Lucifers Hero

Maybe no announcement on list size is because the new CBA that has just expired has not been finalised. Theoretically, increase in sal cap means more players. However, players may want to 'catch up' what they lost during the covid years cut backs so the list size may not go up in 2023. patrick-dangerfield-reveals-covid-reward-clause-he-wants-written-into-the-next-afl-cba Also, given that clubs have managed fine with the current list size (42 + 2 B-rookies) and a Tassie team, the AFL may not increase list sizes at all... I would be surprised if list sizes weren't as per 2022, next year.

I'm pretty sure Ellison nominated for the National Draft a few years ago and wasn't picked. Therefore, we or any club could have signed him at any time and can do so after this Draft as part of the spp. He was in this year's mid-season draft but not picked up. I hope he gets picked up by someone as he had a very good year.

It is yet to be confirmed whether it is 2 or 3 B rookies. This article talks about list sizes. how-your-club-is-placed-ahead-of-the-list-lodgement-deadline-and-upcoming-afl-draft The underlying assumption is the status quo remains ie Seniors + A-rookies should not exceed 42 and the max B rookies is 2. According to that article, the clubs you've listed currently have zero or one B-rookie. As mentioned in an earlier post we can take FE-B as a senior player if we nominated him or even if we didn't, if he gets to the end of the draft with no takers. Hopefully, the AFL produces a list. And that list sizes are confirmed.

I may be overly cynical but that sounds like 'window dressing' in the same way Jackson said 'Freo or Eagles' but everyone knew he wanted and would get to Freo.

Nothing official to say we have or haven't nominated him. If we have, we can take him as a senior player rather than a B-rookie. As I understand the list size rules a club can have up to 42 players comprised of Senior and A-rookie (36 to 38 senior players and up to 6 A-Rookies. In 2022 our combo was 36 senior players and 6 A-rookie players. We can change this mix to take FE-B We currently have 34 senior players and 3 A-rookies. So 5 potential list spots to fill. It has been said we will use two draft picks + our last pick for Chandler promotion. The other point is having draft picks. We have 13, 37, 90 and 118 the latter two will come into the 60-70 range. One will be used to promote Chandler the other could be used for FE-B if the bid to match is late enough in the draft. Having said all that the pointers are that we won't be taking him. Nominations have closed. But if we have nominated him we can get him - see comment above.

I've searched high and low for any reference or 'talk' that in 2023 list sizes and sal cap will revert to pre-covid levels. Would very much appreciate seeing something more about it. TIA.

From Fox: "... the Herald Sun also reports two games where Pell was an emergency have received scrutiny". "Pell was the emergency umpire in the Collingwood-Melbourne Queen’s Birthday game in Round 13, where Brody Mihocek was the surprise three-vote getter, ahead of Neale Daniher Trophy winner Clayton Oliver and the impressive Mason Cox. Pell was also the emergency umpire in the St Kilda-Sydney game in Round 23, where the Saints became the first team in 16 years to lose yet poll all six votes. Dan Hannebery, in what is likely to be his final AFL match, polled the three". The 3-vote winners in those two games would have been hard to predict as they surprised most people.

Pell is in real trouble. It wasn't a momentary lapse. The Age is reporting that the bets-were-allegedly-laid-on-more-than-10-matches-michael-pell-umpired. Can't see him ever umpiring again. And if convicted I hope he has a 'day job' that won't be affected.

Piece of cake!

I guess they base their case on Cairns being used during the 2020 covid hubs and the Saints play a game there so it is 'fit for purpose' from a playing point of view. But in a way Cairns helps us. iirc we were slaughted there by Sydney in 2020 because of the rain and the wind...sounds just like Casey😉 Not sure how much advantage they get in Carins. The only difference would be is they fly for two hours and we fly for four. Terrible for the AFLW comp if the AFL hide the GF in some aussie rules 'back-water'. Someone, should remind Brisbane they won top spot by one point. Hardly the resounding right to host the GF. And they have played a GF at Ikon. Marvel is a neutral ground, sort of. If they want a very neutral venue perhaps the SCG. They will get the 'anti' Melbourne (the city) rivalry fans.

