rpfc

Yeah, ok, all I wanted you to know is that no-one on here seems to give a flying about this 'loyal country boy' meme and that I don't think blokes waiting to sign contracts means they are a bad leader and I have no idea how this played into the whole issue of those that see list management akin to FIFA Manager - which is what I assume you meant with the D&D quip. The post was all over the place - that's it.

There are a few 'forum cloggers' on here let me tell you.

We have one. He will need a midfield to get him the ball.

Two or three players does not move the needle in the middle - you need a platoon. You can design a forward line around one good player and good delivery - if you can't get the ball out of the middle and through the middle - what you have in the forward line is irrelevant.

We didn't get them though - so you can't just assume one can pick mids anywhere in the draft like you were implying. I just don't want to have the sinking feeling looking at a post similar to the one above mentioning the mids we could have had at ND3 in 2014 that we did not get...

Nathan was constantly injured and jettisoned after a year. If picking him up in the first place is the problem - it's a different problem. I would prefer a culture that treats the 44 players more-or-less equally - especially injured teenagers - and not just the ones 'that show promise.' Surely they all do if they are picked up in the first place?

The mechanism created that, and it is the same at other clubs apparently. The investment isn't as large, and so they are treated differently. That's human nature to some extent - Nathan Jones will be treated better than every other bloke on the list - but the RL mechanism legislatively adds to it.

Compared to our midfield - our forward line is the '86 Lakers...

Excuse me? Would you like to trawl through the Frawley thread and find what you felt so appalling? I really have no idea why you continue with this abstract obsession with 'loyal country boy' or why you seem to marry this so much with those that are comfortable with players waiting to re-sign, or why you needed to add the patronising bit about Dungeons and Dragons at the end of that post. I am sure you were looking to get a rise out of someone with all that - I just can't grasp who...

I am not comparing the Rookie List to your job on the work site... I am comparing it to a spot on the Primary List. As of 2013 - I know of the experience of Nathan Stark on our rookie list and aside from being paid less and having less security than the peers he was taken with in the same off season - he was treated differently by coaches and physios compared to those on the Primary List.

Yeah, we have had no problems finding mids in the draft... Our top 6 mids: Jones, Vince, Cross, Tyson, Viney, and Matt Jones. Only Nathan and Matt Jones were not traded in or a F/S. That does not back up your argument at all.

He escapes immediate scrutiny on this thread (although he hasn't really 'escaped') because his contract runs for two more years. And BB - Nasher is saying, and I agree, that if we think he is 1% chance of playing again and we don't want him - simply delist him and help him with his recovery outside of football. No need to keep up appearances by promising anything more. If we, as a club, want to keep him and/or feel like the cultural hit of delisting him while under contract will be severe - then this decision is bloody tough. It isn't as simple as cozy sentiment, or whatever. Culture in footy clubs turn on a dime and we have seen toxic examples of bad culture at this club over the past few years, and even instances of poor list management bringing it on. It wasn't 'cozy sentiment' that led many to believe Junior should have been given another year or two - it was shrewd knowledge of the power of particular people in your locker room and how football clubs are made up of people and all the emotions that come with us.

The 18 months chestnut... What leagues can he play from October to March? Go up to NT to play. I want us to select the top 2 mids when we are looking back at this draft in 5 years. I don't care about 'safe bets' - I want two 22 year old midfield stars in 2020.

Tapscott does not yet have one beyond 8 days from now and Evans would be on very thin ice. Newton and Meesen were delisted and picked up in the Rookie Draft as per an agreement - they were paid their contracted salary for that year. That doesn't need to happen - Evans can be delisted and paid out - if Roos doesn't see a future for him, it would be better than wasting a year on our list. Tapscott and Evans being delisted would open up ND40 and ND53 or a DFA signing. That may be all we get. There is no mechanism for us to honour the 2 year deal with Jetta and keep him on the Rookie List to be upgraded during 2015. Tregngove being delisted and rookied is more likely than Jetta staying on the RL. If the club asked him to stay on the RL after promising to upgrade him - I would have no qualms with him walking from the club at that point.

