By Redb -
November 24th 2009 @ 3:14am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Could the AFL catch a cold from the draft?
The week of the 2009 AFL draft looms as a test of patience for the AFL Players Association with the AFL’s draft laws. In the background is the issue of Free Agency, which is lurking like Swine Flu ready to strike again.
The draft system exists on the goodwill of both the AFLPA and the AFL and clubs in that 99 percent of the time all parties are best served by the draft system.
The drafting of unloved St Kilda player Luke Ball in either the main draft or the pre-season draft will test the resolve of all parties.
Ball has been accused of draft tampering by some for nominating which clubs he would like to go to. In a draft system, you go to the club who picks you.
Normally there is some outside discussion as clubs and players align with each other to form a positive partnership. It is unhealthy for any club to pick up a player who does not want to play for them.
However, Luke Ball may prove to be a problem.
Collingwood appears his first choice, with Essendon second. However, Melbourne or Richmond with early draft picks could pick up Ball.
If Ball refuses to go to any club, he has to stand out of the game for two years. This appears harsh, but you’re either in or out with the draft system, as free agency is currently not in the rules.
One thing is for certain, the AFLPA will be watching closely how the Luke Ball situation unfolds. It has to be said that it is very unusual for a high profile player like Ball not to be traded in trade week.
The draft might get the blame when, in fact, it was the two clubs (St Kilda and Collingwood) who were at fault for not reaching a mutual agreement when the trade window was wide open.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(68)
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:22am | Report comment
moral of the story – NEVER seek a trade to Collingwood (especially with Malthouse at the helm).
Gibbo said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:06am | Report comment
it is all collingwoods fault for going after a player and then not getting the deal done.
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Everything is Collingwood’s fault.
ren said | November 24th 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Especially WWI and WWII.
Kurt said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:23am | Report comment
The issue of free agency is ‘like swine flu lurking to strike again’. Have you been attending the Justin Langer school of over-the-top metaphors!
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
As you say, it works in 99% of cases to suit everyone’s interests – the Ball case is unique in recent history.
JiMMM said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:44am | Report comment
Dare I say it, but maybe the NFL has the right of it with some form of free agency for long serving players, but still a draft to help struggling clubs.
Redb said | November 25th 2009 @ 6:44am | Report comment
Agree. The draft is a good system for the younger players. But big name players like Ball need alternatives. There is mediation possible during trade week to get clubs working together, it appears the AFL either missed the opportunity to get involved or didn’t push St Kilda and Collingwood hard enough to gain a resolution.
Redb
Art Sapphire said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
Ball wants to go to a Collingwood. Collingwood can fit him in their salary cap.
If the 2 teams con’t come to an agreement. All the AFL has to do is impose non-negotiable terms..
E.G – A tribunal can determine whether Ball is worth a first or second round draft pick depending on the age + salary, etc. etc.
If Collingwood don’t agree with the determination, then should the Magpies not be able to take him.
Also, Ball would feel better about playing for a club other than those smelly skunks.
You know it makes sense
Mr Demetriou – looks like you need a competent Operations Manager. You can contact me thru the Roar .
As as Essendon supporter, I don’t want Luke Ball playing at my club. He did not want to be their in the first place.
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:15am | Report comment
Art
don’t mind this idea of some form of arbitration (it’s already a highly regulated labour market – may as well go the whole hog!!)
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Given that this sort of system is already in place with respect the father-son selections,
I could only imagine it or something like it is amongst the options around a freer-trade/draft system.
Art Sapphire said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
Well, Michael, considering my idea is so sensible, why hasn’t it been introduced already.
The AFL are potentially looking at a real fiacso in a few days time.
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
LIke most things….they bubble away on the back burner for a while until someone knocks the pot and spills a little, a bit more or a lot.
