Jump to content

Featured Replies

  • Author
On 11/20/2020 at 12:33 PM, Whispering_Jack said:

So am I correct in saying that Bedford, Jordan, Chandler (® A), Lockhart (® A) and Bradtke (® B) are uncontracted at present.

What is the list lodgement cut off day for them to be contracted? Today or next Friday?

Yes, they are the OOC players altho I haven't seen an mfc confirmation of M. Browns re-contracting as a rookie.

I don't know the cut off date for them to be contracted.  I would guess next Friday Nov 27 leaving a few days to nominate for the Draft which close on Nov 30.  Could be wrong.

 
1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Yes, they are the OOC players altho I haven't seen an mfc confirmation of M. Browns re-contracting as a rookie.

I don't know the cut off date for them to be contracted.  I would guess next Friday Nov 27 leaving a few days to nominate for the Draft which close on Nov 30.  Could be wrong.

1st list lodgement on Wednesday

 

On 11/20/2020 at 12:33 PM, Whispering_Jack said:

So am I correct in saying that Bedford, Jordan, Chandler (® A), Lockhart (® A) and Bradtke (® B) are uncontracted at present.

What is the list lodgement cut off day for them to be contracted? Today or next Friday?
 

also worth noting Bradtke wasn't listed in an official afl.com.au website about every clubs OOC around grand final week, its been linked in here before so might not expect any formal announcement about it

 
52 minutes ago, Demonland said:

 

Does that mean we will have a list 0f 43 because we only have 1 b grade rookie?


  • Author
21 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

So am I correct in saying that Bedford, Jordan, Chandler (rA), Lockhart (rA) and Bradtke (rB) are uncontracted at present.

What is the list lodgement cut off day for them to be contracted? Today or next Friday?

The AFL has issued a new schedule of dates which I've posted in that thread.  The answer to your 2nd question:

Monday 30 November
•    List Lodgement 2
•    Out of Contract Listed AFL Primary List Players Draft Nomination Form and Player Request for Removal from List Form Lodged with AFL
•    Final date for Primary List delistings

2 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

This article on who gets an AFL lifeline states that “Melbourne has re-signed a number of players it is yet to make public including Mitch Brown, Jay Lockhart, Kade Chandler and James Jordon,” and suggests that Toby Bedford is our only player currently in limbo. 

 

so other than Bedford Is Bradke uncontracted?

 
2 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

This article on who gets an AFL lifeline states that “Melbourne has re-signed a number of players it is yet to make public including Mitch Brown, Jay Lockhart, Kade Chandler and James Jordon,” and suggests that Toby Bedford is our only player currently in limbo. 

 

There aren't two players in the entire football playing population of Australia who are better prospects than Chandler & Jordon?

I find that absolutely extraordinary, particularly given that neither plays a role that can't be easily replaced.


  • Author
37 minutes ago, poita said:

There aren't two players in the entire football playing population of Australia who are better prospects than Chandler & Jordon?

I find that absolutely extraordinary, particularly given that neither plays a role that can't be easily replaced.

It could be the reduced sal cap and the way the AFL is implementing it. 

Even renewing those players we have vacant spots on our playing list to add a DFA and a rookie or two (in addition to the 3 draftees we are reportedly to take).

Perhaps the club thinks that unless we can afford a player that will be best 30 then we are no worse off keeping the players we have whose strengths and weaknesses are known.

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

Where we stand: 

35 players on the senior list (max 38) 
3 on the Rookie A list (maximum 6) 
1 on the Rookie B list (max 2) 

We can have up to 44 players, we have 39, so 5 spots open - 3 senior list (3 draft picks?), and then 2 rookies. But we can just take one player in the draft and then we have hit our minimum number. 

 

The minimum list size for each club will be 37, which can be made up by as little as 36 senior listed players and one rookie.  To reach 44, clubs can carry 36-38 senior listed players, four-to-six Category A rookies and two Category B rookies.

5 minutes ago, Dee-licious said:

Where we stand: 

35 players on the senior list (max 38) 
3 on the Rookie A list (maximum 6) 
1 on the Rookie B list (max 2) 

We can have up to 44 players, we have 39, so 5 spots open - 3 senior list (3 draft picks?), and then 2 rookies. But we can just take one player in the draft and then we have hit our minimum number. 

 

The minimum list size for each club will be 37, which can be made up by as little as 36 senior listed players and one rookie.  To reach 44, clubs can carry 36-38 senior listed players, four-to-six Category A rookies and two Category B rookies.

With 18, 19, 28, 50 but only 3 spaces, we may well look to upgrade our picks or swap into next year in the lead up to the draft. That being said, not using pick 50 isn't a big deal.

 

13 minutes ago, Dee-licious said:

Where we stand: 

35 players on the senior list (max 38) 
3 on the Rookie A list (maximum 6) 
1 on the Rookie B list (max 2) 

We can have up to 44 players, we have 39, so 5 spots open - 3 senior list (3 draft picks?), and then 2 rookies. But we can just take one player in the draft and then we have hit our minimum number. 

 

The minimum list size for each club will be 37, which can be made up by as little as 36 senior listed players and one rookie.  To reach 44, clubs can carry 36-38 senior listed players, four-to-six Category A rookies and two Category B rookies.

only 1 live rookie pick assuming we re-list nietschke until KK is made inactive that is and then we will have a SSP spot available 


  • Author

Updates:

  • No more players OOC.
  • Re-contracting of Jackson, Bedford, Jordon, Chandler, Brown
  • Well deserved promotion of Lockhart to the senior list
  • Final List sizes confirmed
  • 'Used' draft pick 89 for Lockhart promotion

image.png.72a1bd94489cedcf84389934c47aa53e.png

Heading into the draft we have 35 senior players and 4 rookies (total 39) giving 3 senior and 2 rookie list spots.  3 Draftees will take us to the max allowed 38 senior players.  The 2 rookie spots can be used for a PSSP or (multiple) mid-season drafts.  And extra senior list spot can be created if we put KK onto a L-T injury list.