That's correct. And I know it's hard to keep track of - I have made the Additions and Deletions list but before that have a simple 'list spots available.' I have no idea why they have not pulled the trigger on Tapscott yet. They are also likely to delist Evans as he is taking the spot of ND53/DFA/PSD2 and I think we would get a better talent through those mechanisms. Trengove and McKenzie should also be considered by the club to be delisted and placed on the Rookie List - but only if we catch a big fish in the PSD. Otherwise, it is creating heartache, simply to take a prospect at 53 or DFA. Deespicable - you may not like Matt Jones but he will not be delisted after being re-signed for two years earlier this year.

What a strange sentiment.

The ten-day contract and practice squad mechanisms are hardly the same as the Rookie List. The AFL has nothing like the 10-day, but would have been helpful (and a great story) for us last year in Rd 1 against the Saints - we could have hired a tall bloke for a couple of weeks. The practice squad is coming soon to the AFL I think but the flexibility of a player in that squad makes this a much better system than the Rookie List. The RL essentially creates subclass of players that are no different to those taken in the ND, but for some reason require these 4-6 spots on a separate mechanism - where they have less security, are paid less, and have lower guaranteed match payments. The should scrap the RD, and the RL and simply have those players taken in the ND and placed on the primary list. For injury replacements - allow for these players to come from outside the system as agreed between them and the club

For those keen to know where the list is at ^^^^

Rookies are given a 1+1+1 contract. It is utterly ridiculous that a supposed professional sport has such a nonsensical device such as the rookie list. Paid less, less freedom than similar structures in other sports, and less security than a Primary list spot.

This is a fairly simple post. Simple is rarely the case. Perhaps you are just changing the destination of the scape goating? The failures of the Daniher era is blamed on Gutnick, Szondy, and Gardner. The failures of the Bailey era is blamed on Schwab and Connolly. The failures of the Neeld era is blamed on Lyon and McLardy. We just go from personality driven blame game to personality driven blame game. Does anyone really think that it is so simple as to blame these Demons for everything that went wrong? You can twist this to suggest that I am saying no-one is to blame, and you would be wrong - there is so much to go around it's irrelevant. If we are going to burn everyone that works for the club, and puts time and money into the club - we won't be left with a club. Who's ready to move on?

I can't tell if this is insensitive... Too soon?

What about the McDonalds of a few years ago? Anthony and James?

It's all grey. There are no good guys and bad guys they way we like to think there are. Brock is being lionised by a few on here as some sort of martyr against the evil doers who brought about our 8 year wandering. And on the other extreme he is been lambasted as a traitor for exposing his former club to the waiting vultures on a TV program. He was a passionate footy player and club man that made some terrible decisions when it came to his personal behaviour and in his role as a leader. The club made a decision after 2007 to rebuild through the draft and the mantra of 'blooding kids' held through the next CEO and altered the culture of the club, one that was already inadequate, and that came to head after the captain was fired before time and ended with a coach being removed. Soon followed by the CEO, the President, and the next coach less than two years later. So many players, staff, boards, and consultants made so many bad decisions over the past decade that assigning blame has always seemed irrelevant to me. Especially when we are such a small club, we need to be able to take anyone that identifies themselves as Demons. That isn't to say that McLean does, but there are many fans on so many different sides of the argument that has been this club over the past few years that we all need to be sympathetic, if not empathetic, about where we are all coming from.

We are whining because now loyalty is a two way street. Players can pick and choose more than they ever could and clubs - who are accustomed to picking and choosing as they desire - have to deal with that. I do agree that judging one's 'loyalty' is difficult. Until they show disloyalty...

If we had 16 Nathan Jones' running around - we wouldn't need another 2 players on the field, let alone 30 on the list...