DemonDan... said:

retire/delist 5: wheats-wheels-robbo- we know, plus newts an macca

promote 1: valenti

Recruit 4: scully-trengove-?-?

Find 1 more to delist/ trade and promote Spencer instead of Valenti. Use the extra for the PSD.

  Rojik of the Arctic said:

Find 1 more to delist/ trade and promote Spencer instead of Valenti. Use the extra for the PSD.

Bail, mature age recruit and it has not worked

  BROCKSTAR5 said:

It's hard to choose cause our list management is a mess.

Bruce will replace Robbo on the veteran's list.

McDonald's spot doesn't matter cause only a rookie can take his spot because no one else is eligable for the veteran's list.

Whelan and Wheatley have retired. So that free's up 3 spots pick 1,2 and 18.

We still have to make way for pick 34 and the elevation of Spencer. On form I would delist Newton and Miller.

I doubt we would choose pick 50 due to the lack of depth in the draft and unless their is a reasonable AFL player wanting to go home then I don't think we will pick up anyone from the PSD either if we did I would delist P.J.

Hopefully we delist players on a form basis instead of delisting players that are out of contract at the wrong time.

So I'm predicting that we will have 4 picks in the draft and and 4 new rookies. Valenti and Zomer won't get elevated.

Miller must stay. He is actuly an ok player. As a lead up half forward type he is very effictive and as melbournes ball use improves so will he. We need some size to support jarrah and watts as they develope. We want to win games next year and a forward line with jarrah and watts as key forwards will struggle but add miller and we might steal a few extra wins

  flog said:

Miller must stay. He is actuly an ok player. As a lead up half forward type he is very effictive and as melbournes ball use improves so will he. We need some size to support jarrah and watts as they develope. We want to win games next year and a forward line with jarrah and watts as key forwards will struggle but add miller and we might steal a few extra wins

Stole my thoughts there [censored]......

But by god he would want to do something (anything at this point) about the goal kicking, or complete lack there of !!!

  QueenC said:

Stole my thoughts there [censored]......

But by god he would want to do something (anything at this point) about the goal kicking, or complete lack there of !!!

Play him on the half forward line, a lead up player, no need to kick goals.

  flog said:

Play him on the half forward line, a lead up player, no need to kick goals.

True there would be less of a need for it if he plays further away, but that doesn't really change the fact that he needs to learn how to kick them with a hell of a lot more accuracy.

I'd keep Miller for depth reasons, and Pia of course

  Jarka said:

I'd keep Miller for depth reasons, and Pia of course

For your own fairly obvious reasons Jarka :D ?!!!

Even though miller may be more effective with his lead up role, i reckon he will better hanging around at FF in our forward 50. Putting him in the 50 puts that big frame in we need to provide a contest, and also it provides oppurtunities for our crumbers.

But then again if Stef martin is going in the right direction he could very well be this sort of player, and could be our very own kurt tippet.

  Enforcer25 said:

Just a question, what would that trade achieve? I mean, we'd move up 10 picks, but for what? And we'd be giving up TWO good young players.

Once you get out to pick 8, especially in this draft, I would've thought the player you take will have just as much chance of being a decent player as one taken at 18.

Ye..Probably not the best example. I was just trying to point out that if you want to up-grade for a higher draft pick, you're going to have to give up a player that other teams would 'want' on their list, not just one of our delistees...

I would say that Nathan Jones and pick 18 for pick 5 could be a good deal for us, esp. if it netted us John Butcher in addition to Scully & Trengove...Would a side go for that?? I dunno, but with it looking increasingly likely we'll take two gun midfielders at the ND, we might need to think about offloading 1 or 2 to get another KPF in the mix.

I don't really like talking about trading guys like Nathan Jones, but we have a couple of deficiencies that need to be addressed imo - KPF and ruck specifically...

  BROCKSTAR5 said:

some Essendon player got sacked after only one year. So I think my suggestion can happen.

  Rhino Richards said:

Why did the Essendon player get sacked? Breach of contract? Discipline?