Thanks for all the awesome work, Kev! 👏

I dpn't get why Brisbane want Cairns or Townsville. Sure they are in Qld but the flight to Melbourne is the same or shorter. We/North would have a longer flight but not sure its much of an advantage for them. At least in Melbourne they would get a decent amount of fans rather than neither team have any fan support. Can't see how it gives them any sort of 'Home' advantage. But they are spending a lot of energy thinking about it which might be a good thing.

As the 'auto' pay memberships have rolled over is it time to start the 2023 thread? The club website is still showing the 2022 figure but it can only be a matter of time before the 2023 figures appear.

I had thought that if a certain number of clubs (3?) ask the AFL to invite a player to the first night (ie round one) they would be invited. But that could have changed post covid. Twomey would be more up to date than yours truly. His comment on Jefferson suggests there hasn't been enough high level interest whichever way the AFL determines the invitees. Not sure about night 2.

I was referring to Brownlow betting especially game bets but take your point about it going underground. But if the mainstream on-line betting agencies, that advertise on every AFL related media don't offer it how many people are going to seek the illegal ones out? Anyway an expert panel was silly suggestion by Thomas.

I can't read the whole article but at the risk of taking the wrong interpretation of it, I don't see how that would stop the same thing happening. 5 people would know who got the votes for that game. 5 people who could tip off mates to make the same bets Pell's did. At least with the umpires there are only 3 people involved who have some level of ethics to uphold, albeit there has now been a breach. A panel of experts would have almost no level of ethics to uphold no bond to secrecy and probably less trustworthy. More risk with no gain with Thomas's suggestion. Just stop game by game Brownlow betting. Keep it to the winner/placings. Better still get rid of the betting altogether!

In his podcast Twomey with Nat Edwards, he said Jefferson hasn't been invited to the first night of the draft so is unlikely to go in the first dozen. He also mentioned it is unlikely there will be swaps involving top 10 or even first round picks.

Based on those 'selections' our #37 nominally goes out to #42. Lions might have to use all their #30+ picks to get Ashcroft. So our pick might come back in a bit. Sub #40 is not where JT likes to draft from... Those selections suggest the Lions will be desperately short of points. Will have to dip into 2023/swap some 2023 picks for 2022

Thanks for that. I listened up to our pick #13. 'Shifter' had Jefferson going to WCE in the pick before ours to replace Kennedy. Toomey then said he would have taken Jefferson if on the board but will go for Allen.

Big penalty for being naive and stupid. As always with the AFL the penalty is not for the misdeed but is for being caught. Lord knows how many other not-above-board betting on AFL games/events people get away with because they are smart enough to camouflage their misdeeds and not get caught.

How the deed was done/discovered: "...one betting agency was alerted to a punter or punters placing bets on players’ votes in different matches and winning every time...By the end of the count, a red flag was beside his name...The league...then cross-checked the betting patterns with other betting partners and found the same individual/s placing similar bets. Subsequent cross-checking on the games themselves then reportedly showed Pell as the one constant. The Age reported bets ranged in size, all the way up to several thousand dollars". brownlow-medal-betting-scandal Pell's gambling 'mates' seem very naive in how betting agencies track recurring/unusual betting patterns and not very good at covering their tracks. Pell was stupid to give them the info. If it was that simple or just once he could plead ignorance. But going on the above it was for 'different matches' and if he got a share of the winnings he is in for a very torrid time.

I assume the thread relates to this: four-men-arrested-over-suspicious-brownlow-medal-betting "The investigation, alongside Sport Integrity Australia and the AFL, has focused on the illegal release of umpire votes from matches through the home-and-away season. Victoria Police alleged in a statement that a person with knowledge of the voting tally distributed the information to a group of people known to them". It may not have been an umpire.

I saw it but still don't get it...🤔

Me too. @NascentI didn't get the connection nor the joke...🤔 Would love to know what 'Stanley Bruce' meant...

Thanks @Timothy Reddan-A'Blewthat was quite a challenge. I was lucky I fluked the 'Roman Numerals' connection early in the game. Once I knew the answer it was amazing how many clues I had missed in your posts. Very clever, 'Tim'. Thanks for your work!👏