Ayce Cordy

[Sockeye Salmon]

I understand that with no school commitments this week Ayce will be playing for the Falcons.

[southerncross]

I understand that with no school commitments this week Ayce will be playing for the Falcons.

There seems to be a lot of Bulldog interest in this kid. I'll make sure that I check the papers to see how he goes.

[mjp]

There were no school footy commitments 2-weeks ago either, so I am not sure what happened then.

There should be only 3-games of school footy left. Ayce should get the opportunity to play a month or so of TAC footy if he wants too (and is good enough to get picked).

[Sockeye Salmon]

I was told on Wednesday that Ayce can play but has been selected in the national U19 basketball side and is a very real chance to elect to play basketball over footy.

Has grown to 202cm and doesn't look like stopping any time soon. He hasn't even turned 17 yet.

Talk about what might have been with the F/S. We just missed Reid, then Rance and maybe Cordy. And all of them big!

[Twodogs]

I hate basketball with a passion. Seppo sporting imperialism that sidetracks our youngsters.




Yuck.

[bulldogtragic]

I hope he has talent and wants to play footy. For us that is.

[Mofra]

I hate basketball with a passion. Seppo sporting imperialism that sidetracks our youngsters.

Not a big fan of basketball myself either, didn't seem to do Westy much harm though.

[Twodogs]

Not a big fan of basketball myself either, didn't seem to do Westy much harm though.


I see your point but I still think we should ban it or blow it up or something.

[Go_Dogs]

Or Brogan, or Pendlebury.

[Twodogs]

Terry Wallace...:D

[Sockeye Salmon]

I hate basketball with a passion. Seppo sporting imperialism that sidetracks our youngsters.




Yuck.

Put gridiron and baseball in there as well.

Americans invent really boring sports.

Or maybe they invent decent sports and make them boring.

[LostDoggy]

They take perfectly good sports, cricket and rugby, and entomb them in statistics and technology.

[Twodogs]

Baseball's an excellent sport and a gridiron game can be quite an enjoyable experience but basketball just bores me.

[southerncross]

Falcons unveil Ayce in pack (http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22080116%255E19775,00.html)

LANKY ruck Ayce Cordy shone in his debut game for Geelong in the Falcons' 27-point TAC Cup win against the Eastern Ranges at Geelong West yesterday.

Cordy, son of former Footscray defender Brian (124 games for the Bulldogs), kicked three of his team's 11 goals in the Round 12 clash after starting on the bench.
"We didn't want to knock him around too much. I think he's 205cm, about six foot seven. But he's only 17 and he's a beanpole, no meat on his bones," Falcons region manager Michael Turner said.
"He just basically played forward pocket with a licence to roam where he wanted to.
"He started on the bench but when he came on the ground he made a big impact. He's going to be a good player."
Turner said the Western Bulldogs had taken an interest in Cordy, who is too young for this year's national draft.
"I have been in the program a long time and if ever a kid was going to get drafted, it will be him. But it will have to be next year," Turner said.
"The difficult one for the Bulldogs -- and the great advantage Geelong has had -- is having an automatic pick to get them (as a father-son selection). But now it is a bidding process.
"So, depending on how well he develops, clubs are going to bid for him.
"He is too young this year but he will certainly be in the mix next year.
"He is just very competitive, he's got a great attitude, he is very footy smart. You can just tell the way he does things.
"At the start of the year he had a bit of a hip problem. He has just grown so quickly and you have to really careful you don't knock these kids around.
"We were happy to take him steadily early in the year and watch his progress at Geelong College.
"I saw him play (there) a couple of weeks ago and he was outstanding.
"We gave his first game and now he'll go back to college for his next three and then no doubt we'll play him for the rest of the year."

[Go_Dogs]

Sounds promising.

[bulldogtragic]

Tom Hawkins for free, yet we may pay through the nose.

Anyone understand the process. Would we have to give up a first rounder or would it be second rounder with bidding higher to other bids and all that crap.

[Twodogs]

Tom Hawkins for free, yet we may pay through the nose.

Anyone understand the process. Would we have to give up a first rounder or would it be second rounder with bidding higher to other bids and all that crap.




