One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: mightytiges on October 12, 2004, 03:27:26 AM
-
Given Kel Moore will be promoted from the rookie list, we will most likely have a senior list of 32 out of a maximum of 38 before draft day. With 6 spots to fill and one of them being the PSD pick that will only leave us with 5 picks in the draft (1,4,12,16,20) meaning we would have to pass on our 3d round pick #36 and 4th rounder #52, etc...
Should we delist one or more players and use one or more picks? If so who do you reckon will be delisted out of our out-of-contract blokes - Hilton, Pettifer, Weller and Newman
-
I would de-list one and use pick 36.
I would de-list Hilton - he is very lucky to be there IMO. I think his knee injury might have saved him because his efforts for a lot of his games certainly wouldn't. :help
But if Pettifer wants to walk - let him go and that solves the problem easily
-
I thought the maximum was 40 players and the minimum was 38. We had 39 last year and we were 1 short. Therefore if we were to go 1 short again we would need to fill 39 spots. Thus we need another 7. 6 in the PSD (using pick 36) and 1 in the PSD.
If the above is correct then I would also go further and delist another 2 and utilise picks 52 and 68. I would delist Hilton and Fleming without hesitation.
This would result in a total turnover of 11 players. Probably a conservative amount considering our pathetic performance of late.
The club would be absolutely negligent if did not use at least picks 36 and 52, considering we are rebuilding.
-
Given Kel Moore will be promoted from the rookie list, we will most likely have a senior list of 32 out of a maximum of 38 before draft day. With 6 spots to fill and one of them being the PSD pick that will only leave us with 5 picks in the draft (1,4,12,16,20) meaning we would have to pass on our 3d round pick #36 and 4th rounder #52, etc...
Should we delist one or more players and use one or more picks? If so who do you reckon will be delisted out of our out-of-contract blokes - Hilton, Pettifer, Weller and Newman
Better bloody not be Newman!
-
I thought the maximum was 40 players and the minimum was 38. We had 39 last year and we were 1 short. Therefore if we were to go 1 short again we would need to fill 39 spots. Thus we need another 7. 6 in the PSD (using pick 36) and 1 in the PSD.
The maximum number of players is actually 44 when you include senior listed players, rookies and Vets. 38 is the max for the senior list and the Clubs have the option of including their Vets separately in place of rookie spots. Also from 2005 you are not allowed to go "short".
This year we had Cambo and Duncan on the Vets list and used the option of not including them on our senior list (meaning we had at most 4 rookie spots in which we used 3 of them) so you're right Harry in saying that we had 37+2=39 "senior" players. Next year to save money ($125K per senior listed player) our 2 Vets in 2005 Cambo and Richo will be included within the senior list of 38. So we now have 6 rookie spots available each costing the far lesser amount of about $25K (probably use half of them = 3 again).
-
Next year to save money ($125K per senior listed player) our 2 Vets in 2005 Cambo and Richo will be included within the senior list of 38.
Has this been confirmed anywhere ?
I would be disappointed if we didn't use picks 36 and 52.
We are in a rebuilding phase and we must not neglect these 2 handy picks. We got Jackson at 53 and Raines much later on. There are other cost cutting measures, but do not sacrifice young talent. Delist others to make room.
-
Agree with double H, we must use those draft picks and get rid of dead wood. There are still plenty of guys that I'd get rid of to secure those two picks. Not sure of their contract situations but I wouldn't be disappointed at all if we got rid of the following players to make room: A Kellaway, Chaffey, Hilton, Weller, Morrison, Petiffer, Rodan, Tuck, Fleming. All are either past it, or not up to it.
-
Next year to save money ($125K per senior listed player) our 2 Vets in 2005 Cambo and Richo will be included within the senior list of 38.
Has this been confirmed anywhere ?
Miller said something along those lines about 3-4 weeks ago. Then again then circumstances may have changed since then with Otto and Fiora gone and us picking up picks 12 and 16.
http://oneeyed-richmond.com/forum/index.php?topic=857.msg8510#msg8510
-
Absoultely MUST use those two picks.
I said this B4....... this year is supposed to be a fairly deep draft. Every year young players are fitter stronger and more ready for the rigors of AFL footy.
By passing on two Draft picks for two average (at best) players we are slitting our own throats.
