1858

I'm so confused.....

But then again I am a blond !!!

I'm just saying, if the only reason that GWS don't bid on JV is due to some trade we have with them (either direct or indirect) and the AFL views it as such then they won't approve. Sure they may not be able to prove anything and they may not be able to stop a completely legal trade but they still may take action or they could be a headache down the track as a result.

I think we'd need to consider a deal very carefully, or else it could get vetoed in the same vein as the proposed GWS mini-draft trade last year, so GWS could keep O'Meara.

Geelong & Adelaide were both agreeing to get involved & on-trade the pick, in return for a free smaller cherry.

Yeah, at the heart of the matter is whatever trade or complexity of trades occur, if the abstaining of bidding for JV by GWS is deemed (by the AFL) as consideration offered as part of those trades then they (the AFL) will judge it draft tampering you'd imagine.

Geelong getting involved and benefiting from facilitating a deal for other clubs.

It might not fit your criteria, but it's an example of a club just getting involved purely for extra later picks.

It's purely as an example of how GC and/or GWS might be happy to let us take Viney 2nd round, so they can get another 3rd round pick, instead of having to wait til the 4th round. It's not of great benefit to them, but it's a cherry for nothing on their part.

No worries, you've raised a genuine example of how the club can try and negotiate a better position. Lets hope something like that can eventuate if we try to go down that road.

Both were a subsequent trades done days after the initial trades had gone through.

They may have been "lodged" as individual trades fine, but they were obviously made in conjunction with further trades. They would not have simply been made in isolation without any other trade consideration which is what I was clearly getting at.

The geelong trade is clearly not being discussed as per the criteria you've now set.

Your Geelong trade example is just a cluster****.

Uhh... No.

2009 examples were independent trades of 2 picks.

The geelong one was just thrown in for good measure.

Maybe you don't remember it, but I did, because at the time I couldn't figure out why teams would do it & even questioned Emma Quayle on it.

She said it was done to generate good faith and relations between the clubs, or something along those lines.

I don't buy it.

Swans Lions was not a direct trade.

As for the Hawks Bombers it was part of a 4 way unless you are asserting they did it for no other reason. Ergo further trades were involved.

As for Geelong that involves more than 2 picks as well.

2011

Freo: picks 38 & 56 to Hawks

Hawks: picks 29, 58 & 71 to Freo

Geelong: pick 26 to GC

GC: picks 32 & 34 to Geelong

Adelaide: pick 24 to GC

GC: picks 27, 31 & 68 to Adelaide

2009

Swans: pick 47 to Lions

Lions: pick 39 to Swans

Essendon: pick 58 to Hawthorn.

Hawthorn: pick 89 to Essendon.

The Mark Williams / Burgoyne deal:

Geelong got involved and gave up picks 33 & 97

to receive picks 40, 42 & 56

I said 2 picks without any further trades ie a pick for a pick ala my example in post 709 which you initially replied to.

Your 2011 examples involve more than 2 picks.

Your 2009 examples are part of either a 3 way trade, a 4 way trade or involve more than 2 picks - non of which are applicable to my point. Swans Lions wasn't even a direct trade.

My point was in the context of a simple pick for pick trade in isolation and then GWS not bidding on JV as a return favour (which is obviously a non trade period benefit).

Lawyered!

lol

Would he?

Geelong have been involved in trades in recent years as just a facilitator for GWS & GC, getting free picks out of it.

It's not against the rules.

The Veale deal went through too.

When was the last time we ever saw a straight out swap of 2 picks (excluding compo picks) and nothing else between the respective teams in the same trade period?

I honestly don't think we want that - we forced him to deny tanking existed and we didn't get any protection from GWS re Scully - I don't think making HQ mad at us is a good plan - as attractive as it might be.

From the club's pov you're right but you must admit the look on Vlad's face would be priceless.

Yes OK - so we'd need to trump a 1 pick upgrade.

We'd need to trump 2 1 pick upgrades but it's not the point. I never contended that would be a difficult task. I merely pointed out the fact that there is more value to GWS in your scenario than simply dicking us around.

We could do something less obvious like give them our 3rd rounder for their 5th and 6th rounder which they have no intention of using anyway. We don't have to use the picks we trade for either.

Quite true, but something blatant like a pick 35 (intraded for a player) to GWS for say a pick 40+ (as an arbitrary example) would be give me great delight. Vlad would be ropable.

