SANFL Mini-Draft for Interstate AFL Draftees

[beenreal]

Are the Magpies able to draft any Crows players in the Mini-Draft?

Port Adelaide are excluded from mini drafting Crows players. For the same reason, the Corporation should be excluded from drafting Port Adelaide Players.

Finishing 8th means it's not an issue this year but as we march back up the ladder it will definitely be a problem for the future if there are only AFC players left to select.

Surely the SANFL would make special conditions to ensure Port Adelaide are not DISadvantaged by this mini-draft system?

[Alby_Green]

Are the Magpies able to draft any Crows players in the Mini-Draft?

Port Adelaide are excluded from mini drafting Crows players. For the same reason, the Corporation should be excluded from drafting Port Adelaide Players.

Finishing 8th means it's not an issue this year but as we march back up the ladder it will definitely be a problem for the future if there are only AFC players left to select.

Surely the SANFL would make special conditions to ensure Port Adelaide are not DISadvantaged by this mini-draft system?

The SANFL have kicked-in the big bucks and changed all the rules to save Port Power and the Port Magpies. Port Magpies now enjoy advantages under the corporate umbrella of Port Power (and the safety net of the SANFL) that 8 SANFL clubs do not.

Perhaps a more equitable situation for the other 8 SANFL clubs is to exclude the Magpies from the mini-draft?

[beenreal]

Are the Magpies able to draft any Crows players in the Mini-Draft?

Port Adelaide are excluded from mini drafting Crows players. For the same reason, the Corporation should be excluded from drafting Port Adelaide Players.

Finishing 8th means it's not an issue this year but as we march back up the ladder it will definitely be a problem for the future if there are only AFC players left to select.

Surely the SANFL would make special conditions to ensure Port Adelaide are not DISadvantaged by this mini-draft system?

The SANFL have kicked-in the big bucks and changed all the rules to save Port Power and the Port Magpies. Port Magpies now enjoy advantages under the corporate umbrella of Port Power (and the safety net of the SANFL) that 8 SANFL clubs do not.

Perhaps a more equitable situation for the other 8 SANFL clubs is to exclude the Magpies from the mini-draft?

What a totally predictable response.

The SANFL changed the rules to correct a glaring mistake from 14 years ago.

The Government changed the rules so North Adelaide could own a Pokie Pub attached to a shopping centre, an advantage not available to other clubs at the time. Don't remember North Adelaide mentioning THAT ONE in their recent website rant.

But move on, we're talking on-field.

Why on earth should Port Adelaide be denied any access to players drafted by Port Adelaide?

[finn]

Are the Magpies able to draft any Crows players in the Mini-Draft?

Port Adelaide are excluded from mini drafting Crows players. For the same reason, the Corporation should be excluded from drafting Port Adelaide Players.

Finishing 8th means it's not an issue this year but as we march back up the ladder it will definitely be a problem for the future if there are only AFC players left to select.

Surely the SANFL would make special conditions to ensure Port Adelaide are not DISadvantaged by this mini-draft system?

The SANFL have kicked-in the big bucks and changed all the rules to save Port Power and the Port Magpies. Port Magpies now enjoy advantages under the corporate umbrella of Port Power (and the safety net of the SANFL) that 8 SANFL clubs do not.

Perhaps a more equitable situation for the other 8 SANFL clubs is to exclude the Magpies from the mini-draft?

What a totally predictable response.

The SANFL changed the rules to correct a glaring mistake from 14 years ago.

The Government changed the rules so North Adelaide could own a Pokie Pub attached to a shopping centre, an advantage not available to other clubs at the time. Don't remember North Adelaide mentioning THAT ONE in their recent website rant.

But move on, we're talking on-field.

Why on earth should Port Adelaide be denied any access to players drafted by Port Adelaide?

The glaring mistake that was a necessary part and parcel of their approach to the sanfl/afl bid?
The glaring mistake to buy a business within spitting distance of their pre-existing core?
Or the glaring mistake to think that harking back and stressing magpie wouldn't alienate supporters of other sanfl clubs whó started supporting port adelaide power as they didn't like the crows?

Ah, its all rhetorical now anyway...

The magpies come under administrative control of the power with the unstated goal (in this proposal anyway) of it eventually becoming a reserves side for the power so i can understand the feeling in not allowing port the opportunity to nab crows listees but probably should be allowed to nab power interstate listees.

[on the rails]

Beereal - if you are going to comment on the NAFC get you facts right. The Govt didn't change the law, we lost our appeal to the Supreme Court to continue operating at Sefton Park which was outside the act / regulations re pokies in or near shopping centres. It was set up originally believing that it was inside the scope of the legislation and there was no objection from the Northern Tavern operators until they saw their $$$ reduce because of our nearby competition eating into their market.

They appealed, we counter appealed and ultimately lost which meant shutting that operation down HOWEVER the Govt gave us a 12 month delay of closure to find an alternative venue which we duly did with moving to Greenacres which is now Grand North. Ironically after that Court ruling and whilst we were searching alternate locations we acquired the Northern Tavern. If the Frickers hadn't appealed we would most likely only had one gaming venue instead of the 2 we operate now.