Said Essendon player was former U/18 All-Australian full back Austin Lucy. Was said to be delisted because of attitude issues, hitting the grog too hard over summer, and coming back to pre-season training in unacceptable shape (i.e. very overweight). Is mates with a friend of mine, said he was totally shattered, but apparently never really had the mental capacity to cope with the rigours of footy at the top level.

So it can happen, but i suppose only in extreme circumstances.

- Russell Robertson: His best football is behind him.

- James McDonald: Hopefully stays at the club after retirement but he should leave on his own terms instead of being forced out by injury.

- Paul Wheatley: Already announced retirement.

- Matthew Whelan: Already announced retirement.

- Brad Miller: Tradebait and if we get nothing for him, then delisting. I have never rated Miller.

- Cameron Bruce: Still a strong force at AFL level but rebuilding should take priority.

- Danny Hughes: To free space for another pick, if nothing comes along then get him back in the pre-season draft.

  The Dee said:

- Danny Hughes: To free space for another pick, if nothing comes along then get him back in the pre-season draft.

Hughes is a rookie so he will only free up a rookie spot. We already have 3 spots vacant with Spencer, Valenti and Zomer unable to stay on the rookie list and probably 4 if McDonald retires. In a shallow draft I can't see why they would delist him unless his injury is very serious and that goes for Healey too.

I can see a player or 2 who are on the fringe getting delisted like Buckley, Dunn, Bartram and McNamara when there are at least 3 players who are contracted who should have been delisted before them in Newton, Johnson and Bell

  BROCKSTAR5 said:

It's hard to choose cause our list management is a mess.

Bruce will replace Robbo on the veteran's list.

McDonald's spot doesn't matter cause only a rookie can take his spot because no one else is eligable for the veteran's list.

Whelan and Wheatley have retired. So that free's up 3 spots pick 1,2 and 18.

We still have to make way for pick 34 and the elevation of Spencer. On form I would delist Newton and Miller.

I doubt we would choose pick 50 due to the lack of depth in the draft and unless their is a reasonable AFL player wanting to go home then I don't think we will pick up anyone from the PSD either if we did I would delist P.J.

Hopefully we delist players on a form basis instead of delisting players that are out of contract at the wrong time.

So I'm predicting that we will have 4 picks in the draft and and 4 new rookies. Valenti and Zomer won't get elevated.

McDonald retires and you have another spot on the list. It just impacts the rookie list. I think thats what you're saying.

You delist players on contract expiry not on form.

We will need more than 4 picks in the draft.

  Doggo said:

Said Essendon player was former U/18 All-Australian full back Austin Lucy. Was said to be delisted because of attitude issues, hitting the grog too hard over summer, and coming back to pre-season training in unacceptable shape (i.e. very overweight). Is mates with a friend of mine, said he was totally shattered, but apparently never really had the mental capacity to cope with the rigours of footy at the top level.

So it can happen, but i suppose only in extreme circumstances.

Thanks Doggo. That makes sense.

  BROCKSTAR5 said:

I can see a player or 2 who are on the fringe getting delisted like Buckley, Dunn, Bartram and McNamara when there are at least 3 players who are contracted who should have been delisted before them in Newton, Johnson and Bell

If Newton, PJ and Bell dont improve next year then they will get delisted in 2010. McNamara could be delisted and resigned as a rookie.

  Rojik of the Arctic said:

Find 1 more to delist/ trade and promote Spencer instead of Valenti. Use the extra for the PSD.

Done.. BRAD MILLER!!

can't believe i forgot him! I don't hate anyone, but i think Miller is our least skillful/needed player...i knew i forgot someone.. it was late, thats my excuse!

Maybe find a way to promote Spencer AND valenti...?

...i have a nagging feeling Valenti will keep improving an become part of the senior line-up permanently. He's seemed to have carried his good solid VFL form, into the AFL. Its like the step up in class hasn't daunted him at all!! Be watching him specifically 2moro..

Also, valentis' last game - superb! Spencers'... well he got dropped!

  flog said:

Bail, mature age recruit and it has not worked

Ah, premature evaluation, A worrying syndrome, indeed.