No that's not right, there'll still be the same number of picks before their pick, someone else will take Viney with one of those picks and quite possibly before the Adelaide pick. Viney will absolutely go in the first round so there's no "bringing their 2nd round pick forward" it's still pick 21 and Viney goes in an earlier pick to either us or someone else. Even if your logic was right - say Viney went after the Adelaide pick - that advantage they're getting is a 1 pick upgrade - bfd - we'd need to offer them something better than that.

In your scenario Viney is taken by us F/S with our 2nd rounder which frees up our 1st rounder to take another kid from the remaining pool.

That direct benefit is simply giving them another name to call out in the late teens that might be slightly better than the one they would call out. I believe it is a negligible benefit, especially in this Teenage Lottery Draft © that we have in the AFL.

Fair enough but I doubt a football club would concur.

Looking at the lottery like results doesn't come into calculation during the screening and drafting process. Irrespective of how players turn out down the track clubs value picks at draft time (or even as trading options) and even a 1 spot bump in the first round and early 2nd could be significant to GWS depending on how they rate the draft.

What we don't know is how the AFLs compo pick system will work - that could effect things. It is discretionary now, pretty dodgy tbh. Did they rule out giving 1st round PPs under the new system (which we don't know about)? - I'm not sure on that.

This is the power play that Dr Gonzo is looking for, not a bluff that won't be bought. Sheedy would agree, given enough benefit, maybe the GC could be coaxed into it...

For sure. Given our standard picks would follow GWS closely we would need to bring in a seperate pick via a different trade you'd think otherwise we'd be trading picks with a massive gap.

We're not saying it will be easy but it is the only way we take Viney in the second round.

Option 1 - GWS or GC bid for Viney, MFC take him at 3.

MFC Result: Pays abstract overs for a player we really need.

GWS and GC: They make a competitor pay more than full price for a player. No direct benefit.

There is actually.

Option 2 - Enable handshake agreements on trades prior to F/S bidding. Mid to late picks on table. Some fringe players on table.

MFC Result: Ensure Viney is in the second round. Give nothing trades a few weeks later that idiot fans decry and The Footy World © call 'gaming of the system.'

GWS and GC : Get an overbalanced trade for absolutely nothing. Direct benefit.

These are the only options.

Examples: Bennell/McDonald/Davis/Martin/Tapscott/Cook for Pick 75, or Pick 40 for Pick 75 as trading picks for picks is legal now.

I would love to see the response of the AFL if such an obvious trade like that was made ie single lower pick for a single higher pick. As you say completely legal and there's nothing he can do about it. The rest of the league would be up in arms too, would be awesome.

If they nominate Jack and we take him they don't get any direct benefit, just indirect benefit by making us weaker. We can offer them some direct benefit not to nominate him.

Unless I'm missing something they absolutely get a direct benefit.

Firstly, Any team which finishes below us on the ladder has the opportunity to bring their standard 2nd round pick forward by a place if we are forced to pick JV with our standard first rounder as opposed to our standard 2nd rounder.

In the case of GWS what compounds this is that they also have a first round compo pick (tied to the 2012 ladder position of Adelaide) which they have activated so from their position they have 2 picks which go up a spot if we use our standard first on Jack. Given it is touted as a strong draft they would directly benefit in the scenario you raise.

Hey Torana.

Gemini I reckon.

Decent logo too.

It certainly suits our guernsey, unlike that light blue monstrosity we gave the arse to.

The holden Astra is actually a rebadged Opel

Yep, just like the Vectra and Calibra I beleive.

Didn't Opel design the VT Commodore?

Please don't.

Both.

Correct.

RIP Jim and thank you for everything.

I agree with pretty much all he had to say.

I hope the team nominates to use both its picks coz if the rest of the year is like tonight, our list will have plenty of space

I think (given our lack of midfield class and other deficiencies) most supporters would be in utter disbelief if both compo picks weren't activated. We'll know Tuesday though.

It's genuinely encouraging to hear how well the FD is gelling - one club is pivotal going forward.

Thanks both to Cam Schwab for his time and to Demonland for providing us this platform to connect with the club and each other.

When Watts is grounded he'll charge .

We could see a spike in #4 guernsey sales.

What's with the surge in negativity?