I'm a young guy, 25, and I still play competitive sport (and I'm not crap by any means) but I know that I am not up to some of the younger developing kids I compete against. If we don't take up the Draft pick on offer I would be so dissappointed. :banghead
I would liken it to being offered a new HSV (fords suck) and knocking it back because you like your toyota crapbox which is five years old (in paris Hiltons cace this would be a Toyota Crown 82 model).
I equation is simple Tiger fans we must take the Kids :thumbsup
-
I just made a few errors in that last post because I'm a bit passionate about this subject but you get the drift. ::)
-
I'm with you H Tiger.
Not drafting up to pick 52 would be a mistake and not drafting up to 36 would be a complete joke. Other clubs would laugh at us. I don't care how much it will cost, we must use these picks !!
What I want to see is this -
- Promote Moore and Foley
- Delist Hilton and one other (Pettifer, Weller or Fleming)
- Pick up 7 kids in the draft (1,4,12,16,20,36,52)
- Pick up another kid in the PSD (either Salopek or Hadlee)
- Pick up another 4 rookies in the rookie draft.
So therefore along with the 6 kids we got last year, plus Schulz, Moore, Foley and Tuck, plus the 7 picked in the national draft, one in the PSD and 4 in the rookie draft, it would all in all give us 22 players under the age of 20/21.
Recruit in this fashion for a couple more years then in about 4-5 years you will DEFINATELY catch up to the pack.
If a third of these kids recruited in the next few years turn out to be good/great players then we will be halfway to being flag contenders.
This is the way to go !!
If we continue to be conservative then we will stagnate as we have been for so long.
-
I don't disagree with that Harry and HT.
As WP pointed out in another thread Moore will most likely be promoted as he has already spent the maximum 2 years as a rookie and either we promote him or delist him. Foley I'd reckon will remain on the rookie list. If we promoted both we would need to delist 3 players to be able to use both picks 36 and 52.
-
Agree with double H, we must use those draft picks and get rid of dead wood. There are still plenty of guys that I'd get rid of to secure those two picks. Not sure of their contract situations but I wouldn't be disappointed at all if we got rid of the following players to make room: A Kellaway, Chaffey, Hilton, Weller, Morrison, Petiffer, Rodan, Tuck, Fleming. All are either past it, or not up to it.
Have to disagree with you about Tuck JF. He was in the bests almost every week for Coburg (don';t ask me why he couldn't get a game in the ones). He's also got good size and is pretty hard at it.
Agree with the others though.
Also, I think we'd be crazy not to use pick 52. Going on GH's mock on footydraft, players like Gilham, Knights, May and JD Smith may all be available. No way is it worth keeping Hilton etc if we can get one of these guys.
-
I believe that Pettifer has another year to run. I thought he was out of contract and the end of last season and he signed a new 2 year deal.
Correct me if i am mistaken.
-
I was told that you cannot downgrade a player from the vet list. Therefore if this is the case Campbell will remain on the vet list. Therefore we currently have 30 players plus 1 vet. Promote Moore = 31 players + 1 vet. Therefore need 7 more to make 38. 6 natD (1,4,12,16,20,36) and 1 PSD. Can someone confirm ?
-
I was told that you cannot downgrade a player from the vet list. Therefore if this is the case Campbell will remain on the vet list. Therefore we currently have 30 players plus 1 vet. Promote Moore = 31 players + 1 vet. Therefore need 7 more to make 38. 6 natD (1,4,12,16,20,36) and 1 PSD. Can someone confirm ?
HarryH, veterans can either be included in the list of 38 or outside it (eg list of 38 + vets). Campbell will remain on the vets list in 2005 and Richo will be put on the vets list for the first time.
My understanding is our 2 vets will be included in the list of 38 - so currently (if we promote Moore) we have 32 players on the list - so we have 6 picks available.
I believe that Pettifer has another year to run. I thought he was out of contract and the end of last season and he signed a new 2 year deal.
Correct me if i am mistaken.
No Bull - Pettifer was only given a 1 year deal last season
-
Agree with double H, we must use those draft picks and get rid of dead wood. There are still plenty of guys that I'd get rid of to secure those two picks. Not sure of their contract situations but I wouldn't be disappointed at all if we got rid of the following players to make room: A Kellaway, Chaffey, Hilton, Weller, Morrison, Petiffer, Rodan, Tuck, Fleming. All are either past it, or not up to it.
Have to disagree with you about Tuck JF. He was in the bests almost every week for Coburg (don';t ask me why he couldn't get a game in the ones). He's also got good size and is pretty hard at it.
