Strategy How to improve in 2017

[Art Vandelay_]

I think your missing the point
Dangerfield (7)
Henderson ( Carlton. )
Thuoy ( Carlton )
Thats 3 consecutive first rounders all those articles are related to getting thuoy.

Now we have one available in 2018 so we are one short of requirement.

I never ever mentioned a trade back or anything I said we need to get back back in the first round somehow to satisfy the Rule of 2 first rounders in any four year period. Because losing a first rounder for 2018 would be an enormous problem 4 years without a first rd unheard of.

So I said by trade would be most likely someone like motlop and a 3rd rounder to get back in first rd.

You can ignore the rules if you want but they are clear for everyone to see.

No. The point is that there's been no quotes attributable to the afl relating to our activity and conditions are allowed to be varied. Who's to say that it wasn't varied in so much as we use our 2018 picks but don't have to trade one in etc.

That's the point, there's wriggle room in the rules and we don't know that it hasn't been used up here and we have been given permission to not adhere to their initial rules.

Again, I'll be staggered if we actively seek to get a R1 pick in to satisfy the loosely applied afl rules... not exactly like they can punish the club here.

 

[Ray Donovan]

No. The point is that there's been no quotes attributable to the afl relating to our activity and conditions are allowed to be varied. Who's to say that it wasn't varied in so much as we use our 2018 picks but don't have to trade one in etc.

That's the point, there's wriggle room in the rules and we don't know that it hasn't been used up here and we have been given permission to not adhere to their initial rules.

Again, I'll be staggered if we actively seek to get a R1 pick in to satisfy the loosely applied afl rules... not exactly like they can punish the club here.

You don't need a quote on rules that are set out before future picks were introduced. The interpretation was clarified with the thuoy scenario that we could trade a third first rounder under the conditions we use 2 by 2018. So 100% a trade involving our first rd for any player will not be approved unless it would return two picks in first rd.

See what happens in 12 months

All your doing is hoping and they can restrict our trading if we were not to comply so I'm pretty confident wells and Geelong will get a deal done.

Ignore the rules if you like I will accept them

 

[Ray Donovan]

No. The point is that there's been no quotes attributable to the afl relating to our activity and conditions are allowed to be varied. Who's to say that it wasn't varied in so much as we use our 2018 picks but don't have to trade one in etc.

That's the point, there's wriggle room in the rules and we don't know that it hasn't been used up here and we have been given permission to not adhere to their initial rules.

Again, I'll be staggered if we actively seek to get a R1 pick in to satisfy the loosely applied afl rules... not exactly like they can punish the club here.

Geelong recruiter Stephen Wells this week clarified the rule with the AFL's legal counsel Andrew Dillon and was told he was able to trade a future pick again this year but that the club MUST USE two first-round picks in the next two years (either two first-round picks next year or one in each of the next two years).

We don't have a 2017 pick these rules are not loosely interpreted it was extremely clear if you use the 2017 future you are obligated still to satisfy the 2 in 4. Thats why we needed to apply for special assistance on the thuoy deal because we didn't think it could be done.

Then they clarrified the ruling and deal under these guidelines how or if we get another first rounder back is Geelong fc issue.

And we will be penalised if we don't and I'm sure the penalty would outweigh anything we could just work out ourselves over the trade table

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Geelong recruiter Stephen Wells this week clarified the rule with the AFL's legal counsel Andrew Dillon and was told he was able to trade a future pick again this year but that the club MUST USE two first-round picks in the next two years (either two first-round picks next year or one in each of the next two years).

We don't have a 2017 pick these rules are not loosely interpreted it was extremely clear if you use the 2017 future you are obligated still to satisfy the 2 in 4. Thats why we needed to apply for special assistance on the thuoy deal because we didn't think it could be done.

Then they clarrified the ruling and deal under these guidelines how or if we get another first rounder back is Geelong fc issue.

And we will be penalised if we don't and I'm sure the penalty would outweigh anything we could just work out ourselves over the trade table

Again, nothing attributable to the club or AFL. Just a Fairfax article.
Nothing concrete which seems to be what you're struggling to understand, there's been absolutely nothing definitive said in relation to our trade activities, after the fact.

