Forum topic

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rookie (not verified)
Seagulls put money where mouth is to put Picken on Dogs’ rookie list

This is something I mentioned late last year, but this article in this week's Maribrynong Leader, written by Paul Amy, confirms it.

http://maribyrnong-leader.whereilive.com.au/sport/story/seaguls-put-mone...

[quote]WILLIAMSTOWN believes in Liam Picken and is prepared to put up money that he will make it as an AFL player.

The Seagulls have confirmed they gave $20,000 to their VFL partner the Western Bulldogs to help pay for the cost of having him on their rookie list.

“We think it’s a very good investment in Liam and for our alignment with the Bulldogs,” Willy general manager Brendan Curry said.

“It will be money well spent. We’ve got enormous faith in him. He’s ready to step up.”

Liam is the son of former Collingwood champion Billy and shared Willy’s best and fairest last year. He was also selected in the VFL team of the year.

While his father was a centre half back, Liam is a midfielder/flanker who can play run-with roles and go forward to kick goals.

Perseverance put him on AFL list.

“He’s been playing in the VFL for four years and he’s developed from a scrawny little country kid into a really good VFL player,” Curry said.

“We think he’s going to be a great success story and come through the system and be a good player for the Bulldogs.’’

Curry said he was sure the Bulldogs were sold on Picken before Williamstown showed them the money.

Willy intend to set aside $20,000 each year to help the Western Bulldogs pay for a rookie selected from a VFL club.

“He doesn’t have to be a Williamstown player. If we see a guy we think warrants being on an AFL list, as we did with Liam Picken, we’ll give him an opportunity,” Curry said. [/quote]

burraburger

And how much of the $20,000 went to the VFL tribunal to get Picken off that report from the 2008 Prelim???? Worth 4-6 weeks in the AFL but dismissed in the VFL.

footyman

Get over it...sour graped Port supporters.

NorthPort
NorthPort's picture

Well I'm a doggies supporter and I reckon he should have been rubbed out and be ineligible at least for the NAB Cup.

 


Gouloff

Well he was found guilty so i'd assume none of it.. He got a reprimand and fair enough too.. Was going for Dwyer when he had the ball, Dwyer got rid of it he couldn't change his course he hip and shouldered him legally just after the play.. Good decision :)

Dolphin

[quote=Gouloff]""Well he was found guilty so i'd assume none of it.. He got a reprimand and fair enough too.. Was going for Dwyer when he had the ball, Dwyer got rid of it he couldn't change his course he hip and shouldered him legally just after the play.. Good decision :)""[/quote]

Agreed

Hooker

Doesn't this just about amount to draft tampering? The player is, in effect, strongly influencing which club he will go to in the draft, something the AFL have clamped down on in the past.

Hooker

The fact that they will do it for a player from any club is irrelevant. Of course they would because Willy will get the benefit of the player playing for them. It would hardly be an act of magnanimity for them to propose to the Dogs that they'll pay $20,000 towards Marigliani's salary if they rookie him, so Marigliani plays for Willy.

It would be less of an issue if they were saying they'll do it for any player to be rookied by any club, but I just wonder if, doing it this way, it's steering a player towards a particular club. It's making one AFL club more likely than the others to draft a certain player, something which the AFL has been very hard line on.

There's also the question of whether it's fair on the other players in line to be rookied. This is more of a problem when the player in question comes from Willy because that player is being favoured due to Willy's alignment.

InForAPenny

It's worth considering that the reason Williamstown had the "opportunity" to participate as they have is that the Bulldogs were not going to fill that rookie spot due to lack of money.

Under these circumstances at least any benefactor could put up the money to ensure an AFL club secures their full entitlement of rookies.

Hooker

I don't think there'd be an issue if the money was just given to a club to rookie whoever they liked (though I doubt it could ever be seen to be purely philanthropic) but here they're dictating who is to be rookied and by which club, and that's where I think the problem lies.