Jack Trengove Support Group

[CBDees 3,167]

  On 23/10/2014 at 10:35, Qwerty30 said:

If the injury is prolonged from here why can't we put him on the LT list and upgrade a rookie.

All this handwringing about delisting him is ridiculous particular given he has been so poorly treated and developed at this Club.

There is a basic level of player respect which I hope the Club honours even if some on this site find too challenging.

It is possible to do this and it may well be what transpires. The other option of de-listing and rookieing him however simply allows us to recruit an additional player from the main draft or PSD rather than use the Rookie draft, thereby [slightly] improving the value of our list by drawing from stronger pools.

[beelzebub 23,392]

  On 23/10/2014 at 06:38, UTAH said:

What's the point of putting him on the rookie list compared to putting him on the long term injured list and promote another in his place?

Post 76 ^^^^^^^ puts it simply http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/37554-jack-trengove-update/?p=1018552

[The Chazz 4,077]

So let me get this right, we/some want to delist Trengove, on the provision/promise that we pick him up in the rookie draft, and pay him above the standard rookie wage, with the main reason to pick up someone in the national draft.

So we/some want to go in to this year's draft freeing up pick 83 (we will use 2,3,40,42-Stretch,53-Jetta), which they want to give that player the standard and minimum 2 year contract, with the view that they may make it.

As opposed to leaving Jack on the senior list, putting him on the LTI list, upgrading a rookie who, as we have seen yesterday, can be delisted after 12 months.

In simple terms, some want to delist Trengove with the view that pick 83 will be a worthy recipient of a 2 year contract, at higher pay than a rookie-listed player.

FMD.

[beelzebub 23,392]

Billy...yet strangely anyone we DO pick up in the draft has about a 1000% better chance of actually playing for us in 15 ( at least )

Re our picks...you would only ever use you LAST picks to lift a rookie 53 will become live...not 83

[Nasher 33,641]

  On 23/10/2014 at 22:21, beelzebub said:

Billy...yet strangely anyone we DO pick up in the draft has about a 1000% better chance of actually playing for us in 15 ( at least )

Re our picks...you would only ever use you LAST picks to lift a rookie 53 will become live...not 83

Chances are that player you desperately want at pick 60 or whatever will still be there in the rookie draft. Take him with RD pick 2, promote him when JT goes on the LTI, get the same result without being committed to that player for two years or risking having another club take Trengove.

[watchtheeyes 1,429]

  On 23/10/2014 at 22:17, billy2803 said:

So let me get this right, we/some want to delist Trengove, on the provision/promise that we pick him up in the rookie draft, and pay him above the standard rookie wage, with the main reason to pick up someone in the national draft.

So we/some want to go in to this year's draft freeing up pick 83 (we will use 2,3,40,42-Stretch,53-Jetta), which they want to give that player the standard and minimum 2 year contract, with the view that they may make it.

As opposed to leaving Jack on the senior list, putting him on the LTI list, upgrading a rookie who, as we have seen yesterday, can be delisted after 12 months.

In simple terms, some want to delist Trengove with the view that pick 83 will be a worthy recipient of a 2 year contract, at higher pay than a rookie-listed player.

FMD.

Don't know what "FMD" stands for, but reading between the lines, I agree.

IMO this whole conversation is fanciful, never going to happen. How mercenary do you think the club has/can become? Pretty sure the AFLPA would have a field day with it too.

[Big Kev 375]

  On 23/10/2014 at 08:33, CHF said:

I watched Ox go through his three knee recos and at no time was there talk of cutting him loose. I know this is a very different injury, but I believe Jack has shown enough to be given every chance to get back.

The Ox was offered up to Richmond as a trade for Wayne Campbell back in 1998, again it was Richmond that pulled the plug, not us. The details are in All Bets Are Off, but were pretty common knowledge.

[The Chazz 4,077]

  On 23/10/2014 at 22:21, beelzebub said:

Billy...yet strangely anyone we DO pick up in the draft has about a 1000% better chance of actually playing for us in 15 ( at least )

Re our picks...you would only ever use you LAST picks to lift a rookie 53 will become live...not 83

Apologies B59, you are correct (in regards to the bolded section above).