Agree with the others though.
Also, I think we'd be crazy not to use pick 52. Going on GH's mock on footydraft, players like Gilham, Knights, May and JD Smith may all be available. No way is it worth keeping Hilton etc if we can get one of these guys.
Disco, I haven't seen much of Tuck so my call might be harsh, but I haven't been overly impressed with what I have seen. He is ok, goes in, gets a bit of the pill, kicks far, but he fumbles quite a bit and doesn't really look to where he is kicking the ball. (I know, I know, I could make the same statement for 20 guys on our list). Dragicevic was also amongst the best at Coburg every week but he looked totally at sea in the games he played in the firsts. Playing well for Coburg and Richmond are two totally different stories.
I don't doubt Tuck is good enough to remain on our ordinary list, it's just that i wouldn't mind if he wasn't on it, as he'll most likely be gone in a year or two regardless. Hope he proves me wrong and goes on to have a good career at the RFC.
-
The excuse from the Club for Tuck not getting a game was he needed to work on his decision making. Although possibly true it was a strange comment given a number in the senior side suffered the same bad trait :-\. I wouldn't say he's safe as he hasn't done anything yet to warrant that but IMO there are others ahead of him.
-
I was told that you cannot downgrade a player from the vet list. Therefore if this is the case Campbell will remain on the vet list. Therefore we currently have 30 players plus 1 vet. Promote Moore = 31 players + 1 vet. Therefore need 7 more to make 38. 6 natD (1,4,12,16,20,36) and 1 PSD. Can someone confirm ?
HarryH, veterans can either be included in the list of 38 or outside it (eg list of 38 + vets). Campbell will remain on the vets list in 2005 and Richo will be put on the vets list for the first time.
My understanding is our 2 vets will be included in the list of 38 - so currently (if we promote Moore) we have 32 players on the list - so we have 6 picks available.
I believe that Pettifer has another year to run. I thought he was out of contract and the end of last season and he signed a new 2 year deal.
Correct me if i am mistaken.
No Bull - Pettifer was only given a 1 year deal last season
This is really bothering me and I hope it doesn't pan out this way. We cannot pass on picks 36 an 52. If what you say is true then we must delist Hilton and one other. If we only pick up 6 more players then, in effect we will only have 7 new players which is stuff all for a club that finished on the bottom and that is apparently rebuilding. Even 10 new players is conservative IMO. 7 is a joke.
-
HarryH, I agree that it would be less than ideal if we only have 7 new players on our list next season. But, looking at it from the Club’s side of things, we’re in a mess, with players on inflated contracts and having players on our list who shouldn’t be there. That’s going to take at least another 1 or 2 seasons, maybe more, to get ourselves back on an even keel.
It seems that if we miss out on any picks it will be because of budget constraints. From that point of view, I don’t know that we can be overly critical, under the circumstances, if the Club is doing the best it can to operate within the rules and under the current financial situation it is in.
So, if the number of players we draft is less than we would like, it will more than likely be because of those budget reasons. Otherwise, if it was possible, we would use as many draft picks as are available to us. Because I don’t think Greg Miller would go out of his way to pass up on any young talent, without good reason.
I don’t understand either, how Hilton (and others) is still on our list, but I reckon that unless there was a good reason then he wouldn’t be there (and he still may not be there by year’s end). But I’m prepared to accept whatever the final outcome is, because it’s not necessarily as simple as we think it is and because Miller and Wallace wouldn’t go out of their way to put together an inferior list if there was any possible way they could put together a better list.
-
There's still a couple of more weeks until the final list lodgements at the end of October sometime. So we'll know of any further delistings by then.
-
Don't know if anyone has pointed this out already, but Campbell is already on the veterans list, and can not be moved back to the main list without being delisted. Therefore we have an extra pick than what the poll in this topic indicates, we will be using pick 36 (or a second PSD pick) and will only have to delist one (or promote Richo to the vets list) to be able to use pick 52.
-
Don't know if anyone has pointed this out already, but Campbell is already on the veterans list, and can not be moved back to the main list without being delisted.
Cambo will remain on our veterans' list. It's just that Clubs have the option of including or excluding their veterans from their senior list of 38. If you include your vets within the 38 then obviously they take up senior list spots; alternatively if they are separate from the 38 then they reduce rookie list spots. In 2005 our veterans' list will contain Cambo and Richo but they will be included as part of our senior list of 38. As a result we will have the maximum 6 rookie list spots at our disposal.
