What's really going on with this whole priority pick thing?

Sidefx · **Joined:** Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:55 pm **Posts:** 6767

BIBI01 wrote:

Sidefx wrote:

I strongly disagree to the point where I think the clubs stance with the PP is almost genius.

At the start of the year we would've been accused of tanking and the media was already out to get us when it was suggested. They waited and now all of a sudden the media are becoming pro us getting a PP. What makes it even better is that GC need help from the AFL and they can't be seen giving help to one and not the other. It's a win win for the club and the supporters who see this know and the ones who don't will know at the end of the year.

Genius.

we effectively have half the media campaigning that we should get a PP on our behalf and we've reached round 20 and have yet to be accused of tanking
Let's not kid ourselves the decision to give us a PP or not will have zero to do with the formalities of an application

Exactly, it's all about the image of it all.

Let's hope the media progress and demand 2 PPs for us!

Sidefx · **Joined:** Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:55 pm **Posts:** 6767

GWS wrote:

Sidefx wrote:

I strongly disagree to the point where I think the clubs stance with the PP is almost genius.

At the start of the year we would've been accused of tanking and the media was already out to get us when it was suggested. They waited and now all of a sudden the media are becoming pro us getting a PP. What makes it even better is that GC need help from the AFL and they can't be seen giving help to one and not the other. It's a win win for the club and the supporters who see this know and the ones who don't will know at the end of the year.

Genius.

Correct except I think for the bit about it being the club’s genius.

I reckon they were tapped on the shoulder by head office earlier in the year.

The AFL hated the tanking issue and suddenly it’s no longer an issue.

Either way like you said, it's now a non event and we can go hat, bag, house and anything else in hand and ask for help on all fronts without reprisal from the media or anyone else.

dlb99 · **Joined:** Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:21 pm **Posts:** 202

BIBI01 wrote:

Let's not kid ourselves the decision to give us a PP or not will have zero to do with the formalities of an application

Sometimes I wear blue, sometimes I wear black. I change my mind often.

Carlton reserves the right to change its mind about the Priority Pick, simple, easy-peasy. Seriously, what was said back in May has changed.

We will put in a request at the end of the season and we will get a pick, maybe pick 4, maybe pick 19.

The AFL will treat us and Gold Coast similarly, they'll get a PP and so will we. We both stink A LOT!! They'll also get a Tom Lynch compensation pick. Gold Coast will not leap-frog us for the number 1 pick.

Sidefx · **Joined:** Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:55 pm **Posts:** 6767

Why pick 4?

History states PPs are given pre a round, no?

Paddycripps · **Joined:** Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:55 pm **Posts:** 4435

We will get shafted. It will be

CFC 1
GC 2
GC 3
CFC 20
GC 21

Sidefx · **Joined:** Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:55 pm **Posts:** 6767

Agreed.

2ndeffort · **Posted:** Tue Aug 07, 2018 11:20 pm

Paddycripps wrote:

We will get shafted. It will be

CFC 1
GC 2
GC 3
CFC 20
GC 21

Agree

Blue Sombrero · **Posted:** Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:11 am

bondiblue wrote:

Blue Sombrero wrote:

Nobody in the media has said the PP is working the way it was supposed to. In fact they are all saying it is stuffed and helping create the two tier comp.
Of course teams at the top think it's wonderful but that's because they are skimming the cream and playing off n finals every year as a result.
I mentioned this elsewhere but I want to bring it up again (regurgitate it, come might say).
FA is in place so the players can move to the club of their choice. I get that but the compo system is what mucks it up. The AFL hands out the compo. What if there were no compo from the AFL at all but the cub of choice had to pay it? The player is still choosing the club but what if the club doesn't think he is worth it? What if the AFL dfecides Lynch is worth two picks, one top five and one top twenty and (Richmond) has to give them to the AFL who will then pass them on to the GCS? (Richmond), if they want Lynch badly enough, will pay. If not, Lynch has to nominate a second club, stay where he is or go to the draft. All of a sudden we have no free kick to a top club. Yes, they don't have to trade with the club because Lynch has nominated them as is his right under FA but they have to trade with the AFL to make sure Lynch gets is wish and the losing club gets a fair go.

We have already seen the F/S rule stuffed up because Geelong's past players were good producers of boys and they got too many free hits and ended up winning a flag on the back of them, so why can't the same point system be applied to the FA system?

I seriously want this to be discussed somewhere where it gets an airing in the press or whatever so if you think it's a good idea and you can twitter, tweet or otherwise message someone who might bring it up for discussion, please do it. I think all avenues have to be explored.

End of rant.

