Also to my knowledge Liam has always maintained his innocence to the Club from the very outset. Also what type of image would it portray to delist prior to his court case. We are not St.Kilda who indecently got rid of a player prior to his court case.

So Sept 3 is a hearing to determine when the trial will be?

That doesn't sound like this will be done by the last week of the Trade/Drafting Period when the fringe players will or won't be signed up.

Either get dispensation to demote Jurrah to the RL (which will not come - he isn't injured - he is on trial) or risk him being picked up by another club.

It seems to me that Jurrah's presence on the list in 2013 might be determined by how we go luring FAs during the window in October.

I reckon this is the furthest from the mark rpfc has ever been on any issue in his time on Demonland. I'd be absolutely staggered if Jurrah wasn't supported and re-signed. Staggered.

I reckon this is the furthest from the mark rpfc has ever been on any issue in his time on Demonland. I'd be absolutely staggered if Jurrah wasn't supported and re-signed. Staggered.

Me too Nasher

I wish I was as sure of winning Tattslotto on Saturday night.

I reckon this is the furthest from the mark rpfc has ever been on any issue in his time on Demonland. I'd be absolutely staggered if Jurrah wasn't supported and re-signed. Staggered.

I am not saying we shouldn't support him, all I am saying is that the MFC concerns are two-fold: Liam's welfare and our position with regards to list management.

If we could get him onto the RL without much pain - we would do that in a heartbeat.

I am pretty comfortable with that position - I am not casting him aside. I am trying to find a prudent next step for a career that can be politely be called 'at the crossroads.'

I reckon this is the furthest from the mark rpfc has ever been on any issue in his time on Demonland. I'd be absolutely staggered if Jurrah wasn't supported and re-signed. Staggered.

yes and no. Re-signed to what then ? To some through longevity of a new signing may signify something also. Short=bet each way; longer some feel may be not so clever re injuries etc. Youre pretty well on a hiding to nothing here.

Wheres the guarantee he'll ever don Red and Blue again ? We all hope he does but will he ?

I think its too easy just to say rpfc is say off. The club has some serious thinking to do.

I am not saying we shouldn't support him, all I am saying is that the MFC concerns are two-fold: Liam's welfare and our position with regards to list management.

If we could get him onto the RL without much pain - we would do that in a heartbeat.

I am pretty comfortable with that position - I am not casting him aside. I am trying to find a prudent next step for a career that can be politely be called 'at the crossroads.'

I have no issue with the idea of applying for special dispensation to have him put on the rookie list, in fact I think that would be prudent management, especially if we think he probably won't play much in the next 12 months. But in the post I quoted, you seemed to be implying the options were to apply to have him placed on the rookie list, "or risk him being picked up by another club." The latter won't happen, if we can't have him placed on the rookie list then he will be re-signed as he would've been had this stuff not occurred.

And in that case, it's not a choice between one or the other; one is plan A and the other is plan B.

yes and no. Re-signed to what then ? To some through longevity of a new signing may signify something also. Short=bet each way; longer some feel may be not so clever re injuries etc. Youre pretty well on a hiding to nothing here.

Wheres the guarantee he'll ever don Red and Blue again ? We all hope he does but will he ?

I think its too easy just to say rpfc is say off. The club has some serious thinking to do.

I have similar thoughts on some of the above BB.

But there is no doubt in my mind that unless the case gets heard prior to the cut off dates and the decision goes the wrong way.

He will get another contract.

yes and no. Re-signed to what then ? To some through longevity of a new signing may signify something also. Short=bet each way; longer some feel may be not so clever re injuries etc. Youre pretty well on a hiding to nothing here.

Wheres the guarantee he'll ever don Red and Blue again ? We all hope he does but will he ?

I think its too easy just to say rpfc is say off. The club has some serious thinking to do.

It's pretty easy bub: if he goes to prison he'll never play again, if he doesn't go to prison he will play again and I see no reason to assume otherwise. We're talking one season here; presumably the trial won't extend beyond a one year contract extension. One year is not too long to wait, especially when we've already got a boot full of players to dump.

I'm not sure why you even brought injuries in to it. That applies to all players universally, not just Jurrah. Unless you're making some subtle point beyond my mere mortal's comprehension.

It's pretty easy bub: if he goes to prison he'll never play again, if he doesn't go to prison he will play again and I see no reason to assume otherwise. We're talking one season here; presumably the trial won't extend beyond a one year contract extension. One year is not too long to wait, especially when we've already got a boot full of players to dump.

I'm not sure why you even brought injuries in to it. That applies to all players universally, not just Jurrah. Unless you're making some subtle point beyond my mere mortal's comprehension.

We have waited all this year Nasher for one quarter

2013 will need to be very very good

I have no issue with the idea of applying for special dispensation to have him put on the rookie list, in fact I think that would be prudent management, especially if we think he probably won't play much in the next 12 months. But in the post I quoted, you seemed to be implying the options were to apply to have him placed on the rookie list, "or risk him being picked up by another club." The latter won't happen, if we can't have him placed on the rookie list then he will be re-signed as he would've been had this stuff not occurred.

And in that case, it's not a choice between one or the other; one is plan A and the other is plan B.

I just floated it out there if we felt other teams wouldn't touch him on his way to the Rookie List. Frankly, I think that FA should allow players that are willing to go onto the RL to go there.

