So who goes?

[DaveW]

We had a core list of 37 players in 2003.

Bickley retired, but he was on the veterans list, so he doesn't count.

Hart moves onto the veterans list in 2004; so that takes our core list down to 36.

We gained Scott Stevens but didn't lose any players during the trade period. That takes our core list to 37.

Parker and Skipworth will likely be promoted to the core list. That takes it to 39. (Although Skipworth is no certainty.)

We need it down to 35 - at least - for the national draft. So we have to get rid of a minimum of four (or three if you don't think Skippy will be returned to the main list).

My four:


Ben Nelson
Daniel Schell
Andrew Crowell
Matthew Smith (I'll go with the consensus on this one)


James Gallagher is also in real trouble.

[macca23]

Originally posted by DaveW

My four:


Ben Nelson
Daniel Schell
Andrew Crowell
Matthew Smith (I'll go with the consensus on this one)


James Gallagher is also in real trouble.


Can't argue with any of the above. Those 4 are gone IMO.

Gags will probably survive, but only by the skin of his teeth.

[lozstar]

I hate delistings :(

But I agree with those 4 (:()... It's a pity we can't add Marsh to that though.

I reckon Gags will stay at least for another year, so he'll be right! :)

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

goodbye Daniel Schell, Ben Nelson, Andrew Crowell (I am sorry matey)

hello Scott Stevens!

k
xx

[spindoctor]

Gee, that'd be a bt hard on Andrew Crowell! He was really good in the backlines in '02, and just missed this season through injury...are we really prepared to cut him on that basis?

My list:

Schell (too inconsistent and didn't bulk up enough)
Nelson (missed his chance)
Skipworth (surplus to our midfield requirements)
Mattner (always looked awful)

Smith has probably been a 'project' long enough, maybe he should have been rewarded for his consistent SANFL form but he was never able to break in...so it might be bye bye, bad luck.


Even though I had him in my team for 04...maybe Ronnie Burns? A bit of a smokey but we seem to be developing a lot of forward line goalsneaks - Schuback, Johncock, Ladhams, Bode etc etc...do we need him?

[Russian]

Out: Bickley, Nelson, Gallagher, Schell, Marsh, then two of Smith, Doughty, Begley, Mattner, Crowell)
In: Stevens, Parker, Skipworth
Leaves 4 draft picks

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

Originally posted by Russian
Out: Bickley, Nelson, Gallagher, Schell, Marsh, then two of Smith, Doughty, Begley, Mattner, Crowell)
In: Stevens, Parker, Skipworth
Leaves 4 draft picks


hey hey lay off the vodka Russian............James Begley is NOT going anywhere!!!

k
xx

[Kristof]

OUT: Bickley, Crowell, Nelson, Schell, Gallagher, Mattner. Probably Smith, but I have this funny feeling they'll retain him for another year - yes, I must be on crack.

Certainly bringing on Skipworth and Parker.

Now - a veteran still counts towards your list numbers, right? This talk of "core list" just confused me ...

[Jerome]

Could someone please confirm how many picks do we have now and what are the numbers?

The Crows who should be delisted are: Nelson, Schell, Smith, Marsh, Crowell, Skipworth, Mattner.

If we can get a ruckman in the November draft I think Marsh should be delisted in December, so we have a pick in the December draft.

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Jerome
Could someone please confirm how many picks do we have now and what are the numbers?

Picks, 14, 31, 61, 77, 93

Skipworth is dead set certainty for promotion. Fantasia gave this away a couple of weeks ago on 5AA. I think it slipped out:P

GONE:

Ben Nelson (Thank god)
Matthew Smith (Deadset dud)
Daniel Schell (See Smith)
Andrew Crowell (:( but I would not be surprised if he was redrafted with pick 61)

Gallagher might be safe by a bee's _ _ _ _:p

We might delist one extra to see what might be available in the pre-season draft.

Marsh appears to be safe for another year:(

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Picks, 14, 31, 61, 77, 93

Skipworth is dead set certainty for promotion. Fantasia gave this away a couple of weeks ago on 5AA. I think it slipped out:P

Marsh appears to be safe for another year:(

Thank you.

Neither Marsh nor Skipworth have earned the right to be considered safe for another year IMO and I will be dissapointed if they are.

