Mature Age Rookie

[Guest hangon007]

Whats the chance we might take advantage of this new rule ... allowing us to have 2 mature age rookies

One name instantly comes to mind .... DB

DB must be struggling ti find a spot in our team and he is still contracted ... plus it would also helps with salary cap pressures.

DB get the chance to full recover from injury and earn his spot back in the side if we get a long-term injury.

Edited November 7, 2009 by hangon007

[titan_uranus 25,042]

Interesting article in the HUN today. Mark Stevens says that players with a year left to run on their contract could be delisted with the promise of being picked up in the rookie draft. They then get paid their full wage, the difference being they've been demoted to the rookie list.

Newton and Bell come to mind.

[Deeoldfart 8,061]

Interesting article in the HUN today. Mark Stevens says that players with a year left to run on their contract could be delisted with the promise of being picked up in the rookie draft. They then get paid their full wage, the difference being they've been demoted to the rookie list.

Newton and Bell come to mind.

Thers's a rumour from a 'tenuous source' on 'ology which suggests that this possibility may have already been discussed with Newton. I strongly doubt it, but the rules now allow for it.

[Melb2012 0]

I said this in another thread and got blasted around 2 weeks ago.

They will do this with Newton cos it makes sense.

[Bates Mate 4,508]

I said this in another thread and got blasted around 2 weeks ago.

They will do this with Newton cos it makes sense.

Definately makes sense open a spot for Mitch Thorp

[titan_uranus 25,042]

If we do this with someone (Newton, Bell, maybe even McNamara), we could then refrain from fully letting someone go, and could still make use of PSD1 and Pick 34.

If it's as easy as it seems, we should do it.

[Guest hangon007]

The only problem with Newton is his age ... think you have to be 23+

I would think we could have a perfectly balanced rookie list if we had

1/ Spencer

2/ McKenzie

3/ Healey

4/ Hughes - mature age rookie

then add

5/ Thorp - our first pick in the rookie draft

6/ DB - mature age rookie

Edited November 8, 2009 by hangon007

[LittleMoeWithTheGimpyLeg 0]

The only problem with Newton is his age ... think you have to be 23+

I would think we could have a perfectly balanced rookie list if we had

1/ Spencer

2/ McKenzie

3/ Healey

4/ Hughes - mature age rookie

then add

5/ Thorp - our first pick in the rookie draft

6/ DB - mature age rookie

Key problem with the rookie draft though is that GC17 has the first 5 picks. So gettting a Thorp or Patrick, might be a little tricky.

[phoenix 32]

The only problem with Newton is his age ... think you have to be 23+

The only changes to the mature aged rookie rules are that you can now have two and there is no games limitations. Previously to be a mature aged rookie you could not have played any AFL games. The other change is you can now have two mature aged rookies.

Newton is not 23 so would not be a mature aged rookie, just a rookie, but you can still do it. Hughes is already a mature aged rookie.

The process is that the players are delisted by the club. With time to run on their contract they are automatically put into the ND and the PSD and anybody can pick them up. If they are not picked up they can be rookied by their original club or any other club. Therefore there is a chance you could lose them so you'd only do it with players you'd be prepared to lose.

[Gooner 9]

We need to find a way to get another spot on the list.

I get the feeling that the club are waiting to see what happens in terms of likely draft picks. If there looks like a decent player being available for pick 34 or PSD1, we'll make room for one more on the list.

We'd be crazy not to use pick 34. I know this draft is weak, but there are a lot of quality players who are picked up with pick 34 or later.

[LITTLE STINGA 1]

The only problem with Newton is his age ... think you have to be 23+

I don't think so this happened to Gourdis from Richmond.

Someone on Ology wrote that this was going to happen to Newton a while back. I hope it happens.

[Guest hangon007]

I don't think so this happened to Gourdis from Richmond.

Did Gourdis have a contract? I dont think he did ...

Gourdis was delisted with the view to take him via PSD ... then came the monumental black flip on Cousins.

He was then subsequently taken with their 2nd pick in the rookie draft behind Nahas.

However, the main point was he was un-contracted ... where as Newton has a contract.

[LITTLE STINGA 1]

Did Gourdis have a contract? I dont think he did ...

Gourdis was delisted with the view to take him via PSD ... then came the monumental black flip on Cousins.

He was then subsequently taken with their 2nd pick in the rookie draft behind Nahas.

However, the main point was he was un-contracted ... where as Newton has a contract.

He was only on the list for 1 year. Doesn't everyone recruited on to the senior list get 2 years automatically?

[Guest hangon007]

He was only on the list for 1 year. Doesn't everyone recruited on to the senior list get 2 years automatically?