But, the AFL and AFLPA having been nibbling away for a little while now – so, it just needs a catalyst – this might well be it.
btw – if someone other than Collingwood selects him, I’d imagine Ball just has to go there – - after all, he did nominate for the draft – but with conditions. Perhaps though, they should stipulate that players can’t nominate conditions in the main draft and only in the pre-season one. But – you can’t have it too easy to just sit out until then, as, the trade period is the only way the ‘original’ club can secure some form of compensation.
Firestarter Bob said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
It’s unAustralian not to have free agency.
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
oh I dunno – bureaucratic meddling in the labour market looks entirely Australian to me!!
Luke W said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
While I enjoy the AFL, I must admit to having no clue how the draft system works. I thought it was only for young players coming through the junior ranks? I didn’t realise that established players like Luke Ball (sorry, I’ve never heard of him) were able to be drafted? I thought once they were drafted they were then based on contracts. Sorry this is a bit off topic, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who doesn’t really understand the draft system.
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Luke
it’s a fair enough question, and I agree with you that it does get confusing at times (it’s taken me 20 years to get my head around it, and even now, I get confused by things like rookie lists and international rookies and scholarships and the like).
But essentially – absolutely anyone can put their name in the draft (if you’re not already contracted). Players into their late 20s have been known to have been drafted (although obviously it’s quite rare).
Anyone starting a career in AFL comes through the draft, whether you’re 18 or 28.
If you’re like Ball, an established players, you end up with four choices as you approach the end of your contract:
1. negotiate a new contract with your current club;
2. seek out another club (but the two clubs must come to an accomdation by way of trade picks);
3. go into the draft if 1 and 2 don’t happen;
4. leave the AFL altogether and do something else (either retire or play in one of the semi-professional comps).
If you go via 3 and you reject the club that drafts you, you’re out of the AFL system for 23 months, which in most cases will be the equivalent of going to point 4.
Firestarter Bob said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
Anyone starting a career in AFL comes through the draft, whether you’re 18 or 28. – Karmichael Hunt excluded?
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
The regular exceptions outside of the draft involve NSW/International scholarships however they also have to be elevated at some point onto the main list.
There’s been a separate rookie draft too.
For K.Hunt, he fits into the Gold Coast capacity as a start up club to sign x number of unsigned players and a few other ‘concessions’ that will come GWS’s way too. Obviously, that’s not standard practice.
Firestarter Bob said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
So an existing loyal AFL player has less rights than a well paid blow in.
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
There are other exclusions – including international signings – I’m not sure how they work – but they effectively are excluded from much of the workings of the draft and cap – this helps explain why clubs like Hawthorn are willing to invest a bit of money in a place like NZ on the off-chance that they will pick someone up.
Other clubs have some links with some other countries for the same reason – it’s all long odds of course – but it might pay off in the long run.
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
Yep!!, that about sums it up. It is though a fairly unique set of circumstances – - – but, it would potentially annoy the odd player who has loyally come through the system that Hunt, unproven at elite AFL standards is paid so handsomely.
However, again, only X% is from his ‘club’ and the other portions are from AFL HQ and AFLQ for the promotional component. It’s that aspect of the other thread – - there is a recognised component of Hunt’s deal that IS purely publicity…..and it’s paid accordingly.
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 2:34pm | Report comment
Pip – the example of Craig Bird at Sydney, as a NSW scholarship kid was such that they were able to secure him away on the NSW scholarship, and then ge a ‘free’ list elevation onto the senior list (or the rookie list – as appropriate).
It’s similar to rookies – except that rookies come through the rookie draft – so, no ‘free access’. Where as with NSW scholarships and internationals too – you just go out and find ‘em and sign ‘em and if you find a rough diamond, you can elevate them with you ‘cheapest’ draft pick onto the main lists.
I think that’s how it works.
Art Sapphire said | November 24th 2009 @ 1:40pm | Report comment
The problem is Luke – the two clubs in question (Saints & Collingwood did not come to an accommodation) and even though he really wants to play for Collingwood (god knows why??) he has had no choice but to nominate himself for the draft. This does not stop another club that he does not want to play for from picking him up if they have an earlier pick.
