Jump to content

Featured Replies

On 11/18/2022 at 6:59 PM, xman97 said:

It's always been 3 x Cat B Rookies. It went to 2 only for the Covid years.

I've searched high and low for any reference or 'talk' that in 2023 list sizes and sal cap will revert to pre-covid levels.

Would very much appreciate seeing something more about it.  TIA.

 
13 hours ago, Elwood 3184 said:

Does anyone know if it’s true that we have opted not to nominate Emilie-Brennan or whether we can’t pick him because we’re limited to 2 Category B rookies? 

Nothing official to say we have or haven't nominated him.  If we have, we can take him as a senior player rather than a B-rookie.

As I understand the list size rules a club can have up to 42 players comprised of Senior and A-rookie (36 to 38 senior players and up to 6 A-Rookies.  In 2022 our combo was 36 senior players and 6 A-rookie players.  We can change this mix to take FE-B

We currently have 34 senior players and 3 A-rookies.  So 5 potential list spots to fill. 

It has been said we will use two draft picks + our last pick for Chandler promotion.

The other point is having draft picks.  We have 13, 37, 90 and 118 the latter two will come into the 60-70 range.  One will be used to promote Chandler the other could be used for FE-B if the bid to match is late enough in the draft.

Having said all that the pointers are that we won't be taking him.

11 minutes ago, alpha33 said:

So can we still nominate a FEB?

Nominations have closed.

But if we have nominated him we can get him - see comment above.

I didnt realise you can have 3 Catagory B rookies so that gives Emile-Brennan a chance.  The AFL will surely produce a list of nominated players soon because Cooper Vickery (Hawthorn) Nathan Barkla (Port Adelaide), Jasper Scaife (Fremantle) and Yuyu Ashwin ( Collingwood) would be certain to be wanted as rookies at least by their clubs and theres been no mention of them being nominated.

 
42 minutes ago, IvanBartul13 said:

I didnt realise you can have 3 Catagory B rookies so that gives Emile-Brennan a chance.  The AFL will surely produce a list of nominated players soon because Cooper Vickery (Hawthorn) Nathan Barkla (Port Adelaide), Jasper Scaife (Fremantle) and Yuyu Ashwin ( Collingwood) would be certain to be wanted as rookies at least by their clubs and theres been no mention of them being nominated.

It is yet to be confirmed whether it is 2 or 3 B rookies.

This article talks about list sizes.  how-your-club-is-placed-ahead-of-the-list-lodgement-deadline-and-upcoming-afl-draft  The underlying assumption is the status quo remains ie  Seniors + A-rookies should not exceed 42 and the max B rookies is 2.

According to that article, the clubs you've listed currently have zero or one B-rookie.

As mentioned in an earlier post we can take FE-B as a senior player if we nominated him or even if we didn't, if he gets to the end of the draft with no takers.

Hopefully, the AFL produces a list.  And that list sizes are confirmed.

Edited by Lucifers Hero

There was something I heard that it's going back to normal, but as there's no official word yet, it makes it very frustrating and I'm now starting to think that clubs can go to max allowed list size as pre Covid, but the minimum can stay at the Covid years level. I'd be shocked if the list sizes don't go back to normal as the salary cap surely goes up due to the following points below. Surely you can't have the salary cap go up and the list sizes stay at Covid year levels.

 

-Players currently having access to 28 per cent of forecast defined AFL revenue. The broadcast deal's price is $643 million per season, up on the current $473 million per season. 

 

-The Soft Cap limit will increase by an additional $500,000 in 2023 and a further $250,000 in 2024. 

 

-Total Player Payments/Average wage for the following seasons (Covid years didn't go up as planned below):

2016: $10.37m / $309,000

2017: $12.45m / $371,000

2018: $12.6m / $375,000

2019: $12.76m / $380,000

2020: $13.02m / $388,000

2021: $13.28m / $396,000

2022: $13.54m / $403,000


2 hours ago, xman97 said:

There was something I heard that it's going back to normal, but as there's no official word yet, it makes it very frustrating and I'm now starting to think that clubs can go to max allowed list size as pre Covid, but the minimum can stay at the Covid years level. I'd be shocked if the list sizes don't go back to normal as the salary cap surely goes up due to the following points below. Surely you can't have the salary cap go up and the list sizes stay at Covid year levels.

 

-Players currently having access to 28 per cent of forecast defined AFL revenue. The broadcast deal's price is $643 million per season, up on the current $473 million per season. 

 

-The Soft Cap limit will increase by an additional $500,000 in 2023 and a further $250,000 in 2024. 

 

-Total Player Payments/Average wage for the following seasons (Covid years didn't go up as planned below):

2016: $10.37m / $309,000

2017: $12.45m / $371,000

2018: $12.6m / $375,000

2019: $12.76m / $380,000

2020: $13.02m / $388,000

2021: $13.28m / $396,000

2022: $13.54m / $403,000

Maybe no announcement on list size is because the new CBA that has just expired has not been finalised.  Theoretically, increase in sal cap means more players.

However, players may want to 'catch up' what they lost during the covid years cut backs so the list size may not go up in 2023.  patrick-dangerfield-reveals-covid-reward-clause-he-wants-written-into-the-next-afl-cba

Also, given that clubs have managed fine with the current list size (42 + 2 B-rookies) and a Tassie team, the AFL may not increase list sizes at all...

I would be surprised if list sizes weren't as per 2022, next year.