 

[Ray Donovan]

I get where you are coming from but the issue is henderson kolo lonergan and taylor are all better players than black which is why they will probably play with harry at chf. If that doesnt work then we can try black. Black was just a cheap depth backup player to replace the depth we lost when vardy and kersten walked out.

Obviously they are all better players than black but they also all play better back than forward. This is lonergans last season most likely. So were going to take our best all Australian CHB at 30 odd and send him to CHF. Then next year send Taylor back this is a similar move to picking up all the mature age players and sending future picks out. Desperation and it looks the most logical for short term success. I hope we look for a more structured option instead of playing our favoured players to keep them in the 22. If lonergan or Stanley or smith play vfl so be it

 

[Ray Donovan]

Again, nothing attributable to the club or AFL. Just a Fairfax article.
Nothing concrete which seems to be what you're struggling to understand, there's been absolutely nothing definitive said in relation to our trade activities, after the fact.

Ignorance is bliss they are AFL.com articles.
I don't mind if you don't want to accept the rules.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-12/the-futurepick-puzzle

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Ignorance is bliss they are AFL.com articles.
I don't mind if you don't want to accept the rules.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-12/the-futurepick-puzzle

August....

We sought advice from the AFL in October whereby it was confirmed exceptions could be made and conditions varied.

Again, I'm not trying to ignore rules, merely wanting certainty first.
There is presently no certainty.

 

[Ray Donovan]

August....

We sought advice from the AFL in October whereby it was confirmed exceptions could be made and conditions varied.

Again, I'm not trying to ignore rules, merely wanting certainty first.
There is presently no certainty.

Yet you can use an article before the Zach thuoy deal where they are talking about special consideration of the 2-4 rule. To allow us to trade a 3rd first rounder in 3 years under the rule we must use two picks by 2018.

I see what your doing you can call one paragraph concrete evidence againgst.???

But you cannot except the 2-4 rule as a rule that needs to be adhered to o.k.

I'll just watch goodluck with that

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Yet you can use an article before the Zach thuoy deal where they are talking about special consideration of the 2-4 rule. To allow us to trade a 3rd first rounder in 3 years under the rule we must use two picks by 2018.

I see what your doing you can call one paragraph concrete evidence againgst.???

But you cannot except the 2-4 rule as a rule that needs to be adhered to o.k.

I'll just watch goodluck with that

You're not listening. Go back and re-read.
Have said all along none of us know what's transpired.

 

[catempire]

Can we agree on what we know Ray Donovan and Doctor Gero?

1. There is a rule stating you must take 2 in 4.
2. We will not be able to satisfy the rule with our current picks in 2017
3. There does not appear to be any AFL statement on what the sanction is for not adhering to the rule.
4. We don't know (but can speculate and you two may see it differently) whether Geelong would choose to wear any sanction (e.g. accept it can't trade any more 1st round picks for a couple of years) or try to avoid it (i.e. by trading for another 1st round pick).

 

[BIGANT]

Just a discussion point and angle of this may happen straight up...but where do scouts see Oscar Brownless's growth fwd or mid?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Turbocat]

He's correct about the Taylor/Hawkins forward line. Would be the slowest forward combo in history.

Did you ever see Stewy Loewe and Plugger? In history? Thats OTT. Neither will be played with speed in mind.

 

[Turbocat]

Given that he doesn't move a lot to begin with, I'm not sure Hawkins getting bigger is ideal.

I was thinking of injury. Tom's back is not great.does he really need to get bigger?

 

[Turbocat]

Can we agree on what we know Ray Donovan and Doctor Gero?

1. There is a rule stating you must take 2 in 4.
2. We will not be able to satisfy the rule with our current picks in 2017
3. There does not appear to be any AFL statement on what the sanction is for not adhering to the rule.
4. We don't know (but can speculate and you two may see it differently) whether Geelong would choose to wear any sanction (e.g. accept it can't trade any more 1st round picks for a couple of years) or try to avoid it (i.e. by trading for another 1st round pick).

