One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: WilliamPowell on October 13, 2009, 05:42:29 PM
-
For those interested and/or near a wireless tomorrow morning (Wed) Benny Gale will be on KB's show on SEN
Let's hope KB doesn't take up the entire interview talking about free agency
-
KB is a bitter old man.
Maybe he'll spend the rest of the interview talking about Kevin Shhedy's coaching aspirations. :whistle
-
KB will probably asked if Benny Gale along with Nick Riewoldt and Goddard are going to buy the Brighton Hotel.
If anyone can provide a summary of what is said related to Richmond it will be much appreciated :).
-
Benny Gale:
Cracking down on staging:
Doesn't like it, our game is about bravery and courage. Admits though, like most players, he staged for a few.
Hard to enforce.
Luke Ball in limbo:
Sad to see. We'd be looking at him, not in the ND though. Going for youth in our 9-10 picks, would look at him in the PSD.
Trade week:
Wanting to retain our picks. Pretty clear we're rebuilding with youth again. Hardwick has a blueprint for success focussed on youth. We have some 23-24 year old established players. Want to establish a good core of 21-25 year olds.
2010:
Young core group. Damien is a passionate teacher. Defensive mindset, non-negotiable.
Assistant coaches:
Lade: Mid and ruck coach. Very smart and astute, Damien rated his footy nous highly, was very keen to get him
Campbell:
Leppitsch: Defensive coach. Strong and outgoing personality.
Newett: Coburg coach
Tim Clarke: Development coach
Wanted to get a good development team in, seeing as we'll be a very young side.
Spending spree:
Teaching/Development tools. 8-9 young draftees coming in, need to teach them quickly as possible.
Richo:
Training starts 26th October, for majority. Richo gets an extra week or two.
There is a role for him, but he hasn't made a decision yet.
Shane Tuck:
Still at Tigerland, at the gym this morning pumping iron.
Trade didn't eventuate, is a required player still
Being CEO:
He's happy to be back in club. 4-5 weeks has been getting a good understanding of recent history.
Finalising the budget.
Exciting times ahead. Coach with a clear blueprint, injection of youth in this years draft.
-
Summary:
*Benny's views on staging for frees? BG considers it a blight on the game, that was the view he held when CEO of the AFLPA
* trade Week: yes club was quiet that was the plan. Key for the RFC was to hold onto its draft picks. Focus is to draft youth to compliment our core group of young 21-23 yo players (eg Lids, Tambling etc). The RFC's path is clearly re-building as that is part of Harwicks "blue print for success"
* Luke Ball: as former head of the AFLPA extremely disappointed with what happened to Ball. Would the Tigers be interested? Yes but not in the Nat Draft - would certainly have a look at him in the PSD. Would bring great leadership to our young list
* Expectations for 2010-2011: will be developing years with the youth coming in via the draft to compliment the core group. We had one of the oldest lists, will now have one of the youngest
* Hardwick: extremely passionate about teaching/developing as much as coaching. The non-negotiables = defensive mindset and competitive mindset
* New Coaches: Lade = Ruck/Mids - Benny didn't know him personally but Dimma rates him highly and really wanted him at tigerland. Cambo - knows & understands the list intimately. Leppa = strong outgoing personality which will be good for our group and especially our young backs. Newett & Clarke = development - didn't really say much about them
* Salary Cap in 2010: wont be paying 100%. With all the older blokes gone no need to pay it. Extra spend in footy dept is focused on investing in teaching and development of our young list.
* training starts 26/10/09
* Richo - Benny said they are waiting in confirmation from Matthew. KB said he thought it was confirmed. Benny said Richo's on holidays at the minute, they are hopeful but it up to Richo
* Tucky - said Tucky is back at the club and looking forward to 2010 - was actually working out in the gym as the interview was going on. Beeny suggested that Tucky had requested a trade :P (ED: oops Benny you got that very wrong)
* Happy to be back in a club environment. A massive challenge but none the less exciting times with the development about to properly start. The old Social club is about to be "de-commissioned" ( I think that means demolished ;D). Was just finalising the budgets
* Reiterated the club has a clear vision for the future and it is exciting
-
great to hear we are only going to draft 17/18 year olds in this years National Draft.
8-10 picks, WOW! that is a lot, but good.
does training actually start Oct 26? and are they now training at there new training ground?
where is the new ground anyway?