Then as Pip stated – if you reject the club that drafts you, you’re out of the AFL system for 23 months.
Its a pretty stupid state of affairs and why my suggestion is such a winner – even Michael C agrees with me on this one and thats a first
Michael C said | November 24th 2009 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
noo….surely not?…well,…..perhaps……
albatross said | November 24th 2009 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
Has the Tutty case any relevance here?
bever fever said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:04pm | Report comment
What is the Tutty case ? … please explain.
MyGeneration said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
I assume albatross is talking about Dennis Tutty, a Balmain first grader, who took on the NSWRL’s restrictions on player movements as ‘restraint of trade’, and won, way back in 1969, surviving High Court appeals over subsequent years. In relation to the AFL draft, I guess the question would be has anyone challenged it in court yet?
Midfielder said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
BF
Tutty was a RL player who in the late 60’s or early 70’s challenged the player transfer system… To get to the point the courts found that when a contract was finished the player was free to operate outside any rules a sport may place on them … where the sports rules where not supported by Commonwealth law…
The case was referred to a lot when some years back now the RL players union stopped any draft system being brought into RL as where sports the rules where not supported by commonwealth law or do not meet the requirement of the HMMMM ??? thinking of the department anti competition … the Trade Practices Act.
How this applies to AFL is … many legal experts believe if the AFL ever got a Tutty (i.e. a pissed off big time player ready to prove his point come what may) the AFL draft system would fail as it has no Commonwealth or State law to support it … and it is argued would also fail under the Trade Practice’s Act….
Pippinu said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:29pm | Report comment
The one key difference is that it would be impossible for a player to argue that their earning capacity has been restricted by opting into the AFL contract system (which all players have done, both individually and collectively via the AFLPA certified agreement).
Firestarter Bob said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
It’s not just earning capacity. It might come down to not wanting to relocate to or from a particular city.
Midfielder said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:35pm | Report comment
Pip
I have no legal idea if a player challenge would be successful in a case against the AFL….But what I can tell you is many business of all sizes who have internal rules when challenged in court if the rule has no support in law … then you are in for a difficult time further if there are similar cases when the courts where asked found against similar interal rules then the business always looses.
So nothing to do with sport common sense says if challenged the AFL would have one hell of a case to defend…
bever fever said | November 24th 2009 @ 8:40pm | Report comment
Yer thanks for that,
Dont think anyone has challenged it (the draft).
I have no doubt it is a restraint of trade, as is the salary cap, which rich clubs may not like.
But IMO it is good to equalise the clubs to some degree – call it socialism if you may.
As a fan i would much rather have this system than the problem the EPL and many other sporting leagues have in the club with the most money wins. (usually)
But the bonus is in aussie rules ( for advocates of the draft) is if this new Tutty challenges it could leave him out in the cold and he cannot then fly the coop to play footy overseas.
Makes sense not to fight city hall if you cant win.
Midfielder said | November 24th 2009 @ 11:40pm | Report comment
BF
The person who challenges the draft ( if ever mind you) will more than likely not do it for money…They will have the shits big time and go stuff em … lets go to court…
I read a Tax case once where a railway worker had a superannuation expense claim of $ 120.00 knocked back by the ATO and took the case all the way to the Federal Court and won…
Kurt said | November 25th 2009 @ 1:48am | Report comment
Yeah, I think you’re right. The point is that so far the players have been prepared to accept the various restrictions put in place by the AFL in return for significant salary growth on the back of increasing TV deals. Sooner or later someone will break ranks and then we’ll see what happens.
Firestarter Bob said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:18pm | Report comment
“All should hail King Tutty” By James Hooper From: The Sunday Telegraph April 13, 2008
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/all-should-hail-king-tutty/story-e6frexv0-1111116045385
bever fever said | November 24th 2009 @ 9:32pm | Report comment
Yep thats a great story, i just wonder though, whether if he had it over if he would do it again, kids that get drafted these days have a minimum salary, so thats a difference straight away.