I would probably re-sign him too.

But if we put the whole thing into the 'too hard basket' I would understand that too, I wouldn't agree with it, but I could understand it.

We have waited all this year Nasher for one quarter

2013 will need to be very very good

must have been too subtle

While I don't support the merits of the "put him on the rookie list argument" I don't think I even understand the logic of it. If he stays on the primary list and can't play, a rookie will be promoted, so we still have the same numbers available. So, what's the advantage?

While I don't support the merits of the "put him on the rookie list argument" I don't think I even understand the logic of it. If he stays on the primary list and can't play, a rookie will be promoted, so we still have the same numbers available. So, what's the advantage?

It's about flexibility at the draft and FA.

If we move someone onto the RL prior to the draft and we have 5 spots on the PL then we can use Pick 5oish. If we do not move someone onto the RL, we would have 4 open spots on the PL and can not use Pick 50ish.

We did it with Newton and Meesen a couple years back, but from memory they went through the Rookie Draft again.

Those that want to toss him to the scrap heap because of injury will need to look at half our list before going down that path. The bloke didn't miss a beat in his first nearly two seasons, and has hit hurdles late last year and this year. But players have come back from far more serious injuries than his.

robbie since his debut in round 12, 2009 he has played 36 games out of possible 72 anticipation rate of 50%

I

Your Freudian slip gave me a chuckle od, but we all knew what you meant

The anticipation was 72 games but the participation was 36

It's about flexibility at the draft and FA.

If we move someone onto the RL prior to the draft and we have 5 spots on the PL then we can use Pick 5oish. If we do not move someone onto the RL, we would have 4 open spots on the PL and can not use Pick 50ish.

We did it with Newton and Meesen a couple years back, but from memory they went through the Rookie Draft again.

Got it, thanks.

Your Freudian slip gave me a chuckle od, but we all knew what you meant

The anticipation was 72 games but the participation was 36

Not even chrome could save me from that one DC.

I am however glad you got a chuckle out of something to do with Dees.

Not a lot of those these days

What would stop Liam from playing next year?

He can still play with the looming case, after all, he isn't even allowed back home.

If he is fit, and I can't see why he wouldn't be, he should be there round 1.

If he needs time off to go to court, well we'll grant him leave. It's not that difficult to manage.

Again, I'm staggered by all the negativity. Liam says he is innocent, the weight of evidence suggests he's telling the truth, and he is a gun footballer who we haven't even seen play alongside Clark, and with a decent midfield.

If the club just gave up on him because it was all "too hard", when we've dealt with plenty more difficult players before (Sylvia says hi btw), I would be so disappointed and disgusted.

We have an obligation, not just to Liam, but to our club, to help him help us become a better team.

He is a very very good player. We have so few of those!

Consensus suggests a one year extension ; possibly even now as an act of faith and to buoy the lad up ( obvious get out clauses etc )

Then we get back to the footy. Thatd be novel.

What would stop Liam from playing next year?

He can still play with the looming case, after all, he isn't even allowed back home.

If he is fit, and I can't see why he wouldn't be, he should be there round 1.

If he needs time off to go to court, well we'll grant him leave. It's not that difficult to manage.

Again, I'm staggered by all the negativity. Liam says he is innocent, the weight of evidence suggests he's telling the truth, and he is a gun footballer who we haven't even seen play alongside Clark, and with a decent midfield.

If the club just gave up on him because it was all "too hard", when we've dealt with plenty more difficult players before (Sylvia says hi btw), I would be so disappointed and disgusted.

We have an obligation, not just to Liam, but to our club, to help him help us become a better team.

He is a very very good player. We have so few of those!

It is getting so long ago since I have seen him Jaded I am struggling to remember.

Where does he play again?

What would stop Liam from playing next year?

He can still play with the looming case, after all, he isn't even allowed back home.

If he is fit, and I can't see why he wouldn't be, he should be there round 1.

If he needs time off to go to court, well we'll grant him leave. It's not that difficult to manage.

Again, I'm staggered by all the negativity. Liam says he is innocent, the weight of evidence suggests he's telling the truth, and he is a gun footballer who we haven't even seen play alongside Clark, and with a decent midfield.

If the club just gave up on him because it was all "too hard", when we've dealt with plenty more difficult players before (Sylvia says hi btw), I would be so disappointed and disgusted.

We have an obligation, not just to Liam, but to our club, to help him help us become a better team.

He is a very very good player. We have so few of those!

Can't figure out why some would want to shove him sideways to the rookie list. God help us if we miss the chance to draft pick 59 or whatever. I'd re-sign him today

Thanks Redleg I feel a bit better

Can you now get him back on the park?

Take it as done.

It's pretty easy bub: if he goes to prison he'll never play again, if he doesn't go to prison he will play again and I see no reason to assume otherwise.

Why do you say that? Are you saying if he got a month, served in say February, he would never play again. Don't think so.

Why do you say that? Are you saying if he got a month, served in say February, he would never play again. Don't think so.

I didn't take in to consideration that he may only get a short sentence. Probably a pretty major thing to overlook, but never mind.

Again, I'm staggered by all the negativity.

Would it not be weak to see anything but negatives?

A bright lady said that once...