:)
-
great to hear we are only going to draft 17/18 year olds in this years National Draft.
8-10 picks, WOW! that is a lot, but good.
does training actually start Oct 26? and are they now training at there new training ground?
where is the new ground anyway?
:)
Training starts Oct 26th. Under the CBA players are entitled to 8 weeks off - so 26/10/09 it is.
Players on their own time can go to the gym but it isn't official training
As for where it will be - who knows? Perhaps Punt Road for running and then perhaps Gosch's Paddock
They may do some sessions at Craigieburn but currently there are no change rooms etc out there so at the moment it is a limited resource
-
great to hear we are only going to draft 17/18 year olds in this years National Draft.
8-10 picks, WOW! that is a lot, but good.
does training actually start Oct 26? and are they now training at there new training ground?
where is the new ground anyway?
:)
Training starts Oct 26th. Under the CBA players are entitled to 8 weeks off - so 26/10/09 it is.
Players on their own time can go to the gym but it isn't official training
As for where it will be - who knows? Perhaps Punt Road for running and then perhaps Gosch's Paddock
They may do some sessions at Craigieburn but currently there are no change rooms etc out there so at the moment it is a limited resource
thanks WP.
what is the address of the new Craigieburn Training Ground?
:)
-
Shane Tuck:
Still at Tigerland, at the gym this morning pumping iron.
Trade didn't eventuate, is a required player still
Maybe Tucky is working on the theory that the gym visibility worked for him 5 years ago so he's trying it again!
-
Audio replay of Benny Gale:
http://www.sportsentral.com/pro/main/storyreader.aspx?sid=18397&sr=all
-
good work lads, about the first Ive heard from Benny, all good :gotigers
-
Maybe Tucky is working on the theory that the gym visibility worked for him 5 years ago so he's trying it again!
I thought that was Cogs?
-
Tigers want Ball but won't waste draft picks
richmondfc.com.au
By Ben Broad | Wed 14 October, 2009
RICHMOND would be interested in Luke Ball but is unlikely to part with any of its picks in next month’s national draft to secure the disgruntled Saint.
Tigers chief executive Brendon Gale says he has a high regard for the former St Kilda captain and best-and-fairest winner but his club, under the guidance of new coach Damien Hardwick, is more intent on rebuilding.
Ball is still just 25 but given the Tigers’ desire to draft as many youngsters as it can, Gale doubts his club will have an opportunity to nab Ball.
“I wouldn’t have thought [we’d select him in] the national draft,” Gale told SEN on Wednesday.
“We’ve got eight or nine picks [so] we’ve got to exercise our judgement very carefully in getting those picks right; there’ll be a focus on youth and developing our own players.
“But certainly, if Luke was available in the pre-season draft – and I’m not convinced he will be by the time we get around [to having a pick] – but if he were available I’d imagine we’d be having a close look.
“At 24, 25 years of age I think it’d be a great opportunity [for him] to be a great role model and leader of our young and exciting, emerging players.”
Richmond has picks 3, 19, 35, 44, 51, 67 and 72 in next month’s NAB AFL Draft.
The Tigers will also have a pick in the pre-season draft but will follow Melbourne – which has flagged its interests in gaining Ball’s services.
Gale said Hardwick was eager to put an emphasis on competitiveness as well as instilling a defensive mindset in the Tigers’ camp.
“He’s got a blueprint for success, I think, which involves a number of ingredients, and there’s a real focus on youth,” Gale said.
“We’ve got some established players that are 22, 23 … we want to complement that core with a young group and have a core bunch of guys between 21 and 25 in the next few years.
“We want to reserve our draft picks to get those sort of players into the club.”
Richmond finished 15th in 2009 and despite the likelihood of an extra $500,000 being poured into the club’s football department next season, that might not correlate to better on-field results.
Gale said the club had gone some way to addressing its ageing list but Tigers fans couldn’t expect immediate success in the next two seasons.
“They’re going to be developing years, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that,” he said.
One man who has survived the cull – at least from the coaching staff’s point of view – is veteran Matthew Richardson.
But while many believe Richardson playing on is a fait accompli, Gale said the man himself was still deciding.
“As far as I know Matt’s yet to confirm whether he’s going to play on,” he said.
“I think there’s a role for him in the coach’s plans but really the decision is Matthew’s to go away and decide whether he has the capacity from a physical point of view and the conviction to go around another year.