2004
Senior list of 37 (1 short)
+
2 vets (Cambo and Duncan)
+
Rookie list of 3 (out of 4 available spots)
2005
Senior list of 38 (36 + 2 vets - Cambo, Richo)
+
6 rookie list spots available
-
Don't know if anyone has pointed this out already, but Campbell is already on the veterans list, and can not be moved back to the main list without being delisted.
Cambo will remain on our veterans' list. It's just that Clubs have the option of including or excluding their veterans from their senior list of 38. If you include your vets within the 38 then obviously they take up senior list spots; alternatively if they are separate from the 38 then they reduce rookie list spots. In 2005 our veterans' list will contain Cambo and Richo but they will be included as part of our senior list of 38. As a result we will have the maximum 6 rookie list spots at our disposal.
2004
Senior list of 37 (1 short)
+
2 vets (Cambo and Duncan)
+
Rookie list of 3 (out of 4 available spots)
2005
Senior list of 38 (36 + 2 vets - Cambo, Richo)
+
6 rookie list spots available
So in effect, if this is how RFC decide to go, we will be going 2 short on our list. Therefore only recruiting 6 more 1,4,12,16,20 and PSD1 if no more are delisted. I don't like it !
TW has stated that he'd rather go an assistant short rather than a player. Taking this into consideration, I would say that we'd go to at least 39 players........thus utilising pick 36 IF no more delisting occur.
I would like us to delist 2 more and go to 39 players, thus utilising 36,52 and 68.
But I get the feeling that we'll delist 1 more, utilise pick 52 and go to 39 players.
-
Sorry, I wasn't overly clear with that post. What I've been told is that Campbo was counted outside the main list this year, thus he must be counted outside again next year. A veteran can not be downgraded to being on the senior list without being delisted (this is what I have read elsewhere, I haven't seen any official confirmation that it is in fact the rule). If this is true, then it will be:
2005:
Senior list of 38 (incl Richo and Moore) + 1 vet (Campbell)
+
max 5 rookies
Given we have 32 players listed at the moment, it gives us 7 picks, of which one will be PSD. If we either move Richo off the senior list (which would mean a max of 4 rookies), or delist another player, we can utilise either pick 52 or PSD second round pick to fill the list.
The decision will come down to whether a good enough player is available for selection, and whether we have the finances available to cover an additional player.
-
Sorry, I wasn't overly clear with that post. What I've been told is that Campbo was counted outside the main list this year, thus he must be counted outside again next year. A veteran can not be downgraded to being on the senior list without being delisted (this is what I have read elsewhere, I haven't seen any official confirmation that it is in fact the rule).
Not a prob jezza. I'm not aware of such a rule but can't say there isn't one either :-\. I'll check to see if I can find out.
-
Thanks mate, am very keen to see if this is the case or not. Definitely want to see 6 kids drafted as a minimum, and very annoyed to say the least that the financial mismanagement of the club is now jeopordising us developing the best possible team for the future.
-
The decision will come down to whether a good enough player is available for selection, and whether we have the finances available to cover an additional player.
That’s what I believed their thinking to be Jezza. So I’m not overly concerned which way we go, because if we aren’t confident that we now have people who know what they are doing then I don’t know when we ever will be. For me, whatever happens and whichever way we go with this, it will be in the best, long-term interests of RFC. I don’t think we can ask for any more than that.
And I don’t know if anyone can accuse Greg Miller of not being prepared to take a risk or two, if necessary.
-
Which way is GM taking a risk though?
I think it's a risk not using at least two of the picks after twenty.
-
The decision will come down to whether a good enough player is available for selection, and whether we have the finances available to cover an additional player.
That’s what I believed their thinking to be Jezza. So I’m not overly concerned which way we go, because if we aren’t confident that we now have people who know what they are doing then I don’t know when we ever will be. For me, whatever happens and whichever way we go with this, it will be in the best, long-term interests of RFC. I don’t think we can ask for any more than that.
And I don’t know if anyone can accuse Greg Miller of not being prepared to take a risk or two, if necessary.
I'm confident GM will make the right decision, given there are factors we won't be aware of, but financially permitting, my preference is for as many draft picks as we can get.
There are risks involved, such as creating a bit of a generation gap in the team, and forcing kids to play before they are ready, but I think that would only be the case if we went overboard and selected say 10 kids.