It depends on whether another club nominates him in that round of the draft. If a club state they are going to take him with their 2nd round pick we have to give up our next pick for him. So if we finish 6th and a club who finished below us on the ladder nominates him as a 2nd round choice then we have to take him with our 2nd pick and if they finish above us we will be spending our 3rd round pick(it has to be the next pick).



It's a stupidly short sighted over reaction to media hysteria from earlier in the year and will last one draft, maybe two, before the AFL decide they have stuffed it up completley and revert to the old system. It's just so open to abuse and manipulation, I'm furious about it.

[Go_Dogs]

Personally I don't have so much of an issue with the system, as it's really unfair for clubs like Geelong to be able to take 2 top 10 picks in a draft for the cost of 1. I guess it does take a bit of the romance out of it, as a kid is not a definite to play for their fathers club, but at the same time the club can have him at a fair value.

As far as being open to manipulation, it could be, but I suppose if we didn't want to give up a second rounder for the kid, we wouldn't have too - and another club would, so any attempt to trump us and make us use a higher than anticipated pick could backfire. Given the competitions need and desire for equality it was bound to happen, and personally I think it'll work OK.

[LostDoggy]

If we were to pick him up - it would be at next years draft wouldn't it?

[bulldogtragic]

So if we finish 6. And any other 12 teams below claim to pick him up with the first rounder, we would have sacrifice our first rounder?

Abuse and manipulation in deed.

Screw that, go hide him somewhere in the Tiwi Islands for the next 18 months.

[bulldogtragic]

If we were to pick him up - it would be at next years draft wouldn't it?
The report says he's too young this year, so it would be the 2008 draft.

Where he could be 215cm at this rate. And he could look forward to 5 years of nothing but weights.

[Twodogs]

So if we finish 6. And any other 12 teams below claim to pick him up with the first rounder, we would have sacrifice our first rounder?Abuse and manipulation in deed.

Screw that, go hide him somewhere in the Tiwi Islands for the next 18 months.



Correct.

[bulldogtragic]

Correct.
All this does is entrench how good Geelong got Hawkins but not allowing anyone else to get it. I hope the clubs can come to a decent gentlemans understanding about not abusing it.

In any event has Ayce got school committments again next year? If so, it might lower him down the order if he's not ripping it apart in the under 18's.

[Go_Dogs]

But if he's worth a first round pick, and other clubs are willing to put a first round pick on him, why wouldn't we pick him up with the first round pick?

Much as if we don't think he's worth a first round pick, we'll let the clubs that do use that pick to claim him.

[mjp]

My understanding is that if a club bids, it MUST select him if the 'Father-Son' club elects not to match by using its next pick. This should be enough to stop clubs manipulating the system, as if you set the romance of the F-S rule aside all 16 clubs are just trying to get their hands on the best players available.

[Twodogs]

My understanding is that if a club bids, it MUST select him if the 'Father-Son' club elects not to match by using its next pick. This should be enough to stop clubs manipulating the system, as if you set the romance of the F-S rule aside all 16 clubs are just trying to get their hands on the best players available.



That's a far to simplistic a way look at the problem. Draft day is all about intrigue, politics and oneupmanship.


If we wanted a player to be available in the next round and we know that another club is going to pick him, what's to stop us blocking them by nominating their F/S selection? Supporters get very anxious if they think that a former club champion's son is going to play for another club.

[LostDoggy]

OK tell me if I understand the F/S system correctly. We finish say 3rd - Essendon finishes 9th - we nominate that we want to pick up Ayce - Essendon takes a look and say they will pick him up with their second round pick. We then have to state that we will use our second round pick to get him? Is that how it works?

[GVGjr]

If we were to pick him up - it would be at next years draft wouldn't it?

Yes. He cannot be drafted this year.

[Twodogs]

OK tell me if I understand the F/S system correctly. We finish say 3rd - Essendon finishes 9th - we nominate that we want to pick up Ayce - Essendon takes a look and say they will pick him up with their second round pick. We then have to state that we will use our second round pick to get him? Is that how it works?


Yep. The higher you finish, the worse it is because you will end up using a higher pick to pick the same player.

