Jump to content

Featured Replies

bailey smith is exactly the type of player jason taylor loves. yes, we have a lot of his type but you gotta take best available and would be stoked to get him

 
5 hours ago, adonski said:

Massive no from me. Need a ready made kid if we go to the draft, not a project player. 

How anyone could be advocating for an 86kg 200cm plus stick insect defies belief.

We have just entered our first Premiership window for almost 20yrs. If we add just a few more adult bodies with the required skill into the team, we may just be able to end our 5 decade plus flag famine.

Load up, win as many flags as we can, then we can all sit back and watch the rebuild again, finally knowing what its like to drink from that cup.

It is possible that Jason Taylor has identified a premium early draft prospect and we want to trade in to get him like we did with Clarrie and Weed.  

There's a lot of different scenarios to play out.  Fascinating times.

The report that we asked permission to trade our 2019 1st just adds to the intrigue.  I've only seen a couple of posters say this and haven't seen an official confirmation though?  I guess it just provides more flexibility and may not be directed at a specific target.

Sounds like future picks will be eligible in draft night live pick trading too

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-08-08/twoday-draft-to-add-live-pick-trading

Edited by Fifty-5

 
3 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

The report that we asked permission to trade our 2019 1st just adds to the intrigue.  I've only seen a couple of posters say this and haven't seen an official confirmation though?  I guess it just provides more flexibility and may not be directed at a specific target.

that will just never ever happen.. worth a try though. why would they let us and no other club? not really fair just cos we might wanna use it to get kelly or something. i'd be happy to get may and a really good kid that's ready to go, just not sure that there will be one left at 5/6 that won't be a flight risk/defender/lanky lad.

3 minutes ago, Rocky said:

that will just never ever happen.. worth a try though. why would they let us and no other club? not really fair just cos we might wanna use it to get kelly or something. i'd be happy to get may and a really good kid that's ready to go, just not sure that there will be one left at 5/6 that won't be a flight risk/defender/lanky lad.

I think the AFL gave Geelong permission last year.  They just want to protect against basket cases and desperate regimes selling their future down the river.  But if the club looks in good shape I think they'll allow it.

Here's a possible link I found but it's behind the paywall

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/geelong-can-again-trade-its-firstround-draft-pick-in-2018/news-story/82989f88db7d2425be27dae06077fab7


wow, i'd never heard of this?! crazy.. keen!

Edited by Rocky

My reaction to Hogan leaving, like many on here: damn . . . ooh wait, what can we get in return!? If it were Oliver I'd probably quit football and/or life altogether. Such is the difference.

Yet, we've apparently asked the AFL for special dispensation to trade out our 2019 first-rounder. Many have speculated that we may have something extra in the works, despite no other obvious signs or leaks from a fairly straightforward club - so perhaps it's just bargaining assurance? 

I haven't closely followed the make-it-up-as-you-go precedents (free kick Hawthorn), but I imagine we'll be given the green by the AFL on next year's first. With respect to our list profile, and recent history of trades, we're clearly not operating in the fashion of which the rule was obviously designed to protect against - e.g. a Ross Lyon-era Saints dive for the flag but with supercharged status. 

Us having next year's first-round potential in the pocket prevents the MFC from getting bent over by Freo. As is now our rhetoric. Two early firsts or we walk, and back ourselves in between now and next year to snag a signature or even a flag. As such, if Hogan were to stay, and we got May and KK for next year's first and trade change, we would then have to be pretty damned chuffed. 

Add a surprise Gaff to that mix and a Pruess exchange and it would just about equate to our best trade haul and list quality ever. If Hogan does go however, then we should have an extra top-ten chip. I believe we're sitting pretty on this one, with special thanks to the foresight of Mahoney and co. 

 

 

 

Edited by Skuit

30 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

The report that we asked permission to trade our 2019 1st just adds to the intrigue.  I've only seen a couple of posters say this and haven't seen an official confirmation though?  I guess it just provides more flexibility and may not be directed at a specific target.

 

25 minutes ago, Rocky said:

that will just never ever happen.. worth a try though. why would they let us and no other club? not really fair just cos we might wanna use it to get kelly or something. i'd be happy to get may and a really good kid that's ready to go, just not sure that there will be one left at 5/6 that won't be a flight risk/defender/lanky lad.

 

18 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

I think the AFL gave Geelong permission last year.  They just want to protect against basket cases and desperate regimes selling their future down the river.  But if the club looks in good shape I think they'll allow it.

