The Reids

[bornadog]

Lets never make mistakes like this again, especially with a long history with the club.

Bruce Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Reid,_Sr.) (born 27 April 1929) is a former Australian rules footballer who played with Footscray in the Victorian Football League (VFL). Reid, a Romsey recruit, played 17 of a possible 19 games in the 1949 VFL season. He added another eight games the following year but appeared just three times in 1951, his final season.

Bruce Reid jr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Reid,_Jr.) (born 23 December 1955) is a former Australian rules footballer who played with Footscray and Carlton in the Victorian Football League (VFL). Reid made his league debut against St Kilda in round 5 of the 1977 season.

Bruce's brother also played for the dogs:

John Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Reid_(Australian_footballer)) (born 25 February 1953) is a former Australian rules footballer who played with Melbourne, Footscray and Sydney Swans in the Victorian Football League (VFL).
Reid had a slow start to his career, after appearing just once in the 1972 VFL season, he didn't play a senior game in 1973 and was used just twice in 1974.

In 1975 he moved to Footscray, the club that his father Bruce Reid senior had played for. A defender, he would play just one game in each of his first two seasons.

At the age of 24 he finally put together a sequence of appearances when he played in all but one fixture from round 10 of the 1977 season. He was joined at Footscray by his brother, Bruce Reid junior, in 1977.

For the next four years he was a regular member of the side and had a strong season in 1980 when he averaged 16 disposals.
Reid joined the Sydney Swans in 1982, for their first league season after relocating. His contribution to the club as a player was minimal, but he would later serve the Swans as a reserves coach and football manager.

and of Course we all know about Bruce's sons.

[The Underdog]

Which mistake is that exactly?

[EasternWest]

Which mistake is that exactly?

The obvious one of course: we must get all players, regardless of ability, to 100 games on the off chance they have sons that can play.

Let's get Hooper back on the list ;).

[bornadog]

Which mistake is that exactly?

Letting a dynasty slip through our fingers.:)

[The Underdog]

The obvious one of course: we must get all players, regardless of ability, to 100 games on the off chance they have sons that can play.

Let's get Hooper back on the list ;).

If I could see into the future it sure wouldn't be a skill I used for determining current selections for future father son gains.

[EasternWest]

If I could see into the future it sure wouldn't be a skill I used for determining current selections for future father son gains.

Well it would certainly help us avoid making this mistake again.

[ledge]

And Billy Smedts,we have got Lachlan Hunter though.

[G-Mo77]

I'm a distant relative to the Reid family I found out yesterday. Something to do with my Nan's side of the family. Ben apparently wasn't too happy at Collingwood early in his career and was looking to get out. That could have been our only chance to nab him.

We could have taken Sam though and chose Howard and Tutt with our first 2 picks.

[The Underdog]

I'm a distant relative to the Reid family I found out yesterday. Something to do with my Nan's side of the family. Ben apparently wasn't too happy at Collingwood early in his career and was looking to get out. That could have been our only chance to nab him.

We could have taken Sam though and chose Howard and Tutt with our first 2 picks.

So maybe the mistake is making crap draft picks. I'm certainly on board with that one

[bulldogsfight]

My memory is John Reid got benched at half time in his first game......this was a before interchange:eek:

[Twodogs]

Blame the AFL and the changing of the F/S system not us. Geelong got The Abletts, Hawkins and Scarlett for third round picks and we had to give up our first round picks for Cordy and Tom Libba under this ridiculous bidding system.


When the AFL bought in the new rule (changing from 50 to 100 games and then bringing in the bidding system a couple of years later) any kid who qualified as a F/S pick there and then should have remained as a 3rd round option to the club they were qualified for. Then kids who were born after a certain date (maybe the date the new rules were introduced) could have been subject to the bidding system.


Ironically I think that Bruce was a F/S pick for Footscray. I'm pretty sure his dad played for us.

[Twodogs]

My memory is John Reid got benched at half time in his first game......this was a before interchange:eek:


I can remember him kicking a rushed behind from 35 metres out at the MCG in one game.

[soupman]

When the AFL bought in the new rule (changing from 50 to 100 games and then bringing in the bidding system a couple of years later) any kid who qualified as a F/S pick there and then should have remained as a 3rd round option to the club they were qualified for. Then kids who were born after a certain date (maybe the date the new rules were introduced) could have been subject to the bidding system.


