daisycutter

i think you mean interchange not substitution od?

I'd just like to see any decrease in the rate of interchange. i hate it

I don't care if there are fixed threads for each player (though I doubt it will work) but I'm definitely not in favour of an extra board (unless admin can provide an optional combined view with no loss of function)

you should add 2 interchange + 2 substitute 2 interchange + 1 substitute as it is you have no options for reducing interchange/increasing substitutes

you are not paying attention Striker - that scenario is impossible the determination (bidding) for F/S occurs BEFORE any Trading is allowed therefore our first pick will be in the first round

very sorry Bing.....I think i mixed up/confused/combined two separate posts in answering

Wwwwhat? You mean there are actually plebs out there that don't know about D'Land? Wonders never cease.

Rhino, I already said previously that in Ball's case he wasn't seeking a contract with anyone but Collingwood so the choice of disclosure was his. What the AFL should do about these sort of tactics (e.g. Ball) re the Draft I don't really know but it certainly smacks of circumventing the spirit of the Draft By these tactics I don't just mean non-disclosure of medical info, but I also include failure to allow contact/discussions with other clubs, insistence on front-loading (as separate from just nominating your price) provisions etc. I certainly would hope the AFL have a good look at the rules in light of the Ball case. For all I know they probably have or are.

Not necessarily relevant here but...... I would expect employment contracts for professional sportspeople would include a requirement to disclose pre-existing medical conditions A later discovery that a sportsperson did not disclose such information could result in a breach of contract situation This is certainly true in some other industries Of course no one is forcing anyone to disclose info subject to privacy but no disclosure = no contract offer. Whether the requirement of disclosure was legally relevant to the particular employment contract would be for a court to decide but in the case of professional footballer it should be reasonable to expect medical disclosure of pre-existing conditions (but only those relevant to the performance of duties of a footballer) I know I'm being pedantic but its not just a simple issue of privacy

True, it is the other way around However just to be pedantic the "mid-round" pick could also float just a little depending if the were any preceding compensation picks taken

I'm not trying to buy into this argument and I think it was Nasher who pointed out the real issue with the afl was probably fear of restraint of trade challenges to the draft system. However it is overstating things to say that employment laws do not allow for disclosure of preexisting medical conditions and/or submitting yourself to medical examinations. Not saying it is relevant to the Ball case because he could argue he wasn't seeking employment with anyone but Collingwood with whom he complied in such considerations The Ball case however did expose some shortcomings of the Draft system which were probably inevitable given that it is built on some tenuous considerations and assumptions The introduction of FA doesn't solve all those Draft/Trade issues as it only applies to long term player employees.

I can't believe this F/S selection pick is being explained again................and again..................and..........................

New Balance Factory Outlet 47 Wangara Road, Cheltenham VIC 3192 (03) 9582 5518 ‎ · newbalance.com.au

you mean they weren't already doing this kind of stuff? nah, just kidding. a great idea and i hope they can make it really work

if you can't see why it is misleading then i can't help you

That's a very misleading, loaded statement and you are not the only one to have made it It would only be true if Darling was rated as the number 1 draft prospect which he clearly wasn't.

Hahaha..........bad example Bob.......LOL

knowing Vlad and his cohorts the FA rules will probably have more backdoors than Windows

don't you mean WGAF?

understand what you are saying old55, Jim should never have had to take on the Leoncelli liason role but.....why does it have to be Garry? Are you telling me that there was no-one else in the whole of melbourne who couldn't have been capable of stepping into Leoncelli's position. Were the board that enfeebled that they couldn't find any candidates except Garry who has stated a number of times he doesn't want a board position at this time. FFS are we that impoverished that the cupboard was bare of candidates that we have to blame Garry? This is sounding more like a witchunt or personal vendetta to my thinking. I've had my issues with Garry at times, but this is not one of those times

Quite. TimD has a long history of playing politic with board and governance matters. Be aware he has a well established agenda in this area.

mind you i'm not in favour of moving Frawley to anywhere except the backline just that it has been done before I think our forward line is starting to look good with a number of maturing options (they just need better supply) I think our backline has/is ok but lacking in depth and one big gorilla short (some options showing promise though) My concern is the midfield and I'm looking forward to see how a new coach(es) and game plan can make a difference here

Wasn't Neitz an AA CHB? or is my memory that bad?

make that three old dee bureaucracy at its worst

beanpolitis i think