Fantastic idea and logical if FA is to show some semblance of fairness.

I'd prefer that Top 8 sides, in particular top 4 sides can't be involved with FA.

I can't believe I put PP instead of FA and then put it in this thread...
I did turn 68 the other day so maybe it's catching up with me.

Paddycripps · **Joined:** Mon Jun 01, 2015 5:55 pm **Posts:** 4435

It's been reported that CFC and AFL have had discussions about PP. I suspect the discussion has centred around what decent experience players CFC might be able to lure if they had pick 20. CFC desperately need midfield experience to support Cripps and the club have mentioned this countless times so surely the club are trying to lure such players. Recent history shows clubs can get decent albeit not elite experienced mids with picks in the range of 20 so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the topic of discussion btw the CFC and the AFL. The AFL might be saying if we give you 20 you MUST use it for an experienced mid. Think the likes of Caddy as a past example. I'd be loath for the club to dilute pick 1 by trading it. Pick 1 should be reserved for elite talent ideally young. In saying that, and this is completely hypothetical, but if GWS win the GF I would be very open to trading 1 for Shiel IF we also know for certain we will get Kelly via FA in the following year. That's the only way I can see pick 1 being used to lure elite talent that is over 25.

bmaurizio · **Joined:** Thu May 05, 2005 10:49 am **Posts:** 1623

Paddycripps wrote:

It's been reported that CFC and AFL have had discussions about PP. I suspect the discussion has centred around what decent experience players CFC might be able to lure if they had pick 20. CFC desperately need midfield experience to support Cripps and the club have mentioned this countless times so surely the club are trying to lure such players. Recent history shows clubs can get decent albeit not elite experienced mids with picks in the range of 20 so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the topic of discussion btw the CFC and the AFL. The AFL might be saying if we give you 20 you MUST use it for an experienced mid. Think the likes of Caddy as a past example. I'd be loath for the club to dilute pick 1 by trading it. Pick 1 should be reserved for elite talent ideally young. In saying that, and this is completely hypothetical, but if GWS win the GF I would be very open to trading 1 for Shiel IF we also know for certain we will get Kelly via FA in the following year. That's the only way I can see pick 1 being used to lure elite talent that is over 25.

Agree, in fact both our 2 rounders and PP and next year's 2 too. So that gives us two strong options at attracting a couple of decent definitely B+ mature bodied experianced midfielders, which will change our fortunes immeditaley. Pick 1 is for Lukosius without a shadow of doubt, clear out the rookie list and try again.

China Blues · **Posted:** Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:31 pm

Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere but Bolts when pressed on this issue at his press conference on Tuesday of this week, indicated that as the coach his priority and laser-like focus is and needs to be on the remaining games BUT that he felt confident that the club would review their position on the PP at the end of the year. That to look at this prior to the end of the season would be premature and divert the clubs attention from the remaining games. Seems IMHO that there has definitely been a lot of discussion on this matter behind closed doors and that there is a chance that we will see a change in the club's stance come the end of the season. An interesting development!!

Blue Sombrero · **Posted:** Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:45 pm

bmaurizio wrote:

Paddycripps wrote:

It's been reported that CFC and AFL have had discussions about PP. I suspect the discussion has centred around what decent experience players CFC might be able to lure if they had pick 20. CFC desperately need midfield experience to support Cripps and the club have mentioned this countless times so surely the club are trying to lure such players. Recent history shows clubs can get decent albeit not elite experienced mids with picks in the range of 20 so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the topic of discussion btw the CFC and the AFL. The AFL might be saying if we give you 20 you MUST use it for an experienced mid. Think the likes of Caddy as a past example. I'd be loath for the club to dilute pick 1 by trading it. Pick 1 should be reserved for elite talent ideally young. In saying that, and this is completely hypothetical, but if GWS win the GF I would be very open to trading 1 for Shiel IF we also know for certain we will get Kelly via FA in the following year. That's the only way I can see pick 1 being used to lure elite talent that is over 25.

Agree, in fact both our 2 rounders and PP and next year's 2 too. So that gives us two strong options at attracting a couple of decent definitely B+ mature bodied experianced midfielders, which will change our fortunes immeditaley. Pick 1 is for Lukosius without a shadow of doubt, clear out the rookie list and try again.