Skipwoths finals performance against West was not on. A guy with his AFL/SANFL experience should not be getting benched in a final.

Our finals record has been pathetic in the past three years. 2 wins out of 6. We need players who can win finals for us next year.

When Skippy was benched against West the first thing I thought was if this guy cant put his body on the line for his local club in a final, how can we expect him to do it for us in a final?

If you think I am being tough on him based on one performance, well...tough. September is not the time to be putting in shockers.

[Scotty's_Girl]

Originally posted by macca23
Gags will probably survive, but only by the skin of his teeth.

Only by the plague on his teeth!! :D

[lozstar]

Originally posted by Jerome
Thank you.

Neither Marsh nor Skipworth have earned the right to be considered safe for another year IMO and I will be dissapointed if they are.

Skipwoths finals performance against West was not on. A guy with his AFL/SANFL experience should not be getting benched in a final.

Our finals record has been pathetic in the past three years. 2 wins out of 6. We need players who can win finals for us next year.

When Skippy was benched against West the first thing I thought was if this guy cant put his body on the line for his local club in a final, how can we expect him to do it for us in a final?

If you think I am being tough on him based on one performance, well...tough. September is not the time to be putting in shockers. From what I heard about that game, the reason why Skippy played such a shocker was that he hurt himself, possibly had a broken hand.

[macca23]

Originally posted by Scotty's_Girl
Only by the plague on his teeth!! :D

Or the plaque!! :D

[macca23]

Originally posted by lozstar
From what I heard about that game, the reason why Skippy played such a shocker was that he hurt himself, possibly had a broken hand.

Actually, that's correct. I went down the same path as Jerome did until I found this out. Certainly explains why he had such a sh*tter in the SANFL grand final.

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Jerome
Skipwoths finals performance against West was not on. A guy with his AFL/SANFL experience should not be getting benched in a final.

Our finals record has been pathetic in the past three years. 2 wins out of 6. We need players who can win finals for us next year.

When Skippy was benched against West the first thing I thought was if this guy cant put his body on the line for his local club in a final, how can we expect him to do it for us in a final?

If you think I am being tough on him based on one performance, well...tough. September is not the time to be putting in shockers. Dude he broke his hand in that game.

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Dude he broke his hand in that game.

I have never seen that reported anywhere. I knew Shirley was injured but not Skippy. I've checked the Crows and Eagles websites and they havent stated he has a broken hand. I'm not saying I dont believe anyone but I would have thought it would have been reported by now.

[GoalsFrom50Out]

I got it in my club email ... probably shouldn't have deleted, should I? :p

[lozstar]

Originally posted by GoalsFrom50Out
I got it in my club email ... probably shouldn't have deleted, should I? :p I remember you telling me that.. But he hasn't got it in plaster and it doesn't look like it's been operated on. Guess it can't be all that bad.

[RaDaR ReiLLy]

Originally posted by Russian
Out: Bickley, Nelson, Gallagher, Schell, Marsh, then two of Smith, Doughty, Begley, Mattner, Crowell)
In: Stevens, Parker, Skipworth
Leaves 4 draft picks
Begley?? :confused: After one pretty impressive year?!?! Never!!!:(

And Mattner won't go anywhere either. The AFC have the highest opinion of the bloke. Give him at least another year to develop further, and then he can really be assessed, injury permitting. :)

[DaveW]

Come to think of it. Don't we have a policy of saving a pick for the pre-season draft?

That would mean getting our list down to 34. Which means either:

a) Promoting Parker only and delisting 4; or
b) Promoting Parker & Skipworth and delisting 5

So it's Gallagher vs Skipworth for mine.

[RaDaR ReiLLy]

Originally posted by DaveW
Come to think of it. Don't we have a policy of saving a pick for the pre-season draft?

That would mean getting our list down to 34. Which means either:

a) Promoting Parker only and delisting 4; or
b) Promoting Parker & Skipworth and delisting 5

So it's Gallagher vs Skipworth for mine.
I can't see why so many people want to de-list Skipworth? :confused: Have I missed something? :( :confused:

[Bockchoy67]

Matthew Smith, Ben Nelson, DANIEL SCHELL and James Gallagher all have to be delisted in my opinion. Gags is the only one in that group that actually showed a bit of talent, but he's too small and is much better suited to the likes of SANFL.

