Regardless of initial contract they can upgrade him (it's a promotion!). But we had 4 rookies this year and you can have up to 6 and take 2 players off the main list and then upgrade 2 at the start of the year. Richmond did it with Petterd I believe. That's where I'd see Clisby at. Leave him as a rookie but don't add your full quota of main list players. Is effectively a bet each way. Especially if the last spots on the list come down to recycled players like a Gillies or Rodan, the rookie list is perfect.

But the club wouldn't be maximizing what they do in the draft and FA if they leave 2 spots more for the rookie draft.

Leave Clisby there unless we decide to delist Agee more and he can easily be elevated.

Frankly, there should not be a rookie list, they should simply expand the primary.

But the club wouldn't be maximizing what they do in the draft and FA if they leave 2 spots more for the rookie draft.

Leave Clisby there unless we decide to delist Agee more and he can easily be elevated.

Frankly, there should not be a rookie list, they should simply expand the primary.

So, why does the rookie list exist? The only reasons I can see are that (1) players rookie listed get shorter initial contracts with clubs able to contract for 1 year whereas drafted players must be offered two years (2) it allows some number balancing with veterans which I don't really understand. What else?

Yeah, I think it creates a group of exceptions to the general basic minimum player contract rates & conditions.

Allows for greater list turnover of fringe players, where it otherwise would be restricted.

There were multiple posts in 2012 about Couch and what a great player he was and frequent calls for him to be selected in the seniors.

Indeed I think I remember some posters saying "he will be a real gun"! A much overused phrase.

So, why does the rookie list exist? The only reasons I can see are that (1) players rookie listed get shorter initial contracts with clubs able to contract for 1 year whereas drafted players must be offered two years (2) it allows some number balancing with veterans which I don't really understand. What else?

A rookie will cost you less than a senior listed player.

The cost of your rookie is normally less than a senior player but the other benefit is that the cost isn't included in total player payments so I would imagine that if you happen to be sailing close to your salary cap limit, you would want to have the maximum number of players on your rookie list to help keep you from going over.

The other thing highlighted by our delistings is that we lost a couple of list improvement opportunities last year in the way we went about things. With the benefit of hindsight, the use of a delisted free agency pick to secure Tom Gillies was a complete waste. The space on the list could have been better utilised to secure Jack Hannath or Sam Colquhoun. We certainly wanted the former and whilst I don't know what Todd Viney's thoughts were on the latter, from what I've seen of him at Port Adelaide, he has a promising future.

But the club wouldn't be maximizing what they do in the draft and FA if they leave 2 spots more for the rookie draft.

Leave Clisby there unless we decide to delist Agee more and he can easily be elevated.

Frankly, there should not be a rookie list, they should simply expand the primary.

But if the talent is there (and I believe there isn't nearly enough talent across AFL for all list especially ours) we should add speculative players via the rookie list instead of via the senior list. For example last year Gillies could've been a rookie spot as others have mentioned.

The cost of your rookie is normally less than a senior player but the other benefit is that the cost isn't included in total player payments so I would imagine that if you happen to be sailing close to your salary cap limit, you would want to have the maximum number of players on your rookie list to help keep you from going over.

The other thing highlighted by our delistings is that we lost a couple of list improvement opportunities last year in the way we went about things. With the benefit of hindsight, the use of a delisted free agency pick to secure Tom Gillies was a complete waste. The space on the list could have been better utilised to secure Jack Hannath or Sam Colquhoun. We certainly wanted the former and whilst I don't know what Todd Viney's thoughts were on the latter, from what I've seen of him at Port Adelaide, he has a promising future.

It was a massive mistake last year not leaving ourselves a pick in the pre-season draft and arrogently assuming that we could pick up Hannath in the rookie draft. We had a low pick in every draft [and will again this year] so it was inexcusable missing out on Hannath [particulaly after taking him to Darwin naively assuming everybody would leave him for us].

On another matter, what is the liklihood of the Casey Scorpions picking up Sellar etc if they don't get drafted by an AFL club? It seems that it might help their depth especially when they have lost Hogan as a fey position player next year!

It was a massive mistake last year not leaving ourselves a pick in the pre-season draft and arrogently assuming that we could pick up Hannath in the rookie draft. We had a low pick in every draft [and will again this year] so it was inexcusable missing out on Hannath [particulaly after taking him to Darwin naively assuming everybody would leave him for us].

On another matter, what is the liklihood of the Casey Scorpions picking up Sellar etc if they don't get drafted by an AFL club? It seems that it might help their depth especially when they have lost Hogan as a fey position player next year!

