WC to lose draft picks???

Jaz · Post: # 477723Post **Jaz** » Tue 16 Oct 2007 11:31pm

TimeToShineFellas wrote:
Eastern wrote:SGIO will be reviewing their sponsorship of WCE early next week when their execs return from a Road Safety Conference in Melbourne !!
In other breaking news Carpet Call are expected to become the West Coast Eagles' new sponsors.

A Carpet call spokesman said West Coast and the company were an ideal match as both are pretty good at sweeping things under the rug hoping that no-one notices.......

not the best call i've ever heard

Life Long Saint · Wed 17 Oct 2007 7:28am

Riewoldting wrote:
Life Long Saint wrote:No...you would never receive those draft picks to trade them away.
Why wouldn't you receive the picks?

...because you've been penalised! Your punishment is loss of draft picks.

IMO, If the AFL decides to punish the Eagles this draft then they could only take away those picks allocated to the Eagles. Picks 3 & 20 are exempt as the are the result of the Judd trade.

When the AFL punished Carlton, they took away their first & second round picks. It was on the eve of the draft and that was for repeated salary cap breaches.

WCE have a rogue player. The punishment should be heavy fines and the player in question should be delisted. Personally, I'd be stunned if the Eagles don't do this themselves today. Benny has had too many chances now.

riccardo · Post: # 477891Post **riccardo** » Wed 17 Oct 2007 10:53am

Saints Premiers 2006 wrote:i disagree with them taking draft picks off

why should they be denied access to something they traded for involving a player that wanted to leave etc

premiership points might be something to look into

but not draft picks - that should be for instances like carlton's

The AFL made it quite clear to West Coast the last time this happened that they faced very harsh penalties, including losing draft picks and even premiership points if anything like this happened again.

The club by failing to adequately monitor a player they are fully aware is at risk of this behaviour is negligent, they knew the risks and should be punished.

Dan Warna · Post: # 477898Post **Dan Warna** » Wed 17 Oct 2007 11:09am

LOL like I care about WCE.

let the rot.

borderbarry · Wed 17 Oct 2007 11:39am

I dont see why the club, its supporters, and the other players should be penalized because of the off-field behaviour of one man.

riccardo · Post: # 477915Post **riccardo** » Wed 17 Oct 2007 11:42am

Because they were told that they would be, simple as that.

Its thier own fault for letting it get so far.

stkfc1 · Post: # 478670Post **stkfc1** » Thu 18 Oct 2007 2:46pm

When the AFL called the WC board over to melb to talk about BC it was a part of him coming back to play, that WC took full responsibility that BC wouldn't stuff up again! They were warned that inc fines lose of draft picks and/or premiership points. They let greed of another flag get in the way of BC personal problems OBVIOUSLY he wasn't ready. They knew the consequences, they rolled the dice ...and lost. Time to pay...

Mr Magic · Post: # 478674Post **Mr Magic** » Thu 18 Oct 2007 2:52pm

I know it's heresy and I'll risk being 'tarred and feathered' or 'burned at the stake'

but

Patrick Smith this morning on SEN called for the WCE to lose their first 2 picks in this year's draft (including pick 3 from Carlton for Judd)

and

anybody selected by the WCE with later picks to be given the option of not going to the Eagles.

The basis of his call for this action was the fact that teh WCE met with the AFL and were not only warned of the consequences for any further transgressions but agreed (signed up?) to the penalties.

I realizr it is only Patrick and you cannot take anything he says/writes seriously, but I thought it was interesting.

st.byron · Post: # 478701Post **st.byron** » Thu 18 Oct 2007 3:38pm

stkfc1 wrote:When the AFL called the WC board over to melb to talk about BC it was a part of him coming back to play, that WC took full responsibility that BC wouldn't stuff up again! They were warned that inc fines lose of draft picks and/or premiership points. They let greed of another flag get in the way of BC personal problems OBVIOUSLY he wasn't ready. They knew the consequences, they rolled the dice ...and lost. Time to pay...

Agree with this. They've taken the chance and it's backfired. They should pay the cost.

saintspremiers · Thu 18 Oct 2007 5:32pm

st.byron wrote:
stkfc1 wrote:When the AFL called the WC board over to melb to talk about BC it was a part of him coming back to play, that WC took full responsibility that BC wouldn't stuff up again! They were warned that inc fines lose of draft picks and/or premiership points. They let greed of another flag get in the way of BC personal problems OBVIOUSLY he wasn't ready. They knew the consequences, they rolled the dice ...and lost. Time to pay...

