deanox

I don't expect they are, but thought it not help some people relax!

Veteran Saint Adam Schneider to take on rookie role St Kilda have committeed to rookieing Schnieder. If they take him with their first pick that would reduce any risk they'll take Trengove if we plan on doing the same. Assuming though they'll take him with their last love rookie pick, however it probably reduces the number of speculative places they have available for JT.

Well we play them in our last NAB challenge match on March 20.

Just making an observation.

Another year of draft sanctions would be crippling for the club in the medium to long term. If players are banned and the club stays financially afloat after all the legal stuff is done and dusted, a decade of mediocrity will make things difficult indeed.

I hope the fixture has them paying is on the first month or so. In fact it would be great if the AFL fixtures then against all the 2014 bottom sides for the first 6 weeks. Also, if multiple players are banned, and the AFL is therefore required to sanction the club, I hope that sanction is draft penalties. It will be ridiculous if they get pick 1 because they get smashed all year after 20 players get banned.

Schwab had nothing to do with Trengove's injury. And I'm pretty sure he had nothing to do with him becoming captain either; that was a Mark Neeld and coaching staff decision driven by input from the playing list who rated Trengove a natural leader. Regardless, it wasn't just his 2014 that was impacted. 2012 and 2013 were well down on his output from previous years. It was sometime in 2012 that he lost his zip, and lost the penetration in his kicking. 2011 he averaged 20.7 disposals, 1.3 scoring shots and 5.3 tackles. This dropped in 2012 to 17.7 disposals 0.8 scoring shots and 4.5 tackles. That's a 15% decrease in output. This injury has affected him for a while. Not sure he will make it back but if he can help play another 7-9 years. He only just turned 23.

Ingerson went alright! Although he was a tall not a ruck. And I'm convinced Adelaide were playing him at the wrong end of the ground.

BB, I don't agree it should be lifted. There are plenty of 18 year olds who impact enough that a blanket ban is inappropriate. The issue isn't the draft age (which at 18 is appropriate), it is: -making sure the best players are on display each week -reducing the "hit or miss" nature of the draft These goals can be achieved without raising the draft age, which would restrain trade for adults and would deny the opportunity for some "ready to go" players. Reducing primary list sizes would force clubs to only lost "ready" players, regardless of age. Development listed players could include a 3 year contract combined with other personal development; uni course, trade or other life/work skills. If a quality 2nd tier competition was established, that competition could be used to develop kids who would then be drafted into the AFL when they are ready to impact.

While I like the premise (I think the quality of the competition is reduced by having so many played each week picked based on "potential"), I'm not sure raising the draft age is the BEST option. Players like Wines, Rich, Hogan, Jager etc are ready to go age 18, and shouldn't be restricted. I think that reducing the primary list size, adding a supplementary/development list, running a true "2nd tier" competition with a mix of the next best players in Australia and the developing players. Details of movement between development and primary lists including upgrading, injuries etc. would need to be worked out but this way the clubs can only afford to have "ready to go" players on their primary lists, and the young pays can get development in the right environment. The lack of quality second tier competition is hurting the game imo.

My thoughts on this is that the legal representation the players are getting do not understand the process purposely. The show cause notice stage is not the "trial". It is effectively the "how do you plead" part. ASADA will present all evidence at any hearing by the specially convened AFL tribunal. At the moment, ASADA has presented a summary of the evidence to help the players understand why they have been issued show cause notices. It's time that ASADA and someone in the media say down and wrote a "how to" guide so everyone understands!

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2014-10-23/my-best-is-in-front-of-me I don't know much about him honestly but he is at the age when you expect ruck men to hit their straps. However he has been delisted, probably for a reason. Could he take on the ruck/forward role to complement either Jamar or Gawn (who are both first rucks really)? We already have Fitz as that sort of developing player. Pedo plays a swingman role also. If we intend on drafting Wright I can't see us having any interest here. Just interested to know what others may think.

