Father Son bidding - What happens if...?

[Sockeye Salmon]

We trade our 2nd round ...

Only joking.



What happens if Hunter gets put up for bids and no-one bids 1st round, GWS and GC say no to their 2nd round pick as well, but Melbourne says yes to pick 26.

We say no thanks, he's all yours.


Then Viney gets put up to bid and both GWS and GC say no thanks, he's yours for your 2nd rounder, pick 26. But they just used that on Hunter!


How do they work out the order for FS bidding? Would Melbourne, Essendon and ourselves be prevented from bidding for other FS?

[Mofra]

I would assume it's a little like lining kids up against a wall and asking them in order - if Melbourne are forced to take Viney with pick 26, they don't get to nominate a F/S pick with that pick.

[Topdog]

but what is the order? Is Viney before Hunter?

Question still stands though. Could happen with any players

[divvydan]

According to the Article from Emma Quayle back in June

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-overhauls-fatherson-bidding-20120627-212vm.html


Rather than offer the nominated players to clubs one by one, in reverse ladder order, the league will instead present them as a group.
For example, should the ladder remain the same, Gold Coast will first be asked if it would like to bid its No. 1 pick on any of the nominated players.



Should Gold Coast bid, hypothetically, for Daniher, Essendon would then be asked if it wanted to match the bid with its next available pick. If the Bombers did that, the Suns would then be given the opportunity to bid for one of the other players. Those remaining would be offered to GWS, Melbourne and the rest of the clubs, in reverse ladder order.

[mighty_west]

Wouldn't it just come down to their NEXT avaliable pick?

They nominate Hunter for pick 26, we pass, they just take Viney with their 3rd round selection as that would be their next live selection?

[MrMahatma]

Presume so. I mean, similar to us with Wallis and Libba. If 2 clubs bid a
2nd rounder for each of them, we use a 2nd and 3rd.

[Sockeye Salmon]

According to the Article from Emma Quayle back in June

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-overhauls-fatherson-bidding-20120627-212vm.html



Rather than offer the nominated players to clubs one by one, in reverse ladder order, the league will instead present them as a group.
For example, should the ladder remain the same, Gold Coast will first be asked if it would like to bid its No. 1 pick on any of the nominated players.


What if Gold Coast would like to bid on Daniher or Viney? Many think Daniher is the no. 1 pick, once Essendon take him, the Suns could very well then think Viney is the next best player.

Do they get the opportunity to bid on both?

[westdog54]

What if Gold Coast would like to bid on Daniher or Viney? Many think Daniher is the no. 1 pick, once Essendon take him, the Suns could very well then think Viney is the next best player.

Do they get the opportunity to bid on both?

I would assume they would have to bid one pick on one player and another on the second, in order of how much they want said player.

If they were to nominate Daniher with their first pick then they could only use their second pick to nominate Viney.

[LongWait]

We trade our 2nd round ...

Only joking.



What happens if Hunter gets put up for bids and no-one bids 1st round, GWS and GC say no to their 2nd round pick as well, but Melbourne says yes to pick 26.

We say no thanks, he's all yours.


Then Viney gets put up to bid and both GWS and GC say no thanks, he's yours for your 2nd rounder, pick 26. But they just used that on Hunter!


How do they work out the order for FS bidding? Would Melbourne, Essendon and ourselves be prevented from bidding for other FS?

In the situation you cited Melbourne are forced to chose whether to take Hunter or Viney with their pick - that scenario was discussed with Shifter on I think it was TWR. I assume that if that decision affects a prior f/s bidding process, then they go back and revisit the previous bidding and re-do it.

[Bulldog Joe]

I have applied logic to my thought process, which is danderous to assume when someone is making up rules.

This is how it should work.

1. All father/sons are nominated by respective clubs.

2. In draft order the clubs then bid and a player is bid for (say Daniher) by Gold Coast. The sponsoring club (this case Essendon) then selects the player with their next available pick (Ess Rd 1).

3 Bidding resumes with Gold Coast able to bid again for another player (say Viney).

This would be repeated with club able to bid with any draft selection until they pass on that selection.

Once a bid is trumped by the nominating club, surely it goes back to where it was as that draft bid is again free to use.

[divvydan]

What if Gold Coast would like to bid on Daniher or Viney? Many think Daniher is the no. 1 pick, once Essendon take him, the Suns could very well then think Viney is the next best player.

Do they get the opportunity to bid on both?

Yes, they can bid on both. The AFL would ask them if there's a player they want to bid on with the #2 pick, if they say Daniher and Essendon then take him at their pick, the AFL will ask GC if there are any other players they wish to bid on with pick #2.

[mighty_west]

GC passed on Viney, pick 26, pick 46 for Hunter.

Melbourne fans must be doing cartwheels.

[soupman]

GC passed on Viney, pick 26, pick 46 for Hunter.

Melbourne fans must be doing cartwheels.

This is absolute bullshit. This is the biggest factor in introducing the bidding process. As it now stands, if your father son is a mid to late first rounder (ie. Cordy), you pay market value. If your player is pick 30+, you will get them cheap. If they are a genuine top three pick, you pay less than the first rounder is worth. Draft tampering anyone?

[comrade]

GC passed on Viney, pick 26, pick 46 for Hunter.

Melbourne fans must be doing cartwheels.

Combine that with the Scully compo, they've been kissed by the AFL.

The Bulldogs? Not so much.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Combine that with the Scully compo, they've been kissed by the AFL.

The Bulldogs? Not so much.

I've come to despise the Dees. They've hoovered up a lot of high draft picks in recent times, tanked to ensure more high draft picks. Then sacked the coach who delivered them these picks. And now yet again they've been favoured to secure a preferential outcome.
I wish them nothing but abject failure.

[comrade]

I've come to despise the Dees. They've hoovered up a lot of high draft picks in recent times, tanked to ensure more high draft picks. Then sacked the coach who delivered them these picks. And now yet again they've been favoured to secure a preferential outcome.
I wish them nothing but abject failure.

With a losing culture like theirs, it will take more than a few high draft picks to achieve success. At least that's what I cling to.

[LostDoggy]

I've come to despise the Dees. They've hoovered up a lot of high draft picks in recent times, tanked to ensure more high draft picks. Then sacked the coach who delivered them these picks. And now yet again they've been favoured to secure a preferential outcome.
I wish them nothing but abject failure.

As do I but you have to acknowledge that over the past two years, they have got off their arse and are desperately trying to do something about their plight. You need only look at the Clark deal (he was definitely going West), the Viney play and their strong push to get Wellingham and Daws

They were also mentioned in the Free Agency horse-trading

[LostDoggy]

Melbourne lucky to get Viney at pick 26.

Port bid on Daniher at 7, forcing Essendon to get him at 10, their pick then becomes live again for the draft, so Melbourne didn't have to use pick 13.

Ridiculous rules.

[divvydan]

Melbourne were never going to be able to use picks 4 or 13 for Viney. Compensation picks cannot be used for father son selections.