Here's a possible link I found but it's behind the paywall

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/geelong-can-again-trade-its-firstround-draft-pick-in-2018/news-story/82989f88db7d2425be27dae06077fab7

So a few of us posted at the exact same time on the same subject. It has always seemed slippery to me, including by original definition, but does anyone know the exact rules of future first-round trading? And then the dispensations that have been given since? 

Could have sworn Hawthorn and Geelong have both been granted liberties in recent times. But also vaguely recall something about the rules not being super-fixed in the early years but set to become more rigid over time? Also, any official source for where we've actually put in a request? 

 

personally i am ethically pretty against this loophole.. it's there for a reason, but if its been used before and we can navigate it, why not?

Edited by Rocky

6 minutes ago, Rocky said:

personally i am ethically pretty against this loophole.. it's there for a reason, but if its been used before and we can navigate it, why not?

I am not ethically challenged by a single legal thing that brings us a flag.

Zero.


10 minutes ago, Rocky said:

personally i am ethically pretty against this loophole.. it's there for a reason, but if its been used before and we can navigate it, why not?

I think it's perfectly legit when you're suddenly a top-four team. 

I’m sure it’s been raised somewhere here and burnt down as a thought. But.... thinking back to Geelong and Dangerfield they traded a first rounder ( pick 9 ?) to Adelaide for him when he was a Rfa as gaff is now.  Adelaide were threatening to match any offer but, aside from that,  it also helped danger feel he was taking care of his old club. I’m wondering ( given we get 2 first rounders fr Hogan) if we made an offer of one of these picks  to WC  for  Gaff. Especially given how his season ended with all the support he got, it might Help him choose us over others. In Dangerfields case it allowed the cats to pay unders in salary also and opens that possibly fr us too. 

6 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

I’m sure it’s been raised somewhere here and burnt down as a thought. But.... thinking back to Geelong and Dangerfield they traded a first rounder ( pick 9 ?) to Adelaide for him when he was a Rfa as gaff is now.  Adelaide were threatening to match any offer but, aside from that,  it also helped danger feel he was taking care of his old club. I’m wondering ( given we get 2 first rounders fr Hogan) if we made an offer of one of these picks  to WC  for  Gaff. Especially given how his season ended with all the support he got, it might Help him choose us over others. In Dangerfields case it allowed the cats to pay unders in salary also and opens that possibly fr us too. 

Gaff is North bound

Looking elsewhere

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

My reaction to Hogan leaving, like many on here: damn . . . ooh wait, what can we get in return!? If it were Oliver I'd probably quit football and/or life altogether. Such is the difference.

Yet, we've apparently asked the AFL for special dispensation to trade out our 2019 first-rounder. Many have speculated that we may have something extra in the works, despite no other obvious signs or leaks from a fairly straightforward club - so perhaps it's just bargaining assurance? 

I haven't closely followed the make-it-up-as-you-go precedents (free kick Hawthorn), but I imagine we'll be given the green by the AFL on next year's first. With respect to our list profile, and recent history of trades, we're clearly not operating in the fashion of which the rule was obviously designed to protect against - e.g. a Ross Lyon-era Saints dive for the flag but with supercharged status. 

Us having next year's first-round potential in the pocket prevents the MFC from getting bent over by Freo. As is now our rhetoric. Two early firsts or we walk, and back ourselves in between now and next year to snag a signature or even a flag. As such, if Hogan were to stay, and we got May and KK for next year's first and trade change, we would then have to be pretty damned chuffed. 

Add a surprise Gaff to that mix and a Pruess exchange and it would just about equate to our best trade haul and list quality ever. If Hogan does go however, then we should have an extra top-ten chip. I believe we're sitting pretty on this one, with special thanks to the foresight of Mahoney and co. 

 

 

 

Mahoney said its may or hogan cap space wise. How on earth can we have Hogan, May & Gaff in the same team?

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

My reaction to Hogan leaving, like many on here: damn . . . ooh wait, what can we get in return!? If it were Oliver I'd probably quit football and/or life altogether. Such is the difference.

Yet, we've apparently asked the AFL for special dispensation to trade out our 2019 first-rounder. Many have speculated that we may have something extra in the works, despite no other obvious signs or leaks from a fairly straightforward club - so perhaps it's just bargaining assurance? 

I haven't closely followed the make-it-up-as-you-go precedents (free kick Hawthorn), but I imagine we'll be given the green by the AFL on next year's first. With respect to our list profile, and recent history of trades, we're clearly not operating in the fashion of which the rule was obviously designed to protect against - e.g. a Ross Lyon-era Saints dive for the flag but with supercharged status. 

