I'm not sure I care if Hawthorn traded all their future picks to the GC anyway.  From what I understand, the rule was put in place more or less for the protection of the club trading it.  So long as Hawthorn don't receive great players out of these trades, then I'm more than happy for them to exclude them selves from picking up future talent in the draft.  I heard that with their current trading of picks included, they wouldn't have had a pick in the top 20 in six years.

2 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I'm not sure I care if Hawthorn traded all their future picks to the GC anyway.  From what I understand, the rule was put in place more or less for the protection of the club trading it.  So long as Hawthorn don't receive great players out of these trades, then I'm more than happy for them to exclude them selves from picking up future talent in the draft.  I heard that with their current trading of picks included, they wouldn't have had a pick in the top 20 in six years.

Hi KD

they kinda got Chip - " pick 3" equivalent ?

38 minutes ago, radar said:

Hi KD

they kinda got Chip - " pick 3" equivalent ?

Yes, through that bigger scam of free agency, which didn't cost them anything, which shits me much more than them getting Jaeger for some combination of fairly high picks.

4 hours ago, radar said:

Hi KD

they kinda got Chip - " pick 3" equivalent ?

The AFL "looking" into the Vickery deal as well. Clubs believe Hawks fudged the years of the contract to get Richmond higher FA compo.

8 hours ago, Redleg said:

Sorry to rain on the parade, but to me the clear inference is in relation to picks originally owned by the club, not picks traded in from other clubs in trade week, as they were future picks of other clubs.

I agree. And therefore the rule applies to the other club trading their future pick, not the club to which the future pick was traded to and then on-traded.

 

8 hours ago, Chook said:

Alice gives $5 of next week’s earnings to Carl in exchange for a donut. Bob gives Alice $10 of his next week’s earnings in exchange for a batch of old cookies. Alice says to Bob: “Forget that. Give the money to Carl because he is giving me a chocolate cake." How much of her own money has Alice given up?

Are you the Riddler in disguise?

It seems that hawthorn traded their original 2nd rounder and not the acquired gws 2nd rounder

originally it was reported that they had on-traded their acquired gws 2nd rounder (and what i had thought) 

this puts a different complexion on the trade wrt the rule wording which badly needs a re-write

The Afl would be happy as the hawks and cats stay a force. 

13 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

It seems that hawthorn traded their original 2nd rounder and not the acquired gws 2nd rounder

originally it was reported that they had on-traded their acquired gws 2nd rounder (and what i had thought) 

this puts a different complexion on the trade wrt the rule wording which badly needs a re-write

AFL should void the trade and send O'Meara into the draft, plain and simple.

If it was the GWS 2nd round pick that was ontraded, then no issues.  However what's happened is clearly in breach of the rules.

From beginning to end the Hawks 'manipulated' the draft.

• It started on day 1 when they got Vickery as an FA.  Initially reported on their website as a 3yr contract. It was hurriedly changed to 2yr. but at the same dollars making it seem a bigger contract.  The 2 year deal quallified Richmond to get a round 2 AFL compensation pick, the 3 year deal, with the same dollars did not.  Otherwise Richmond could have matched the offer and forced Hawks to trade for Vickery which clearly they did not want to do.  That is blatant draft manipulation by both Richmond and Hawthorn.  Apparently the AFL 'looked into' it but no known outcome as yet.
• They did a dodgy deal with Carlton to get the O'Meara deal over the line.  Carlton the big losers on the deal - there was chat that Bolton was trying to help his old boss.  Wonder when that favour will get called in by Carlton!
• It ended on the last day when Hawks traded their 2017 2nd rnd pick which as others have stated above, they were not entitled to do.

And it looks like the AFL will turn a blind eye to it all, as always when it involves favoured clubs!!

It backfired a bit on the Hawks when GCS stood their ground on O'meara and they gave StK a draft pick windfall for their 2016 pick 10 and the dodgy deal with Carlton meant their first pick this year is 88 and next year is around 25 to 30.

The AFL should look very closely at all the Hawks draft activity because they have been fast and loose with the rules.  And that little Vickery FA manoeuvre opens a hornets nest of dubious FA and trade transactions in the future.  

Rules, like legislation, are written in a manner that tries to cover every contingency. Sometimes they fail to do so. That's why the Tax Act is longer than the Bible. I'd rather the AFL admit that their rules aren't perfect and fix them than be in denial.

2 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

From beginning to end the Hawks 'manipulated' the draft.

• It started on day 1 when they got Vickery as an FA.  Initially reported on their website as a 3yr contract. It was hurriedly changed to 2yr. but at the same dollars making it seem a bigger contract.  The 2 year deal quallified Richmond to get a round 2 AFL compensation pick, the 3 year dea, with the same dollars did not.  That is blatant draft manipulation by both Richmond and Hawthorn.  Apparently the AFL 'looked into' it but no known outcome as yet.
• They did a dodgy deal with Carlton to get the O'Meara deal over the line.  Carlton the big losers on the deal - there was chat that Bolton was trying to help his old boss.  Wonder when that favour will get called in by Carlton!
• It ended on the last day when Hawks traded their 2017 2nd rnd pick which as others have stated above, they were not entitled to do.