So we'd have to wait until 2024 until the change actually took place. Face it, the only reason bulldogs supporters whine about the rule change is because it came about st a bad time for us. The change in both pick used abd eligibility was sensible and I'm glad it's there as it seems Essendon and Melbourne are getting bargains this year in Viney abd Daniher as is.

[Remi Moses]

And Billy Smedts,we have got Lachlan Hunter though.

There was a Jesse Smedtz as well.
Played around a decade ago for the Geelong Falcons.

[Desipura]

If only Bruce had played 14 more crap games for us.

[bornadog]

If only Bruce had played 14 more crap games for us.

He played in a crap team as well from 1977 to 1982. We were so bad then.

[Topdog]

there was no FS system at the time ergo there was no mistake

[LostDoggy]

Only issue I have with the F/S is that once the bidding system came in it should have reverted back to 50 games, as the bidding system appeared to fix many of the previous inequities.

[Sockeye Salmon]

there was no FS system at the time ergo there was no mistake

There was, it was 50 games, not 100. The Reid boys grew up thinking they were eligible to come to us father-son.



The games requirement was actually 25 for just the one season - perhaps about 1993. Richmond wanted Mark Pitura but his father John only player 29 games for them (and nearly 200 for South Melbourne). Alan Schwab was in charge so he simply changed the rule, let Richmond pick Pitura and then changed the rule back.

Of course Pitura turned out to be a dud.

[Twodogs]

there was no FS system at the time ergo there was no mistake


A F/S system has been in place since 1949. Ron Barassi was a F/S recruit-he once told me that he would have a Carlton player from the start otherwise. I met him in the St Kilda subway sandwich shop a few years ago and we got talking. I knew he had lived in Footscray as a kid so I asked him if there was ever a chance he could have been recruited by us when he first played VFL. But he said by the time he was old enough to go to a league club he was living in Carlton's recruiting zone.



Only issue I have with the F/S is that once the bidding system came in it should have reverted back to 50 games, as the bidding system appeared to fix many of the previous inequities.


I could have lived with that. The system as it stands is deeply flawed.

[The Underdog]

I could have lived with that. The system as it stands is deeply flawed.

In your opinion, what needs to happen to fix it? Not being smart, just interested in other ideas. I'm not against the current system particularly.

[jeemak]

Say for instance Grant plays another 11 games with us next year, which delivers us 61 games of service from him, do you really think we should be entitled to his offspring if he is delisted at the end of the year and only puts together 40 games at another club?

I think 100 games is a fair enough limit, and I think the current bidding system is fair and reasonable. Sure other clubs did extremely well from the past system, but in the modern era father son provisions are fairly antiquated, and will become moreso as the years pass.

[Greystache]

Say for instance Grant plays another 11 games with us next year, which delivers us 61 games of service from him, do you really think we should be entitled to his offspring if he is delisted at the end of the year and only puts together 40 games at another club?

I think 100 games is a fair enough limit, and I think the current bidding system is fair and reasonable. Sure other clubs did extremely well from the past system, but in the modern era father son provisions are fairly antiquated, and will become moreso as the years pass.

I agree with the 100 matches, especially these days as plenty of young players have games they haven't earned pumped into them to see if they have anything to offer. Some players reach 50 games just so coaches can have a look at them.

[Desipura]

I agree with the 100 matches, especially these days as plenty of young players have games they haven't earned pumped into them to see if they have anything to offer. Some players reach 50 games just so coaches can have a look at them.

I do agree in general however let's use Tom Wiliiams as an example.
What if he plays 90 games with us, we have nurtured/supported him through all his rehabilitation and has been on our list hypothetically for 8 years, that's a long commitment by both parties.

[The Underdog]

I do agree in general however let's use Tom Wiliiams as an example.
What if he plays 90 games with us, we have nurtured/supported him through all his rehabilitation and has been on our list hypothetically for 8 years, that's a long commitment by both parties.

If it was years served instead of games played then how many years would be an appropriate limit? I'd imagine at least 5.