Nice group CE.

If I was looking to add to it ... perhaps 5 would be AFL makes rules and it can alter rules...

A good example would be the Ablett comp. We appealled that one pick was insufficient for a player of his talent... consequently they revised their compensation rule and we got two. Whats the point of the rule? To ensure a club does dry its stocks , sell its future on a hope of now.
I read today Craig McDermotts (link below) that he predicts Geelong to finish 1 and Carlton to finish 18... would this leave room for us to appeal? I have mentioned before I feel the difference between 18 and 19 in points is 37 points , the designation of using a Round as a measure list enrichment is questionable , to ensure a club gets enough talent has to be arguable at that point in the draft. "Round" is a very arbitrary definition ... id imagine having 2 picks in 4 years where those picks are P18 and P18 is hardly a bulletproof way to ensure a club has enough talented youth.

Of course there is the possibility of in draft changes that could give us a R1 pick anyway. If young Brownless for instance was rated high enough ..a FS bid could upgrade a pick. Do the AFL introduce in draft trading?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ge...s/news-story/2097865aec959669fd2271f0f6cca628

 

[Bck2BckCats]

Also this talk about moving Motlop on should be tempered. This is a class player....if he gets his s**t together he is the best small forward we have by a country mile.

And would rank highly in the AFL....its the "if" that will tell the tale. IF he cuts them up and looks like he wants to make a bigger impact in the league I can't see why we would shift him on. No doubt some think for a first rounder....which is problematic right now, and we should remember that a first rounder is no certainty to end up a better player than Steven anyway........

Lets see what he offers up before talking about shifting him off to someone else.

Motlop looked lazy last last year and wasn't fit but kicked 38 goals! 29th in the whole league. 4 less than Steve Johnson who aparently was brilliant. As mark Thompson would say...leave him alone.
If he wasn't at the cats this year which 'small' would kick 38 goals for us? Our next best was mcarthy with 19 and after that Cockatoo with 11 in 2016.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[Turbocat]

Just to add on rule changes ......

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-new-draft-academy-rules-20170202-gu3s0j.html

The afl make the rules and bend them and break them. A lot of time between now and when we fall short of requirements.

 

[Bobby_]

Did you ever see Stewy Loewe and Plugger? In history? Thats OTT. Neither will be played with speed in mind.

Didn't matter about pace with those two guys as they were probably two of the greatest contested marks in the history of the game.
All you had to do was kick it long in their direction and they would do the rest.

Loewe was pretty athletic by the way.
He didn't have the best of speed but he was just as mobile as what Taylor was at his peak.

 

[Turbocat]

Didn't matter about pace with those two guys as they were probably two of the greatest contested marks in the history of the game.
All you had to do was kick it long in their direction and they would do the rest.

Loewe was pretty athletic by the way.
He didn't have the best of speed but he was just as mobile as what Taylor was at his peak.

My point was simply that Taylor and Hawkins will not be the slowest ever and I named them of the top... and they were a successful pairing.

 

[Bobby_]

My point was simply that Taylor and Hawkins will not be the slowest ever and I named them of the top... and they were a successful pairing.

Not the slowest ever but it will definitely be incredibly slow.
They aren't very athletic players.

They are like a Cloke/Dawes combo which was good but bloody hopeless once the ball hit the deck.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Ignorance is bliss they are AFL.com articles.
I don't mind if you don't want to accept the rules.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-12/the-futurepick-puzzle

All that article says is if clubs don't use 2 first rounders over 4 years they face restrictions from trading any other first rounders (until they meet the requirement). So if we traded 1sts in 2015 16 and 17 and used our 2018 and 2019 1st rounders at the draft we can't trade another future first rounder until 2020 when we have used 2 over 4 years. This is really not much of a penalty at all. The only danger is if the AFL can impose more punitive penalties than that which we have not been told of. So far there is nothing known to indicate that is the case.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I think your missing the point
Dangerfield (7)
Henderson ( Carlton. )
Thuoy ( Carlton )
Thats 3 consecutive first rounders all those articles are related to getting thuoy.

