PDA

View Full Version : Crows to potentially lose all draft picks?


ledge
27-10-2012, 11:35 AM
Apparently Adelaide are resigned to the fact they will lose all draft picks, with their first pick at 20 all clubs with picks after that will move up one and so on and so on with all their picks
bornadog
27-10-2012, 02:51 PM
Apparently Adelaide are resigned to the fact they will lose all draft picks, with their first pick at 20 all clubs with picks after that will move up one and so on and so on with all their picks

Has this been confirmed by the AFL?
ledge
27-10-2012, 02:59 PM
Not yet I don't think but if the crows are resigned to it, I would say its looking so.
bornadog
27-10-2012, 03:05 PM
Not yet I don't think but if the crows are resigned to it, I would say its looking so.

Sorry Ledge, don't understand why you started this thread when its not true yet?
LongWait
27-10-2012, 04:43 PM
Sorry Ledge, don't understand why you started this thread when its not true yet?

Maybe he posted it because others would be interested in the possibility that an AFL club will lose all of its' draft picks. Do you think this is not newsworthy BAD?
AndrewP6
27-10-2012, 05:28 PM
Maybe he posted it because others would be interested in the possibility that an AFL club will lose all of its' draft picks. Do you think this is not newsworthy BAD?

It's newsworthy, but not confirmed. The title made it sound like it's happened.
bornadog
27-10-2012, 05:58 PM
Maybe he posted it because others would be interested in the possibility that an AFL club will lose all of its' draft picks. Do you think this is not newsworthy BAD?


It's newsworthy, but not confirmed. The title made it sound like it's happened.

Correct
SlimPickens
27-10-2012, 06:04 PM
Please forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't "potentially" mean a possibility of become actual... Don't see how the heading is misleading (semantics anyway)

Play on
bornadog
27-10-2012, 06:12 PM
Please forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't "potentially" mean a possibility of become actual... Don't see how the heading is misleading (semantics anyway)

Play on

The heading has been changed. Previously it was " Crows Lose all draft picks"
SlimPickens
27-10-2012, 06:52 PM
The heading has been changed. Previously it was " Crows Lose all draft picks"

Fair enough thought the discussion was mildly petty.
GVGjr
27-10-2012, 07:39 PM
The heading has been changed. Previously it was " Crows Lose all draft picks"

Yep, I amended the title to avoid further confusion. I should have made that clear
ledge
27-10-2012, 07:48 PM
Sorry people but I did put apparently in the post under it, anyway I
Posted it because it's news in the fact the draft picks for all teams change, any picks after 19 will change.
Scraggers
27-10-2012, 10:11 PM
If the breach is as bad as being reported, then they should lose all picks this year and next. Both draft tampering and salary cap breaches????? :(
Ghost Dog
27-10-2012, 10:13 PM
Maybe the AFL will be lenient because they came forward?
GVGjr
27-10-2012, 10:15 PM
If the breach is as bad as being reported, then they should lose all picks this year and next. Both draft tampering and salary cap breaches????? :(

They still need to participate in the draft. You must make 3 changes to your list at the very least although this can be rookie promotions.

I think they are in trouble.

At a guess I think they will be banned from the first 2 rounds of the draft for 2 years.
Sedat
28-10-2012, 12:20 AM
At a guess I think they will be banned from the first 2 rounds of the draft for 2 years.
I reckon a hefty fine will also be headed their way. Not quite the 900k that Carlton were slugged with but something around the 300-500k mark wouldn't surprise.
ledge
28-10-2012, 01:04 AM
Herald/sun just put out an article saying deals outside AFL rules are rife.
jeemak
28-10-2012, 01:12 AM
I want them to pay a hefty penalty. All involved have blatantly disregarded their responsibility and should be held accountable.

Think Sedat's suggested fine is sufficient (or within the realms of what's reasonable). As for the draft, I think thye should still be able to procure younger talent, but should not be able to do so at the pointy end. First two this year, and first selection next year should punish them enough.
MrMahatma
28-10-2012, 07:25 AM
Hypothetical - but they could have made the GF off this guys boot this year. Maybe won the flag through cheating.

Reckon the book should be thrown at them.
westdog54
28-10-2012, 07:38 AM
They still need to participate in the draft. You must make 3 changes to your list at the very least although this can be rookie promotions.

I think they are in trouble.

At a guess I think they will be banned from the first 2 rounds of the draft for 2 years.

I mentioned in another thread there's a few ways around it, promote all rookies and replenish through the rookie list, banned from the National Draft and select players in the PSD once all teams have had their picks or enter the National Draft once all teams have passed or filled their lists.
Hotdog60
28-10-2012, 09:25 AM
What's the bet Sherman may get a gig at the Crows just that he maybe the best option with what's available to them.

The Tippett saga may work for Justin to get back on a AFL list.
GVGjr
28-10-2012, 09:28 AM
What's the bet Sherman may get a gig at the Crows just that he maybe the best option with what's available to them.

The Tippett saga may work for Justin to get back on a AFL list.


I don't think the two are linked. No idea where Sherman will land but there might be a couple of clubs willing to have a chat to him.
LongWait
28-10-2012, 09:35 AM
Adelaide would also have access to free agency to add to their list if they are excluded from the draft in part or in full. De-listed players all become unrestricted free agents.
Ghost Dog
28-10-2012, 09:42 AM
far out. coomplex isn't
Sockeye Salmon
28-10-2012, 10:12 AM
Herald/sun just put out an article saying deals outside AFL rules are rife.

No shit. Only Inspector Clouseau Ken Wood couldn't find them.

I was speaking with an official (not one of ours) who said it was rumoured that Nick Riewoldt got 100K appearance fee for a sportsman's night that never happened.
azabob
28-10-2012, 10:30 AM
No shit. Only Inspector Clouseau Ken Wood couldn't find them.

I was speaking with an official (not one of ours) who said it was rumoured that Nick Riewoldt got 100K appearance fee for a sportsman's night that never happened.

They would have got away with it as well, except for that pesky Jessie White- neither club wants him.

Inspector Clouseau Ken Wood - that is extremely amusing.
Remi Moses
28-10-2012, 02:13 PM
This was always going to happen when the League allowed Third party arrangements.
Talk about an open invitation, Pandora's box and a can of worms
Remi Moses
28-10-2012, 02:15 PM
They would have got away with it as well, except for that pesky Jessie White- neither club wants him.

Inspector Clouseau Ken Wood - that is extremely amusing.

The way they bumbled and stumbled onto this had the hallmarks of Maxwell Smart.
Ghost Dog
28-10-2012, 04:46 PM
Didn't we take care of Simon Bisley's kid's school fees? I suppose this outside the books stuff is as old as time.
ledge
28-10-2012, 05:24 PM
Didn't we take care of Simon Bisley's kid's school fees? I suppose this outside the books stuff is as old as time.

Yes but we're their rules against it back then?
Only have to go back to Judds last contract and it was fine.
LostDoggy
28-10-2012, 11:19 PM
No shit. Only Inspector Clouseau Ken Wood couldn't find them.

I was speaking with an official (not one of ours) who said it was rumoured that Nick Riewoldt got 100K appearance fee for a sportsman's night that never happened.

If true, that's pretty stupid of the Saints, considering they could have paid him for a sportsmans night that DID happen. :)

I wonder if we are as guilty.