Us having next year's first-round potential in the pocket prevents the MFC from getting bent over by Freo. As is now our rhetoric. Two early firsts or we walk, and back ourselves in between now and next year to snag a signature or even a flag. As such, if Hogan were to stay, and we got May and KK for next year's first and trade change, we would then have to be pretty damned chuffed. 

Add a surprise Gaff to that mix and a Pruess exchange and it would just about equate to our best trade haul and list quality ever. If Hogan does go however, then we should have an extra top-ten chip. I believe we're sitting pretty on this one, with special thanks to the foresight of Mahoney and co. 

 

 

 

Will never happen.....Gaff will go to Norf

PS I'm not overly excited by May or KK


1 hour ago, Skuit said:

So a few of us posted at the exact same time on the same subject. It has always seemed slippery to me, including by original definition, but does anyone know the exact rules of future first-round trading? And then the dispensations that have been given since? 

Could have sworn Hawthorn and Geelong have both been granted liberties in recent times. But also vaguely recall something about the rules not being super-fixed in the early years but set to become more rigid over time? Also, any official source for where we've actually put in a request? 

Rule:  Clubs must make at least two first-round selections in each four-year period. If they don't, they will face restrictions from trading any further first-round draft picks.

Geelong may need to play catch up  http://www.geelongcats.com.au/news/2018-07-19/cats-first-round-requirements

With no first round picks in 2016, 2017, 2018 (might change) used, technically we need to trade in a first round pick this year or an extra one next year otherwise we won't have the required two picks (unless we get exemption) but like Geelong it eventually catches up with you. 

 

I can't find any reference to an mfc request to trade our 2019 pick.  I would suggest if we had it would be public knowledge by now as the trade starts in a few days.

 

As an aside, something that is untested with the AFL is the number of 1st round picks taken over a period ie would we get an allowance for traded in an extra pick in 2015? 

 

Edit:  Just re-read the AFL article in the above link and found this line:  "... the rest of the competition has already met its quota and is free to place 2018 and 2019 first-round picks on the table."  So we don't need permission.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

11 hours ago, MurDoc516 said:

4 and 5 would be a statement. Freo won't do it. Port want their pick 4/5 and Freo want as many picks in top 10 as possible because Lobb, Kelly, Hogan and Hill are all available.

Mahoney is usually clear about his position. Haven’t heard him say things he didn’t mean and don’t expect it to be any different should Jesse wish to leave.

 

8 hours ago, Dr.D said:

the infamous 4276. im just wondering of thats the plan and if i should start looking at the under 18 draftees :)

Depends. Are you Jason Taylor?

9 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

This was mentioned last night by Tom Morris ‘On The Couch’. I’m not sure what his track record is like but he believes the Neale trade will start an 8 way mega trade. I can’t remember the specifics, all I remember is him stating we will get their first pick and a player back which he didn’t name. 

It would be May

2 hours ago, Wells 11 said:

I’m sure it’s been raised somewhere here and burnt down as a thought. But.... thinking back to Geelong and Dangerfield they traded a first rounder ( pick 9 ?) to Adelaide for him when he was a Rfa as gaff is now.  Adelaide were threatening to match any offer but, aside from that,  it also helped danger feel he was taking care of his old club. I’m wondering ( given we get 2 first rounders fr Hogan) if we made an offer of one of these picks  to WC  for  Gaff. Especially given how his season ended with all the support he got, it might Help him choose us over others. In Dangerfields case it allowed the cats to pay unders in salary also and opens that possibly fr us too. 

Of course Gaff can be traded for however he doesn’t want to come to us so it’s a non-issue unfortunately. 

Edited by Ethan Tremblay


14 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Of course Gaff can be traded for however he doesn’t want to come to us do it’s s non-issue unfortunately. 

Correct

Just confirmed he's off to Norf

8 hours ago, Rocky said:

not the one we had wolfy.. this one: 

 

POS: Tall forward
Ht 202cm, Wt 86kg, DOB 7/7/00
From Sandringham Dragons/Vic Metro
August ranking: 4

King continues his recovery from an early-season knee reconstruction which wiped out most of his draft campaign. The key forward was seen as a possible No.1 contender before the injury struck, and is still likely to be one of the first handful of players selected on draft night. King has been doing his rehabilitation program twice a week using St Kilda's facilities. He is an athletic tall who is as good in the air as he is when the ball hits the ground.