Ash, you raise some valid points, however I think that the nature of the actual charge needs to be considered in the same context. The WADA charges don't only relate to taking a banned substance. They also Reigate to "attempting to". It could be that the signed waiver forms, which list banned substances, together with the purchase and sales paper trail that ASADA claim to have, would be enough to prove "attempted use" of a substance. One other thought, is I believe any SCN's will be tailored to individual statements. If, as alleged, some players said things like "yes I was injected" or "thymosin sounds familiar but I don't know what type, I never asked", then they may be in more trouble than those who said "no idea about anything". If that is true, it will be disappointing that some players get punished for telling the truth.

Solid. So far we have lost Clark (which we knew we were losing) and a late draft pick. We have brought in 2 best 18 players (Garlett and Harry) which address specific needs. Up until that point it has been definitely in our favour. We got stretch for under market value. Another small win. Would we have liked to land other trades? Yes. But I bet after the Tyson deal other cubs were wary to deal with us regarding young midfielders. They now knew precisely what we were doing. Also it seems like we had worked hard on both Dangerfield and Kennedy. Neither have landed but either could have. Our planning had been thwarted by Collingwood holding up the world and Trengove's navicular. I suspect other than those we would have landed something. There is still a day to go and we may pick up frost and our another mid. And get to play with 2 and 3. If one of those works out, it will be a successful year period.

No. You have inserted two syllables where there used to be one. Folks, just because you jam it in, doesn't mean it works.

Long time no see Ash! Good to have you back. You're right, Garlett was a steal.

North and Saints did this with Dal Santo last year BUT he wasn't officially contracted. He met triggers to extend the contract but both parties opted NOT to extend the contract. No contract was voided. As a result, this scenario is completely different. This is not acceptable. It is draft tampering.

North and Saints did this with Dal Santo last year BUT he wasn't officially contracted. He met triggers to extend the contract but both parties opted NOT to extend the contract. No contract was voided. As a result, this scenario is completely different.

AFL Trade News: Radical plan discussed to get Paddy Ryder to Port Adelaide This is draft tampering. There are rules in place. Clubs colluding and choosing to void a contract to create compensation should be illegal. If this is allowed, clubs will start to do this all the time. For example, if Dangerfield decides to come to the demons, we could ask AFC to void his contract, they get pick 9 as a FA, then we trade pick 3 for another player (Lyons?). This will be how clubs do deals, to create compensation for each other. This is not acceptable. It is a joke.

Agreed. Replace the worst performed forward and worst performed defender with those two and you have significant improvement. Hopefully bring in one additional midfielder. Sounds like lots of improvement.

We've thrown a line in and now we're a waiting for someone to bite.

My thoughts are that there are 22 spots available and that they are position based. Only 2 kpp forwards get picked but 4 may be in the "best 22 prospects". Also, all clubs rate the top 30 players slightly different. If he was 20 in your list, you might bet that one of your top 15 will be missed by other clubs and you can snare them. Weighing up the chance of that versus getting stuck with a kid who wants to go elsewhere, in my opinion, probably leads to the bidding system sightly under valuing players but putting them "around the mark" with some benefit to the father/son club.

The AFL shouldn't be the place to trial and develop young kids. It should be where ready made footballers step in and play. Whether they are 18 or 24 when they make it on to an AFL last shouldn't matter. The reasons the industry is soft on 3rd and 4th years players are: -There is no where else for the to develop, after they are of of the AFL system it is a very low chance they'll improve sufficiently to get back into it. -Lists are big enough to carry payers while they "develop" -the AFL drafts on potential, so a3rd year player who hasn't"come on" still hasa more developed body and often is slightly ahead of the younger Draftees. The draftees may pass him that year or next, but at the time of drafting there is a large difference.

Pick 39 * before compo picks.

What about: Introduce a "college AFL" as suggested, "under 22's" OR a unified, nation wide 2nd tier comp, where players are "part time" but get paid sufficient ~$50-100 K Keep the draft age as is. Cut the lists to 32. Any players not drafted can play and develop in the "tier 2" competition. Clubs can place injured players on "long term injury list" (say 6 weeks) and sign any replacement from tier 2 at any time. (Some details are obviously needed).