[bornadog]

I do agree in general however let's use Tom Wiliiams as an example.
What if he plays 90 games with us, we have nurtured/supported him through all his rehabilitation and has been on our list hypothetically for 8 years, that's a long commitment by both parties.


If it was years served instead of games played then how many years would be an appropriate limit? I'd imagine at least 5.

Some good points here. What about 100 games or 6 years, with the 6 having a minimum of at least 50 games.

[Greystache]

Some good points here. What about 100 games or 6 years, with the 6 having a minimum of at least 50 games.

Jarrad Grant would qualify at the end of next season under those rules, say he was delisted next year do you think father/son should apply to someone like that?

[bornadog]

Jarrad Grant would qualify at the end of next season under those rules, say he was delisted next year do you think father/son should apply to someone like that?

Yeah I guess it needs some tweaking.

[Greystache]

Yeah I guess it needs some tweaking.

With the bidding system the notion of getting a bargain has been reduced, so I guess the contribution the father needed to make for their club could be reduced too. It's a bit of a balance.

[Twodogs]

In your opinion, what needs to happen to fix it? Not being smart, just interested in other ideas. I'm not against the current system particularly.


It's a good question but I dont have time to answer it ATM. I will come back to it later on because it's a subject I feel strongly about.

I can say that I think making it 'fairer' misses the point of F/S somewhat.

[w3design]

It's a good question but I dont have time to answer it ATM. I will come back to it later on because it's a subject I feel strongly about.

I can say that I think making it 'fairer' misses the point of F/S somewhat.

My only argument there TD's is that it misses the point completely.
I think the entire specific number of games played, and bidding system should be completely scrapped.

If a kid's father [ or for that matter even grandfather] played for a club, he should be able to nominate that he wishes to go to that particular club. How would that make competition less even than the new free agency system does.

Perhaps an independent arbitrator such as the person in the role Shifter Sheehan currently occupies could set the valuation on where the player should lie in the draft order, IE what the club should pay in the draft for their F/S players [ first round, second round etc].
Every club has equal opportunity for it's players to sire footy skilled sons. So no club is disadvantaged over any other. In individual years a team might have a good year on qualifying sons, but over time it would all even out. One team might have an advantage in individual years, but the law of averages says it would invariably even out over time.

If a kid's father played for more than one club, then the one he played the most games for could have first pitch at the kid, but the decision should finally rest with the player as to where he preferred to go.
I think the AFL is just interfering with far to much of the game's traditions, and turning it into just another over governed corporate operation. Lets just leave a little romance in the game. After all, at the end of the day, that is what it is...a bloody game.

[Hotdog60]

The 100 rule could stay but scrap the bidding system, let the kid decide if he wants to follow in he's fathers footsteps and if he does it takes the clubs lowest pick.

I'm with paulv, the kid then may not want to go to the same club then he goes on the draft like everyone else.

If the kid is a dud then it doesn't hinder the club by potential using a high draft pick because it feel obligated or is pushed by another club to pay overs.

It should be a privilege to play for your fathers club not a penalty.

[Desipura]

The 100 rule could stay but scrap the bidding system, let the kid decide if he wants to follow in he's fathers footsteps and if he does it takes the clubs lowest pick.

I'm with paulv, the kid then may not want to go to the same club then he goes on the draft like everyone else.

If the kid is a dud then it doesn't hinder the club by potential using a high draft pick because it feel obligated or is pushed by another club to pay overs.

It should be a privilege to play for your fathers club not a penalty.

So the new clubs have to wait at least 18 years before they can get a father/son?

[bornadog]

It should be a privilege to play for your fathers club not a penalty.

Agree


So the new clubs have to wait at least 18 years before they can get a father/son?

Yes, whats wrong with that, there is no tradition at GC or GWS

[KT31]

So the new clubs have to wait at least 18 years before they can get a father/son?

Not an issue in my opinion, they are more than truly compensated for missing out on this with all the extra bonuses they recieve.

[w3design]

The Commission and the other clubs already give start up clubs plenty of additional incentive/development bonuses. If this is one option they have to wait a few years to participate in, that is hardly going to ruin them.
Besides, some of the senior guys they draft in may already have kids.
They could even set up a system of trading for players who already have athletic looking children. Ha, ha, ha.