Players generally don't play on at a club they were delisted from

Sellar would most likely head back to Glenelg.

I'd have rather Pedo had gone and retained Sellar. Similar abilities but I reckon Sellar had more heart and desparation

The point is neither of them would /will ever be good enough to play an important role in our revival. Get rid of them and a few others to come I hope...Get positive and support any moves Roos may make at this stage.. It's ok for some Demonlanders to make comments like "I don't agree with this one going or that one staying" etc. That will only take us back to the unsavoury negative attitudes of the past which is a culture at least I do not want to see emerging again in our club, at least before the new era has barely begun.. Let's this time allow the new untried powers to be to make all the changes they deem is necessary to put this once great club back on top again. Good luck Paul Roos and Co. Our future depends on you.

Did we have to delist all these guys before the trading period or could we have retained them a bit longer and tried to trade them? (Better to trade one or two of our least preferred players than be forced to release one of our emerging/established key players)!

Trade them ?? Who the hell would want them ?? We have done the right thing in getting them off our list.. and a few more 2013 below par players to come yet I sincerely hope...

Yes, Rawlings is contracted for next season. Not that contracts seem to be an impediment for removing staff at the moment.

Garland spoke very highly of Rawlings at the B&F, it would be no surprise to see him continue next season.

Fellow Tasmanian ??

And to think we could have had Hannath instead of Gillies.

Thank you Neeld and co.

RE Rookie lists etc. I think we are really seeing the problems associated with not having a genuine 2nd XXII competition anywhere in the country. The AFL is the top level, and its a combination of the best of the best, and those with the highest potential over 18 teams. The 'best of the rest', arguably players who would fit anywhere between player 15 and player 38 on the current 18 lists are spread across 30+ teams in the VFL, SANFL, WAFL and potentially others.

There is clearly a conflict between playing the best players and playing players to develop across the league. If we could somehow have a genuine 2nds competition there is potentially a lot more potential players who may develop late, and be able to step up to the big leagues, and arguably it would be much better for the draftees to develop in a competition with a much higher concentration of quality players.

One solution I can see is expanding lists to 60 (which may include an AFL list of 35 and a 2nd XXII list of 25, which can be drawn on in a similar fashion to the Rookie list currently, perhaps with a long term injury reduced to 4 or 5 weeks to promote someone). Turn over each year won't be much different to now; clubs will still only draft 3-6 players and bring a couple of others in via trade/free agency, maybe make some minor changes to the 2nd XXII squad. Maybe you can draft into either list? Or maybe draftees go onto a list with a maximum of 12 players but after year two need to be promoted to either the 1st or 2nd squads (which have a min/max numbers such as 30/35 and 18/25, respectively)?

2nd XXII squad members could have their individual pay limited, so you either have to promote kids or get rid of them once they reach a certain level. This would promote the AFL being the best 22 versus the best 22 each week, instead of the best 18 plus 4 development players. It would promote the standard of AFL, and lower level football, because everyone on the list is making a living out of football, and playing with serious hours. Maybe the 2nd list would be 50% part time, still more serious than the current 2nd tier competitions. These players will then be fitter, stronger, better coached, and potentially more ready to step up to, or better developed to make it at, AFL level, as a mature age player. Good players won't be list to the system, they will have the chance to become very good players.

RE Rookies, they get paid stuff all. It is a labour of love. We're talking $35k per year in 2011, for a pretty hard, full time slog. Compare that to a 1st year, 1st round draftee in 2011 ($59k) or a 3rd round draftee in 2011 (51k), who both also get ~$2,500 match fees per game, it isn't a great deal.

Not a fan Deenox, as it would be another nail in the coffin of state leagues further marginalising their top level comp. And given the State leagues are the heart of developing all players that would seem to be an average move.

Not a fan Deenox, as it would be another nail in the coffin of state leagues further marginalising their top level comp. And given the State leagues are the heart of developing all players that would seem to be an average move.

Well it would make the reserves the heart of developing players which would go back to how it used to be but I agree with you. The state leagues in SA and WA are particularly important and work very well. The NEAFL seems to be going ok as well and should only get stronger if the game grows in those regions. At least there's 4 AFL reserve teams in them to keep at least some competition for those sides.

The issue is what on earth to do with the VFL in Victoria. Next year will have Coll, Geel, Ess, WB all with stand alone teams and Hawthorn and Carlton practically running their alignments. I think Richmond are moving for a stand alone team as well. Very soon the VFL will be AFL reserves with Port, Willy, North Ballarat and a struggling Frankston. I don't know if that will continue to suit both AFL and traditional VFA clubs.