dworship

As you said a free hit. The upside is; if we pull it off it's great for us, but it would be really, really bad for WC.

Kayo is the way to go

It will be interesting to see the impact/role he has in the nutrition area. I believe he has been highly involved in that area, taking a very holistic approach to sports medicine. Burgess and he working together in the past augers well for this whole department to be a high functioning unit.

Perhaps hieroglyphics, then he could f... off and look at stick figures kicking goals in caves.

Left field, Hayden Ballantyne, subject to a medical. 12mth contract, performance based. Secondary role; work with the existing/new smalls and develop their craft. If he has to play at Casey and help the young'uns coming through that is fine. We had a list that was one short this year and we played Lewis more as an onfield coach than anything else.

You do know we selected Jimmy Toumpas because of that philosophy.

Dunkley

I think you can only rate this on endeavor as the picks we use are so subjective. On that basis I think the endeavor has been A1

A couple of broken collar bones would suggest differently.

After much education, can say yes we do need a pick but there are ample available at the end of the draft. Unfortunately the way the AFL and the Media report this fact is very confusing. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Thanks to Fire in the Belly , Macca and Nascent

Thanks LN. https://www.afl.com.au/policies Click on AFL rules it will start a PDF download

Now my head hurts, and I have to eat humble pie lol and thanks

And I have no idea and apologies profusely

Humble pie time, please disregard my comment

Thanks Macca, and yes I finally see, time to eat a bit of humble pie also. Cheers

Ok, I think I'm starting to see it now, so Richmond has 95 then a new round starts GC has 96 then we have 97. If necessary we can promote a rookie for 97 and that would then give us 3 selections in the draft if we keep 3 and 8.

Thanks for your patience, I hope you will see from the below table why I have been saying the things I've been saying. The table sets out each teams available picks, the last one being pick 95 for Richmond I believe. I thought we had traded away all our higher picks but if you are right we must somehow have pick 96. The rule I was after was the one that made this assertion so. Club-by-club draft picks YOUR CLUB'S 2019 PICKS ADEL 4, 23, 28, 49 BL 16, 21, 34, 52, 55, 64 CARL 9, 43, 48, 72, 85 COLL 35, 62, 69, 74 ESS 31, 33, 57, 65, 70, 88 FRE 7, 22, 79, 83 GEEL 14, 17, 24, 36, 37, 93 GCFC 1, 2, 15, 20, 58, 78, 90 GWS 6, 40, 59, 60, 80, 94 HAW 11, 30, 42, 61, 87, 92 MELB 3, 8 NMFC 8, 26, 27, 47, 50, 73, 84 PORT 10, 29, 66, 67, 68, 71, 86 RICH 19, 38, 39, 41, 75, 77, 95 STK 12, 18, 76, 82 SYD 5, 25, 44, 54, 56, 63, 81 WCE 46, 91 WB 13, 32, 45, 51, 53, 89

If you can show me that in the rules I will happily eat humble pie

Except we can't, we have to find a third pick

Had always thought you knew what was going on, guess I was wrong

Fair self assessment

And you know this how?

"If we have to make a 3rd pick, yes, we have a 3rd pick" Please tell me what pick number that would be? Oh and by the way we do have to make a 3rd pick according to the Rules "If we wanted to delist JKH and Stretch right now, we could have another 2 picks on top of that." I thought that would just mean we had 2 more spots on our list to fill. There was a reason I quoted the rules at the end of my original post and perhaps I've miss-interpreted them, can you help me out by letting me know the section of the rules that allow the scenarios in bold.

Perhaps my communication skills aren't what they were. We don't have a 3rd pick at the moment do we?