So we are going to delist Trengove to use pick 53 in the national draft.

Don't forget, a rookie-listed player, taken at pick 2 in the RD, will have 1000% better chance of playing in 2015, as they will be potentially be elevated when JT is placed on the LTI list.

I still stand by my expression of FMD.

[beelzebub 23,392]

  On 23/10/2014 at 22:59, billy2803 said:

Apologies B59, you are correct (in regards to the bolded section above).

So we are going to delist Trengove to use pick 53 in the national draft.

Don't forget, a rookie-listed player, taken at pick 2 in the RD, will have 1000% better chance of playing in 2015, as they will be potentially be elevated when JT is placed on the LTI list.

I still stand by my expression of FMD.

Choices at 53 will be better than choices anytime after. I dont see why thats dismissed out of hand.

[The Chazz 4,077]

  On 23/10/2014 at 23:12, beelzebub said:

Choices at 53 will be better than choices anytime after. I dont see why thats dismissed out of hand.

Go through the list of players picked at 53 or more in the National Draft (that weren't rookie upgrades), and compare that to the list of players picked up in the first round of the rookie draft.

In particular, do this exercise pre-compromised drafts.

You will find the rookie draft has a far greater success rate at producing an AFL standard player as opposed to those players picked in the ND at 53 or more. And the best part is they are cheaper and only require a one year contract.

[Slartibartfast 18,089]

  On 22/10/2014 at 02:26, Deestroy All said:

Finished, for us at least.

As rpfc posted in another thread, continuing with us after we were happy to trade him seems unlikely.

I reckon you're usually on the mark but here you're miles off IMO.

Firstly how do we know that Jack wasn't happy to go to Richmond? He, like Chip, might have welcomed the opportunity for a new start at a better club on a longer contract and a genuine chance to play finals next year.

Secondly because he was contracted he could have refused to go to Richmond if he want to. Ferguson did and we missed Sewell as a result.

If you've ever spoken to any of the players about this they will tell you that it's a business, you've got to always be prepared to be traded and it's a business. We saw that more and more this year.

If your assertion, and that of RPFC is correct, we may as well delist him now as he'll never play for us again. That's just rot.

Jack is a ripping bloke. He will sort out with Melbourne whether to go on the rookie list or not. To get on the rookie list he has to be delisted but no other club can pick him up as a free agent unless Jack agrees. DFA is an agreement between two parties, not a one way arrangement. If we pay him his existing contract, which we must anyway, it's extraordinarily unlikely another club will pick him up.

Whichever way it goes we must stick by this kid and if he does recover which is highly unlikely he'll play as good a football for us as anyone else.

Gosh I hope he recovers fully. He deserves it.

[rpfc 28,996]

  On 24/10/2014 at 00:09, Baghdad Bob said:

If your assertion, and that of RPFC is correct, we may as well delist him now as he'll never play for us again. That's just rot.

Jack is a ripping bloke. He will sort out with Melbourne whether to go on the rookie list or not. To get on the rookie list he has to be delisted but no other club can pick him up as a free agent unless Jack agrees. DFA is an agreement between two parties, not a one way arrangement. If we pay him his existing contract, which we must anyway, it's extraordinarily unlikely another club will pick him up.

Whichever way it goes we must stick by this kid and if he does recover which is highly unlikely he'll play as good a football for us as anyone else.

Gosh I hope he recovers fully. He deserves it.

The decision to agree to a trade pending a medical is an enormous decision for any person - let alone a ripping bloke.

I am not questioning his loyalty, or his character, or the decision for both sides to agree to move on - all I am suggesting is that once a player like Jack makes the decisions that would have to have been made for that medical to be performed - he may want to bring that decision to its conclusion and move on from the club.

His 2015 is looking like one of rehabilitation and the decision makers at the club are not in a position to give promises to him - if he gets another contract in the AFL it will given in October next year when all teams, including ours, have a better idea of their list and his fitness to continue as an elite level footballer.