Belgey and Skipworth should stay, especially Begley. Both showed good promise this year. Nathan Bock was also fantastic in the SANFL from what I saw of him.

[spindoctor]

Originally posted by RaDaR ReiLLy
Begley?? :confused: After one pretty impressive year?!?! Never!!!:(

And Mattner won't go anywhere either. The AFC have the highest opinion of the bloke. Give him at least another year to develop further, and then he can really be assessed, injury permitting. :)


Uh...why were they offering him as trade bait then?

[J.Gallagher #1]

well i think skippy and parker are certaities to be promoted the delistings will probly be Schell, Nelson, Smith, Marsh and either Crowell or Gags.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by RaDaR ReiLLy
I can't see why so many people want to de-list Skipworth? :confused: Have I missed something? :( :confused: Skipworth was delisted last year.

The question is whether or not to promote him.

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by J.Gallagher #1
well i think skippy and parker are certaities to be promoted the delistings will probly be Schell, Nelson, Smith, Marsh and either Crowell or Gags. We will not delist Marsh. If we do we only have 2 ruckman and absolutely no back up.

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by spindoctor
Uh...why were they offering him as trade bait then? That doesn't mean that he will get delisted. Bassett was put up for trade but I can tell you now that he will not be delisted.

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

sadly I believe your right Stiffy!!!!

Ben Marsh will be a Crow in 2004 :(

But.........then every club needs a whipping boy.........he is ours and considering Dan Schell will be delisted - I think Marshy is in for a tough year!!

k
xx

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
That doesn't mean that he will get delisted. Bassett was put up for trade but I can tell you now that he will not be delisted. Not least because Bassett already has a contract for next year.

[RooDog]

Outs

bicks(retired, assitant coach to mick malthouse), marsh(gone to look for a heart), matt smith(dud), james gallagher(learning to kick and think under pressure), nelson(his done better than david gallagher did at carlton but still a dud) and one of doughty and crowell.

its hard to find a spot for a doughty we have burton begley torney goodwin bode shirley who can all play on the wing and other positions where doughty is simply a midfielder.

Ins
aidan parker for sure and possibly skippy but yet to be convinced by him

and our draft picks

also is it worth saving a spot for the pre season draft considering what could be on offer

[naughty monkey]

5 definites to go:-

Schell
Smith
Nelson
Crowell
Gallagher

[Nige_Bix]

Any idea when they will be announced?

[macca23]

Originally posted by jfb313
Any idea when they will be announced?

No, other than that they have a couple of weeks to do them in.

My guess is that they will do them this week.

[Mong]

Definates:

Nelson
Schell
Gallagher
Smith

Possibles:

Bock
Doughty
Mattner
Crowell
Burns



My prediction:

Nelson
Schell
Gallagher
Smith
Mattner

Crowell to survive and Mattner to be rookie listed.



Mong

[maccas_no1]

Good assesment Mong;)

[spindoctor]

Stiffy: uh...I wasn't saying Mattner ws going to be delisted, I said if AFC thought so highly ofhim, why was he being offered as trade bait?

[raboyle]

Hope they don't trade Schell... he may not have been good at Adelaide but we love having him at the Doggies.

By the way maccas_no1... check your PM's.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by raboyle
Hope they don't trade Schell... he may not have been good at Adelaide but we love having him at the Doggies. I think Schell is safe from being traded. ;)

[macca23]

Listening to Stephen Trigg on 5AA this morning and we won't have long to wait to find out just who the delistings are.

They will definitely be done this week and most likely on Tuesday.

Asked whether he was happy with the trade period, he said he was. As suspected, the AFC are chockers with the salary cap, and the only way we could have landed a name player was to trade a name player for salary cap reasons.

As for Scott Stevens, he said that he was delighted to get him. Sydney wanted a high 2nd round draft pick for him, and they've landed him for virtually a low 3rd round draft pick. Again, as suspected, they were only interested in bargains.

On young Stiffmeister's favourite topic - ruckmen, he said that they had pursued 4, but were not going to be screwed as was wanted to get one. he said that they would be looking at young ruckmen in the draft, but that was much more likely to happen in the rookie draft.

As always with Triggy, it was a very interesting and informative interview.

