back from #6 to #10 or worse doesn't help equalise the competition.

Anyway, I just think Carlton's PP application is an ambit claim, crying poor to maximise their chances of getting high compensation for the possible loss of Kreuzer. Sort of like "if you don't think we deserve a priority pick, then the first two picks will do".

Sort of like what we did last year.

There is one difference though, I hate Carlton.

[ILLDieADemon 804]

Maybe the should have stuck it out with Ratten instead of delivering a truck full of money to Mick.

[Willmoy1947 4,081]

Merge them with the Bloody Bombers and ship them off to Tasmania..

[Dr. Mubutu 831]

Merge them with the Bloody Bombers and ship them off to Tasmania..

There's a better chance of Tasmania falling into the sea.

[CBDees 3,167]

Merge them with the Bloody Bombers and ship them off to Tasmania..

Or maybe they could stay as stand-alone Clubs in New Zealand with an island each!

[deespicable me 1,485]

The draft actually seemed to be working fine until the new teams got everything on a silver platter for years, it artificially held the top clubs at the top and the bottom at the bottom. We may see this go back to the normal rise and fall over the next 5 or so years, just a pity the hawks were one of those held at the top!!!!

I hope you're right Chris.

I hate Carlton as much as the next bloke but whenever this comes up in the media similarly to our request last year the so-called unbiased media experts all shoot it down in flames. The latest talk that is getting a good run is that compensation picks for free agents should be scrapped altogether.

Where are the discussions that Hawthorn with three homes, the whole state of Tasmania to pillage and the fact they can cherry pick a free agent like Frawley for $450.000 a year when we would have had to pay $600.000 to keep him, or Geelong with their sweet Stadium deal or Collingwood who basically say when and where they will play and just keep banking cheques, where are the real discussions about true equalisation, because an extra pick at the moment is nothing compared to the run these larger juggernaut clubs are getting.

[Moneider96 1,045]

Clearly strategic IMO. Afl will now struggle to give brisbane a priority pick when Carlton grab pick 1 and 2.

[What 18,810]

Brissy and Carlton pissing all over each other. Goods stuff, Neither will get a PP or a first round compo for their injury prone ruckmen.

[rjay 24,887]

I hope you're right Chris.

I hate Carlton as much as the next bloke but whenever this comes up in the media similarly to our request last year the so-called unbiased media experts all shoot it down in flames. The latest talk that is getting a good run is that compensation picks for free agents should be scrapped altogether.

Where are the discussions that Hawthorn with three homes, the whole state of Tasmania to pillage and the fact they can cherry pick a free agent like Frawley for $450.000 a year when we would have had to pay $600.000 to keep him, or Geelong with their sweet Stadium deal or Collingwood who basically say when and where they will play and just keep banking cheques, where are the real discussions about true equalisation, because an extra pick at the moment is nothing compared to the run these larger juggernaut clubs are getting.

I must be missing something here but some that are pushing this say it will be better for the lower clubs if they do away with compensation.

Anyone have a theory as to why it would be better??? I'm coming up with 000000000!

[Tall Timber 48]

Yep, PJ should do so as well. Show the system as being irrational.

He already did - last year, when the AFL 'approved' our request by awarding rolled-gold compensation for Frawley.

[daisycutter 29,604]

He already did - last year, when the AFL 'approved' our request by awarding rolled-gold compensation for Frawley.

maybe, but it was mostly the dorks who bent the afl's wrist by paying way overs to chip (2.5M)

[Chris 2,892]

I hope you're right Chris.

I hate Carlton as much as the next bloke but whenever this comes up in the media similarly to our request last year the so-called unbiased media experts all shoot it down in flames. The latest talk that is getting a good run is that compensation picks for free agents should be scrapped altogethger.

Where are the discussions that Hawthorn with three homes, the whole state of Tasmania to pillage and the fact they can cherry pick a free agent like Frawley for $450.000 a year when we would have had to pay $600.000 to keep him, or Geelong with their sweet Stadium deal or Collingwood who basically say when and where they will play and just keep banking cheques, where are the real discussions about true equalisation, because an extra pick at the moment is nothing compared to the run these larger juggernaut clubs are getting.

The issue with the inequalities in the draw and the time slots given is always raised and is countered by people saying 'win games and the good times will come'. BS, watch Collingwood get great time slots and home games against high drawing sides even though they only won a couple more games than us. The rich are rich because the AFL made them rich and mooched of their members for their own survival, the poor were forgotten and it was hoped we would die during the 90's. The AFL now has the problem they have bolstered these clubs so far up that it is near impossible to bring them down again or even have them agree to the idea the poor clubs should get some of the benefit too. The almighty dollar is ruling the AFL and the way it is now is not sustainable.

[Deestroy All 14,262]

But they've got the greatest young midfielder the world has ever seen.

#JOKE