[GVGjr]

OK tell me if I understand the F/S system correctly. We finish say 3rd - Essendon finishes 9th - we nominate that we want to pick up Ayce - Essendon takes a look and say they will pick him up with their second round pick. We then have to state that we will use our second round pick to get him? Is that how it works?


My understanding is that all other clubs can nominate which round they want to select any of the father/son players. This is not pick specific.

So if Essendon want to select him in round one all we would have to do is match our round one selection to get him (providing he nominates for the father son anyway)

There will be a lot of trading for late round selections to pressure other teams. For argument sake, the last pick in round two for us is better than the first pick of round two for any other team. A late pick in round one would trump us unless we were prepared to part with a round one pick.

Hope this makes sense.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Not a big fan of basketball myself either, didn't seem to do Westy much harm though.

I obviously am a big basketball fan and am 70% sure I played against West - I can often see elements of basketball in him.

Interesting to see this article on Ayce:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22080116%255E19775,00.html

I am not whinging from a bulldogs perspective but I think this bidding for father sons is ridiculous. As many father sons as possible should be given the opportunity to go to the club their fathers played at - so personally I would make it their last pick in the draft. In another 10 years time or so then the interstate clubs will have their own father sons to pick from and it will all be fairer.

With that said heres hoping the Grants next kid is a boy!

[bulldogtragic]

Next 5 kids are boys...

[Sockeye Salmon]

My understanding is that all other clubs can nominate which round they want to select any of the father/son players. This is not pick specific.

So if Essendon want to select him in round one all we would have to do is match our round one selection to get him (providing he nominates for the father son anyway)

There will be a lot of trading for late round selections to pressure other teams. For argument sake, the last pick in round two for us is better than the first pick of round two for any other team. A late pick in round one would trump us unless we were prepared to part with a round one pick.

Hope this makes sense.

My understanding is we have to use our next pick after the pick nominated by another club.

If, let's say Essendon with pick 6, nominate first round. Our first round pick is 12 so we would have to use pick 12.

If only Geelong with pick 15 nominate first round we would be required to use our next pick, say 28.

The worst scenario in this example would be if, say Sydney has pick 11 and nominate first round, we would be required to still use pick 12.

If we decline, the club that nomiates him with the highest pick must take him with that pick.

[bulldogtragic]

My understanding is we have to use our next pick after the pick nominated by another club.

If, let's say Essendon with pick 6, nominate first round. Our first round pick is 12 so we would have to use pick 12.

If only Geelong with pick 15 nominate first round we would be required to use our next pick, say 28.

The worst scenario in this example would be if, say Sydney has pick 11 and nominate first round, we would be required to still use pick 12.

If we decline, the club that nomiates him with the highest pick must take him with that pick.
I dont see that fixing much if you finish very low. All that it would mean is that instead of say Hawkins last year costing a third rounder it would cost a second rounder - which is still a steal while teams finishing mid-range could get a further penlty for finishing in the middle. Really if you cant finish on top, you may as well finish bottom 4.

[aker39]

I dont see that fixing much if you finish very low. All that it would mean is that instead of say Hawkins last year costing a third rounder it would cost a second rounder - which is still a steal while teams finishing mid-range could get a further penlty for finishing in the middle. Really if you cant finish on top, you may as well finish bottom 4.


If any of the teams that finished below the Cats last year wanted Hawkins (all of them), then Geelong would have had to use it's 1st round draft pick.

[mjp]

If any of the teams that finished below the Cats last year wanted Hawkins (all of them), then Geelong would have had to use it's 1st round draft pick.

Yep - isn't that fair enough though?

I dont understand the hand-wringing about this rule. You can still have the father-son pick. But he just costs you what he is 'worth', rather than always a 3rd round selection. It doesn't stop clubs picking father-sons. It doesn't make it harder for them to pick a father-son. It just means they are unable to turn good luck into more than one 'first rounder' in any given year.

I also dont quite understand what happens if the club in question has traded its 'next pick' to another club. How does that work? eg.Geelong last year had pre-traded pick 8 to West Coast for West Coast's second round pick (pick 32) and a player. Would that mean that if a team in the first few picks had nominated Hawkins, Geelong take him with pick 32 as their next pick or does it mean that since they had traded pick 8, they lose the ability to select him?