Given that - I can see a scenario where he moves on, and the club moves on.

Just like they nearly did a few weeks ago...

[Slartibartfast 18,089]

  On 24/10/2014 at 00:20, rpfc said:

all I am suggesting is that once a player like Jack makes the decisions that would have to have been made for that medical to be performed - he may want to bring that decision to its conclusion and move on from the club.

Well then Destroy, who I quoted, must have misrepresented you as Destroy's comment was he was "finished" with us.

I disagree with the proposition of yours I've quoted. In fact if we support him through his rehabilitation I'd suggest, being the type of bloke Jack is, he'd want to repay our support.

We differ. Probably moot anyway as I doubt he'll play again.

[daisycutter 29,982]

  On 23/10/2014 at 22:59, billy2803 said:

Apologies B59, you are correct (in regards to the bolded section above).

So we are going to delist Trengove to use pick 53 in the national draft.

Don't forget, a rookie-listed player, taken at pick 2 in the RD, will have 1000% better chance of playing in 2015, as they will be potentially be elevated when JT is placed on the LTI list.

I still stand by my expression of FMD.

he would only be "parked" on the rl for a year whilst he recovers

if he was given the same guarantees (current and future) as he has on the list now i don't see what the problem is

[rpfc 28,996]

  On 24/10/2014 at 00:39, Baghdad Bob said:

I disagree with the proposition of yours I've quoted. In fact if we support him through his rehabilitation I'd suggest, being the type of bloke Jack is, he'd want to repay our support.

Weren't you saying while this trade was being mooted that it was the best thing for Trengove - to move on?

He does not owe the club anything - he got injured playing for this club and at the end of 2015 he, and the club, will have a few huge decisions to make.

Going by his attitude in that Instagram post - he is going to keep fighting for his career as a footballer.

I think it is highly likely that this plays out next October after another season where his game time is non-existent or limited. At that point, the decision the club and Jack make might be to move on. Just as they did a few weeks ago.

If he is 'finished' with the club next October, the club might be 'finished' with him. It's not 'rot' - it's footy.

[Redleg 42,087]

  On 24/10/2014 at 00:09, Baghdad Bob said:

I reckon you're usually on the mark but here you're miles off IMO.

Firstly how do we know that Jack wasn't happy to go to Richmond? He, like Chip, might have welcomed the opportunity for a new start at a better club on a longer contract and a genuine chance to play finals next year.

Secondly because he was contracted he could have refused to go to Richmond if he want to. Ferguson did and we missed Sewell as a result.

If you've ever spoken to any of the players about this they will tell you that it's a business, you've got to always be prepared to be traded and it's a business. We saw that more and more this year.

If your assertion, and that of RPFC is correct, we may as well delist him now as he'll never play for us again. That's just rot.

Jack is a ripping bloke. He will sort out with Melbourne whether to go on the rookie list or not. To get on the rookie list he has to be delisted but no other club can pick him up as a free agent unless Jack agrees. DFA is an agreement between two parties, not a one way arrangement. If we pay him his existing contract, which we must anyway, it's extraordinarily unlikely another club will pick him up.

Whichever way it goes we must stick by this kid and if he does recover which is highly unlikely he'll play as good a football for us as anyone else.

Gosh I hope he recovers fully. He deserves it.

Agree except for the comment that Richmond is a "better" club than us. I know what you mean though.

[chook fowler 19,756]

I don't like the idea of playing games with people. Jack deserves our unconditional support. He is still very young and may well emerge as a valuable player. Love his attitude - he will give himself every chance.

[Sir Why You Little 37,394]

  On 24/10/2014 at 01:36, chook fowler said:

I don't like the idea of playing games with people. Jack deserves our unconditional support. He is still very young and may well emerge as a valuable player. Love his attitude - he will give himself every chance.

All that is fine. But he should not be on the list in 2015 as we already know he will not play.