Nope he was drafted via the PSD after training with Richmond after he missed the draft. I'm pretty sure he had a 1 year deal.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

Given that it was Goudis' first senior contract he would have received the standard 2 year contract.

As I understand it, Newton would still have his contract with Melbourne however he would be paid that contract whilst being on the rookie list.

[Guest hangon007]

Given that it was Goudis' first senior contract he would have received the standard 2 year contract.

As I understand it, Newton would still have his contract with Melbourne however he would be paid that contract whilst being on the rookie list.

No problems I could be wrong re Gourdis contract but I will check ... will only take one telephone call tomorrow.

I will come back to you to confirm.

[H_T 3,049]

Interesting article in the HUN today. Mark Stevens says that players with a year left to run on their contract could be delisted with the promise of being picked up in the rookie draft. They then get paid their full wage, the difference being they've been demoted to the rookie list.

Newton and Bell come to mind.

They will do this with Newton cos it makes sense.

Definately makes sense open a spot for Mitch Thorp

Very interesting.

[old55 23,687]

The only changes to the mature aged rookie rules are that you can now have two and there is no games limitations. Previously to be a mature aged rookie you could not have played any AFL games. The other change is you can now have two mature aged rookies.

Newton is not 23 so would not be a mature aged rookie, just a rookie, but you can still do it. Hughes is already a mature aged rookie.

The process is that the players are delisted by the club. With time to run on their contract they are automatically put into the ND and the PSD and anybody can pick them up. If they are not picked up they can be rookied by their original club or any other club. Therefore there is a chance you could lose them so you'd only do it with players you'd be prepared to lose.

Do these players have to be delisted prior to the ND and go thru both the ND and the PSD to the Rookie draft or can they be delisted between the ND and the RD and only nominate for the PSD and RD? I guess the players involved would want every chance to be selected onto a senior list so would want to go into the ND, but is it possible to delist them after the ND?

It is possible for uncontracted players to just nominate for the PSD - what we want Luke Ball to do.

[torpedo 33]

Interesting article in the HUN today. Mark Stevens says that players with a year left to run on their contract could be delisted with the promise of being picked up in the rookie draft. They then get paid their full wage, the difference being they've been demoted to the rookie list.

I find it very hard to believe it is as simple as Mark Stevens has put and that and that the AFLPA accept this strategy. It is a massive demotion part way through a contract which makes you unavailable for senior selection, why would any player agree to that?

[youami 54]

because it's either that, or the club pays out your contract and you have no chance of playing afl football for that particular year. not many get back in the afl system once they've been delisted. so it does work out for the player.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

I hope they do it for Newton. Puts a rocket up his behind, and we will find out for sure what he's doing here.

[Guest hangon007]

Given that it was Goudis' first senior contract he would have received the standard 2 year contract.

Gourdis was signed via the PSD on a 1 year deal.

However, I got this part wrong ... "Gourdis was delisted with the view to take him via PSD ... then came the monumental black flip on Cousins."

Gourdis was on ... "we will rookie you if you still are available" ... with maybe a slightly firmer offer than that ...

However, I firmly believe Gourdis did not have a deal in writing ... Bell & Newton do.

[torpedo 33]

the club pays out your contract and you have no chance of playing afl football for that particular year.

That is only ever an option in extremely rare circumstances, the belief that this can be done whenever the club feels like it is a complete myth.

There is absolutely no incentive for a contracted player to volunteer for a demotion to the rookie list.

I'd love for Mark Stevens to be right, I cannot see how the AFLPA would accept such an arrangement though.

[Mega_Watts 70]

That is only ever an option in extremely rare circumstances, the belief that this can be done whenever the club feels like it is a complete myth.

There is absolutely no incentive for a contracted player to volunteer for a demotion to the rookie list.

I'd love for Mark Stevens to be right, I cannot see how the AFLPA would accept such an arrangement though.

I can assure you that this can and does happen.

I know Brad Howard, an ultra-fringe player form St Kilda, quite well.

Late last season (around September) he signed a 2-year deal with the Saints.

Pre-draft time they decided they wanted more room on the senior list and delisted him with the promise of rookieing him.

They picked him up in the rookie draft and are now paying him his original 2-year contract.

As I understand it they made it clear he was a fringe player and didn't have much choice in the matter.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Mega_Watts

[hoopla 418]

That is only ever an option in extremely rare circumstances, the belief that this can be done whenever the club feels like it is a complete myth.

There is absolutely no incentive for a contracted player to volunteer for a demotion to the rookie list.

I'd love for Mark Stevens to be right, I cannot see how the AFLPA would accept such an arrangement though.

Got to agree with this

The only reason a contracted player might accept it - is if it comes with a guaranteed second year on the the rookie list. But why would a club already concerned about a player's progress do that?.