GWS sanctions

[SuperDuper]

So, GWS may lose picks 15 and 37 in a drug related ``sanction".

More bias and corruption from the AFL.
Losing 15 and 37 does not affect their ability to take McGrath, Perryman and Setterfeld: i..e they STILL will draft 3 first rounders.
AFTER the sanctions.

The AFL are very keen to get this done this year, because they know the ramifications to GWS, i.e. they know it hardly affects them

Why are they not stripped of pick 2?
That would actually be a sanction.

Anyway, hopefully some other acedemy players join th enormal pool and this helps us. Would love it if we end up with someon elike McCredie at 36 and he ends up a gun

[Griggsy]

afl would be better off doing nothing than accepting something was wrong and slapping them with a feather as punishment.

Most of their picks these days would be lucky to have a run on the park anyway, why would they care for these sanctions.

[asaint]

Gee, that really showed em!

[fugazi]

What a joke...take away their first 3 picks....that might actually cause a bit of pain for the juggernaut

[Jacks Back]

[borderbarry]

Their first and second round picks, and for 2017 too. That would be fairer. Except next year ban them from being in the lst and 2nd round. That would even things up a little.

[bobmurray]

They shouldn't lose any picks, the 3 knob heads that participated in the charade should be suspended.

The club should be fined for employing knob heads.

Wanting them to lose draft picks smacks of paranoia over how good their list already is.

[satchmo]

I think that the bombres exhausted the "knob heads" defence.

[borderbarry]

I disagree with Bob Murray. Adelaide lost draft picks for two years over Tippett. And the AFL have given the GWS club so many consessions that should be done to even things up a bit.

[St Ick]

They should take away 17 & 37 and pick 2 should be sent to the end of the first round.

[MC Gusto]

Isn't it the case that the picks that are threatened to be removed are their actual picks for the year? The others they traded for...??

[sunsaint]

Isn't it the case that the picks that are threatened to be removed are their actual picks for the year? The others they traded for...??

Shhh MC the lynching gang will turn on you

[borderbarry]

Yes their original picks, which is fair enough. If the AFL were to take picks they traded for, that would leave the teams they traded with home and free That would not be fair.

[sunsaint]

Yes their original picks, which is fair enough. If the AFL were to take picks they traded for, that would leave the teams they traded with home and free That would not be fair.

good to see you have mellowed...
I would say the other consideration was that in Tippet / Sydney / Crows situation there was a direct breach of drafting rules
at this point we are mostly speculating what the drug breach actually entails

[IanRush]

Isn't it the case that the picks that are threatened to be removed are their actual picks for the year? The others they traded for...??

Shhh MC the lynching gang will turn on you

Please define who the lynching gang is please?

[borderbarry]

Lynch gang? I"m in.

[saynta]

Lynch gang? I"m in.

I'm always up for a good lynching.

[shrodes]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/lachie- ... a4755399dd

FORMER number 1 draft pick Lachie Whitfield has all but finalised a negotiated suspension for breaching the illicit drug code that will see the Giant miss the first eight games of 2017.

Graeme Allan, the current head of football at Collingwood and ex-GWS football boss, and Brisbane and ex-GWS welfare manager Craig Lambert, have been slated for 12-month suspensions for their part in Whitfield’s alleged attempt to evade a drug test by staying at Lambert’s home.

Absolute joke of a sanction. Saad got 18 months for a substance only banned on match day. If it was any other club but GWS the result would have been completely different.

[SuperDuper]

Yes their original picks, which is fair enough. If the AFL were to take picks they traded for, that would leave the teams they traded with home and free That would not be fair.

Firstly, when was there ever a rule saying that sanctions can only invlove a clubs original picks?
This would make no sense. What happens when teh club has traded its original pick? Do they avoid a sanction?

Secondly, how does the team they traded with get ``home and free"
Freo traded pick 2 to GWS. IF the AFL take pick 2 from GWS, they will not give it back to Freo. Freo still lose pick 2.

Thirdly, GWS have different rules for the way they draft. So, it may require different rules for the way they are sanctioned in order for those sanctios to acually become an effective punishment, which they are supposed to be. If any other club loses access to pick 15, they lose access to the 15th rated player in the draft, but that is not the case with GWS.

Having said all that... if they do lose 15 and 36 than they are left with only 1645 draft points this year.
That will get them Settlefeld, but it is not enough to also get Perryman...

They can then go into deficit but that starts affecting their picks next year, which may not matter too much because they only need points not picks... i..e they will still get some top ten rated players from the Riverina even though their picks move downwards..

BUT, they may not be able to get all their acdemy kinds, e.g. Mutch, McCredie, Cummings...
This is yet to be seen.

The effectiveness of the sanctions will be determined by whether or not they lose access to some highl rated young players
If they do not, then the santions are rubbish. If they do lose Perryman for example, it has at least had some affect

Maybe stripping those points will be a circuit breaker of their continual hoarding of points one year ahead allowing them continued access to talent..

[shrodes]

No draft penalties for GWS (at least not this year).
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-23/n ... field-case

Pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

[fugazi]

No draft penalties for GWS (at least not this year).
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-23/n ... field-case

Pretty ridiculous in my opinion.

They get 4 picks before us.....2, 5, 12 and bump us back with 24 ....what a joke.

So what if they lost a few players in trade they just fill straight back up again.

[shrodes]

$100k fine and loss of 1000 draft points (equivalent pick ~15)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-12-22/a ... field-saga

[dragit]

$100k fine and loss of 1000 draft points (equivalent pick ~15)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-12-22/a ... field-saga

Hilarious…

BREAKING NEWS

AFL fine themselves $100,000

Right up there with finding Melbourne not guilty of tanking, but then fining them… then giving them the money to hire Roos.

[SuperDuper]

$100k fine and loss of 1000 draft points (equivalent pick ~15)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-12-22/a ... field-saga

Hilarious…

BREAKING NEWS

AFL fine themselves $100,000

Right up there with finding Melbourne not guilty of tanking, but then fining them… then giving them the money to hire Roos.

yes.. who has any doubt that they will still end up with a top 10 draft prospect nexr year despite being sanctioned

and as you say,,, any fine on gws is hilarious.... AFL is 100% fining themselves

[SuperDuper]

$100k fine and loss of 1000 draft points (equivalent pick ~15)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-12-22/a ... field-saga

Hilarious…

BREAKING NEWS

AFL fine themselves $100,000

Right up there with finding Melbourne not guilty of tanking, but then fining them… then giving them the money to hire Roos.

yes.. who has any doubt that they will still end up with a top 10 draft prospect nexr year despite being sanctioned

they delayed this yeard santion because there were 2 academy top 15 prospects so they did not want the sanctions to actually deprive them

Next years crop clearly not looking as strong

and as you say,,, any fine on gws is hilarious.... AFL is 100% fining themselves