[Bring-Back-Powell 15,449]

  On 23/10/2014 at 05:18, M_9 said:

Watching our game against the Hawks this year I could not believe the gap in ability. They were missing a number of their stars but witches hats would have been more of a challenge than our players.

Sadly the hawthorn game was not in our bottom 8 performances of the year. There were plenty worse.

[daisycutter 29,982]

  On 24/10/2014 at 01:36, chook fowler said:

I don't like the idea of playing games with people. Jack deserves our unconditional support. He is still very young and may well emerge as a valuable player. Love his attitude - he will give himself every chance.

but that's the problem chook, he won't be playing games next year

[Slartibartfast 18,089]

  On 24/10/2014 at 01:21, rpfc said:

Weren't you saying while this trade was being mooted that it was the best thing for Trengove - to move on?

I think it is highly likely that this plays out next October after another season where his game time is non-existent or limited. At that point, the decision the club and Jack make might be to move on. Just as they did a few weeks ago.

If he is 'finished' with the club next October, the club might be 'finished' with him. It's not 'rot' - it's footy.

OK, I'll try one more time to clarify for you.

I said at the time of the mooted trade it may be in Trengove's best interest to move on as everyone was assuming he was being pushed out the door. If his foot flared up two weeks later I would have been right on the money.

The "rot" comment relates to the fact he's finished at the Demons. He's not. Unlike you I don't think his decision will be impacted in any way because of the fact he was up for trade this year.

Of course we might be finished with each other next October, Have you only just realized that?

[Deestroy All 14,266]

  On 24/10/2014 at 00:39, Baghdad Bob said:

Well then Destroy, who I quoted, must have misrepresented you as Destroy's comment was he was "finished" with us.

I disagree with the proposition of yours I've quoted. In fact if we support him through his rehabilitation I'd suggest, being the type of bloke Jack is, he'd want to repay our support.

We differ. Probably moot anyway as I doubt he'll play again.

I did say finished for us, at least. The trade hurdle just one of many he has to get over to get back at all - which I doubt he will.

I take your point about his character though, and you could well be right, but I'll be staggered if he plays for us in 2016 and beyond.

[Redleg 42,087]

  On 24/10/2014 at 01:36, chook fowler said:

I don't like the idea of playing games with people. Jack deserves our unconditional support. He is still very young and may well emerge as a valuable player. Love his attitude - he will give himself every chance.

Putting someone who can't play for the whole season on the rookie list and fully paying their contract, is not a lack of support.

It may in fact help JT, by placing less pressure on him and allowing the club to take another young player, who might not be available, later on.

JT might fully support this scenario.

[Bay Riffin 1,516]

  On 24/10/2014 at 04:25, Redleg said:

Putting someone who can't play for the whole season on the rookie list and fully paying their contract, is not a lack of support.

It may in fact help JT, by placing less pressure on him and allowing the club to take another young player, who might not be available, later on.

JT might fully support this scenario.

My mail is it is not good news. hope its wrong. Trengove when up and running was a class player.

[The Chazz 4,077]

  On 24/10/2014 at 04:25, Redleg said:

Putting someone who can't play for the whole season on the rookie list and fully paying their contract, is not a lack of support.

It may in fact help JT, by placing less pressure on him and allowing the club to take another young player, who might not be available, later on.

JT might fully support this scenario.

Putting him on the LTI, leaving him on the primary list and advising the media/supports that his return is "season" or "indefinite" is achieving the same result.

He will still need to go through the National Draft for us to then hope to pick him up as a rookie. As he has already been a primary listed player, a club can give him a one year contract, rather than the standard two minimum.

The risk of getting Jack on the rookie list is far greater than that of Jetta. Nothing stopping Richmond "wasting" a pick in the 80's, even though JT will determine his wage. In 12 months time they could easily delist him if his injury has not healed. It's a lot less risk for them using pick 80-something than the proposed pick 12 they were originally offering.

We are achieving absolutely nothing by trying this tactic. We are not disadvantaging ourselves by leaving him "as is". Why don't people understand that???