So claiming the Govt changed the law is not actually factually correct but don't let that cloud your continuing bitterness towards the NAFC.

[Alby_Green]

Are the Magpies able to draft any Crows players in the Mini-Draft?

Port Adelaide are excluded from mini drafting Crows players. For the same reason, the Corporation should be excluded from drafting Port Adelaide Players.

Finishing 8th means it's not an issue this year but as we march back up the ladder it will definitely be a problem for the future if there are only AFC players left to select.

Surely the SANFL would make special conditions to ensure Port Adelaide are not DISadvantaged by this mini-draft system?

The SANFL have kicked-in the big bucks and changed all the rules to save Port Power and the Port Magpies. Port Magpies now enjoy advantages under the corporate umbrella of Port Power (and the safety net of the SANFL) that 8 SANFL clubs do not.

Perhaps a more equitable situation for the other 8 SANFL clubs is to exclude the Magpies from the mini-draft?

What a totally predictable response.

The SANFL changed the rules to correct a glaring mistake from 14 years ago.

Yes, accepting Port Adelaide's submission and then issuing them with the AFL sub-license was a glaring mistake.

[beenreal]

What a totally predictable response.

The SANFL changed the rules to correct a glaring mistake from 14 years ago.

The Government changed the rules so North Adelaide could own a Pokie Pub attached to a shopping centre, an advantage not available to other clubs at the time. Don't remember North Adelaide mentioning THAT ONE in their recent website rant.

But move on, we're talking on-field.

Why on earth should Port Adelaide be denied any access to players drafted by Port Adelaide?

The glaring mistake that was a necessary part and parcel of their approach to the sanfl/afl bid?
The glaring mistake to buy a business within spitting distance of their pre-existing core?
Or the glaring mistake to think that harking back and stressing magpie wouldn't alienate supporters of other sanfl clubs whó started supporting port adelaide power as they didn't like the crows?

Ah, its all rhetorical now anyway...

The magpies come under administrative control of the power with the unstated goal (in this proposal anyway) of it eventually becoming a reserves side for the power so i can understand the feeling in not allowing port the opportunity to nab crows listees but probably should be allowed to nab power interstate listees.[/quote]

Oh the Paranoia.

Many of the conditions were imposed after the License bid.
The POW was the only pub they could afford after spending the majority of their $$ setting up new facilities at Ethelton.
The PAFC did attempt to move away from the SANFL History in the early days. It had a great effect, new members didn't jump on and Traditional supporters jumped off.

And finally, it is the "Stated position" of the AFC to investigate a Reserves side and the PAFC will leave it alone.

But the original point still stands, Port Adelaide are DISadvantaged on-field if there are only Crows Draftees left but no-one cares.

No wonder they look out for themselves!

[nickname]

If, as we've been told, the Port merger is purely administrative and nothing to do with on-field, why should the Magpies be prevented from picking Crows players?

[baggy8]

Beenreal, are you sure you're not creating an issue where one doesn't exist? I can't recall any changes to the mini-draft rules nor can I think of any good reason why the Magpies shouldn't draft a Crow. After all, looking at it from the other direction, Magpie Milera has just become a Crow without any problem.

[Dutchy]

Mark McKenzie is a good example of what good can come from the mini-draft. Yes, you may get a dud, but for every 10 duds if we got one McKenzie I'd be happy.

Andrew Geddes I think was the first one drafted (to the Crows and mini draft to Sturt) and is probably the best example, IIRC played 200+ games for Sturt and a premiership?

[CK]

Only throwing this idea around, but is it time to look at equalising the mini draft system somewhat?

Case in point: South Adelaide have not lost any players in this year's draft, yet get pick number one.

Norwood, for example, lose six players interstate and have no pick, due to finishing second, so they start behind the eight ball somewhat.

Yes - they can recruit, they also will have more players approaching them due to making the Grand Final etc etc BUT South (for this season) get a bonus player on top of their list already. I know that their selection may not play much for them in 2011 or future years, but they are getting a bonus, whereas Norwood and Central both do not get that same leg up this season.

Can there be a system where there is some sort of equalisation of picks, relative to how many players a club loses? West Adelaide, for example, were also heavily disadvantaged in past years under this same system - lose a number of players, and get one in return. This is always a swings and roundabouts situation, and there may not be an ideal solution - but curious to hear the thoughts of others out there.

[Jimmy]

Mark McKenzie is a good example of what good can come from the mini-draft. Yes, you may get a dud, but for every 10 duds if we got one McKenzie I'd be happy.

Andrew Geddes I think was the first one drafted (to the Crows and mini draft to Sturt) and is probably the best example, IIRC played 200+ games for Sturt and a premiership?

Agreed, never played a crows game and actualy missed out on the gf win. Was part of a great solid back six for the blues.

[DOC]

Only throwing this idea around, but is it time to look at equalising the mini draft system somewhat?

