Scrap father-son rule
22 April 2006 Herald Sun
Mike Sheahan
THE AFL should stop pandering to football's romantics and abandon the father-son rule.
That's the blunt view of Grant Thomas, St Kilda's coach and a father of eight, including four boys.
"At the end of the day, we're trying to create a national competition and I think all bets should be off in relation to father and son," he said.
"I understand the philosophy behind it, trying to retain the romance of sons playing where fathers played.
"But football has become far too competitive and it needs to be far more transparent in relation to recruiting, and eliminate all the anomalies.
"Unfortunately, the rule's a victim of the competitiveness and the need for transparency, and, I suppose, the brutal nature of the game.
"I don't believe the rule will be around, be it 10 years or 20 years, so let's deal with it now."
According to AFL Record 2006, the Saints haven't had a father-son selection since David Sierakowski in 1992.
The preponderance of daughters for the club's greats, including Tony Lockett, Danny Frawley and Nathan Burke, who have 10 daughters between them, indicates that trend is unlikely to change.
Thomas said St Kilda's situation had nothing to do with his thinking.
"I'd like to think I'm a little bit more objective than that," Thomas said.
"The fact we've had bugger-all father-son opportunities only means we should probably get some in the future.
"That's how it goes. You can't convince me the water down the Bellarine Peninsula is better (Geelong has five sons of former players on its 2006 list)."
Thomas said clubs keen on the sons of famous players had to "pay the price".
He used the example of Essendon and a son of James Hird to illustrate his point.
"If we fast-track 15 years and Jimmy Hird's son is up for grabs and he was absolutely determined to get to Essendon and Essendon were absolutely determined to get him, then there'd be some reluctance in using your No. 1 draft choice to secure the boy," Thomas said.
"You would know there was a strong possibility, in two years' time, or whenever his contract's up, he'll go, anyway. If Essendon were able to convince St Kilda there was more value in them having James Hird's son than us, and were able to assist accordingly with draft choices, then you would do a deal. You ask yourself, `What's the smart decision for the club to make?'
"If a club is keen for a boy to play with their club because the father did, and there's some intrinsic value in that, well, they have to pay the price. I just don't think the benefits of the rule as it stands outweigh the concerns.
"It's a little bit like umpiring and interpretations. The more interpretation we can eliminate, the better off we will be.
"The less chance clubs have of tampering, manipulating, putting in false bids, the better for all of us. At the end of the day, all we're trying to do is help make it easier for a player to get to a club.
"That's probably the price the club concerned has to pay, not 16 clubs having a model that doesn't work."
Thomas said he would love one of his boys to play for St Kilda, but only on merit.
"I wouldn't want any of my sons playing at St Kilda unless the club was determined to get them, rather than us getting him just because I happened to be his father," Thomas said.
(Thomas, though, does not qualify for the father-son rule, having played 72 games for the Saints).
"I would demand `Bevo' (recruiting manager John Beveridge) strip all the emotion aside, that he did it based on purely where he (his son) sat.
"I just think we're better off to bite the bullet, and say, `I'd love that bloke's son to play at that club', but there's more important things to be dealing with these days."
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,18886867%255E19742,00.html