“At this stage we’re confident he will, but we’re just awaiting final confirmation from Matt … my understanding is that he’s just reserving his judgement for a little bit longer.”
http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/86067/default.aspx
-
Maybe Tucky is working on the theory that the gym visibility worked for him 5 years ago so he's trying it again!
I thought that was Cogs?
Nah, last choice on the list in Wallace's first year came down to between Tuck and Fleming. Wallace saw Tuck in the gym every day in the off-season - figured that said enough and the rest is history.
-
Should have keep Fleming
-
10 picks in national draft?
3, 19, 35, 44, 51,
67, 72, 83, ?, ?
It is a worry 6 of our 10 picks are after 50 :-\
-
10 picks in national draft?
3, 19, 35, 44, 51,
67, 72, 83, ?, ?
It is a worry 6 of our 10 picks are after 50 :-\
try again ;)
-
10 picks in national draft?
3, 19, 35, 44, 51,
67, 72, 83, ?, ?
It is a worry 6 of our 10 picks are after 50 :-\
A couple of those will be filled by rookie elevations while another one or two will be PSD picks. Another is very likely to go to an 'older' established VFL player. So all in all we won't be using many choices beyond pick 51 in the National Draft.
-
why do they want to play Post in the back line?
Post should be played in the forward line!
:)
-
Postie can play at either end.
what is the address of the new Craigieburn Training Ground?
:)
Corner of Grand Boulevard and Windrock Ave IIRC.
Maybe Tucky is working on the theory that the gym visibility worked for him 5 years ago so he's trying it again!
I thought that was Cogs?
Nah it was Tucky. Plough was tossing up who to cut out of Tuck and Tim Fleming and he saw Tucky working hard in the gym so Tucky got the nod and Fleming was delisted.
-
10 picks in national draft?
3, 19, 35, 44, 51,
67, 72, 83, ?, ?
It is a worry 6 of our 10 picks are after 50 :-\
A couple of those will be filled by rookie elevations while another one or two will be PSD picks. Another is very likely to go to an 'older' established VFL player. So all in all we won't be using many choices beyond pick 51 in the National Draft.
The article says pick 72 will be our last National Draft pick so it's 3 picks after 50 out of the 7. Picks 67 and 72 may come forward as well if others clubs don't go past the 3rd or 4th rounds of the draft. We won't know that until the 2nd list lodgement.
9 senior spots freed: Johnson, Brown, Cogs, Schulz, Raines, JON, Hughes, Petts, Patto. Bowden (vet) was outside the senior list.
ND: 3, 19, 35, 44, 51, 67, 72.
PSD: 2
Nahas promoted.
If Polak and Putt are gone as well then there's two more senior spots to fill. Another rookie elevation (Browne?) as Stripes suggested, a 2nd PSD pick, or even Richo as a vet can be moved back inside the senior list.
-
Could be 3 rookie promotions ;)
Will know by the 30/10/09
-
Could be 3 rookie promotions ;)
Will know by the 30/10/09
What is the status of Gourdis? Where is he? Anyone see any chance at all for him to make it?
-
Could be 3 rookie promotions ;)
Will know by the 30/10/09
Forgot to reply to this post WP.
I'm not sure why we would promote three :o of our rookies when there aren't that many that deserve promotion. Nahas the only one who possibly does. Does the 3rd include Polly if he's made a mature rookie?
In fact there's an argument not to promote any of them before the final list lodgements as we'll be able to promote one just prior to round 1 given we have only one player (Richo) on the veteran list.
-
MT surely you'd reward Nahas with promotion he was in our top 10 players last season, can't justify half the list if you don't promote Robbie.
-
Could be 3 rookie promotions ;)
Will know by the 30/10/09
Forgot to reply to this post WP.
I'm not sure why we would promote three :o of our rookies when there aren't that many that deserve promotion. Nahas the only one who possibly does. Does the 3rd include Polly if he's made a mature rookie?
In fact there's an argument not to promote any of them before the final list lodgements as we'll be able to promote one just prior to round 1 given we have only one player (Richo) on the veteran list.
I am thinking there will 2 definites and possibly a 3rd. And no I'm not including Polly - can't promote him off the rookie list when he isn't on it.
I am working to get Chutney on the sauce to get more info :thumbsup
-
I'll have a stab - Nahas, Silvester and possibly Browne.
