Sando wants Gibbs

[JBs-Hawks]

Hahaha suck it! ;D

Bryce not playing fair, doesn't he know he was supposed to wear fruitloops? or has he forgotten how he was stolen away by the cheating AFL on a technicality that was wrong to begin with?

Poor Bryce though, could be playing with guys that will give him the ball after winning the contest them selves

Yeah we'll suck it up and deal with it, like how we got Taylor Walker for free 8)  The AFL would be kicking themselves after letting that guy slip through their deranged net of dictatorship

Gibbs obviously wants to keep his weekends free from September till April

Yea but he would have had the same free time if he went to the Crows too ;)

[Noz]

Yet proof again how stupid footballers really are, don't forget Dan Gorringe who signed last year after being targeted by Port and crows, how is he doing winning games for the Suns? ???

Wrong move Bryce, stuck at a mediocre Victorian club for life whilst barley playing finals, well done

So you think he should go to Adelaide who also barley play finals.

Since Bryce made his debut in 2007 both Carlton and Adelaide have played in 4 finals. Carlton have played 4 of the lat 5 years whilst Adelaide have only played 2 of the last 5.

Why would he want to go to a club who can barely keep their own players?

[Ziplock]

Yet proof again how stupid footballers really are, don't forget Dan Gorringe who signed last year after being targeted by Port and crows, how is he doing winning games for the Suns? ???

Wrong move Bryce, stuck at a mediocre Victorian club for life whilst barley playing finals, well done

...
Gorringe's been injured since round 4, so you can't expect him to be playing games. And if you're talking about the success of the club, gold coast is currently in the 8, which is more than you can say for adelaide.

Onto gibbs... don't you think it's a bit hypocritical be tear shreds off gibbs for not coming back to adelaide, while at the same time vehemently cursing gunston and tippett for going home?

I'm sure he weighed up the options... maybe if you guys had offered him some more money he would have come :P

Hahaha suck it! ;D

Bryce not playing fair, doesn't he know he was supposed to wear fruitloops? or has he forgotten how he was stolen away by the cheating AFL on a technicality that was wrong to begin with?

Poor Bryce though, could be playing with guys that will give him the ball after winning the contest them selves

Yeah we'll suck it up and deal with it, like how we got Taylor Walker for free 8)  The AFL would be kicking themselves after letting that guy slip through their deranged net of dictatorship

it wasn't really a technicality, it was the specific father-son rules- that being said, it's really unfortunate you guys didn't get him as a FS. You can't count SANFL games played for FS after the institution of the club into the AFL... otherwise you're saying that if someone plays one senior SANFL game in 1989 and then plays 199 after Adelaide has been established as a club, but never plays AFL or gets drafted, that they're kids are eligible for father-son selection.

I understand why the AFL has a higher game threshold for the interstate clubs, since they're all amalgamations and therefore have a larger pool of ex-players to draw from, so I don't think criticism of the rule from that perspective is justified... but I find it staggering Adelaide haven't had a single FS selection in over 20 years. 

[CrowsFan]

it wasn't really a technicality, it was the specific father-son rules- that being said, it's really unfortunate you guys didn't get him as a FS. You can't count SANFL games played for FS after the institution of the club into the AFL... otherwise you're saying that if someone plays one senior SANFL game in 1989 and then plays 199 after Adelaide has been established as a club, but never plays AFL or gets drafted, that they're kids are eligible for father-son selection.

I understand why the AFL has a higher game threshold for the interstate clubs, since they're all amalgamations and therefore have a larger pool of ex-players to draw from, so I don't think criticism of the rule from that perspective is justified... but I find it staggering Adelaide haven't had a single FS selection in over 20 years.

That's a fair point, but explain why for Adelaide they must have played 200 games in the SANFL, but for the WA clubs it was only 150 in the WAFL? Where's the consistency?

[Ziplock]

it wasn't really a technicality, it was the specific father-son rules- that being said, it's really unfortunate you guys didn't get him as a FS. You can't count SANFL games played for FS after the institution of the club into the AFL... otherwise you're saying that if someone plays one senior SANFL game in 1989 and then plays 199 after Adelaide has been established as a club, but never plays AFL or gets drafted, that they're kids are eligible for father-son selection.

I understand why the AFL has a higher game threshold for the interstate clubs, since they're all amalgamations and therefore have a larger pool of ex-players to draw from, so I don't think criticism of the rule from that perspective is justified... but I find it staggering Adelaide haven't had a single FS selection in over 20 years.

That's a fair point, but explain why for Adelaide they must have played 200 games in the SANFL, but for the WA clubs it was only 150 in the WAFL? Where's the consistency?

Yeah, I thought about that and I'm confused a bit by it.

Basically, I just looked at games played, and the SANFL has on average 24.2 200 game players per club

the wafl doesnt have stats as easy to find on that, but I managed to find 3 clubs (17,15,17 (2005)), which is nearly half the comp, on 200+ games.

The AFL might have been trying to equalise it, so for instance there might be as many 150+ game players in the wafl as there are 200+ game players in the SANFL?

[Grazz]

Rules should be the same for all regardless.

[Ziplock]

Rules should be the same for all regardless.

That's what I *think* that rule tries to do.

Let's say the clubs that SA teams can get father son picks from had double the number of players that reached 150 games than the clubs that the WA teams draw from, it means they're going to have twice as much access to FS picks than the WA clubs. However, if the number of players who reached 200+ games for SA = the number of players that reach 150+ games for WA, then they have (hypothetically) equal access to father-son picks.

The reason why you would have such a disparity between the states could be a variety of reason- it could be that more people in SA play football, meaning there's more elite people with higher fitness able to go for longer, or it could be that SA had a weaker league, so good players could play for longer, or it could be socioeconomic factors which means people in WA stopped football earlier.

I don't actually have proper access to the data they used to make this decision, but it's the only logical reason I can see for the discrepancy in these rules, and the logic behind the game differences between the WA and SA teams must have been reasonable enough that Adelaide accepted the rule when it was established.

The important thing is that clubs have fair and equal access to players (which is, imo, one of the most important thing to retain in the AFL), and hypothetically the father-son system should equal out so that each club receives the same number/ calibre of father-son picks over time, which is why I think there is a difference for the games played between Victorian, WA and SA clubs.



At least your club will be getting FS picks for the next 20 years :'( 
#therealreasonexpansionclubsgotsomanyconcessions :P

[Toga]

Speaking of father son we just need Dusty Martin to start popping out some swimmers now that he's reached the 100 games :P

[Nige]

Speaking of father son we just need Dusty Martin to start popping out some swimmers now that he's reached the 100 games :P

Yes pls Dusty, get busy son.

[Toga]

We've got a baby Cotchin on the way, a little Dusty would be great and would not say no to a little Deledio ;)

[Nige]

We've got a baby Cotchin on the way, a little Dusty would be great and would not say no to a little Deledio ;)

Do we want Griggy and Hammer's kids if they play 100 games for us? God forbid.  :P

[JBs-Hawks]

We've got a baby Cotchin on the way, a little Dusty would be great and would not say no to a little Deledio ;)

Still plenty of time for Cotch to rack up 100 games for the Hawks :P

[nas]

We've got a baby Cotchin on the way, a little Dusty would be great and would not say no to a little Deledio ;)

Still plenty of time for Cotch to rack up 100 games for the Hawks :P

Ducking for cover JB?