54 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Maybe no announcement on list size is because the new CBA that has just expired has not been finalised.  Theoretically, increase in sal cap means more players.

However, players may want to 'catch up' what they lost during the covid years cut backs so the list size may not go up in 2023.  patrick-dangerfield-reveals-covid-reward-clause-he-wants-written-into-the-next-afl-cba

Also, given that clubs have managed fine with the current list size (42 + 2 B-rookies) and a Tassie team, the AFL may not increase list sizes at all...

I would be surprised if list sizes weren't as per 2022, next year.

You make very good points. I don’t think West Coast did so well with the list size last year though 😂

19 hours ago, xman97 said:

You make very good points. I don’t think West Coast did so well with the list size last year though 😂

No we didn't in 2012 and 2013 either!! 

 

Serious question, would we have any interest whatsoever in Emile-Brennan if he wasn't in our NGA?

As with Moniz-Wakefield and Mac Andrew, people are putting on their rose-coloured glasses regarding players who really don't fit our needs, if indeed they are even an outside chance to make it as AFL players. 

I get that a NGA player can be a free hit, but Emile-Brennan is going to chew up a heap of development resources to get him even remotely close to AFL standard.

According to this article we have nominated him  afl-draft-2022.

Interestingly it shows the latter rounds of the drafted truncated to a few teams.  Not sure the logic behind it.  But anyway, it shows our picks as 13, 37, 78 (round 5) and 83 (round 6).

While it was reported we would take two players at the draft (and promote Chandler with our last pick) there is scope to take F-EB with pick 78.

 

Edit:  I have reservations about the accuracy of the listed NGA nominations as it lists Keeler as Adelaide's nominee and they have chosen to not nominate him albeit he was eligible. 

Also, they have shown Kyah Farris-White as an NGA nominee but he joined us as a B-rookie.

So NGA nominations are still bit of a mystery.

Edited by Lucifers Hero


47 minutes ago, poita said:

Serious question, would we have any interest whatsoever in Emile-Brennan if he wasn't in our NGA?

As with Moniz-Wakefield and Mac Andrew, people are putting on their rose-coloured glasses regarding players who really don't fit our needs, if indeed they are even an outside chance to make it as AFL players. 

I get that a NGA player can be a free hit, but Emile-Brennan is going to chew up a heap of development resources to get him even remotely close to AFL standard.

Based on what assumption?

Didn't realise you could already come to the conclusion that EB is going to chew up a heap of development with zero facts to back this up.

56 minutes ago, poita said:

Serious question, would we have any interest whatsoever in Emile-Brennan if he wasn't in our NGA?

As with Moniz-Wakefield and Mac Andrew, people are putting on their rose-coloured glasses regarding players who really don't fit our needs, if indeed they are even an outside chance to make it as AFL players. 

I get that a NGA player can be a free hit, but Emile-Brennan is going to chew up a heap of development resources to get him even remotely close to AFL standard.

Sometimes players who look like they need lots of development only need a professional environment to become the player we hope they will become.

At one stage Finn look like he was going to be a top 40 player why the drop off?

5 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

According to this article we have nominated him  afl-draft-2022.

Interestingly it shows the latter rounds of the drafted truncated to a few teams.  Not sure the logic behind it.  But anyway, it shows our picks as 13, 37, 78 (round 5) and 83 (round 6).

While it was reported we would take two players at the draft (and promote Chandler with our last pick) there is scope to take F-EB with pick 78.

 

Edit:  I have reservations about the accuracy of the listed NGA nominations as it lists Keeler as Adelaide's nominee and they have chosen to not nominate him albeit he was eligible. 

Also, they have shown Kyah Farris-White as an NGA nominee but he joined us as a B-rookie.

So NGA nominations are still bit of a mystery.

No offence to Fox News but I would rather see confirmation of this on the AFL site.

5 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

According to this article we have nominated him  afl-draft-2022.

Interestingly it shows the latter rounds of the drafted truncated to a few teams.  Not sure the logic behind it.  But anyway, it shows our picks as 13, 37, 78 (round 5) and 83 (round 6).

While it was reported we would take two players at the draft (and promote Chandler with our last pick) there is scope to take F-EB with pick 78.

 

Edit:  I have reservations about the accuracy of the listed NGA nominations as it lists Keeler as Adelaide's nominee and they have chosen to not nominate him albeit he was eligible. 

Also, they have shown Kyah Farris-White as an NGA nominee but he joined us as a B-rookie.

So NGA nominations are still bit of a mystery.

The list is definitely not definitive, it's more of a list of NGA players that are possibly draftable prospects.  As well as Keeler, there are other discrepancies. 

According to Twomey's final phantom draft, we didn't nominate FEB. There goes our shot at the hyphen record :-(

“… but Finn Emile-Brennan will be available in the open pool with the Demons not having Next Generation Academy nominated him. “


23 hours ago, Red and Blue realist said:

I know father sons retain their status,  do academy kids? As in,  if he had a good year next year would we have the same access or is it just a 1 off? 

yes, angus mclennan was a 19yo mature ager who was nga listed by the saints this year, and the dogs did a similar thing with cody raak last year after initially passing on them in their 18th year, i'm not sure if theres certain rules about whether they have to still be playing nab league as an overager or whatever in order to still qualify as i imagine a 26yo playing state league who was once nga tied cant be taken but not sure

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

  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • 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.

      • Thanks
    • 216 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.

      • Thanks
    • 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.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 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? 

      • Thanks
    • 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?

      • Thanks
    • 528 replies