And it looks like the AFL will turn a blind eye to it all, as always when it involves favoured clubs!!

It backfired a bit on the Hawks when GCS stood their ground on O'meara and they gave StK a draft pick windfall for their 2016 pick 10 and the dodgy deal with Carlton meant their first pick this year is 88 and next year is around 35 to 40.

The AFL should look very closely at all the Hawks draft activity because they have been fast and loose with the rules.  And that little Vickery FA manoeuvre opens a hornets nest of dubious FA and trade transactions in the future.  

And last year Melbourne used the points system to its advantage, possibly better than anyone else, to get two top 10 picks. Clubs just play the off-field game, some better than others. 

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

And last year Melbourne used the points system to its advantage, possibly better than anyone else, to get two top 10 picks. Clubs just play the off-field game, some better than others. 

That is nothing like what the Hawks did.  We did not break the future pick rules nor did we do any shady deals to manipulate outcomes for other clubs ie the 'deal' to get Richmond a low 20's pick for Vickery. 

Have a closer look at the Hawks trading activity.

8 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

From beginning to end the Hawks 'manipulated' the draft.

Apparently the AFL 'looked into' it but no known outcome as yet.

And it looks like the AFL will turn a blind eye to it all, as always when it involves favoured clubs!!

The AFL have no stomach for irrelevancies such as these. How can they possibly affect the KPIs of the executives? Keep your eye on the ratings gate ball.

 

According to my AFL predictor (in the Whitfield thread somewhere) ...

2. If it is known to the public, make a statement that it's no big deal. Nothing to see here.

All going to plan.

#freekickhawthorn

Just now, Ted Fidge said:

The AFL have no stomach for irrelevancies such as these. How can they possibly affect the KPIs of the executives? Keep your eye on the ratings gate ball.

 

According to my AFL predictor (in the Whitfield thread somewhere) ...

2. If it is known to the public, make a statement that it's no big deal. Nothing to see here.

All going to plan.

That's really it.

The AFL doesn't give two shits about this sort of stuff. We laugh and make jokes about inconsistencies and bs on-fly rules, wet lettuce penalties and massaged outcomes. At the end of the day, the AFL doesn't care what we think. They have a billion dollar product, and all of their actions are designed to enhance or retain this product. They don't give a [censored] about fairness or equalisation.

And we can't do a thing because:

1 - We love the sport and will keep watching.
2 - The number of people who turn off is insignificant when compared to the impact on their bottom line if they don't take these conflicted actions.

 

It would require large scale protest action to get the AFL to actually change their behaviour, and that's just never going to happen. Seriously what are we going to do? Organise a nation-wide boycott of Hawthorn games?  There'll never be enough of a groundswell to actually make any noise.

Hawthorn do appear to have traded their own 2017 2nd rounder but I admit there is still some confusion over whether it is their's or GWS's.  I think GC prefer it to be the Hawthorn pick and I think it's a bit worse for Hawthorn if it is their pick - all based on my expectation that GWS will finish higher.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-20/finally-jaeger-omeara-makes-his-way-to-hawthorn

This allowed Hawthorn to send its own 2017 second-round pick to Gold Coast, along with pick No.10 for Jaeger O'Meara.

I think it's a storm in a tea cup.  Hawthorn still have a 2017 2nd rounder whatever happened and that is the intent of the rule.  

We used 2 1st rounders in 2015 and both of them count towards our 2 in 4 years requirement even though one of them wasn't ours, I believe we don't HAVE to use a 1st in 2016-18 because of that if it suits us.  Same for Hawthorn with their own 1st and the 1st they received from North for Jed Anderson - I am not kidding you - they used 2 in 2015 and that's why they could trade both 2016 and 2017 away AND they don't have to use the 2018 either if they don't want to.

Ty Vickery to Hawthorn - the Hawks announced three years, then submitted papers for two years.

Jaeger O'Meara to Hawthorn - the Hawks told the AFL about one trade, confused the AFL, then submitted papers for another trade.

Tom Mitchell - the Hawks ... 

Dodgy builders.

1 hour ago, AngryAtCasey said:

AFL should void the trade and send O'Meara into the draft, plain and simple.

If it was the GWS 2nd round pick that was ontraded, then no issues.  However what's happened is clearly in breach of the rules.

Don't the AFL lawyers sign off on the trade paperwork at the time AngryatAFL? You want them to back-flip on a back-flip and provide a grievance case for the Hawks?

14 hours ago, Chris said:

The AFL have had to come out and defend the Hawks true to get O'MEARA. They have found an 'interpretation' of their rule that clears them of course. 