If the answer is 'pick 32' and you have a highly rated father son pick, trade, trade, trade. If only you could trade future years picks - then chaos really would reign with regards to this ruling.

[Twodogs]

I also dont quite understand what happens if the club in question has traded its 'next pick' to another club. How does that work? eg.Geelong last year had pre-traded pick 8 to West Coast for West Coast's second round pick (pick 32) and a player. Would that mean that if a team in the first few picks had nominated Hawkins, Geelong take him with pick 32 as their next pick or does it mean that since they had traded pick 8, they lose the ability to select him?





There's a silly anomaly already and we've only skimmed the surface debating this. Have the AFL really thought through this or have they jumped at shadows and changed a rule(that they've changed three times in the last 15 years BTW) that really didnt need to be changed because the media were banging on about it?



I dont understand the hand-wringing about this rule. You can still have the father-son pick. But he just costs you what he is 'worth', rather than always a 3rd round selection. It doesn't stop clubs picking father-sons. It doesn't make it harder for them to pick a father-son. It just means they are unable to turn good luck into more than one 'first rounder' in any given year.

I dont understand what was really wrong with the old system. It was uncomplicated, traditional and supporters loved it. It seems to me that we've only changed it because of Hawkins, and players like Tom Hawkins go F/S once in a lifetime. Thius system is complicated, unruly and everyone will hate it within two years of actually understanding what is going on.


If we must have a new system then lets drop the games qualification back to 50.

[Raw Toast]

If we must have a new system then lets drop the games qualification back to 50.

I'd be happy with this, though I'd be even happier if we use the Tardis to pick up Ben Reid with it (either that or give his dad another 20 games or so).

Be interesting to do the stats on father-son picks versus general 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks. I reckon they'd stack up pretty well with at least 2nd rounders over the last 10 years or so.

[mjp]

I dont understand what was really wrong with the old system. It was uncomplicated, traditional and supporters loved it. It seems to me that we've only changed it because of Hawkins, and players like Tom Hawkins go F/S once in a lifetime. Thius system is complicated, unruly and everyone will hate it within two years of actually understanding what is going on.


Once in a lifetime?

I was reading somewhere that the past few Larke medallists (best in the u18 National Carnival) have all been father son candidates of sorts.

2004 Jesse W Smith (Vic Metro) - North
2005 Marc Murphy (Vic Metro) - Lions
2006 Tom Hawkins (Vic Metro) - Geelong
2007 Cale Morton (WA) - West Coast

Ignore the fact that the interstate clubs rules has impacted on Morton's eligibility - this isn't a once in a lifetime thing, it is happening every single year!

[Twodogs]

Facts are that's still only two players who actually went (are going to go) F/S though. Still doesnt make me think there was anything wrong with the rule as it originally stood.

[southerncross]

Facts are that's still only two players who actually went (are going to go) F/S though. Still doesnt make me think there was anything wrong with the rule as it originally stood.

I agree. As much as we haven't been able to get the same type of results that the Pies and Cats have, I still like the original rule.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I'd be happy with this, though I'd be even happier if we use the Tardis to pick up Ben Reid with it (either that or give his dad another 20 games or so).

I'd rather use the Tardis.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I also dont quite understand what happens if the club in question has traded its 'next pick' to another club. How does that work? eg.Geelong last year had pre-traded pick 8 to West Coast for West Coast's second round pick (pick 32) and a player. Would that mean that if a team in the first few picks had nominated Hawkins, Geelong take him with pick 32 as their next pick or does it mean that since they had traded pick 8, they lose the ability to select him?

If the answer is 'pick 32' and you have a highly rated father son pick, trade, trade, trade. If only you could trade future years picks - then chaos really would reign with regards to this ruling.

I think the proposal was for the father-son stuff to be worked out before the trade period

[mjp]

Facts are that's still only two players who actually went (are going to go) F/S though. Still doesnt make me think there was anything wrong with the rule as it originally stood.