If we get Lukosis and he goes straight to CHF or FF as touted, which of MacKay or Charlie Curnow would you put in the Northern Blues. We can't have three talls in the forward line. (Curnow isn't going to the midfield just yet, even though he might end up there at some stage.)

bmaurizio · **Joined:** Thu May 05, 2005 10:49 am **Posts:** 1623

Blue Sombrero wrote:

bmaurizio wrote:

Paddycripps wrote:

It's been reported that CFC and AFL have had discussions about PP. I suspect the discussion has centred around what decent experience players CFC might be able to lure if they had pick 20. CFC desperately need midfield experience to support Cripps and the club have mentioned this countless times so surely the club are trying to lure such players. Recent history shows clubs can get decent albeit not elite experienced mids with picks in the range of 20 so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the topic of discussion btw the CFC and the AFL. The AFL might be saying if we give you 20 you MUST use it for an experienced mid. Think the likes of Caddy as a past example. I'd be loath for the club to dilute pick 1 by trading it. Pick 1 should be reserved for elite talent ideally young. In saying that, and this is completely hypothetical, but if GWS win the GF I would be very open to trading 1 for Shiel IF we also know for certain we will get Kelly via FA in the following year. That's the only way I can see pick 1 being used to lure elite talent that is over 25.

Agree, in fact both our 2 rounders and PP and next year's 2 too. So that gives us two strong options at attracting a couple of decent definitely B+ mature bodied experianced midfielders, which will change our fortunes immeditaley. Pick 1 is for Lukosius without a shadow of doubt, clear out the rookie list and try again.

If we get Lukosis and he goes straight to CHF or FF as touted, which of MacKay or Charlie Curnow would you put in the Northern Blues. We can't have three talls in the forward line. (Curnow isn't going to the midfield just yet, even though he might end up there at some stage.)

Mckay has a way to go, imo presume he would be switched around bit , JL is so versatile, has a very good kicking action would easily adapt, to hb , wing or general forwrad, players with good skill abability , work ethic and endurance can be placed anywhere on the field.

The_Cranium · **Posted:** Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:17 pm

Not sure how you come up with pick 4. I don't think there's any doubt we get one along with GC. It's either pre first round or pre second round. Which means we end up with picks 1 and 3 or 1 and 20.

Scenario 1
1- CFC
2- GCS
3- CFC
4- GCS
5- GCS

Or scenario 2

1- CFC
2- GCS
3- GCS
20- CFC
21- GCS

I think the AFL are seriously worried about GC so scenario 1 seems most likely and if that happens I hope we just take the 2 best mids in the draft in Walsh and Bailey Smith. No stuffing around with trades unless it's for an absolute jet no older than 23/ 24

robertbb · **Joined:** Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:06 pm **Posts:** 9354

It is, in a way, fortunate that our recent history is worse than theirs and that they are viewed as being in trouble. If it were just us alone, we'd get boned.

I think Scenario 1 is most likely, but ONLY because it nets GCS three picks in the top 5.

camel · **Posted:** Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:39 pm

robertbb wrote:

It is, in a way, fortunate that our recent history is worse than theirs and that they are viewed as being in trouble. If it were just us alone, we'd get boned.

And people think we've had a lot of first round picks. :lol:

The_Cranium · **Posted:** Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:43 pm

robertbb wrote:

It is, in a way, fortunate that our recent history is worse than theirs and that they are viewed as being in trouble. If it were just us alone, we'd get boned.

I think Scenario 1 is most likely, but ONLY because it nets GCS three picks in the top 5.

Indeed. That is the same reason I think scenario 1 happens. We're going to piggy back GC to our advantage... I'm sure the AFL are trying to work out how they can dick us though

bluebo baggers · **Posted:** Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:23 pm

The_Cranium wrote:

robertbb wrote:

It is, in a way, fortunate that our recent history is worse than theirs and that they are viewed as being in trouble. If it were just us alone, we'd get boned.

I think Scenario 1 is most likely, but ONLY because it nets GCS three picks in the top 5.

Indeed. That is the same reason I think scenario 1 happens. We're going to piggy back GC to our advantage... I'm sure the AFL are trying to work out how they can dick us though

Imagine if they make a one-off FA compensation decision of pick 1 to GCS then a priority pick following their first pick (the FA compensation pick)

1 - GCS
2 - GCS
3 - CFC
4 - CFC
5 - GCS

So very much makey-uppey

bluegirl72 · **Joined:** Sat May 23, 2009 8:30 pm **Posts:** 23931

They won't.
But if 3 and 4 are Walsh and Rankine then I'm all for it. :razz:

bmaurizio · **Joined:** Thu May 05, 2005 10:49 am **Posts:** 1623

bluegirl72 wrote:

They won't.
But if 3 and 4 are Walsh and Rankine then I'm all for it. :razz:

That would a good outcome, if only and hopefully that would end the midfielder obsession.

What's really going on with this whole priority pick thing?

Who is online