AFL trade stuff up

[The Great Pretender 456]

Since it involved his former club it would have been good if the AFL ensured that Evans had nothing to do with the decision. I'm not suggesting any impropriety but I would have thought good governance demanded it.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,773]

On 25/10/2016 at 8:30 PM, Chris said:

Here is the actual rule from afl.com.au

-       If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds

No scope there for other teams future picks. Actually expressly says 'any other future selections'

Pretty clear. 

I think the problem is the rule as it was originally written rather than anything Hawthorn did. The AFL are just incompetent and this extends to not covering themselves when designing new rules.

[Dr. Gonzo 23,773]

I do agree the Geelong one was dodgy though - they basically said they can use both 1st round picks they have to use in any 4 years period in the final year so long as they trade one in. Well what if they can't find anyone who wants you trade them a 1st round pick that year? It leaves them open.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

15 minutes ago, The Great Pretender said:

Since it involved his former club it would have been good if the AFL ensured that Evans had nothing to do with the decision. I'm not suggesting any impropriety but I would have thought good governance demanded it.

Scene: AFL house. Gil McLachlan's office.

Mark Evans: ... and I really should have not been involved in that decision. I would have thought good governance demanded it.

Gil: Governance. Right. Excuse me one moment.

(Gil types)

https://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en-AU&q=govenence

What is good governance? - Good Governance Guide
www.goodgovernance.org.au/...governance/what-is-good-governance/‎
Good governance is about the processes for making and implementing decisions. It's not about making 'correct' decisions, but about the best possible process for making those decisions. Good decision-making processes, and therefore good governance, share several characteristics.

Gil: So, what were you saying?

Evans: Good governance demands it. It comes back to the integrity of the competition.

Gil: Integrity. Right. Can you excuse me just one moment again?

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

23 hours ago, Gorgoroth said:

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

Personally, I think the AFL was quietly stoked that the Bulldogs won the flag and ended the predictable dominance of those two clubs.

 

[monoccular 17,340]

On 27/10/2016 at 7:20 AM, The Great Pretender said:

Since it involved his former club it would have been good if the AFL ensured that Evans had nothing to do with the decision. I'm not suggesting any impropriety but I would have thought good governance demanded it.

OMG .  

How long have you been following VFL AFL? Are you seriously suggesting <insert antonym of impropriety > at AFL HQ?

On 27/10/2016 at 7:30 AM, Dr. Gonzo said:

I do agree the Geelong one was dodgy though - they basically said they can use both 1st round picks they have to use in any 4 years period in the final year so long as they trade one in. Well what if they can't find anyone who wants you trade them a 1st round pick that year? It leaves them open.

Without doubt Gil and his spin team will weasel their way out of this cesspit. 

[KingSlayer33 170]

7 hours ago, monoccular said:

...

Without doubt Gil and his spin team will weasel their way out of this cesspit. 

Probably by saying something like "it's not the cats' fault that none of the other teams would trade them their first round pick for half a packet of three day old twisties and a Geelong third-rounder."

[deanox 9,719]

I'd be putting our first rounder on the table for the cats.  they'll need to pay overs for it though, but they are the ones that need it. 

[Adam The God 29,486]

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think the problem is the rule as it was originally written rather than anything Hawthorn did. The AFL are just incompetent and this extends to not covering themselves when designing new rules.

I think some would argue that they deliberately leave grey errors in some of the rules to cover themselves in case a narrative goes the wrong way. But I would also agree, mate, that often they're just flat out incompetent, such as in this instance.

[Redleg 40,280]

So is getting a player through a breach of rules, AFL assistance.

Luckily the clubs that most needed the assistance got it.