And that is another issue with the old rule. You are either a F/S pick or you are not. How Marc Murphy was able to just say 'No Thanks Brisbane' is still something that baffles me. Make no mistake, the Lions would have taken him F/S but he elected to go into the draft instead...

[Twodogs]

And that is another issue with the old rule. You are either a F/S pick or you are not. How Marc Murphy was able to just say 'No Thanks Brisbane' is still something that baffles me. Make no mistake, the Lions would have taken him F/S but he elected to go into the draft instead...



Apart from anything else his dad never played for Brisbane.;)






That flexibility is a strength of the rule. If you want the slightly more secure path of having a club nominate you before the draft, then great, go for it. If you want to enter the draft and go at the highest number you can, so be it. Let's give the kids the option.

[mjp]

Apart from anything else his dad never played for Brisbane.;)






That flexibility is a strength of the rule. If you want the slightly more secure path of having a club nominate you before the draft, then great, go for it. If you want to enter the draft and go at the highest number you can, so be it. Let's give the kids the option.

Yeah...but.

No other draftees have this option. Why should f/s nominees. Plus, if you recall all the talk of Murphy being offered 5 year contracts etc at draft time, it really does open the system up for manipulation. To me, you are father/son eligible or you are not.

[southerncross]

Yeah...but.

No other draftees have this option. Why should f/s nominees. Plus, if you recall all the talk of Murphy being offered 5 year contracts etc at draft time, it really does open the system up for manipulation. To me, you are father/son eligible or you are not.

I'd prefer to maintain the father son option because it's the one thing that doesn't have to be by the book. I don't care if it's seen as somewhat unfair to others. If it means a past legends son plays for the Dogs rather than another team then I'm all for it. I also really wouldn't really want to see Garry Ablett junior player for any other team in the AFL either.

[The Coon Dog]

Probably digressing a little.

How many AFL players at present had fathers play for Footscray?

I can think of 5.

Luke Darcy - David Darcy
Cameron Wight - Terry Wight
Ryan Hargrave - Stephen Hargrave
Ben Reid - Bruce Reid
Tim Boyle - Stephen Boyle

[Sockeye Salmon]

Jake Edwards - Butch Edwards - Arthur Edwards

Arthur's father-in-law - Butch's grandfather - was Dolly Aked.

Jake Edwards would have a been fourth generation Bulldog player.

Shane O'Bree is also arthur Edwards grandson.


Gilmour of Freo is the grandson of premiership player Brian Gilmour.

There was also a Crows player who was the grandson of a Bulldog player as well. Might have been Chris McDermott but I'm not sure. Twodogs will know.

[Twodogs]

Jake Edwards - Butch Edwards - Arthur Edwards

Arthur's father-in-law - Butch's grandfather - was Dolly Aked.

Jake Edwards would have a been fourth generation Bulldog player.

Shane O'Bree is also arthur Edwards grandson.


Gilmour of Freo is the grandson of premiership player Brian Gilmour.

There was also a Crows player who was the grandson of a Bulldog player as well. Might have been Chris McDermott but I'm not sure. Twodogs will know.



Think it was McDermott.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Young Ayce has managed to pick himself up an U16 AIS scholarship.

The boy must be able to play.

It figures that they change the rules just when we look like getting a good one.

[mjp]

AIS Scholarship holders average height hit 191cm's last year...The only ones I know of for next years intake are both close to 200cms. It is becoming a scholarship for being tall, rather than for playing football.

[Twodogs]

Young Ayce has managed to pick himself up an U16 AIS scholarship.

The boy must be able to play.

It figures that they change the rules just when we look like getting a good one.



Yep. The really annoying thing is this rule will last one, two, maybe three drafts until the public wake up to what's happening and demand it gets changed back again. We'll get shafted and then when Collingwood or someone misses out on a player there'll be uproar and the weak willed AFL will fold.

[Dry Rot]

Yep. The really annoying thing is this rule will last one, two, maybe three drafts until the public wake up to what's happening and demand it gets changed back again. We'll get shafted and then when Collingwood or someone misses out on a player there'll be uproar and the weak willed AFL will fold.

How does the new F&S rule work?