But i would imagine/hoping that anyone thinking of challenging the draft would be offered the best of advice and made aware of both sides of the coin.
The RL players union should name something in his honour or do something at any rate.
Redb said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:00am | Report comment
The critical difference with NRL players and AFL players is that they can convert to union , go to the ESL, Europe, Japan in rugby,etc and the NRL dont pay top dollar.
Luke Ball would be considered a pretty good player but probably not in the top 20 AFL players and he is asking for $500,000 per year.
Redb
Firestarter Bob said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
So Ball has less rights to fairness than say, oh, I dunno, how about Fevola?
Pippinu said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Fevola found a club willing to deal with his former club.
Redb said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:01am | Report comment
give it up you have no interest in Aust footy, you just consistently troll AFL theads with your insipid comments – get a life.
Tifosi said | November 24th 2009 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
The Tutty ruling seems similar to the Bosman ruling for Football
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosman_ruling
And the Seitz Ruling in baseball
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seitz_decision
Free Agency will be inevitable in the AFL. Someone will challenge it
albatross said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Thanks all for a coherent discussion of Tutty.
One point I would make is that it seems to me that those who feel that there is no way an AFL player could cross over to another code are being are being a bit optimistic. Fred Agius has shown that it is possible for someone to play at a non-amateur level at both football and err… football.
Eventually some AFL-contracted player who objects to civil conscription is going to take a leaf out of Fergus Slattery’s book and look at (probably) RU or cricket (20/20) or even basketball and say “I can do that” and try to break the bond.
Of course at the moment life for an AFL player even in the worst city in Australia “working” for the least sympathetic club is pretty good so the incentives to change codes are not there. But this can change.
Pippinu said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:45am | Report comment
albatross
There are stacks of kids that become professional sportsmen that grow up playing two games up to the age of 15 or 16.
It happens stacks of times in Southern NSW (with League and aussie rules).
Stacks in Melbourne will have played both soccer and aussie rules.
And even more grow up playing both cricket and aussie rules – often dropping cricket on the eve of the draft.
The AFL has been able to attract plenty of potential cricket players their way with the promise of a decent salary from the age of 18 – but I can see this becoming less of a lure with the advent of 20/20 cricket where there will be stacks of opportunities to earn a very good living, even for an average player.
Michael C said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
I heard a young NT originated Storm player on SEN, up there, the seasons don’t overlap, so, many kids play League and then Aust Footy…….
Michael C said | November 25th 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
Check out the photo for this sports field, Chambers Park in Wagga , kinda sums it up.
AndyRoo said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
The Roar need to get the rights to that photo. Should be the picture to go with all code war threads.
Love it.
Michael C said | November 25th 2009 @ 3:41pm | Report comment
all it needs is a net,
but, then, it’d look just like the International Rules goal set up.
btw – still one of my favourite Aust national team jumpers/shirts .
Redb said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:46am | Report comment
AFL clubs these days spend a lot more time with the kids they are likely to be drafting so that it is a win win.
it’s a mixed bag anyway. Many kids dont care they are just happy to be drafted – a little like some Parents not caring which sex their baby is.
Some kids want to stay at home, others want to travel and play in the big smoke.
NSW and QLD have pathways now that will direct kids to the clubs in their state as first choice.
What would you replace the draft system with?
Too many naysayers of the draft are not AFL fans anyway so their opinion is often tainted by the beleif “who would want to play AFL anyway or go to Melbourne”.
Some form of free agency is inevitable. IMO the AFLPA will strike a deal with the AFL that is as close to win-win as possible.
Redb
Pippinu said | November 25th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
It’s a good point that the negative comments you read on the Roar, by and large, come from non-AFL fans.