This year we have very specific requirements that we need to get out of the draft: 2 midfielders, 2 KPPs and a ruckman, as a minimum. The problem is, not every kid we draft will make it. If we draft 5 kids matching those positions, chances are one or two will fail and we will be left lacking again. To ensure we fill the positions we need, we have to overdraft in each position so I would like 7 or 8 kids drafted, not 5.
Also, we have had some success late in the draft with Jackson, Raines and Hartigan so we should be able to get something out of picks 36 and 52. (Jackson was 53, if we can get another like him there we will be laughing).
Many people raise the issue of drafting a kid means we are locked in to a two year deal. I don't think this is a factor. Most of these kids will need at least 2 years to prove themselves anyway, plus the cost of a draftee on the list is not that much, especially given we have stopped overpaying senior players and made some good moves salary cap wise. Every year there are players who are going to be delisted so having these kids for 2 years is not a problem, if some are no good we can delist them in 2 years time. Every year we will be bringing in more kids so every year the group from 2 years previous will be coming out of contract so it is easy to delist/trade the duds.
-
Which way is GM taking a risk though?
I think it's a risk not using at least two of the picks after twenty.
Understand your concern H Tiger, but if GM's done his homework, he will already know which players are worth taking a financial risk with and which aren’t, when it comes draft time.
No use picking players just for the sake of saying we’ve got young players on our list when you have doubts about them. Or if we are going to get ourselves into a financial pickle by using those picks.
Last year we had the following late picks:
Daniel Jackson (pick 53)
Brent Hartigan (70)
Andrew Raines (76)
Kyle Archibald (81)
So why wouldn’t we use our late picks this year, without there being a good reason for it? Just wouldn’t make sense.
Last year, because we had few high picks, we probably had to do a lot more ground work to get some good players.
I know I’ve mentioned this before, but Richmond convinced Daniel Jackson to nominate for last year’s draft, even though he wasn’t expected to play any AFL footy this year. Because he agreed, we got him at pick 53, instead of a being a potential first round selection this year.
Similar story for Andrew Raines. He didn’t have a stand out year last season so went unnoticed by most other Clubs at the draft. Seeing the rate of his progress this year, he would probably be no less than a second round draft choice this year.
Nothing has been proven yet with any of these players, but what may have seemed like odd selections then may well turn out to be inspired choices.
-
Many people raise the issue of drafting a kid means we are locked in to a two year deal. I don't think this is a factor. Most of these kids will need at least 2 years to prove themselves anyway, plus the cost of a draftee on the list is not that much,
I believe the cost of a draftee in his first year totals about $120-$150k Jezza.
This includes the players contract (base + match payments), transfer and relocation fees.
-
Sorry Jezza but you do not make a delist/trade decision on a kid after two years.
These kids should be nurtured at Coburg for the best part of their first two years and brought into the senior team slowly.
Obviously kpp's take longer, Shultz for instance is just starting to come on enough to get a game.
Of our (hopefully six or seven) picks maybe two should see any type of senior footy next year, and those two would be the guys with big bodies for their position.
We want to get some future champions in this draft. RFC will get them if they are confident footballers. How will this happen? Give them times to hit their straps, show that they can rip a game of football apart in the VFL first.
How confident will they be if they are part of a struggling tigers and getting destroyed by bigger older and at the moment better opponents?
Give them a taste, but let them grow slowly, working together in the VFL. :thumbsup
-
It's basically a choice between the current mid-aged underachievers on our list who's contract expires (ie Hilton, Weller, Fleming? etc) and a kid like a Hartigan, Newman, Zantuck, Jackson etc. that can be picked up with a late pick. Financial constraints aside (we should not be sacrificing players!!) I know who I would prefer.
As recruiting is a lottery, the more picks you have the greater chance of finding a match winner. The Flemings, Hiltons, Wellers, Chaffeys etc of this world are NOT gonna bring us a flag. Pick 36 and 52 MIGHT. We MUST use them !!
-
I believe the cost of a draftee in his first year totals about $120-$150k Jezza.
This includes the players contract (base + match payments), transfer and relocation fees.
Thanks for that info. Do you know what the second year costs are? I see now why recycles were used a lot in the past.
-
Sorry Jezza but you do not make a delist/trade decision on a kid after two years.
These kids should be nurtured at Coburg for the best part of their first two years and brought into the senior team slowly.
