SA Footy

cracka wrote:
Might be wrong, I think Hawthorn & Carlton have had them twice

1st Round Priority Pick history ->

Carlton, Melbourne & Hawthorn have had 3 each

Bulldogs, St Kilda & Collingwood 2

Freo, West Coast, Richmond, Gold Coast all had 1

all of the above picks where in the top 3 and delivered Nick Riewoldt, Luke Hodge, Luke Ball, Chris Judd, Adam Cooney, Brett Deledio, Jarryd Roughhead, Marc Murphy, Dale Thomas, Matthew Kreuzer, Matt Rowell

Other non 1st Round Priority picks include Alex Rance, Luke Shuey & Jack Darling

I dont agree with PP's but when you look at the leg up other clubs have had, its a huge advantage to get this calibre of players into your club.

Surprised that Sydney have not had one

Brodlach wrote:Surprised that Sydney have not had one

Sydney are like Geelong. They don't bottom out.

Bum Crack wrote:

Brodlach wrote:Surprised that Sydney have not had one

They don't bottom out.

Very easy when you have an academy, cola and ambassador deals.

Armchair expert wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:

Brodlach wrote:Surprised that Sydney have not had one

They don't bottom out.

Very easy when you have an academy, cola and ambassador deals.

What's Geelong's excuse then?

Bum Crack wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:

Brodlach wrote:Surprised that Sydney have not had one

They don't bottom out.

Very easy when you have an academy, cola and ambassador deals.

What's Geelong's excuse then?

The cents on the dollar property deals they get, everyone knows that.

Armchair expert wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:

Bum Crack wrote:[quote="Brodlach"]Surprised that Sydney have not had one

They don't bottom out.

Very easy when you have an academy, cola and ambassador deals.

What's Geelong's excuse then?

The cents on the dollar property deals they get, everyone knows that.[/quote]And some brilliant F/S selections

That brings up the question, I know this won't be a popular opinion but should the F/S rule be scrapped?

The current system allows clubs to get top picks for next to nothing and completely negates the drafts main purpose of spreading young talent throughout the comp. If Collingwood wanted Nick Daicos enough they should have been made to make a trade at his value not some arbitrary points based on god knows what.

I realise the romanticism of having a son follow in his fathers footsteps but that is a throwback to when it was semi-professional, no other sport in the world bends it's rules to give nepotism a leg up.

Zelezny Chucks wrote:That brings up the question, I know this won't be a popular opinion but should the F/S rule be scrapped?

The current system allows clubs to get top picks for next to nothing and completely negates the drafts main purpose of spreading young talent throughout the comp. If Collingwood wanted Nick Daicos enough they should have been made to make a trade at his value not some arbitrary points based on god knows what.

I realise the romanticism of having a son follow in his fathers footsteps but that is a throwback to when it was semi-professional, no other sport in the world bends it's rules to give nepotism a leg up.

What's wrong with it?
AFL have brought in the system to allow clubs to pick the F/S player and the club needs to match the points. It has evened it up a little although when you can only give up 5 picks in the 60's and 70's and get a gun it does not make much sense.

Need to keep some tradition and family ties in footy.

FS is in SANFL also, its basically the only reason why you can play outside your zone

Zelezny Chucks wrote:That brings up the question, I know this won't be a popular opinion but should the F/S rule be scrapped?

The current system allows clubs to get top picks for next to nothing and completely negates the drafts main purpose of spreading young talent throughout the comp. If Collingwood wanted Nick Daicos enough they should have been made to make a trade at his value not some arbitrary points based on god knows what.

I realise the romanticism of having a son follow in his fathers footsteps but that is a throwback to when it was semi-professional, no other sport in the world bends it's rules to give nepotism a leg up.

Aussie Rules is unique to this country, who cares what other sports around the world do.
I love the F/S rule and eventually all clubs will hopefully pick up a gem for next to nothing

Clubs need to stop being nice and actually bid on the father sons, North should have bidded on Daicos and Sam Darcy knowing full well their bid would have been matched basically eliminating all the Dogs/Pies picks for the rest of the draft.

The 20% discount for 1st round picks needs to go though.

Even up F/S rules and I'm all for it. Leave it as it is and it's bullshit.

MW wrote:

Zelezny Chucks wrote:That brings up the question, I know this won't be a popular opinion but should the F/S rule be scrapped?

The current system allows clubs to get top picks for next to nothing and completely negates the drafts main purpose of spreading young talent throughout the comp. If Collingwood wanted Nick Daicos enough they should have been made to make a trade at his value not some arbitrary points based on god knows what.

I realise the romanticism of having a son follow in his fathers footsteps but that is a throwback to when it was semi-professional, no other sport in the world bends it's rules to give nepotism a leg up.

What's wrong with it?
AFL have brought in the system to allow clubs to pick the F/S player and the club needs to match the points. It has evened it up a little although when you can only give up 5 picks in the 60's and 70's and get a gun it does not make much sense.

Need to keep some tradition and family ties in footy.

I am not sure if you are arguing for or against it? What you have outlined is the exact reason it should be scrapped. Giving up 5 or 6 picks in the 60s, that lets be honest more often than not don't make it, isn't the same as giving up a good player or high picks to get a Number 1 pick.

