Redleg

What accounts?

If Preuss and Max are in the seniors, who is rucking at Casey, a skinny 18 year old Bradtke, who has hardly played footy the last few years, I think not. How would our mids and setups go, with no chance of practice to a winning ruckman. IMO, we will rookie an experienced ruck like Campbell, who can also play forward if required, when Preuss is playing for Casey.

I am pretty confident we will rookie an experienced ruck to play at Casey and share time with Bradtke and also be the emergency for Max and Preuss.

Full forward at Casey. We have no one else to play there anyway.Tom Campbell has played there for the Dogs.

The other one.

Read what I said. I said we need another EXPERIENCED ruck, as we have a project ruck in Bradtke and without Hogan, they shouldn’t risk injuries to Tom and Sam in the ruck, ad we are short of key forwards. Someone like Tom Campbell as a rookie for a couple of years, is needed until Bradtke can develop. We have lost Pedo and if Max and Preuss go down we are in trouble.

We have a project ruck in Bradtke. We need another experienced ruck in case Max and Preuss go down.

Now you have started it.

Not at all. Have you seen the state of BBO’s manor or tasted his wife’s cooking?

Up here in the home of the Gold Coast Suns for a short break. Haven’t seen a single siting of any GC Suns colours, either in the shops, or on any of the holidaymakers. That is a little unusual .

Didn’t think it was an insult.

And accomodate needs, like the 3 day Anzac break, 6 day back to back interstate trips and NT recovery requirement etc. Would prolong careers as well.

Well your last suggestion makes sense. It is a rort, with the player assisting . Player gets a bit more than owed, to go on rookie list, with other clubs warned off and his club saving some salary cap space. Now I understand. Couldnt we do that with Jeffy?

IMO we will be looking at another ruck back up, plus another key forward, quick outside mid and a Garlett type. Whether taken as rookies, or main list, they seem to be the type of players we need atm. While Preuss will help, we lost Pedo and the 2 young rucks and Bradtke will be a couple of years off being considered. IMO 2 rucks on the list leaves us vulnerable. With Jesse gone, I don’t see them risking Tom or Sam in the ruck. Frost could be an outside chance to assist, for a season, if we don’t take another experienced ruck. He is hard at it, can jump and would actually be another mid around the ball. Baker, Billy and Hunt could be the answer to the outside mid spot , but JKH won’t be the answer to the Garlett role, though we probably have Bedford who might develop into that role with his pressure an asset. But then again what do I know?

Just as Taylor would want.

But if you are right, he loses money he is entitled to. That makes no sense. They would have to agree that if someone else takes him, rookie or normal draft, that they would make up the difference. I think to be drafted or rookied you have to register for the draft. That means he could be taken say by Freo as a rookie and yanked out of Victoria on a base rookie salary. That just can’t be right. Why would he take that chance when he doesn’t need to? Just looked up Salary Cap rules and apparently “ nominated” rookie list players, can have 30-50% of their salary outside the cap, depending on the number of rookie list players on the club’s list. That still doesn’t change my comment in relation to this issue as it is of no benefit to Langford.

Well, they are very important factors. Someone else posted that we make $1m a game in NT. Not sure that is correct, but if it is, it will be hard to walk away from. Then again, if correct figures, we should be seeking less other interstate games, as we already have more than other Victorian clubs and we are promoting the game in the NT by playing there.

That can’t be right. If Hawks have delisted him and he is contracted, he must be paid his contractual amount. It can’t be that another club then just drafts him as a rookie or whatever and he forfeits what he is owed. You cant simply avoid what is owed by delisting a player and hoping someone else takes him. Maybe the other club might pay the base fee but Hawks would have to pay the rest. Otherwise it would be a restraint of trade and breach of contract.

That is why I referred to “ the bottom line ,“ which would take into account all income and expenses.

Would love to know how much the same game at the G instead, plus less costs would work out at. In other words what is the bottom line difference? Also taking away another 2 games from your fans has to be factored in, not to mention the travel for the players and the extra disruption to recovery etc. The big clubs don’t do it for a very good set of reasons, I would hope that we have now entered the same set of circumstances and can get rid of one or both games.

How disappointing!

Reckon there will some new faces in both teams, in either the Anzac game or the one before.

Ok. Well I seriously wonder if in our current position, both on and off the field, playing both games in the NT rather than say one or even none, is a bad choice.

So what is the benefit in the fixture for us agreeing to play in NT twice, 2 extra interstate games is the answer.

Pies 5 interstate to our 7, plus we also get Geelong.