Obviously kpp's take longer, Shultz for instance is just starting to come on enough to get a game.
Of our (hopefully six or seven) picks maybe two should see any type of senior footy next year, and those two would be the guys with big bodies for their position.
We want to get some future champions in this draft. RFC will get them if they are confident footballers. How will this happen? Give them times to hit their straps, show that they can rip a game of football apart in the VFL first.
How confident will they be if they are part of a struggling tigers and getting destroyed by bigger older and at the moment better opponents?
Give them a taste, but let them grow slowly, working together in the VFL. :thumbsup
Unfortunately some draftees are culled after their initial 2 year deal is up, some just aren't up to it and it's clear to see. Someone like a Marty McGrath wasn't prepared to do what it took to be an afl footballer so he was let go, it obviously wasn't something that was going to change. Plus there is always pressure on clubs to move some players on, they have to draft a minimum of 3 kids per year so 3 players a year have to be moved on.
-
Also, we have had some success late in the draft with Jackson, Raines and Hartigan so we should be able to get something out of picks 36 and 52. (Jackson was 53, if we can get another like him there we will be laughing).
As mentioned in my previous post jezza, the reason we had such “success” with those picks was because GM did do his homework. We didn’t have many high draft picks so had to make the selections we did have work, or just fall further and further behind the other Clubs.
I’d like to see us use all our picks this year too, but if it turns out that we don’t then I know there will be valid reasons if they are not used.
-
It's basically a choice between the current mid-aged underachievers on our list who's contract expires (ie Hilton, Weller, Fleming? etc) and a kid like a Hartigan, Newman, Zantuck, Jackson etc. that can be picked up with a late pick. Financial constraints aside (we should not be sacrificing players!!) I know who I would prefer.
As recruiting is a lottery, the more picks you have the greater chance of finding a match winner. The Flemings, Hiltons, Wellers, Chaffeys etc of this world are NOT gonna bring us a flag. Pick 36 and 52 MIGHT. We MUST use them !!
I know that you can’t control who other Clubs pick, so from that point of view the draft is a lottery, but it becomes more of a lottery when Clubs play pin the tail on the donkey, as we seem to have done over the years and just made short-term, quick fix decisions. Looking back at it now, the extent of our knowledge seemed to go as far as a player’s football ability and seemed to ignore anything else that determines what makes a good footballer. If we found a good player it was probably more luck than anything else. That sort of recruiting and the fact we didn’t have a long-term plan ensured there was no real system to our drafting that was going to benefit the Club in the long term.
If we now stick to re-building and developing our list then we have every right to expect that we will start to see some real improvement in the team over the next couple of years or so.
But we can't expect that we will revamp the list over night, because rules, contracts, finances and whatever else is involved means these things take longer than any of us would like. :P
-
We paid in the past for "specializing" with our choices based on need at the time. We chose Fiora and gave up first and second picks for Hilton and Bidders because we lacked "skillful" running midfielders lol and we chose Pettifer along with Hudson and Houlihan due our obsession with small to mid-sized crumbing forwards. At least this time around we're so deficient in so many areas that we'll be grateful for the best available kids whether they're midfielders or talls.
Do you know what the second year costs are? I see now why recycles were used a lot in the past.
I'd reckon the second year costs would roughly be the same as the first indexed in relation to inflation.
-
Hello Mightiges ;)
-
I'd reckon the second year costs would roughly be the same as the first indexed in relation to inflation.
But out of the $120-150k from the first year, how much is made up by the transfer and relocation fees?
-
Hello Mightiges ;)
Hey Jack. Are you back from your holiday?
-
But out of the $120-150k from the first year, how much is made up by the transfer and relocation fees?
I don't know jezza. I'd guess we'd need to look up the AFL enterprise bargaining agreement :-\.
-
Looks like what I posted previously was not correct, a player can be moved from the vets list back to the primary list as long as they are still classified as a veteran, so pick 36 is not a definite.
From the collective bargaining agreement on the AFLPA site:
13.1 (a) An AFL Club may nominate for each AFL Season up to two eligible Players
to be transferred from its Primary List to the Veterans List and/or any
number of eligible Players to be classified as a veteran on its Primary List,
provided the transfer or classification occurs no later than two weeks after
the Pre-Season Draft prior to the relevant AFL Season.
