It's 1000 points not pick 17. They'll make that loss up at draft time. 

how do you take points off a team without effectively taking away pick(s)?

does that mean it only comes into play if they take an academy player?

Don't points get reduced from their first pick in the draft? it's not the clubs call to assign where they come from.... 
At the end of next year they will get a assigned the pick in the draft that is commensurate to their ladder position, and then 1000 points will be deducted from that pick to determine their actual pick.
 

The thing is... they still need to reduce their list next year so offload more budding stars for high picks anyway, and if they are the favorites for the premiership and win it next year, they won't give a toss about the penalties.

1 hour ago, willmoy said:

Tripe is currently on special

No way.  Tried at the local butcher who said that all available supplies had been ordered by a G McLachlan, AFL House.

PS That also included futures, and also frozen packs just in case.

It is media outlets that have deemed 1,000 points to be GWS's pick 15 to 18 assuming they finish top 4.  There has been nothing from the AFL to suggest that is the case. 

Consider these scenarios:

• GWS trades out their 2017 1st round pick (lets say #15-18) and maybe their second for a very good player, leaving only later picks to 'pay' 1,000 draft points.
• GWS trades out their 2017 1st round pick for a 2018 1st round pick or two 2018 2nd round picks, again leaving only later picks to pay the 1,000 draft points.
• GWS 'negotiate' with AFL to use their 2017 first round pick and 'pay' the 1,000 draft points with later picks.
• GWS finish outside the top 4.  Theoretically, they could lose only 1,000 points of their first 2017 pick leaving them with 'floating' points they cannot use unless there is an academy player further down the line. GWS will negotiate with the AFL to take the 1,000 points from later picks.

I could float a bunch of other scenarios but you get the point:  GWS has a lot of room to manoeuvre to eliminate any hurt from loss of 1,000 draft points. 

In fact, I would bet my bottom dollar GWS and AFL have already done a deal on how the 1,000 draft points will be 'paid'. 

If the AFL wanted to remove their first round they would have.  They didn't!!   That speaks volumes!

I will be mighty surprised and happy to eat humble pie if GWS effectively lose their first 2017 draft pick.

"The sub-committee also found that the Giants’ board, chief executive and chief operating officer had not been aware of the misconduct and the club’s governance could not be faulted."

 

That's the trouble with governance if there is no corresponding moral values system to go along with it.

The treatment by the media and the AFL of the EFC case and to a large extent this case means that we are further from instilling those moral values. I suspect it will only occur when sponsors demand it.

By the way I have never seen the public apology to the girlfriend.

One might dislike Collingwood but I think their treatment of the two suspended players was measured.

O well.... let us see how long it takes until the next issue like this comes along.

Speaking of the suspended Collingwood players, based on the lack of punishment handed out by the AFL, GWS and any future culprits would have to think that rolling the dice and avoiding a drug test is better than subjecting players to drug testing.  The Collingwood boys got a full season for their positive drugs test, where as Whitfield, GWS got a slap on the wrist and less than half a season for their dishonest behaviour - well done AFL, massive opportunity to send the right message missed.

1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Speaking of the suspended Collingwood players, based on the lack of punishment handed out by the AFL, GWS and any future culprits would have to think that rolling the dice and avoiding a drug test is better than subjecting players to drug testing.  The Collingwood boys got a full season for their positive drugs test, where as Whitfield, GWS got a slap on the wrist and less than half a season for their dishonest behaviour - well done AFL, massive opportunity to send the right message missed.

Oh yes. It is certainly worth doing a runner. 

Good on ya Gill. Yet another overpaid CEO

4 hours ago, Ouch! said:

Don't points get reduced from their first pick in the draft? it's not the clubs call to assign where they come from.... 
At the end of next year they will get a assigned the pick in the draft that is commensurate to their ladder position, and then 1000 points will be deducted from that pick to determine their actual pick.
 

The thing is... they still need to reduce their list next year so offload more budding stars for high picks anyway, and if they are the favorites for the premiership and win it next year, they won't give a toss about the penalties.

Confirmed in this article by John Pierik. 

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/greater-western-sydney-giants/greater-western-sydney-giants-fined-100000-for-lachie-whitfield-affair-20161222-gtgp81.html

" This means that if they were to finish fourth next season, as they had this year, their draft selection No.15, worth 1112 points, would slip to No.63 (112 points). "

Effectively they have had their first round pick taken away.

42 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Confirmed in this article by John Pierik. 

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/greater-western-sydney-giants/greater-western-sydney-giants-fined-100000-for-lachie-whitfield-affair-20161222-gtgp81.html

" This means that if they were to finish fourth next season, as they had this year, their draft selection No.15, worth 1112 points, would slip to No.63 (112 points). "

Effectively they have had their first round pick taken away.

They lost their first round pick. That is a big penalty for this particular offence.  

I also am of the belief that their administration has a smell about it in view of what has happened. That in itself, combined with other clubs comments about favouritism etc does not augur well for any budding Premiership side. When this is combined with one of their marquee players getting himself rubbed out for a completely undisciplined action  in 2016's finals, it is not hard to figure their chances of finals past week one are fairly limited in 2017.

7 hours ago, Redleg said:

They lost their first round pick. That is a big penalty for this particular offence.  

They can think themselves lucky Whitfield wasn't rubbed out for at least a season which he should have been...

10 hours ago, rjay said:

They can think themselves lucky Whitfield wasn't rubbed out for at least a season which he should have been...

That's probably more to the point.

Refusing a breath or blood alcohol test, carries 2 years licence suspension in Victoria, even though you might have only had a negative reading, or or a reading that leads to say 10 months suspension for example.

