FireInTheBennelly

Thanks Saty. Better news re Hunt. I'm interested to know if this preseason looks any different with the skills work. Is it normal for us to have these skills sessions so early in the PS? Or have we shifted focus from fitness work?

Put your hand up if you tipped us to get Tom Sparrow. I don't remember seeing anyone tip that.

Ok cheers. Hope he gets back to the main group shortly and has a clear crack at it. Back in form he'd be a big bonus for us.

Seriously? I was hoping by now he'd be over whatever it was that hindered him last year. Someone said back, someone said neck, did we ever find out what the problem was?

Yep, very dangerous with all the old rotting teeth all over the grounds.

It's all good Moons, the doc says I need to lose some weight.

With Wagner now added to the list, I'll put my left one on the line and say we have something arranged to trade back into the 1st round on the night.

Apologies to @Stretch Johnson You are correct, a player can walk to any other club as a rookie, has to wait a year if being rookied to the same club.

From memory he never sat out a year so it still wouldn't be allowed under this new rule.

I recall years back when Rivers shifted over to the Cats. He said preseason was completely different there, as the onus was put on the players to return in peak condition, so the bulk of preseason was about skills, not getting fit. I hope this is where we're heading.

Well technically any club could sign them, so if you wanted to do it you'd better make sure the player was dead set certain to stay. Perhaps offer him a coaching gig in the meantime..... That's just what I was thinking, may be way off.

It's interesting with the new rookie rules. Any injury plagued player that you can determine prior to the draft won't be physically able to play the next season, can be delisted with the option of 'sitting out' the year to get the body right, and then re-signed straight back onto the list the following year. Not saying that's what's happening here, but it's now a realistic option. Hell, we could sign LJ right now if we wanted to. Kind of makes me wonder why Mitch Grigg, who is being talked about as a mature age draft pick, doesn't just sign for his club of choice now as a rookie.

It doesn't have anything to do with free agents, I'm not sure why you've mentioned that and this is probably the wrong place to discuss, however; I can't find the salary cap rules re the rookie list, but I found this: Certain payments are excluded from the cap, and concessions are available for some players, in particular "veteran" players (those over the age of 30 and/or who have completed 10 seasons with their current club) and "nominated" rookie list players, who are discounted by 30% or 50% for purposes of the cap, depending on the number of these players at each club. That's clearly out-dated, and I have no idea what or who a 'nominated' rookie is, but If that's still correct, they've made a huge offer for a player to ward off other clubs. Now he's done they don't want that money in the cap anymore, so they move him to the rookie list where they save up to 50% of his wages. Buddy signed a 10 year contract on huge dollars. If (I think it's more like when) he retires early they'll be trying to wipe those dollars off their cap, in the exact same way. Their massive bid for Buddy beat off GWS, who would've felt they couldn't fit him in their cap. How would they feel if that happens, and the bid that beat them off ends up being halved? I should add, thank the lord he didn't go to GWS as they'd probably have a flag in the kick by now.

Because it's cheating the salary cap. Pay a player big overs to get him to sign. Then just hit delete and it all goes away when he's past it? It'll happen again with Buddy for sure. It's cheating, and we could've done the same thing with HL, but I'm really glad we didn't. We aren't cheats. Have a look at the 2 clubs doing it. 2 of the most successful in the recent era, who were seemingly able to sign any player they wanted with an unlimited cap. Well it's just caught up with them, and rather than let them suffer at the bottom of the ladder, the AFL has given them a free pass.

I propose a new rule, any players on the rookie list must only have played 'x' number of matches prior to being drafted to the rookie list. How many is x? 20? 50?

I wouldn't rule us out of the first round of the draft just yet either. I can see someone wanting to swap a first rounder for our 2 seconds come draft night. If we make a DFA move I'd say it'll be in the period after the draft.

I can't believe it's allowed. Perhaps we should move Jones and Lewis to the rookie list. As long as they come out in the press and say they'll retire rather than get picked and play for another club.

Possibly. Has he shown enough though?

Are you a Board member?

I'd look at Cheney for coverage, but also as he has a connection with Lever. That would help if we were forced to pick him through an injury to Nev. He was also at Lever's wedding so knows the boys I'd say. With DJ now gone, who was looking to be the Nev backup, I think there's a slight need. I think Neade could be useful also, he's what's missing from Jeffy. His forward pressure could be a big bonus, but needs to work on consistency.

He's said he won't play for any other club and will retire if he can't play for the dorks. would you draft him? I don't think there's any risk for him, but you never know I suppose. If a club wanted him, they'd approach him to sign as a DFA, and they wouldn't waste a draft pick. Regarding the wages, a contract is a contract, and if he were to be picked up by another club, that club would then have to honour the existing wage details. It's probably heavily back-ended as well, meaning a new club would have to pick up the higher wages - which they won't do. Time will tell, let's see what happens. If after all is said and done and he's rookied to them, I'd love to see the years wages he's on, and what their salary cap payments are. We'll never get to see it, but London to a brick, if he was on the main list they'd be over.

Ok thanks for that, sounds more like it. They've just played it beautifully to ensure no other clubs pick him up. Similar to the 'The Ball Maneuver'

The way I read it was they are throwing him straight onto the rookie list without risking the draft, is that incorrect?

Yes and by doing so risked him being picked up by a rival club. Fortunately that didn't happen. Now apparently you can arrange to delist a player, who then retires, immediately changes his mind and can then be added back onto your rookie list. If it wasn't blatant cheating of the rules you wouldn't need to go through all that, and just say player X is moving back to the rookie list, done. It's laughable. Someone suggested rookie list wages aren't in the cap? We should do the same with our 4 highest paid players, and then recruit 4 new superstars on the same wages. If it's ok for the Dorks.

I wasn't aware of the Langford one, that's just plain wrong, they can't do that. If he's delisted he must go to another club via free agency, or the draft. There are quite a few players this year going through the same processes - and following the rules. The Mumford one is similar. Needs to go through the draft. His situation is particularly odd. I'll throw this out there without any accusations, but a move like that has a lot of '3 strikes' about it. Remember the old mysterious injuries from a few years back. The Lyon one, whilst dodgy, I'd say is within the rules at this stage. Need to be watching for future pick trading between the 2 clubs to make sure any trades are 'even'. If there are trades done that are unbalanced towards the GCS, we all know what it's for.