Nothing stopping tradition and family ties it is just making sure it is an even playing field. If Collingwood deemed Daicos worth it they trade up for him and the club they trade with gets some real quality, as it is now Collingwood get their gun and the rest of the league get jack.

Booney wrote:Even up F/S rules and I'm all for it. Leave it as it is and it's bullshit.

Yeah agree.

The father/son concept is great.....its unique and almost the last bit of romance we have left in the game.

Agree though that the structure behind it is uneven and needs fixing to make it fair for all club. Surely they still don't have that rule for the SA clubs making them play more games.

Collingwood had to do all sorts of wheeling and dealing in order to garner enough points to get Daicos.
You don't get father/sons for next to nothing.....its not that easy.

I can't imagine him going to north.....and nor could he.
It comes with its own risk as not all sons are as good as dad.
Edward's and Jarman's boys come to mind.

Leave the fs rule as it is I say.

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:Even up F/S rules and I'm all for it. Leave it as it is and it's bullshit.

Yeah agree.

The father/son concept is great.....its unique and almost the last bit of romance we have left in the game.

Agree though that the structure behind it is uneven and needs fixing to make it fair for all club. Surely they still don't have that rule for the SA clubs making them play more games.

All clubs
A player is eligible if his father played 100 or more senior games for the clubs. In the cases of the two interstate clubs with historic links to Victorian Football League teams, namely the Brisbane Lions and the Sydney Swans, the sons of players who appeared 100 times for their Victorian predecessors: the Fitzroy Lions in the case of the Brisbane Lions; and the South Melbourne Football Club in the case of the Sydney Swans.[10]

West Australian and South Australian teams
In addition to the standard eligibility rules, the South Australian and Western Australian clubs have a modified rule in place with eligibility to be determined by a certain number of games played for specific sides in SANFL or WAFL, if those games were played prior to the club entering the AFL.[5][10] Specifically:

The West Coast Eagles could select any player whose father had made 150 WAFL appearances prior to 1987 for Claremont, East Perth, West Perth or Subiaco.
Adelaide could select any player whose father made 200 SANFL appearances prior to 1991 for South Adelaide, Norwood, Glenelg or Sturt.
Fremantle could select any player whose father has made 150 WAFL appearances prior to 1995 for East Fremantle, South Fremantle, Perth or Swan Districts.
Port Adelaide can select any player whose father has made 200 SANFL appearances prior to 1997 for the Port Adelaide Magpies, North Adelaide, West Adelaide, Central District, Woodville or West Torrens.

Stephen Paxman played 102 games for Fitzroy, yet the Brisbane (?) have access to his son via father son.

Darryl Borlase played 246 games for the Port Adelaide Football Club, 4 x premiership player, premiership captain in 1998 and his son is not eligible for F/S.

Seems reasonable?

Short answer is i'm in favour of it just make it a little more expensive for the club to take the F/S rather than dregs from the 4th rd.

Booney wrote:

whufc wrote:

Booney wrote:Even up F/S rules and I'm all for it. Leave it as it is and it's bullshit.

Yeah agree.

The father/son concept is great.....its unique and almost the last bit of romance we have left in the game.

Agree though that the structure behind it is uneven and needs fixing to make it fair for all club. Surely they still don't have that rule for the SA clubs making them play more games.

All clubs
A player is eligible if his father played 100 or more senior games for the clubs. In the cases of the two interstate clubs with historic links to Victorian Football League teams, namely the Brisbane Lions and the Sydney Swans, the sons of players who appeared 100 times for their Victorian predecessors: the Fitzroy Lions in the case of the Brisbane Lions; and the South Melbourne Football Club in the case of the Sydney Swans.[10]

West Australian and South Australian teams
In addition to the standard eligibility rules, the South Australian and Western Australian clubs have a modified rule in place with eligibility to be determined by a certain number of games played for specific sides in SANFL or WAFL, if those games were played prior to the club entering the AFL.[5][10] Specifically:

The West Coast Eagles could select any player whose father had made 150 WAFL appearances prior to 1987 for Claremont, East Perth, West Perth or Subiaco.
Adelaide could select any player whose father made 200 SANFL appearances prior to 1991 for South Adelaide, Norwood, Glenelg or Sturt.
Fremantle could select any player whose father has made 150 WAFL appearances prior to 1995 for East Fremantle, South Fremantle, Perth or Swan Districts.
Port Adelaide can select any player whose father has made 200 SANFL appearances prior to 1997 for the Port Adelaide Magpies, North Adelaide, West Adelaide, Central District, Woodville or West Torrens.

Stephen Paxman played 102 games for Fitzroy, yet the Brisbane (?) have access to his son via father son.

Darryl Borlase played 246 games for the Port Adelaide Football Club, 4 x premiership player, premiership captain in 1998 and his son is not eligible for F/S.

Seems reasonable?

I feel sick sticking up for the SA Clubs but I just don't get how they can justify the rules.

Why is Borlase dad not eligible….did he not play 200 before 1997 but continued to play for the magpies pre 1997 which got him up to 246 games. If so surely common sense should prevail and he could be eligible for the Power.

Genuine question though.....would you give up having access to the blokes from Centrals, WWT etc if it meant Port Power & the Magpies had the exact same rules the VFL club has with the 100 game criteria.

What picks were given up for

Nick Daicos - 38, 40, 42, 44 picks

Sam Darcy - 34, 42, 43, 44, 45 picks