Yeah or Neah - 2. Darren Gaspar

[Big Punt]

We need him for another year to prop up the backline.  Unfortunately Hall has not lived up to expectations, and like it or not, Gaspar is still the best current option to take the opposition's number 1 forward.  Putting Joel Bowden on someone like Fevola is a waste IMO.

[WilliamPowell]

Just continuing on from what I said yesterday - being YEAH

What we need Gaspar for is the jobs against blokes like Gehrig (monsters, gorillas call 'em what you want).

If Gas had of played against the Saints a few weeks ago would the result had been different? Probably not but I've got no doubt Gehrig would not have kicked as many.

While there is a question mark over the timing of when Will Thursfield comes back and how quickly he comes back we need insurance because as many have said Ray Hall is not the answer and against the gorillas we lose alot of Bowden J's rebound out of the back half

[wayne]

yay, can't just lose an experienced backman like Gas.

Sydney and St Kilda games are proof of this, Bowdo did ok against Fev, but thats because the Carlton midfield also helped, against quality oppostion with big full fowards, he's 'opeless.

[tiga]

I say yeah with an escape clause. As soon as we get someone who can reliably take on opposition key forwards, eff him off. At this stage the cupboard is bare so one year for me. Everyone who is saying no, who would you choose to immediately take his spot assuming thirsty takes a while to get back to full steam?

[Darth Tiger]

We need him for another year to prop up the backline.  Unfortunately Hall has not lived up to expectations, and like it or not, Gaspar is still the best current option to take the opposition's number 1 forward.  Putting Joel Bowden on someone like Fevola is a waste IMO.

Agree to keep for a 1 year deal, only problem is that having Gas on the Vet's list costs RFC an opportuntiy to list a rookie.  This maybe a cost issue rather than a list management issue for 07.

In saying that, there is nobody immediately putting their hands up to take Gas's limited role in the 22.  It is up to McGuane, Will & possibly a new draftee to nudge out Gas by midseason 07.

IMO, Gas deserves RFC respect, but should not be guaranteed a start in the 22 should a young player development rapidly over pre-season.

[Ox]

what a waste of space this dog is.

Weak as pisz - is alergic to dust FFS !!!!

How much did the club spend in an effort to make his existing condition comfortable when he first came to Melb?

We  dont need these high maintanance,low returners on the list at any time,regardless of how thin kpps may apperar to be.

"Hey kids,look at Gas,the way he doesn't give a shti and the way he bull shtis the club - that's what u need to become !"

I'd prefer to lose afew and bleed a thouroughbred

[Mr Magic]

what a waste of space this dog is.

Weak as pisz - is alergic to dust FFS !!!!

How much did the club spend in an effort to make his existing condition comfortable when he first came to Melb?

We  dont need these high maintanance,low returners on the list at any time,regardless of how thin kpps may apperar to be.

"Hey kids,look at Gas,the way he doesn't give a shti and the way he bull shtis the club - that's what u need to become !"

I'd prefer to lose afew and bleed a thouroughbred

Agree totally. Plus he's a complete unco!

Looking forward to a Gaspar free RFC.

[mightytiges]

Agree to keep for a 1 year deal, only problem is that having Gas on the Vet's list costs RFC an opportuntiy to list a rookie.  This maybe a cost issue rather than a list management issue for 07.

I think you're right Darth about the cost issue. Media reports say the AFL plan to cover the cost of 4 rookies so that leaves two spots left for us to cover if we take a full list of 44. Gas on a reduced contract and Vet list would be a better insurance option than say another Humm who ends up being promoted for just one game. That still leaves space for 5 rookies.

[bluey_21]

Try and trade him to Freo who need a full back, otherwise keep him as insurance for Thirsty

[Darth Tiger]

Agree to keep for a 1 year deal, only problem is that having Gas on the Vet's list costs RFC an opportuntiy to list a rookie.  This maybe a cost issue rather than a list management issue for 07.

I think you're right Darth about the cost issue. Media reports say the AFL plan to cover the cost of 4 rookies so that leaves two spots left for us to cover if we take a full list of 44. Gas on a reduced contract and Vet list would be a better insurance option than say another Humm who ends up being promoted for just one game. That still leaves space for 5 rookies.

MT, will be very intersting to see what the qualification is for a "mature-age" rookie.  Probably would be the difference in seeing whether Gas is listed as a vet or delisted in favour of a rookie.

For fringe players, this is probably not the year to be delisted as I do not think that there will be many taken in the PSD as gaps will be left in favour of rookies.

This very well maybe the end for Gas, if he is not seen as an insurance policy.

Still think that he will get a 1 year deal.

[mightytiges]

I think you're right Darth. There were only 10 players picked up in the PSD last year and 4 of them were kids not picked up in the draft including our own Matty White. Unless a uncontracted name player falls through to the PSD it seems most clubs are now avoiding recycled types.

The qualification rule for a "mature-age" rookie appears it will be any player over the current age cut-off who has never been on a AFL list. The rule is made for blokes in the SANFL and in our case possibly a late developing KPP (Rutten now with the Crows was a young key defender with Sturt IIRC). Jeremy Clayton who had 40+ possies for Port Magpies on the weekend is another we'd be interested in after we had planned to pick him up in the PSD last year before he got injured (splean).

Like you Darth I still think Gas will be offered a 1-year deal.

[WilliamPowell]

The qualification rule for a "mature-age" rookie appears it will be any player over the current age cut-off who has never been on a AFL list. The rule is made for blokes in the SANFL and in our case possibly a late developing KPP (Rutten now with the Crows was a young key defender with Sturt IIRC). Jeremy Clayton who had 40+ possies for Port Magpies on the weekend is another we'd be interested in after we had planned to pick him up in the PSD last year before he got injured (splean).

I would hope we would look at a couple of the older boys at Coburg who have had outstanding seasons - blokes like Jake King (would slot nicely on the HBF releasing Raines to the mid-field) and Paul Shelton for example

[Darth Tiger]

The qualification rule for a "mature-age" rookie appears it will be any player over the current age cut-off who has never been on a AFL list. The rule is made for blokes in the SANFL and in our case possibly a late developing KPP (Rutten now with the Crows was a young key defender with Sturt IIRC). Jeremy Clayton who had 40+ possies for Port Magpies on the weekend is another we'd be interested in after we had planned to pick him up in the PSD last year before he got injured (splean).

I would hope we would look at a couple of the older boys at Coburg who have had outstanding seasons - blokes like Jake King (would slot nicely on the HBF releasing Raines to the mid-field) and Paul Shelton for example

The 'mature-age' rookie qualification would really open up some options for a pathway from Cannons to Coburg to Tigers.  Could be exciting times for Coburg if the linkage is formalised.

[NACKERS]

I THINK LIKE IT OR NOT WE HAVEN,T GOT ANYBODY BETTER AT THE MOMENT 1 YEAR CONTRACT AT BEST WITH A HUGE PAY CUT MAY SEE HIM PLAY NEXT YEAR

[WilliamPowell]

The 'mature-age' rookie qualification would really open up some options for a pathway from Cannons to Coburg to Tigers.  Could be exciting times for Coburg if the linkage is formalised.

Spot on Darth