-
MT surely you'd reward Nahas with promotion he was in our top 10 players last season, can't justify half the list if you don't promote Robbie.[/b]
As promising as Robbie was this year, that bit in bold is more a reflection on the state of our list and the pathetic effort from most of our players this year than Robbie sadly.
I believe Robbie will be promoted shortly but what I was saying is the Club could also keep him on as a rookie (pay him more as a reward for 2009 - new rule?) and keep a senior list spot open at the draft to pick up another kid say. As a rookie Robbie could still play seniors in 2010 as our one allowed promoted rookie prior to round 1 and if he backs up and improves on 2009 (opposition clubs will do their homework on him over summer) then promote him to the senior list for 2011. Robbie was a bright spot on a disaster of the year but there's still some question marks on him for mine. Am I being harsh on him .... yep probably ..... but we need to lift our demands from our players at Punt Rd. If we learn anything from recent years it is we need our players to perform over multiple years before we treat them as having made it at AFL level.
-
I'll have a stab - Nahas, Silvester and possibly Browne.
I must admit I'll be absolutely stunned if Silvester survives the cut. A top VFL defender but that's it. Too slow for AFL footy.
I'd rather take the chance on a new rookie. Sure this newbie could equally fail but there's the odd chance we may find some kid who is a late developer. Despite the ever increasingly sophisticated recruiting methods there are still a few diamonds in the rough picked up late in the National draft or even in the rookie draft if a Club has done it's homework on all these kids. Going with a kid with a 1% chance is still better than hanging onto an existing player who you know has no chance.
As for Browne - his size and ruck potential despite being very raw is something to work with but that should be as a rookie. His kicking is the major question mark on him.
From a football ability and performance point of view, Nahas is our only rookie who has earnt the chance for promotion. The only reason I can fathom for promoting any other rookie is the Club is again trying to "save" money which is at odds to March's claim that we are boosting footy dept. expenditure by $500k. If we were to again to re-sign players for only financial reasons (to a 1 year deal over choosing a new draftee on a 2-year deal) then we'll be just repeating the same list management mistakes of the past.
-
I'll have a stab - Nahas, Silvester and possibly Browne.
Close but no cigar - right names wrong order
I must admit I'll be absolutely stunned if Silvester survives the cut. A top VFL defender but that's it. Too slow for AFL footy.
I am not saying he should stay I am not saying he should go. Just think with this new rookie rule he has more chance of staying. On promotion to the senior list ..... again just my opinion but I wouldn't be surprised if he gets promoted. I actually think he is up to AFL standard and a lot quicker than people think. If you have a look at some really early games of Will Thursfield you'd question whether he was ever going to make it too, look at him now :thumbsup
And besides if Silvestor does get promoted it will be great for ...............the likes of Jordie McMahon because it mean there's another whipping boy for the masses, might take the fog lights of Jordie for 3 minutes ;D
From a football ability and performance point of view, Nahas is our only rookie who has earnt the chance for promotion. The only reason I can fathom for promoting any other rookie is the Club is again trying to "save" money which is at odds to March's claim that we are boosting footy dept. expenditure by $500k. If we were to again to re-sign players for only financial reasons (to a 1 year deal over choosing a new draftee on a 2-year deal) then we'll be just repeating the same list management mistakes of the past.
MT you are assuming though that the promoted rookie is only getting one year deals - what if they are to get 2 years? The financial argument becomes redundant
I look at it this way, if the draft talent pool is so shallow this year, which is the better option? Promoting a rookie eg Nahas who has shown he can play at AFL but needs more development or using pick 80 odd on a kid that is more likely not to succeed than to succeed. Remembering that come the end of 2010 you maybe in the position to be able to trade the promoted rookie to another club for a earlier draft pick than number 80. If someone like Nahas improves on his 2009 he will worth more alot more to us in 2010 come trade time
-
I am not saying he should stay I am not saying he should go. Just think with this new rookie rule he has more chance of staying. On promotion to the senior list ..... again just my opinion but I wouldn't be surprised if he gets promoted. I actually think he is up to AFL standard and a lot quicker than people think. If you have a look at some really early games of Will Thursfield you'd question whether he was ever going to make it too, look at him now :thumbsup
Will played well on and beat O'Loughlin and Nick Riewoldt in his first 7 games before he did his knee. Not a bad start for a 19 year old ;). The only time Will has looked "slow" was in round 1 this year when Robinson on debut gave him a bath. Will was struggling with off-field 'issues' though and it was a poor match-up to begin with.
