I think we need to delist more than 15 over the next two to three years, but that is the timeframe where the returns should be quality.

If you draft and recruit well...

And jnrmac - 23 Primary List spots in the last two years and 6 Rookie List spots. Of the new players: 4 have already left, 10 are kids, 6 of the mature age players are best 22, and the other 8 are depth players (Clisby represents twice so it is 28 unique individuals).

12 of the 28 won't amount to much. Cross will be gone in a year. Hunt, Harmes, King, and Barry have not shown much at any level of footy.

So 17 of the 28 might not be here in 14 months time...

Quality of changes, not quantity...

Sadly its BOTH we need !!!

Sadly its BOTH we need !!!

Yes, but my point is that if you have 24 to delist, you are better off moving 8 a year over three years, than 12 a year over two, or 24 in one year like some on here would have.

Yes, but my point is that if you have 24 to delist, you are better off moving 8 a year over three years, than 12 a year over two, or 24 in one year like some on here would have.

I would think it totally dependent on the notion of who's available at any given moment ( year )

If opportunities present I wouldnt be hanging about

Bail and Riley have re-signed for 1 year and Terlich for 2 years - for those who question my 'source' - an email response from the Club (within 24 hours).

Actually the problem is that we don't cover the ground well enough in open space. We struggle to get into attacking positions due to our lack of line breaking run.

The disposal efficiency reflects that we are rarely in a position to take risks with our disposal, and instead are choosing low risk options due to them occurring in defensive positions.

It's also why we bemoan our poor disposal, because when we do stuff it up it happens in a bad position.

Stats tell a number of potential stories, but you just have to look a bit harder to find the right one.

Spot on.

Yes, but my point is that if you have 24 to delist, you are better off moving 8 a year over three years, than 12 a year over two, or 24 in one year like some on here would have.

I think you find that after the first year, you ll end up with even more to move on. Last year many wouldnt have had Evans Blease or Strauss in the potential delist list, now they do.

We can turn over 20+ players with trades. Trade away 6 or 7, pick up 6 in the draft, rookies, free agents, pre season draft and you got it.

Even like for like trades would be worth it as we get rid of a player whose scarred and bring in one who isnt.

Every year its our new players who do well and as years tick over they start going down hill. Last year it was Dawes Viney ect who came in blazing. This year it was Vince Tyson ect. Next year it will be the new recruits and yet again the others continue to decline in form from the culture.

Bail and Riley have re-signed for 1 year and Terlich for 2 years - for those who question my 'source' - an email response from the Club (within 24 hours).

Good enough for me, I will amend the Contract thread.

Bail and Riley have re-signed for 1 year and Terlich for 2 years - for those who question my 'source' - an email response from the Club (within 24 hours).

Terlich for 2 years!!!

Lol.

Terlich for 2 years!!!

Lol.

Casey will need some help over the next two years BBP

Casey will need some help over the next two years BBP

Fair enough OD

Bail and Riley have re-signed for 1 year and Terlich for 2 years - for those who question my 'source' - an email response from the Club (within 24 hours).

If true (and it seems it is), wow.

If Terlich's season was worthy of a two-year contract Bail deserved three.

That's definitely a year too long for Terlich.