Tweet
So 707 you would be getting rid of Foote who I think has shown plenty. It has been reported that Melican has been given a 3rd year rookie contract and you can only have one of those so Foote needs elevation or delisting. Not sure how Harry Marsh will take to being kept on the rookie list either.His brother requested a trade back to WA which did not happen so he is now in limbo somewhat similar to X.
-
-
I thought Abe settled into playing some super footy in the backline about halfway through the season. He was sensational in the second (I think) game against GWS - a nail biter that went down to the wire. Then he got injured. Although he made it back to play in the last few weeks of the season, he didn't ever quite look like he regained match fitness.Comment
-
I think Foote should kick on.He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)Comment
-
It would imagine it would be hard to take but the rookie payments, even when on the Primary List replacing a long term injured player, are outside the TPP so if we have cap space issues then this is paramount. The money we save having Marsh as a rookie is money that can be used in re-signing Heeney.
It sounds harsh but I'd suggest that Harry still needs to prove himself, if I was the list manager the conversation I'd be having would be along the lines of "Keep going as you are and if you continue to develop then there'll be a better contract at the end of the year".
Didn't realise that we could only have one third year rookie so for Foote it is upgrade or de-list. I guess with the money saved on Tom that we'd have some cap space to get the list to 39 and given that the rookie list is probably on the way out anyway that may not be a bad thing. Or Xav may well be let goComment
-
Being kept in suspenders waiting for delistings is killing me.Comment
-
Confirmation of my suspicions:
AFL admits to making a mistake in the massive trade which sent Jaeger O?Meara to HawthornLast edited by RogueSwan; 26 October 2016, 12:50 PM. Reason: Mod note: rule 7 b)posting of complete articles is NOT permittedComment
-
They really do just make this up as they go along.....Comment
-
It's amazing how the AFL gets to "interpret" the rules to what suits them. O'Meara deal is legal but they didn't like the swans getting Buddy so lets give them a 2 year trade ban. Unbelievable how corrupt they are.
Sent from my HTC_PN071 using TapatalkComment
-
Some selected extracts
THE AFL has admitted to making a blunder in this year?s biggest trade ? Jaeger O?Meara to Hawthorn.
Confusion surrounded the blockbuster deal until the AFL clarified on Tuesday that the Hawks had been allowed to part with their first two selections in next year?s draft.
AFL rules state that once a club trades its future first-round pick, it cannot trade any additional future picks.
The week before the O?Meara trade, Hawthorn sent its future first-round selection to St Kilda in a deal that also raised eyebrows.
But the league told the Herald Sun it had ?interpreted? its own rule to mean the O?Meara deal was legal.
The AFL said Hawthorn was permitted to trade its future second-round selection, so long as it first acquired another club?s future second-rounder.
The Herald Sun reported on Saturday that clubs were left ?bewildered? by the guaranteed draft windfall for St Kilda in its pick swap with Hawthorn and were surprised at Carlton?s generosity in brokering the O?Meara deal.
My Comments
My primary issue with the whole deal with JOM was that the deal with Carlton was so non arms length and there clearly was a backhanded sweetener there somewhere to get the deal done and that should not be allowed. I thought the deal with future picks was that when you drafted your future first rounder you had to keep at least one second rounder (in which case the Hawks deal would have been OK as they traded one in) but if the rule was that clear - i.e. no other future picks can be traded if you trade out your future first rounder then clearly this JOM deal was an absolutely blatantly illegal one in terms of the framework that was set up. Not just grey area but a clear contravention to anyone who knew the rules well, and yet they just get away with it. If it was us the deal would be null and void and that is what should happen, it will be interesting to see if the media run with this
Also the Geelong trade that allowed Touhy was in clear contravention of the requirement you had to have two first round picks every four - they have now traded out their first rounder in 2015,2016 and 2017. I guess they now need to trade a first rounder in either next year or 2018 but surely the most logical interpretation of that rule is that you can only trade away two out of four years.Comment
-
#freepickhawthornWild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.Comment
-
To be fair to the AFL they are claiming that it is a net result effect.
That is you can't trade a future pick if you've traded your future first rounder unless you trade in a pick in the same round beforehand. And the Hawks did that so it kind of makes sense. But the underlying deal that got that to happen was just so incredibly bad for Carlton, when they held all the cards and had no need to accept a dud deal, that I cannot accept this deal was transparent. That is where the media should be focussing their efforts but they've been gutlessly silent. If that was a stand alone deal with no kick back then SOS should be sackedComment
Comment