(b) An AFL Club which classifies a Player on its Primary List as a veteran, may,
at a later stage, but no later than two weeks after the Pre-Season Draft prior
to the relevant AFL Season, transfer the Player to the AFL Club’s Veterans
List.
(c) A Player who is transferred to the AFL Club’s Veterans List can only be
transferred back to the Primary List of the AFL Club between the end of an
AFL Season and two weeks after the Pre-Season Draft prior to the next AFL
Season and provided that Player remains classified as a veteran on the
Primary List.
(d) A Player that is classified as a veteran on the Primary List must remain
classified as a Veteran until that Player leaves the Club or is transferred to
the Veterans List.
-
schedule B sections 2 and 3 have the details for first and second year player payments. Basically next year, a first year player who is a first round pick has base payments of $45,600, match payments of $2,200 and bonuses for the number of senior appearances up to $6,300. Relocation fees are around $6000 and a living away from home allowance of around $6000.
Second year first round picks then get a base of up to $60,000 and $3,250 depending on how many senior games they played in their first year.
-
Looks like what I posted previously was not correct, a player can be moved from the vets list back to the primary list as long as they are still classified as a veteran, so pick 36 is not a definite.
Thanks for clearing that up jezza and providing the payments for first and second year players :cheers. It would be interesting to see how that compares with keeping or drafting a mature age player on a one year deal.
I think we begin pre-season training before the final delisting cut-off of Friday week (?) so we may know from who doesn't turn up who may be in line for delisting if there are anymore. I would be pretty stunned if we end up passing on pick #36 as it's far too valuable a selection to just give up for nothing when the likes of Newman, Krakouer and Jackson were picked up with much later selections.
-
I think we begin pre-season training before the final delisting cut-off of Friday week (?) so we may know from who doesn't turn up who may be in line for delisting if there are anymore.
IIRC that's what happened last year.
A couple of blokes were cut when they came back in not so great condition after the break. :help
-
Lets hope Kayne is flabby & Paris, is looking fat as well as injured.
-
well ive been on holidays but im back and this topic is of very big interest to me....a while back i started some discussion with a phantom draft...i deliberately put a player at 1- Thomas Reddin who hadnt been mentioned in any phantom drafts anywhere. Reddin can play but will not go at 1...im responding to this thread because at the time i also said the south australians hadnt only tried to hide reddin but theyve tried to hide other players as well...someone who i rate highly gave me the name of one other player also from Glenelg and Sacred Heart in SA and that player was Jack Juniper. Juniper is a big risk however...i think there are problems with his commitment to playing footy in general...but as i was told...as a junior he can play! considering he's 6'4 and weighs close to 88kgs i would give him a go. Its also interesting to note that at this stage I havent seen Juniper listed as a player to be taken in any draft...although i think its more to do with what i said earlier...so the point of all that ive said at 11.15pm on sunday night is that if pick 52 comes around and Juniper hasnt had his name called out...i think RFC and Greg Miller should risk it. Juniper and Reddin can play. Reddin will go alot higher than Juniper but having both at RFC will have meant weve had an outstanding draft. :cheers
-
Welcome back from your holidays RT :cheers. What would your phantom draft look like now?
Here's a summary about Juniper from the footydraft.com site under other potential draftees. Did you write this summary as well RT ;D ;). It would be a major risk if he isn't totally committed. He wouldn't last long at AFL level if that's so.
Jack Juniper
Club: Sacred Heart/Glenelg
Hgt: 194cm Wgt: 88kg
Position: Centre Half stuff
Natural Foot: Right
Honours:
State Screening Camp 2004
Strengths: Juniper is one of the real unknown quantities of the draft and could loom as a real smoky come November 20. He has spent most of the year rucking for Sacred Heart in the SA schools league, although he can also play forward.
Jack is an exceptionally long kick and can boot goals from 50-60 metres out. He is a powerful athlete with a good leap and exceptional pace for his height. Reportedly ran rings around Benet Copping in a school match this year.
Weaknesses: Big questions over his commitment to football. Only did one training session with Glenelg before deciding not to continue, and had to be coaxed into nominating for the draft. Unproven at SANFL level or in the carnival.
Footydraft.com comment: Very hard to get a handle on where this kid will go, if at all. A lot depends on how much scouts saw of him at school level, and whether he is prepared to had a real crack at AFL. One of the more interesting stories in the 2004 draft pool.
http://www.footydraft.com/players.php?player=jack_juniper&dr=n