  BROCKSTAR5 said:

Hughes is a rookie so he will only free up a rookie spot. We already have 3 spots vacant with Spencer, Valenti and Zomer unable to stay on the rookie list and probably 4 if McDonald retires. In a shallow draft I can't see why they would delist him unless his injury is very serious and that goes for Healey too.

I can see a player or 2 who are on the fringe getting delisted like Buckley, Dunn, Bartram and McNamara when there are at least 3 players who are contracted who should have been delisted before them in Newton, Johnson and Bell

IMO when we have a shallow draft is precisely the time to have more rookies, as there cheaper to maintain.

The shallow draft means that there will be players of some interest but are more of a gamble, so the rookie list is the more financially responsible way to try to develope their games.

We are still in need of further list add ons. This I'm sure will continue for 4 years churning the list as we go.

  DemonDan... said:

Done.. BRAD MILLER!!

can't believe i forgot him! I don't hate anyone, but i think Miller is our least skillful/needed player...i knew i forgot someone.. it was late, thats my excuse!

Maybe find a way to promote Spencer AND valenti...?

...i have a nagging feeling Valenti will keep improving an become part of the senior line-up permanently. He's seemed to have carried his good solid VFL form, into the AFL. Its like the step up in class hasn't daunted him at all!! Be watching him specifically 2moro..

Also, valentis' last game - superb! Spencers'... well he got dropped!

Miller is probably required for the next 12 months while the kids come along. That said I wouldn't lose any sleep if he was traded/delisted. I like Valenti and his in and under work but do we really need another B grade mid? Because that is what he is. A good worker but not a game breaker. I mentioned Spencer because I think that a club should always have some rucks being groomed in the wings as they take so long to come along.

  Rhino Richards said:

We will need more than 4 picks in the draft.

We have had this argument before and I agree that more than 4 picks in the two drafts would be best.

However, with the compromised draft, and the difficulty of finding OOC talent in the PSD, I can certainly see a scenario where we take only 1, 2, 18, and 34 in the ND. Pick 50 is equivalent to approxiamately 70-75 (with the changing of the age levels) so holds little appeal to me.

Going to the PSD without an opening is unheard of when a team has the first pick so I say that 5 deletions would be what I would be looking at if those that should be gone are still contracted for 2010.

Should also keep in mind that GC17 has the first 5 picks in this years (2009) rookie draft. This starts the concessions off with next year GC17 having 1,2,3,5,7,9,11,13, 15 in the National Draft. The existing 16 clubs can have 2 additional rookies in 2009 and 2010.

2009 & 2010 AFL Draft - Concessions , Team Nos & Wages

2009 - Gold Cost FC have 1st pick of 12 x 17 year old kids who are not eligible for the 2009 AFL Draft. They must be born between Jan 1 - April 30, 1992.

2009 Rookie Draft ( which is held at same time as pre-Season Draft ) - Gold Coast have picks : 1, 2 , 3 , 4, 5

2010 AFL Draft- Gold Coast FC to have following picks :

Round 1 - 1, 2, 3 , 5 , 7 , 9 , 11 , 13 , 15 & then 1st pick in each subsequent round.

2010 Rookie Draft - Gold Coast to alternate Queensland priority selections with Brisbane Lions. Gold Coast to have 1st selection.

ZONED ACCESS : Gold Coast to have zoned access to up to 5 Queensland players prior in each of 2010, 2011 & 2012 AFL Drafts. Gold Coast to also have zoned access to up to 3 Northern Territory players prior to the 2010 AFL Draft.

2010 POST -SEASON, AFL LISTED PLAYER ACCESS : Gold Coast to have capacity to pre-list 10 players who had previously nominated for the AFL Draft, or were previously listed with an AFL Club.

Gold Coast to have the capacity to sign up to 16 un-contracted players.

Gold Coast will also be allowed an expanded player list and higher salary cap for 1st 4 years ( 2011 - 2014 ) as follows:

2011 - 48 Senior List, 9 Rookies & extra $ 1 million Total Player Payments allowance.