Agree with this. They've taken the chance and it's backfired. They should pay the cost.[/quote

exactly.

And the AFL sanctioned it.

If the AFL don't force the WCE to give up draft picks, Demetriou should stand down.

Howard already thinks Demetriou is a soft c*ck re the AFL drug policy.

Demetriou just burys his ugly head in the sand and pretends whatever drug policy you had wouldn't have picked up Cousins.

plugger66 · Post: # 478826Post **plugger66** » Thu 18 Oct 2007 5:56pm

saintspremiers wrote:
st.byron wrote:
stkfc1 wrote:When the AFL called the WC board over to melb to talk about BC it was a part of him coming back to play, that WC took full responsibility that BC wouldn't stuff up again! They were warned that inc fines lose of draft picks and/or premiership points. They let greed of another flag get in the way of BC personal problems OBVIOUSLY he wasn't ready. They knew the consequences, they rolled the dice ...and lost. Time to pay...

Agree with this. They've taken the chance and it's backfired. They should pay the cost.[/quote

exactly.

And the AFL sanctioned it.

If the AFL don't force the WCE to give up draft picks, Demetriou should stand down.

Howard already thinks Demetriou is a soft c*ck re the AFL drug policy.

Demetriou just burys his ugly head in the sand and pretends whatever drug policy you had wouldn't have picked up Cousins.

+

Well he is right in one way. The government dont want us to increase testing they just want one less strike so it wouldnt have changed anything.

bobmurray · Post: # 479105Post **bobmurray** » Fri 19 Oct 2007 12:07am

Its the off season,it's Ben Cousins person not Ben Cousins football player thats transgressed,its got fook all to do with the Eagles in this instance..

His career is done and dusted,his earning capacity is next to nothing,i think he's punished enough.......

He's probably heading towards a pine box quicker than his parents ever
dreamed of.....

Idiot..

Brian Collis · Fri 19 Oct 2007 12:20am

riccardo wrote:
Saints Premiers 2006 wrote:i disagree with them taking draft picks off

why should they be denied access to something they traded for involving a player that wanted to leave etc

premiership points might be something to look into

but not draft picks - that should be for instances like carlton's
The AFL made it quite clear to West Coast the last time this happened that they faced very harsh penalties, including losing draft picks and even premiership points if anything like this happened again.

The club by failing to adequately monitor a player they are fully aware is at risk of this behaviour is negligent, they knew the risks and should be punished.

What should they have done - hired a chaperone?

How can the club control his behaviour?

They set the guidelines, he's flouted them and they sacked him. They acted appropriately and so should not be punished.

Pretty simple hey!

Richter · Post: # 479117Post **Richter** » Fri 19 Oct 2007 12:45am

saintspremiers wrote: If the AFL don't force the WCE to give up draft picks, Demetriou should stand down.

Howard already thinks Demetriou is a soft c*ck re the AFL drug policy.

Demetriou just burys his ugly head in the sand and pretends whatever drug policy you had wouldn't have picked up Cousins.

Like Howard's any sort of expert? Anyhow he's be safely retired in a few weeks.

Perhaps you should have paid attention when a whole raft of D&A services (medical authorities and charities like Turning Point) applauded the AFL's policy a few weeks back.

Guess they wouldn't have as much clue as internet nuffies and John Howard though eh? They only work with substance abusers day in and day out.

borderbarry · Fri 19 Oct 2007 9:19am

I think WCE allocated draft picks are 13, 30, 46, 62, 78. The loss of these wont help us with our first pick but will down the track.

Unforgiven · Post: # 479155Post **Unforgiven** » Fri 19 Oct 2007 9:24am

WCE wont be loosing any picks. Maybe if the Judd trade didn't happen, but the AFL won't have WCE running around with Judd and no compensation

meher baba · Post: # 479158Post **meher baba** » Fri 19 Oct 2007 9:42am

Taking draft picks off the Eagles will be an appropriate punishment because..................????

I simply don't get it. How were they supposed to have stopped what happened on Tuesday? Anyway, as it won't be going to court for quite some time now, how can the AFL take any action until the case is completed?

And, if it is deemed to be appropriate to punish the Eagles, why take draft picks? I can't see how it is in any way an appropriate punishment, and its impact would be random and unpredictable (after all, there is no way of knowing whether or not the players who would have been drafted with the picks would have been any good or not).

A far better idea would be, for example, to withhold the TV rights money due to the Eagles for one year and give it to drug rehab services or some such.