Now we have one available in 2018 so we are one short of requirement.

I never ever mentioned a trade back or anything I said we need to get back back in the first round somehow to satisfy the Rule of 2 first rounders in any four year period. Because losing a first rounder for 2018 would be an enormous problem 4 years without a first rd unheard of.

So I said by trade would be most likely someone like motlop and a 3rd rounder to get back in first rd.

You can ignore the rules if you want but they are clear for everyone to see.

And how would we lose it? Unless you are assuming the AFL would strip it from us as a penalty but there is nothing to indicate that's the case. Basically we would likely be forced to use our 2018 and 2019 1st rounders at the draft and not trade a future 1st until 2020, this isn't a big deal.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Well when you can't trade a pick without afl approval yes we have to use the 2018 first rounder under the AFL's rules. So yes under the rules after giving away 3 consecutive first rounders we are obligated to use this pick. And to satisfy the rule we need another one I said this comes most likely by trade because regardless of the opinions we have which is all these are I might add I cannot see the Geelong football club just deciding to break the outlined rules after the AFL allowed the Thuoy trade. It doesn't make any sense to break rules that have been beneficial to our club. And then the AFL is unpredictable as you said so us being the first and test case they could make an example of us. Because these are rules that they do not want broken.

And for Geelong to be put in a situation where we just legitimately say no we cannot satisfy these rules because we don't want to and we like our list. We will accept penalty really doesn't make sense

To have our ability to use future picks and only be able to trade one year into the future as it would restrict incoming and outgoing trades we may want to complete. And that's the penalty on the surface without the juicy details if we tick the afl off enough they might decide its a 2-3 year penalty on future picks

Who knows my point is I just think we should satisfy the outlined rules because free agency has been beneficial to us so why break the rules that have been good to us.

Not many clubs give away 2 second rounders for a first without a sweetner its nice to be optimistic but everyone knows what we need as well. Sos already raided us because we were desperate to fill needs through Henderson and thuoy who were both worth 2nd rd picks now you want to give someone 2 seconds for a first that's a lot of work

Re the bolded it is only restrictive depending on the club's strategy. For all we know the club may have planned to trade harder in 15-17 as it felt this was it's flag window to attack with this list and then may be planning to refresh with more drafted players the 2-3 year after that, in which case being not allowed to trade a first rounder for 2 years changes nothing for us. I get your concern but unless we actually know what the club's strategy is it's very hard to say whether something is a problem or not. I am confident our list management guys know what they are planning to do.

As for the bolded some clubs just want extra points in the door and won't care about the pick numbers e.g. GWS, GC, Brisbane and even Richmond with Naish. So it's not that hard to trade 2 2nds for a 1st actually, if we want to.

 

[Turbocat]

Not the slowest ever but it will definitely be incredibly slow.
They aren't very athletic players.

They are like a Cloke/Dawes combo which was good but bloody hopeless once the ball hit the deck.

Im not convinced about Taylor as a forward but he is quick enough to play there if he can take the marks. Much better player than Dawes. Its really the flanks and pockets that have to step up and be more than just pressure players.

 

[Bobby_]

Much better player but a much better forward?
Can Taylor kick 30 goals?
It's going to be close you would assume

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Not the slowest ever but it will definitely be incredibly slow.
They aren't very athletic players.

They are like a Cloke/Dawes combo which was good but bloody hopeless once the ball hit the deck.

If we're relying on our KPF for speed and athleticism then we're sort of rooted. Luckily we won't be.
It'll be the guys surrounding Hawkins and whoever his leftenant ends up being that'll be charged with these roles.

Im not convinced about Taylor as a forward but he is quick enough to play there if he can take the marks. Much better player than Dawes. Its really the flanks and pockets that have to step up and be more than just pressure players.

This. McCarthy (sadly no Gregson), Motlop, Cockatoo, Menzel are just a few that could spend time forward on a flank or in a pocket. That'll be their task up forward.