2012 - 46 Senior players, 9 Rookies, & $ 800,000 extra TPPA

2013- 42 Senior Players , 9 Rookies & extra $ 600,000 TPPA

2014 - 40 Senior players, 9 Rookies & $ 400,000 extra TPPA

2015 - 38 Senior list, 9 rookies & normal TPPA

AFL ROOKIE DRAFT :

Each AFL club has a Senior List of 38 plus up to 6 Rookies, except Brisbane & Sydney who are allowed 3 extra Rookies if they have resided in Queensland ( for Brisbane ( or ACT & NSW for Sydney ) for a minimum of 3 years. You can only spend a maximum of 2 years on a Rookie List and can only be elevated to Senior List if a Senior List Player retires or is placed on the ' Long Term Injury List '. Once elevated during a season, you stay on the Senior List for the remainder of the season. Also, if a Club has LESS THAN 1 VETERAN listed player, they can nominate 2 Rookies to be available for Senior selection.

A Rookie must be between 18 - 23 ( although 1 player over 23 has been allowed since 2006 as long as they have not been on a senior List or Rookie List previously ), must be registered with a Club affiliated with the AFL & nominate for the AFL Draft.

2009 DRAFT ONWARDS : To assist with players completing their VCE, players eligible for the Draft , must turn 18 by the 31st of December of the year they are drafted.

PLAYER PAYMENTS: The base salary for draftees ( except below ) & excluding allowances if drafted by an interstate Club is as follows:

2009 - Base of $ 62,700 ( $ 1,205 pw ) which includes superannuation & pre-season games PLUS $ 2,700 per game. For example, Fremantle's Nick Suban ( Drafted from North Ballarat Rebels in 2008 ) has played in every game in 2009 so far ( 14 rounds ) and will have earned match payments of $ 37,800 on top of his base salary plus interstate living allowance.

2010 - Base of $ 64,700 pa PLUS $ 2,800 per game

2011 - Base of $ 66,900 pa PLUS $ 2,900 per game.

Exceptions are:

A first year Draft Pick ( eg Jack Watts )

A Second Year Player ( eg Rhys Palmer )

A rookie list player ( eg Zac Dawson

A player promoted from the Rookie List ( eg Melbounre's Shane Valenti in 2008 )

  Green N Juice said:

only 6 for Dunn? and no Bate

Dunn is the goods, I don't see why even 6 people would want him delisted? I think it's more about Bailey settling on a postion for him because the kid can play anywhere, I'd like to see him primarily as a forward. And Bate is a gun also.

what do you guys think about bartram? has this guy improved since 06 at all?? we also have enough of his type of player on our list imo

  Rojik of the Arctic said:

Find 1 more to delist/ trade and promote Spencer instead of Valenti. Use the extra for the PSD.

I have been saying all year valenti would be myfirst mid fielder selected each week.

Your judgment is in youe arse

  phantom8 said:

I have been saying all year valenti would be myfirst mid fielder selected each week.

Your judgment is in youe arse

Thank you for those kind words. If they can find another spot for him then good, if not he can go. Do you really think that he will be in the best 22 with Scully, #2 pick, McLean, Jones and Moloney? Look, I'd happily keep him, and I'd happily cut someone like Newton to make space but it won't happen. We only have so many retirements and out of contract players that will go this year.

  Rojik of the Arctic said:

Miller is probably required for the next 12 months while the kids come along. That said I wouldn't lose any sleep if he was traded/delisted. I like Valenti and his in and under work but do we really need another B grade mid? Because that is what he is. A good worker but not a game breaker. I mentioned Spencer because I think that a club should always have some rucks being groomed in the wings as they take so long to come along.

After Valentis game today... i just get the impression that he's doing a bit of a matty bate and really starting to blossom. really think we need to keep both Valents and Spence, Valenti in particular to step into the j-mac role when he retires.

Maybe good to have a valenti ready to go as the draft will be shallow for the next few years, an he might come in very handy as a ready made player..its a hard one tho!

again, after todays game, i just think a 31+ year old robbo is better than an 'any age' miller.

definately agree on the ruck theory!!