[Bulldog Revolution]

Yep. The really annoying thing is this rule will last one, two, maybe three drafts until the public wake up to what's happening and demand it gets changed back again. We'll get shafted and then when Collingwood or someone misses out on a player there'll be uproar and the weak willed AFL will fold.

Couldn't agree more Twodogs - it will be just like losing Tony McGuiness and Kym Koster for nothing, whilst Essendon lose Todd Ridley and end up with Lloyd (I'll whinge about it for years).

But seriously this idea of bidding for players is just garbage - the full time professional recruiting managers have a hard enough time assessing talent and few can ever explain why certain players are not drafted earlier (Aaron Davey, Chris Grant, Leon Cameron). I believe teams should be sacrificing their 4th to 5th round pick for a father son - the lowest value picks available.

Its nice to keep some romance in the game and it would be a shame to see the sons of a Doug Hawkins, Steve Wallis, Liberatore etc etc play for another club

Ayce belongs with the Dogs

[aker39]

How does the new F&S rule work?


I'll try to summarise it as simply as possible and the best way to do that is by example.


If the Bulldogs decided that they wanted to draft Chris Grant Jnr under the father son rule, the other clubs have the option to use one of their draft picks to pick him up.

If Essendon decide that they will use their 1st round draft pick, the Bulldogs need to use their NEXT draft pick after Essendon's pick.

So if Essendon had pick 4, and we had pick 5 in the 1st round, then we would need to use our pick 5

If Essendon had pick 4, and we had pick 3, we would need to use pick 19 (3rd pick in Round 2).


So in summary, the Bulldogs have to use their next draft pick after the highest pick bidded by any other club.


Hope that helps.


The question I have is, if no other club puts up a bid to draft the player, what pick would the Bulldogs have to use.

[chef]

Jay Clarke was saying Ayce has a 3 year deal at over 400k a year from one of the Queensland teams being offered.

[bulldogtragic]

Jay Clarke was saying Ayce has a 3 year deal at over 400k a year from one of the Queensland teams being offered.

Deal. Swap for Martin or Lynch with a pick.

[comrade]

Wow. Take it and run, Ayce. Does he have the same manager as Liam Jones?

Makes me sad, though. I want to keep him :)

[lemmon]

I'd imagine someone is pulling Jay's leg surely

[LostDoggy]

If Brisbane know Leuenberger and Martin are going, they'd be desperate and cashed up enough to make an excessive offer. I'd love a trade involving Martin and A.Cordy.

[bulldogtragic]

If Brisbane know Leuenberger and Martin are going, they'd be desperate and cashed up enough to make an excessive offer. I'd love a trade involving Martin and A.Cordy.

A straight swap would be crazy good.

[hujsh]

A straight swap would be crazy good.

Can they chuck in a 1st rounder just to even it up a bit?

[bulldogtragic]

Can they chuck in a 1st rounder just to even it up a bit?

Daniel McStay as well?

[Greystache]

The inmates are running the asylum up there!

[The Bulldogs Bite]

The inmates are running the asylum up there!

I nearly drove off the road when I heard it on the radio, and I wasn't even the one driving.

[jeemak]

It shows there's a clear lack of quality talls in the game.

[craigsahibee]

Daniel McStay as well?

BT, you are starting to sound like Dedoro ;)

[bulldogtragic]

BT, you are starting to sound like Dedoro ;)

You take that back or I will set Tania and her note pad loose on you. :D

"Essendon. The butt of all jokes." Got a ring to it, perhaps their slogan next year.

[Mofra]

3 years for Ayce Cordy.
*checks date*

We have to take it and run.

[Sedat]

3 years for Ayce Cordy.
*checks date*

We have to take it and run.
If true, so does Ayce. And it would also get him seat 1A on the Eker thread.

[Ozza]

Judging by the way Ayce and big Will have been used in the VFL recently - you would have to question whether they have a future beyond this year at WO (although I'm unsure of contract status).

[Cyberdoggie]

3 years for Ayce Cordy.
*checks date*

We have to take it and run.

That's great for Ayce but what do we get for it? No one else would offer him that sort of deal so they may be thinking they will
get him for nothing (ie picks/trades) anyway. The money is just the going rate to get someone to play up there.