Those of us who have followed the draft since the late 80s, and who now view it as compulsive TV viewing:
1. love every aspect of it
2. give us all a sense of optimism about our clubs, and we follow the exploits of all the kids, and how they get on; and
3. understand that in 99% of all cases, the kids are absolutely stoked to be drafted – by anyone.
I can recall a fresh faced 17 yo Brad Johnson being interviewed in late 1993 and how he was rapt that Footscray had picked him up (he came from nearby Hoppers Crossing) – one of the very rare instances where the club you barrack for actually picks you up in the draft.
At the opposite end of the scale, I can recall that from mid-season Adam Cooney already knew he was heading for the bottom placed Bullies, such that he was wearing red, white and blue socks to training during his finals campaign – courtesy of fellow SA, Nathan Eagleton.
It amazed me at the time that it did not worry him in the slightest – he was about to enter the world of professional football – and that’s the way it worked – via the draft.
Jaredsbro said | November 25th 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Not tru Redb (sorry for picking on you my last few posts by the way
) I love Aussie rules (and being a fairly unbiased Kiwi) I see the draft as more trouble than its worth. Looking aside from the Father-son exception, which is a peculiar Australian quirk…but a creative and therefore valid way of keeping talent in-house, the crurrent AFL draft-oriented system is actually stifling NSW/QLD/ACT/NZ(?) potential as part-time AFL states
You see Brisbanites(?) for e.g. don’t want to leave Brisbane/Qld and chances are if/when they move to a Melbourne club (most likely, 10 out of a possible 18 locations etc) and having to leave means they are less enthusiastic about playing Aussie footy. You see we’re not living in the later 19th Century here where all good ol’ chaps are willing to have a little adventurein another part of the Great Red Continent. 18 year olds…even later 20 year olds are now more home-bound than ever. And because of the lack of rationalisation of the Melbourne clubs there’s every chance Melburnian kids are not so disadvantaged
You see I’m not anti-Draft completely but maybe the AFL should bolster the contracts of those players who do get picked up in the Draft, but allow free agency…that way the core principle of sharing the talent around is maintained and there’s only a little bit of disadvantage in staying at your ‘local’ club
Redb said | November 25th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
Jaredsbro,
This has already been addressed. The NSW and QLD teams now have exclusive zones to local talent. The new AFl academies should see a more defined path for AFL players.
Redb
Dogs Of War said | November 25th 2009 @ 12:30pm | Report comment
For how long?
Jaredsbro said | November 25th 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
Yeah they have pathways but most everyday Sydneysiders/Brisbanites seem not to see the options. Call it Northern prejudice against Aussie rules but a pathway’s only as good as the game gets legitimate penetration not just a feel good factor (with no attempt to pick up players who are ‘better suited’ to the marking game) of bringing in the wayward Northerners
Redb said | November 25th 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Jaredsbro,
The NSW and QLD AFL academies are designed to steward local talent through to the relevant NSW and QLD teams.
Swans, Lions, GC17 and GWS will get first picks out of NSW/QLD.
Redb
Dogs Of War said | November 25th 2009 @ 1:02pm | Report comment
I think that’s one avenue if League markets it well at junior level that will provide an advantage on AFL. Being able to play for your local club, and it being your choice is a great enticement. Other selling points are obviously being able to play overseas (though other codes offer that as well).
Jaredsbro said | November 25th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
But whose marketing the academies…or is that the Swans and Lions rely on in-house marketing to reach those who already have an interest in the sport. You can’t assume all ‘RL families’ are anti-AFL in spite of what the Sydney or Melbourne media suggest for that matter
Redb said | November 25th 2009 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Jaredsbro,
Recognising the stay at home factor is different in those States as you’ve alluded to the AFL has set up Academies.
This is all fairly new but my understanding is the intention is to create an permanent option for a young NSW or QLD to sya in his state by picking one of the local teams.
I think they’re still sorting out the zoning of NSW say for the Swans and GWS, but each club would look at potential candidates and discuss options.