Here is what happened. The AFL rules states that once you trade a future first round pick you can not trade any other picks from that draft period. Pretty clear. 

The Hawks traded next year's first round pick to the Saints. The rule would say you can't trade anymore picks from next year. 

The Hawks then recieved next year's second round pick from GWS via Carlton. They then traded this to GC for O'MEARA. 

The AFL say it is fine as their interpretation of the rule is that it wasn't originally the Hawks pick so doesn't count as a future pick in that draft. The rule clearly doesn't provide this provision, or even hint at it! Just the AFL covering their ass again.

You would seriously struggle to make this stuff up. Can we please have someone competent in charge of the league!

I actually don't see a real problem with this.

Whenever a rule is established, it has an "intent" behind it that is almost never put into print, as you cannot write specific clauses for every possible permutation.

Jut because it is unwritten, doesn't mean that isn't what they intended the rule to be. I'm sure you will see a continuation of this "new" policy, that every other club can take advantage of.

32 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Hawthorn do appear to have traded their own 2017 2nd rounder but I admit there is still some confusion over whether it is their's or GWS's.  I think GC prefer it to be the Hawthorn pick and I think it's a bit worse for Hawthorn if it is their pick - all based on my expectation that GWS will finish higher.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-20/finally-jaeger-omeara-makes-his-way-to-hawthorn

This allowed Hawthorn to send its own 2017 second-round pick to Gold Coast, along with pick No.10 for Jaeger O'Meara.

I think it's a storm in a tea cup.  Hawthorn still have a 2017 2nd rounder whatever happened and that is the intent of the rule.  

We used 2 1st rounders in 2015 and both of them count towards our 2 in 4 years requirement even though one of them wasn't ours, I believe we don't HAVE to use a 1st in 2016-18 because of that if it suits us.  Same for Hawthorn with their own 1st and the 1st they received from North for Jed Anderson - I am not kidding you - they used 2 in 2015 and that's why they could trade both 2016 and 2017 away AND they don't have to use the 2018 either if they don't want to.

I agree, however under the current wording there is a clear argument that says they are in breach of the rule. It requires a redraft to more closely match the intent.

The Vickery shenanigans are dodgy as hell though. If the AFL slides that one under the rug then it won't be the last we see of clubs manipulating the FA arrangements.

1 hour ago, faultydet said:

I actually don't see a real problem with this.

Whenever a rule is established, it has an "intent" behind it that is almost never put into print, as you cannot write specific clauses for every possible permutation.

Jut because it is unwritten, doesn't mean that isn't what they intended the rule to be. I'm sure you will see a continuation of this "new" policy, that every other club can take advantage of.

I agree about the intent, the problem is the rule is actually very clear and doesn't allow for that intent at all. The rewording would be fairly simple, it only needs the inclusion of words along the lines of 'their initial other rounds draft picks'. That would solve the issue instantly and make it very clear what is and isn't allowed. 

8 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

And last year Melbourne used the points system to its advantage, possibly better than anyone else, to get two top 10 picks. Clubs just play the off-field game, some better than others. 

But that was within the rules. 

The Hawks trade as admitted by the AFL is a breach of the rules. 

8 hours ago, AngryAtCasey said:

AFL should void the trade and send O'Meara into the draft, plain and simple.

If it was the GWS 2nd round pick that was ontraded, then no issues.  However what's happened is clearly in breach of the rules.

 

5 minutes ago, Redleg said:

But that was within the rules. 

The Hawks trade as admitted by the AFL is a breach of the rules. 

Angry - you are right but seriously can you envisage that absolute weakling Gil putting his foot down and doing this, when he can't make a decision about a drug cheat retaining an honour he obtained in the year of his offence?  Maybe he will poll Hawthorn members as to their thoughts?

 

20 hours ago, rpfc said:

Yeah, great. And I always on the AFL's back for legislatin-on-the-fly-and-sly but the spirit of the rule is 'if you mortgage your future 1st rounder, you are staying in the rest of the rounds.'

Clearer rules would be great but would make it harder to wrap your head around:

If a club trades a future first-round selection, that club must make at least 3 selections in subsequent rounds, either in Rd 2 of the draft, and then, if applicable, Rd 3, and then, if applicable, Rd 4. But if a club keeps its, or obtains another clubs', future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds.

Hard to make rules to cover every scenario...

I would have thought that this is a relatively obvious scenario to counter with the correct wording. Whoever writes these rules for the AFL (presumably their legal bods), either don't know the game or they half-bake their legislations. If my film lawyer wrote contracts with this much scope for error and lack of clarity, I'd be firing them straight away. 

As Chris says, the rules as they are in this instance, state clubs "may not trade any other future selection". It's not that they've even really found a new loop hole. They've just invented one now on the fly. It's rubbish, IMO.