Case in point: South Adelaide have not lost any players in this year's draft, yet get pick number one.

Norwood, for example, lose six players interstate and have no pick, due to finishing second, so they start behind the eight ball somewhat.

Yes - they can recruit, they also will have more players approaching them due to making the Grand Final etc etc BUT South (for this season) get a bonus player on top of their list already. I know that their selection may not play much for them in 2011 or future years, but they are getting a bonus, whereas Norwood and Central both do not get that same leg up this season.

Can there be a system where there is some sort of equalisation of picks, relative to how many players a club loses? West Adelaide, for example, were also heavily disadvantaged in past years under this same system - lose a number of players, and get one in return. This is always a swings and roundabouts situation, and there may not be an ideal solution - but curious to hear the thoughts of others out there.

MMMM. The top club for the last decade has really been held back by the mini draft. Not.

[Mickyj]

Only throwing this idea around, but is it time to look at equalising the mini draft system somewhat?

Case in point: South Adelaide have not lost any players in this year's draft, yet get pick number one.

Norwood, for example, lose six players interstate and have no pick, due to finishing second, so they start behind the eight ball somewhat.

Yes - they can recruit, they also will have more players approaching them due to making the Grand Final etc etc BUT South (for this season) get a bonus player on top of their list already. I know that their selection may not play much for them in 2011 or future years, but they are getting a bonus, whereas Norwood and Central both do not get that same leg up this season.

Can there be a system where there is some sort of equalisation of picks, relative to how many players a club loses? West Adelaide, for example, were also heavily disadvantaged in past years under this same system - lose a number of players, and get one in return. This is always a swings and roundabouts situation, and there may not be an ideal solution - but curious to hear the thoughts of others out there.

MMMM. The top club for the last decade has really been held back by the mini draft. Not.

I haven't always agreed with you doc but i am in this

[JK]

Only throwing this idea around, but is it time to look at equalising the mini draft system somewhat?

Case in point: South Adelaide have not lost any players in this year's draft, yet get pick number one.

Norwood, for example, lose six players interstate and have no pick, due to finishing second, so they start behind the eight ball somewhat.

Yes - they can recruit, they also will have more players approaching them due to making the Grand Final etc etc BUT South (for this season) get a bonus player on top of their list already. I know that their selection may not play much for them in 2011 or future years, but they are getting a bonus, whereas Norwood and Central both do not get that same leg up this season.

Can there be a system where there is some sort of equalisation of picks, relative to how many players a club loses? West Adelaide, for example, were also heavily disadvantaged in past years under this same system - lose a number of players, and get one in return. This is always a swings and roundabouts situation, and there may not be an ideal solution - but curious to hear the thoughts of others out there.

MMMM. The top club for the last decade has really been held back by the mini draft. Not.

I agree, I dont think there's an issue with the current setup, and it's not as if SANFL footy followers weren't previously aware of how it worked.

[nickname]

Only throwing this idea around, but is it time to look at equalising the mini draft system somewhat?

Case in point: South Adelaide have not lost any players in this year's draft, yet get pick number one.

Norwood, for example, lose six players interstate and have no pick, due to finishing second, so they start behind the eight ball somewhat.

Yes - they can recruit, they also will have more players approaching them due to making the Grand Final etc etc BUT South (for this season) get a bonus player on top of their list already. I know that their selection may not play much for them in 2011 or future years, but they are getting a bonus, whereas Norwood and Central both do not get that same leg up this season.

Can there be a system where there is some sort of equalisation of picks, relative to how many players a club loses? West Adelaide, for example, were also heavily disadvantaged in past years under this same system - lose a number of players, and get one in return. This is always a swings and roundabouts situation, and there may not be an ideal solution - but curious to hear the thoughts of others out there.

I'd think almost the opposite, in that it's in the best interests of the competition to try to even it up. I'd rather see see some sort of priority pick system in place for teams that win successive wooden spoons. To give a team that played off in a Grand Final a leg-up over a team that won its second successive spoon seems bizarre to me. Besides which, Norwood will be compensated financially, quite handsomely, for their player losses and will have salary cap space freed up to spend some of that money.

[mighty_tiger_79]

what if a club loses players not to the draft but to other factors - including family, work etc?? technically they havent lost a player to the draft but you could get a year when players leave due to external factors and not the draft, should that club then be help back??

everyone knows the rules

[G]

Has CK got his red and blue glasses on

[on the rails]

Has CK got his red and blue glasses on

Hmm he wasn't beating that drum in late 2005 when North lost it's all it's tall KP backman to the pre-season draft and then lost Motlop 1 week before the season to Melb in a "special" draft!

[Booney]

Has CK got his red and blue glasses on

Hmm he wasn't beating that drum in late 2005 when North lost it's all it's tall KP backman to the pre-season draft and then lost Motlop 1 week before the season to Melb in a "special" draft!

Perhaps in late 2005 he didn't feel Norwood losing 6 or more players would have had any detrimental effect on them.