So the AFL has addressed the issue you mentioned. it’s more important in the ‘developing’ states to offer this choice epsecially given Melbourne’s image and err I guess it’s infamous unpredictable weather.
Redb
olrac said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
The main difference is the AFLPA, they are willing to play ball with the AFL because of certain promises by the AFL to look at free agency. If the AFLPA suddenly decided that they want to throw their weight around then the AFL would be in trouble. So we will see free agency in the near future (5 – 10 years) it will just be interesting the restrictions that are put on it.
Michael C said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
don’t forget, for now, the AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou is a former player and former AFLPA CEO.
Demetriou himself drove the ‘collective bargaining’ barrow in his time.
The AFLPA get’s to drive a fair bit – - it was the AFLPA who drove the ‘health/wellbeing” focus of the Illicit Drugs policy.
It’s hard to see there NOT being a sympathetic relationship even with a non-ALFPA AFL CEO. It is after all such a symbiotic existance for a single elite professional league code.
Michael C said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
Tifosi -
probably,
26 years ago we had Silvio Foschini successfully argue restraint of trade with the old VFL transfer rules……in 1984 new transfer rules were implemented and the salary cap in 1985. Then Nov 1986 came the first national draft.
The VFL (AFL) formulated their rules in full light of the prospect of ‘restraint of trade’ challenges – - but, have the position that the draft and TPP (total player payments) rules are restraints that are reasonable to run a fair and equitable AFL competition across all the clubs.
So, restraint of trade is acknowledged. It’s the ‘fair and reasonable’ element that is a shade of grey and it’s that shade of grey that you’d imagine will be legally tested from time to time.
Redb said | November 25th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Good post MC.
The AFLPA should always keep its legal options open and not ever let the AFL admin have the upper hand. This forces the AFL to ensure players salaries are commensurate with the revenue generated by the game.
Also that the AFL is a viable money alternative when choosing sports – it’s more or less in the AFL’s interests to keep the salaries attractive long term.
GC and WS are about growing both opportunties for players (add another 80 AFL players) and increasing the revenue in the game long term.
Grow the pie, distribute the pie, grow the pie again.
Redb
albatross said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
“That’s where the Magic comes in,” explained Redb “The more you eats the more you gets. Cut-an’-come-again is his name, an’ cut, an’ come again, is his nature. AFLPA and the clubs has been eatin’ away at this Puddin’ for years, and there’s not a mark on him.Perhaps,” he added, “you would like to hear how we came to own this remarkable Puddin’.”
Redb said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
I know a good use for fishing line.
albatross said | November 25th 2009 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
What you and your good spouse do in the privacy of your connubial bliss is not a topic for The Roar.
Redb said | November 26th 2009 @ 6:53am | Report comment
watch out for those drift nets.
Redb said | November 26th 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/87451/default.aspx
Burgan’s phantom draft.
Check out this bloke:
Pick 18 – MELBOURNE – Max Gawn
DOB: 28/12/91, Height: 208cm, Weight: 104kg
Recruited from: Ormond/Sandringham Dragons
Draft range: 16-36
The tallest player to have come through draft camp in 16 years, Gawn has come right into top 20 calculations in recent weeks and is firming for the Dees at No.18. With just Mark Jamar, Paul Johnson and rookie Jake Spencer on Melbourne’s list, the club will target a ruckman. Gawn suffered a knee injury just before the under-18s, but remains one of the most sought-after players in this draft. If Port Adelaide doesn’t take the athletic giant at No.16 and Melbourne looks elsewhere – perhaps to the Northern Territory’s Troy Taylor – Fremantle will snap him up at No.20. Despite strong speculation, don’t expect the Dees to head down the Luke Ball path.
What a giant – 208 cm!
Redb
Michael C said | November 26th 2009 @ 8:44pm | Report comment
and the Dees got him at pick 34,
Aaron Sandilands watch out!!