Silvester is 24 going on 25 in January. He's hardly shown anything at AFL level and there's hardly any improvement left in him.
And besides if Silvestor does get promoted it will be great for ...............the likes of Jordie McMahon because it mean there's another whipping boy for the masses, might take the fog lights of Jordie for 3 minutes ;D
LOL. I wouldn't wish that on anyone ;D.
MT you are assuming though that the promoted rookie is only getting one year deals - what if they are to get 2 years? The financial argument becomes redundant
I agree WP. Sorry I probably didn't explain that too well. I was referring the Greg Miller's argument that the reason we kept players on in past rather than picking up more kids late in the National draft was because the Club saved money and wasn't restricted to 2-year deals that you must give all new kids picked up in the ND no matter how late that pick is. My argument against Greg's was why keep a player on who you know isn't up to it even for one more year. You're better off back your recruiting staff and going with a kid late in the draft.
I look at it this way, if the draft talent pool is so shallow this year, which is the better option? Promoting a rookie eg Nahas who has shown he can play at AFL but needs more development or using pick 80 odd on a kid that is more likely not to succeed than to succeed. Remembering that come the end of 2010 you maybe in the position to be able to trade the promoted rookie to another club for a earlier draft pick than number 80. If someone like Nahas improves on his 2009 he will worth more alot more to us in 2010 come trade time
The National draft comes before the rookie draft though. I would've thought the chances (however slim) of finding a diamond in the rough would be greater if it's a kid taken late in the ND rather than waiting for the rookie draft where GC17 has the first 5 picks and every other club has picks in ladder order. Clubs this year will be also looking at state league players especially in the SANFL. Apparently it's rumoured we are keen on someone from the WAFL.
Clubs in the past usually skipped the late picks in the National draft and waited for the rookie draft because the cost of taking a kid is about a quarter to a third of that of a kid taken in the National draft. It's more a financial decision and encourages clubs to take on more kids. With such a shallow draft I think it'll be necessary to jump ahead of other clubs and use late ND picks and/or even our PSD pick on a kid(s) who may go before our pick 7 in the rookie draft.
-
I am not saying he should stay I am not saying he should go. Just think with this new rookie rule he has more chance of staying. On promotion to the senior list ..... again just my opinion but I wouldn't be surprised if he gets promoted. I actually think he is up to AFL standard and a lot quicker than people think. If you have a look at some really early games of Will Thursfield you'd question whether he was ever going to make it too, look at him now :thumbsup
Will played well on and beat O'Loughlin and Nick Riewoldt in his first 7 games before he did his knee. Not a bad start for a 19 year old ;). The only time Will has looked "slow" was in round 1 this year when Robinson on debut gave him a bath. Will was struggling with off-field 'issues' though and it was a poor match-up to begin with.
Silvester is 24 going on 25 in January. He's hardly shown anything at AFL level and there's hardly any improvement left in him.
Sorry I didn't explain to well - I wasn't talking about his early AFL games I was talking about his early beginnings at Coburg
I suppose this is where we disagree on Silvestor. I have think he has shown something at AFL level especially in the games against North & Essendon. I think his skill level by footy is a helluva lot better than some of his more establsihed team mates. Also, there are some commentators (one was Alves who I rate highly) who were impressed with his limited AFL exposure who believe there is something to work with
The National draft comes before the rookie draft though. I would've thought the chances (however slim) of finding a diamond in the rough would be greater if it's a kid taken late in the ND rather than waiting for the rookie draft where GC17 has the first 5 picks and every other club has picks in ladder order. Clubs this year will be also looking at state league players especially in the SANFL. Apparently it's rumoured we are keen on someone from the WAFL.
Clubs in the past usually skipped the late picks in the National draft and waited for the rookie draft because the cost of taking a kid is about a quarter to a third of that of a kid taken in the National draft. It's more a financial decision and encourages clubs to take on more kids. With such a shallow draft I think it'll be necessary to jump ahead of other clubs and use late ND picks and/or even our PSD pick on a kid(s) who may go before our pick 7 in the rookie draft.