Get an onballer 

1 hour ago, johndemonic said:

Mahoney said its may or hogan cap space wise. How on earth can we have Hogan, May & Gaff in the same team?

No he didn't. He said we couldn't afford May without Hogan leaving. I took that to mean we had nothing to trade (picks). We need early picks to afford to be able to trade for quality players.

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • NON-MFC: Round 11

    Round 11, the second week of The Sir Doug Nicholls Round, kicks off on Thursday night with the Cats hosting the Bulldogs at Kardinia Park. Geelong will be looking to to continue their decade long dominance over the Bulldogs, while the Dogs aim to take another big scalp as they surge up the ladder. On Friday night it's he Dreamtime at the 'G clash between Essendon and Richmond. The Bombers will want to avoid another embarrassing performance against a lowly side whilst the Tigers will be keen to avenge a disappointing loss to the Kangaroos. Saturday footy kicks off as the Blues face the Giants in a pivotal clash for both clubs. Carlton need to turn around their up and down season while GWS will be eager to bounce back and reassert themselves as a September threat. At twilight sees the Hawks taking on the Lions at the G. Hawthorn need to cement themselves in the Top 4 but they’ll need to be at their best to challenge a Brisbane side eager to respond after last week’s crushing loss to the Dees on their home turf. The first of the Saturday night double headers opens with North Melbourne up against the high-flying Magpies. The Roos will need a near-perfect performance to trouble a Collingwood side sitting atop the ladder.

      • Thanks
    • 191 replies
    Demonland
  • PREVIEW: Sydney

    The two teams competing at the MCG on Sunday afternoon have each traversed a long and arduous path since their previous encounter on a sweltering March evening in Sydney a season and a half ago. Both experienced periods of success at various times last year. The Demons ran out of steam in midseason while the Swans went on to narrowly miss the ultimate prize in the sport. Now, they find themselves outside of finals contention as the season approaches the halfway mark. The winner this week will remain in contact with the leading pack, while the loser may well find itself on a precipice, staring into the abyss. The current season has presented numerous challenges for most clubs, particularly those positioned in the middle tier. The Essendon experience in suffering a significant 91-point loss to the Bulldogs, just one week after defeating the Swans, may not be typical, but it illustrates the unpredictability of outcomes under the league’s present set up. 

      • Clap
      • Love
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 11 replies
    Demonland
  • REPORT: Brisbane

    “Max Gawn has been the heart and soul of the Dees for years now, but this recent recovery from a terrible start has been driven by him. He was everywhere again, and with the game in the balance, he took several key marks to keep the ball in the Dees forward half.” - The Monday Knee Jerk Reaction: Round Ten Of course, it wasn’t the efforts of one man that caused this monumental upset, but rather the work of the coach and his assistants and the other 22 players who took the ground, notably the likes of Jake Melksham, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Kozzie Pickett but Max has been magnificent in taking ownership of his team and its welfare under the fire of a calamitous 0-5 start to the season. On Sunday, he provided the leadership that was needed to face up to the reigning premier and top of the ladder Brisbane Lions on their home turf and to prevail after a slow start, during which the hosts led by as much as 24 points in the second quarter. Titus O’Reily is normally comedic in his descriptions of the football but this time, he was being deadly serious. The Demons have come from a long way back and, although they still sit in the bottom third of the AFL pack, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel as they look to drive home the momentum inspired in the past four or five weeks by Max the Magnificent who was under such great pressure in those dark, early days of the season.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 0 replies
    Demonland
  • CASEY: Southport

    The Southport Sharks came to Casey. They saw and they conquered a team with 16 AFL-listed players who, for the most part, wasted their time on the ground and failed to earn their keep. For the first half, the Sharks were kept in the game by the Demons’ poor use of the football, it’s disposal getting worse the closer the team got to its own goal and moreover, it got worse as the game progressed. Make no mistake, Casey was far and away the better team in the first half, it was winning the ruck duels through Tom Campbell’s solid performance but it was the scoreboard that told the story.

      • Thanks
    • 3 replies
    Demonland
  • PREGAME: Sydney

    Just a game and percentage outside the Top 8, the Demons return to Melbourne to face the Sydney Swans at the MCG, with a golden opportunity to build on the momentum from toppling the reigning premiers on their own turf. Who comes in, and who makes way?

      • Thanks
    • 471 replies
    Demonland
  • PODCAST: Brisbane

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 12th May @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we analyse a famous victory by the Demons over the Lions at the Gabba.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Clap
      • Love
      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 35 replies
    Demonland