So the refusing/avoiding, is punished heavily,  to discourage that behaviour and ensure that all parties asked to undergo testing do so.

19 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Confirmed in this article by John Pierik. 

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/greater-western-sydney-giants/greater-western-sydney-giants-fined-100000-for-lachie-whitfield-affair-20161222-gtgp81.html

" This means that if they were to finish fourth next season, as they had this year, their draft selection No.15, worth 1112 points, would slip to No.63 (112 points). "

Effectively they have had their first round pick taken away.

It would be an interesting exercise if someone could do an analysis of the effect the loss of 1,000 points would have had on GWS in the 2016 draft.

18 hours ago, Redleg said:

They lost their first round pick. That is a big penalty for this particular offence.  

Rubbish - GWS have had and continue to stockpile so many early picks and recruitment concessions that loss of a pick 15 is like a drop in the ocean to that side.

12 minutes ago, Rolling Stone said:

It would be an interesting exercise if someone could do an analysis of the effect the loss of 1,000 points would have had on GWS in the 2016 draft.

"Effectively they have had their first round pick taken away."

I would be tempted to do the exercise myself but for the fact that my brain's in holiday mode. However, I'm not so sure that the penalty is the equivalent of taking their first round pick away. It might make it harder for them if they tried the ploy of trading into an early draft selection as they did this year in order to get Taranto at pick 2 but I think they will still get their first choice academy player (and there could be three GWS academy boys in the top 10 if the AFL conveniently ignores the fact that two of them are being developed at Victorian TAC Cup clubs). Worst case scenario is that they would go into points debt which might defer the pain for another season.

The interesting thing will be to see whether the AFL decides to come to grips with the reality that the NSW clubs bordering on the Murray area which are traditional football areas should be outside the GWS Academy zone. Of course, this would be tantamount to an admission by the AFL that it hasn't actually been telling the truth about the purpose of the northern states academies.

20 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

"Effectively they have had their first round pick taken away."

I would be tempted to do the exercise myself but for the fact that my brain's in holiday mode. However, I'm not so sure that the penalty is the equivalent of taking their first round pick away. It might make it harder for them if they tried the ploy of trading into an early draft selection as they did this year in order to get Taranto at pick 2 but I think they will still get their first choice academy player (and there could be three GWS academy boys in the top 10 if the AFL conveniently ignores the fact that two of them are being developed at Victorian TAC Cup clubs). Worst case scenario is that they would go into points debt which might defer the pain for another season.

The interesting thing will be to see whether the AFL decides to come to grips with the reality that the NSW clubs bordering on the Murray area which are traditional football areas should be outside the GWS Academy zone. Of course, this would be tantamount to an admission by the AFL that it hasn't actually been telling the truth about the purpose of the northern states academies.

the afl has never had a problem "handling" the truth, jack

they have many ingenious methods for "handling" it including their favourites "ignore it", "redefine it" and "twist it" 

18 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

the afl has never had a problem "handling" the truth, jack

they have many ingenious methods for "handling" it including their favourites "ignore it", "redefine it" and "twist it" 

So true. Redefine. The AFL has a full department and floor to deal with that blip on the radar

1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Rubbish - GWS have had and continue to stockpile so many early picks and recruitment concessions that loss of a pick 15 is like a drop in the ocean to that side.

Not rubbish at all.

Any other club that lost pick 15 for that offence would be in Court fighting.

They may have had the world,  but pick 15 is still a big penalty for that offence.

It is like saying,  if for example a rich guy got a parking ticket, he should be fined much more than the prescribed penalty, because he can afford it.

They've lost points , not picks.  Bet your life the AFL wont close any loopholes in this regard til after next draft 

This is the same organisation after all that gave Golden Boy and Gang a heads up !!

They're about as obvious as balls on a bull !!

14 hours ago, rjay said:

They can think themselves lucky Whitfield wasn't rubbed out for at least a season which he should have been...

 

3 hours ago, Redleg said:

That's probably more to the point.

Refusing a breath or blood alcohol test, carries 2 years licence suspension in Victoria, even though you might have only had a negative reading, or or a reading that leads to say 10 months suspension for example.

So the refusing/avoiding, is punished heavily,  to discourage that behaviour and ensure that all parties asked to undergo testing do so.

 

2 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Rubbish - GWS have had and continue to stockpile so many early picks and recruitment concessions that loss of a pick 15 is like a drop in the ocean to that side.

Have ASADA / WADA definitely signed off on this?   

It is worth remembering that these bodies have a ?2Y ban for avoiding / hiding from tests.

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

It is like saying,  if for example a rich guy got a parking ticket, he should be fined much more than the prescribed penalty, because he can afford it.

Not buying into the pick 15 issue myself, but there is a lot to be said for the above penalty policy.  Applies in much of Scandanavia.

On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 2:43 PM, george_on_the_outer said:

Confirmed in this article by John Pierik. 

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/greater-western-sydney-giants/greater-western-sydney-giants-fined-100000-for-lachie-whitfield-affair-20161222-gtgp81.html

" This means that if they were to finish fourth next season, as they had this year, their draft selection No.15, worth 1112 points, would slip to No.63 (112 points). "

Effectively they have had their first round pick taken away.

Not yet confirmed by the AFL, however, only claimed by The Age journo John Pierik. I couldn't find any quote from AFL house which said it would come off their first pick and not later picks. I'm hoping the former is the case.

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

 

 

Have ASADA / WADA definitely signed off on this?   

It is worth remembering that these bodies have a ?2Y ban for avoiding / hiding from tests.

From what has been reported, it would appear so.

5 hours ago, Rolling Stone said:

It would be an interesting exercise if someone could do an analysis of the effect the loss of 1,000 points would have had on GWS in the 2016 draft.

7.