Disagree if Nahas is a better long term option than say a speculative pick 80 or PSD pick 2 - he should be on the senior list. I would think that the late picks in this years ND (say 60-70+) are going to be used on VFL, SANFL or WAFL players and I see promoting a Nahas a much better option as it stands at the moment
-
Sorry I didn't explain to well - I wasn't talking about his early AFL games I was talking about his early beginnings at Coburg
I suppose this is where we disagree on Silvestor. I have think he has shown something at AFL level especially in the games against North & Essendon. I think his skill level by footy is a helluva lot better than some of his more establsihed team mates. Also, there are some commentators (one was Alves who I rate highly) who were impressed with his limited AFL exposure who believe there is something to work with
Yes except Thursfield only played half a season Coburg reserves in his first year was elevated to AFL level in Round 14 and performed admirabily on some very dangerous forwards. He had only just turned 19 when he debuted at AFL level.
Silvestor had his first taste of AFL level at 23 years old in the NAB Cup and had a diabolical performance in a game that wasn't even full speed/intensity AFL level. He was 24 on debut and will be 25 next year, yet while he's done a couple of OK things on the field, he's not exactly made shown any sign of being anything but a last resort depth player in defence. He'll be 25 next year which means his scope for improvement is minimal.
I'd understand keeping him as a rookie in case our defenders are hit with injury. However if we can pick up a couple of kpps in the draft, especially another defender, then I really don't see much point in keeping him.
I agree with your point of Thursfield not showing much at Coburg level before he was elevated, however I don't get your comparison. Thursfield showed nothing at VFL reserves level but showed plenty at AFL level. Silvestor has done everything he possibly can at VFL level, but shown very little at AFL level despite being far more mature, he's still more than a year older than Thursfield.
-
I agree with your point of Thursfield not showing much at Coburg level before he was elevated, however I don't get your comparison. Thursfield showed nothing at VFL reserves level but showed plenty at AFL level. Silvestor has done everything he possibly can at VFL level, but shown very little at AFL level despite being far more mature, he's still more than a year older than Thursfield.
It's just my opinion Infamy. the comparison? I just think we seem to rate his performance on what people think it should be for a person of his age as opposed to what he has shown. If we based opinions soley on first up performanaces then half the players on our list would be elsewhere (I can hear the screams of so they should ;D). Kel Moore was another that when he first played AFL foorty after what was it? 2 years as a rookie and close to nearly 3 years at Coburg he had people asking questions, it probably took 2 full years playing AFL before he was considered one of our main back 6
Bottom line is personally I rate Silvestor higher than some blokes that are currently senior listed.
As for his first up NAB Cup performance - agree it was terrible but he wasnt the first and definteily wont be the last to start off that way. What probably isn't known Silvestor should have played AFL the first year he was a rookie but because of his age, the powers that be at the RFC at the time said NO, simply because of the rule that said if he plays a senior game at 23 he cannot be a retained as a rookie ( ;) source = Chutney)...I sometimes wonder what may have been if they had bitten the bullet played him earlier....
-
Moore had plenty of injury problems which affected him making an impact earlier
He had a very promising few games during his first year as a rookie
-
Disagree if Nahas is a better long term option than say a speculative pick 80 or PSD pick 2 - he should be on the senior list. I would think that the late picks in this years ND (say 60-70+) are going to be used on VFL, SANFL or WAFL players and I see promoting a Nahas a much better option as it stands at the moment
At this moment Nahas is a better option because we know what he offers and looking at him in isolation he would be deserving of a senior list spot. However from perspective of looking at our whole list and the upcoming draft we'd be better off keeping him on the rookie list and using "his" would be senior list spot on a kid. Now I know what I'm suggesting sounds crazy as senior list spots should really be for those who are more deserving of them but with the compromised drafts I'm making an exception for two reasons:
(i) with only one veteran next year we now have the right to nominate a rookie to play seniors from round 1 without requiring anyone to be on the LTIL. Nahas would be the obvious choice so from a team selection perspective it makes no difference whether Robbie is on our senior list or rookie list. Hell, pay him a senior list salary so he's not out of pocket financially. We can always promote him for 2011.
(ii) With the shallow draft getting in early will be an advantage (however small) at least from the view of first in gives you a greater number of kids to choose from. I'm talking about using our last National draft pick and/or PSD pick as a means of getting in early on the rookie draft especially as GC17 will have the first 5 picks. The chance of finding a kid in the rookie draft that will be as good if not better than Nahas will be next to none if the National draft alone beyond pick 40 is shallow. From our list prespective it's more advantageous to keep Nahas and Browne as rookies and use the National draft to load up on kids. Effectively using our last ND pick or two (picks 83, 99 say) as pseudo early rookie picks.