At this stage it looks like we won't be adding a DFA to the senior list.  A DFA will need to come as a rookie via the PSSP.

I feel confident there will be a draft pick change that involves pick 50 otherwise it is wasted as we don't have a list spot for it.  Reckon it will be #28 + 50 for a pick in the low 20's giving us the 3 picks at the draft.

I will update the games played when I do the final list post drafts.  

Edited by Lucifer's Hero

I think the club will be watching the State league comps closely and get a player in Mid season draft when we remove KK off the list.  Not a bad idea I'm sure there will be a number of players that will not be drafted due to the fact that no one saw them in 2020.

Edited by drdrake

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Updates:

  • No more players OOC.
  • Re-contracting of Jackson, Bedford, Jordon, Chandler, Brown
  • Well deserved promotion of Lockhart to the senior list
  • Final List sizes confirmed
  • 'Used' draft pick 89 for Lockhart promotion

image.png.72a1bd94489cedcf84389934c47aa53e.png

Heading into the draft we have 35 senior players and 4 rookies (total 39) giving 3 senior and 2 rookie list spots.  3 Draftees will take us to the max allowed 38 senior players.  The 2 rookie spots can be used for a PSSP or (multiple) mid-season drafts.  And extra senior list spot can be created if we put KK onto a L-T injury list.

At this stage it looks like we won't be adding a DFA to the senior list.  A DFA will need to come as a rookie via the PSSP.

I feel confident there will be a draft pick change that involves pick 50 otherwise it is wasted as we don't have a list spot for it.  Reckon it will be #28 + 50 for a pick in the low 20's giving us the 3 picks at the draft.

I will update the games played when I do the final list post drafts.  

psst, u left the ('A') status on lockhart ;)

  • Author
2 minutes ago, Turner said:

psst, u left the ('A') status on lockhart ;)

Too bad...I'll change it next time :-)

Thanks Lucifer's Hero for the update, Very happy with the management of the list by the Dee's, put's the trust and ownership back onto our existing list and still have the ability to pick up 5 additional players to potentially strengthen the group. We have learnt from our previous experiences that the grass is not always greener....etc, etc

Well done MFC.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


On 11/23/2020 at 2:32 PM, Lucifer's Hero said:

Updates:

  • No more players OOC.
  • Re-contracting of Jackson, Bedford, Jordon, Chandler, Brown
  • Well deserved promotion of Lockhart to the senior list
  • Final List sizes confirmed
  • 'Used' draft pick 89 for Lockhart promotion

image.png.72a1bd94489cedcf84389934c47aa53e.png

Heading into the draft we have 35 senior players and 4 rookies (total 39) giving 3 senior and 2 rookie list spots.  3 Draftees will take us to the max allowed 38 senior players.  The 2 rookie spots can be used for a PSSP or (multiple) mid-season drafts.  And extra senior list spot can be created if we put KK onto a L-T injury list.

At this stage it looks like we won't be adding a DFA to the senior list.  A DFA will need to come as a rookie via the PSSP.

I feel confident there will be a draft pick change that involves pick 50 otherwise it is wasted as we don't have a list spot for it.  Reckon it will be #28 + 50 for a pick in the low 20's giving us the 3 picks at the draft.

I will update the games played when I do the final list post drafts.  

Love your hard work LH

So KK is off and we have another vacancy on the main list right? ie 38  34 plus 3A and1B

  • Author
5 minutes ago, Kent said:

Love your hard work LH

So KK is off and we have another vacancy on the main list right? ie 38  34 plus 3A and1B

Thank you.

Yes.  38 on the list. 34 + 3'A' + 1'B' as you describe.

Gives us 4 senior list vacancies and 2 Rookie vacancies.

Chart updated for KK's retirement:

image.png.9d5f1d991e5e95ddd399258897dc34fc.png

4 senior vacancies and 4 draft picks.  We may use pick #50, afterall.

4 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Thank you.

Yes.  38 on the list. 34 + 3'A' + 1'B' as you describe.

Gives us 4 senior list vacancies and 2 Rookie vacancies.

Chart updated for KK's retirement:

image.png.9d5f1d991e5e95ddd399258897dc34fc.png

4 senior vacancies and 4 draft picks.  We may use pick #50, afterall.

4 senior vacancies and 2 rookie spots.  
bWe might draft 3 plus a DFA ... or ... as you say use 4 draft picks. 

 
5 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Thank you.

Yes.  38 on the list. 34 + 3'A' + 1'B' as you describe.

Gives us 4 senior list vacancies and 2 Rookie vacancies.

Chart updated for KK's retirement:

image.png.9d5f1d991e5e95ddd399258897dc34fc.png

4 senior vacancies and 4 draft picks.  We may use pick #50, afterall.

That or we use to sign a delisted free agent.

update for the news jordon is to be a rookie?

Edited by Turner


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

Featured Content

  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Like
    • 131 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Like
    • 381 replies
  • PODCAST: St. Kilda

    The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 2nd June @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we have a chat with former Demon ruckman Jeff White about his YouTube channel First Use where he dissects ruck setups and contests. We'll then discuss the Dees disappointing loss to the Saints in Alice Springs.
    Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show.
    Listen LIVE: https://demonland.com/

      • Like
    • 47 replies