-
What probably isn't known Silvestor should have played AFL the first year he was a rookie but because of his age, the powers that be at the RFC at the time said NO, simply because of the rule that said if he plays a senior game at 23 he cannot be a retained as a rookie ( ;) source = Chutney)
:gobdrop
What fantastic list management :rollin. So we said we won't play someone on our list because we wanted to wait until the following year before seeing whether he can play at AFL level. Whose pea brain idea was that? :o :help.
ps. Infamy said what I would say about Silvester WP. I know it can be argued that Silvester may be better than others on our list but that's more an indictment on our list :-\. The Cat is terrific at VFL level and gives his all so I don't like bagging him but IMO I just don't see anything that convinces me he'll make it at AFL level especially in a top 4 side which is what we want to become.
-
What probably isn't known Silvestor should have played AFL the first year he was a rookie but because of his age, the powers that be at the RFC at the time said NO, simply because of the rule that said if he plays a senior game at 23 he cannot be a retained as a rookie ( ;) source = Chutney)
:gobdrop
What fantastic list management :rollin. So we said we won't play someone on our list because we wanted to wait until the following year before seeing whether he can play at AFL level. Whose pea brain idea was that? :o :help.
All had to do with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - you know it's cheaper to keep 'em on the rookie list. But it doesn't matter now all in the past
ps. Infamy said what I would say about Silvester WP. I know it can be argued that Silvester may be better than others on our list but that's more an indictment on our list :-\. The Cat is terrific at VFL level and gives his all so I don't like bagging him but IMO I just don't see anything that convinces me he'll make it at AFL level especially in a top 4 side which is what we want to become.
As I said it's just my opinion and to see others on the list, that are lucky to be there and he isn't gets me goat up a bit. As I said I reckon given a clear run (say -10 games straight) he would show he is worth it
-
.........Nahas would be the obvious choice so from a team selection perspective it makes no difference whether Robbie is on our senior list or rookie list. Hell, pay him a senior list salary so he's not out of pocket financially. We can always promote him for 2011.
Are you allowed to pay rookies different amounts MT? Just asking because I don't know but I had it in my mind that rookies were on a standard rate of pay?
-
.........Nahas would be the obvious choice so from a team selection perspective it makes no difference whether Robbie is on our senior list or rookie list. Hell, pay him a senior list salary so he's not out of pocket financially. We can always promote him for 2011.
Are you allowed to pay rookies different amounts MT? Just asking because I don't know but I had it in my mind that rookies were on a standard rate of pay?
You can, but anything over the standard set salary is now included in the TPP
GC17 were going to use the loophole in the rule to pay Karmichael Hunt $1m over 3 years or $1m per year and have it outside the TPP
Something like that anyway, not sure what is happening with that now the AFL have changed the rule
-
.........Nahas would be the obvious choice so from a team selection perspective it makes no difference whether Robbie is on our senior list or rookie list. Hell, pay him a senior list salary so he's not out of pocket financially. We can always promote him for 2011.
Are you allowed to pay rookies different amounts MT? Just asking because I don't know but I had it in my mind that rookies were on a standard rate of pay?
You can, but anything over the standard set salary is now included in the TPP
GC17 were going to use the loophole in the rule to pay Karmichael Hunt $1m over 3 years or $1m per year and have it outside the TPP
Something like that anyway, not sure what is happening with that now the AFL have changed the rule
Not sure in Hunt's case but you'd think with the salary cap concessions both new clubs are getting, GC17 will be able to fit Hunt in. The AFL will make sure it's allowed anyway given the publicity Hunt's switch of codes has generated.
As for Robbie we should be stretching to reach the 92.5% minimum so we should have plenty of salary cap room to play with.
-
All had to do with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ - you know it's cheaper to keep 'em on the rookie list.
And even cheaper not having them on our list altogether ;)
But it doesn't matter now all in the past
Fair enough. Let's hope basing list management decisions on finances and trying to save a short-term buck is in the past as well. It's hurt us far too often holding onto list cloggers for far too long. The mantra at Richmond should be "unknown" kid > known dud with no future. Clubs who put their faith and resources into the draft eventually succeed.