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by spindoctor
Stiffy: uh...I wasn't saying Mattner ws going to be delisted, I said if AFC thought so highly ofhim, why was he being offered as trade bait? Let me guess, your source is the advertiser and the man himself Michaelangelo Rucci.

James Fantasia was just on the radio about and hur ago and he said that we didn't put anyone up as bait. We just sat there entertaining offers and were weighting up if certain players were worth going after.

Trust me mate, never ever believe what Michaelangelo Rucci reports. Most of the time its his guesswork.;)

[SAbella]

Why would the Crows delist Crowell?? :confused:
I know he wasnt playing this year 'cos of a shoulder injury but before he was injured I didn't think his position was in danger, and besides he's a bit of a hottie ;)

[AngelEyes]

Originally posted by raboyle
By the way maccas_no1... check your PM's.

That would be nice!!!! :mad:

[maccas_no1]

Okay I will check my PM's;)

[raboyle]

Originally posted by maccas_no1
Okay I will check my PM's;)

Oh thank you... I've been trying to contact you for a couple of weeks... *sigh*

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Trust me mate, never ever believe what Michaelangelo Rucci reports. Most of the time its his guesswork.;)

Loved his report on the Scott Stevens trade when he said the Crows had long been after him

Funny no mention at all was made of this prior to the event.

He is hopeless.

[MarksGirl-kbcrowgirl]

Originally posted by Jars458
Loved his report on the Scott Stevens trade when he said the Crows had long been after him

Funny no mention at all was made of this prior to the event.

He is hopeless.

Actually I heard we were keen on Stevens for a while.

Rucci's head is always at Port and with the dramas revolving around Nick Stevens......we weren't going to be the big news of the week.

k
xx

[macca23]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Let me guess, your source is the advertiser and the man himself Michaelangelo Rucci.

Trust me mate, never ever believe what Michaelangelo Rucci reports. Most of the time its his guesswork.;)

That Rucci is a complete and utter tossbag, who thinks he can make it so by printing his pro Port trash.

Loved his latest effort after Port got nothing for Stevens, when on Saturday this marvellous article appears about Port having evidence that Stevens breached the draft by nominating the team he wanted to go to and that the AFL was going to launch an investigation into it.

If found guilty, he said that Stevens could be forced to stay with Port, be deregistered for a year, and then be traded in a year's time by Port.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!

This was actually the trading period and not the draft.

As Andrew Demetriou said on 5AA this morning, there would be no investigation, as that is exactly what the trading period is for. The uncontracted player nominates his choice of club, and if it doesn't happen then he goes into the pre-season draft.

So having written a total crock of sh*t completely incorrect in every facet, what does our Mr Rucci do??

Does he say "I was wrong!!"

No sir!!! Not Michaelangelo!!! He writes another crock of sh*t saying that having let Carey go to the club of his choice last year, the AFL can't do anything about Stevens this year.

It's about time the Advertiser sacked that pro Port germ and his rubbish writings and put in someone capable of writing better balanced and less transparently biased football articles.

[Stiffy_18]

I still cannot figure out how he gets the title of chief football writes. He dribbles so much sh|t its not funny. Personally, I think Andrew Capel is MILES ahead of Rucci.

His dribble never stops. How funny was that article in sunday mail????? It starts off how we pulled a surprise trade by landing Scott Stevens or something along those lines and 2 paragraphs later he says how it shouldn't have been surprised as we have been interested in him for a while.

WTF?????? Contradiction of terms Rucc:rolleyes:

[lozstar]

I wouldn't be suprised if he'd kissed Mark Williams feet by now, he looked pretty close to doing that last time I saw him down at Port training.

[Jerome]

Macca 23,

They wont sack rucci as he is Mr Roach's Yes Man.

Geoff Roach stated some time ago on 5AA that the reason why Rucci was brought back to the Tiser from New York was to stir things up.

He was hired to be a **** stirrer nothing more. Problem is that is rountine is very old. Having a dig at the Crows is'nt as controversial as it was in 94.

[PAfolwr]

Macca pleeeease. Stop trying to give Rucci to us. We do not want him.
If you don't want him either, then everybody in SA should say how good he is, and that way he will get a promotion and go to Melbourne, Sydney or even overseas.

Do not, and I repeat DO NOT, under any circumstance get his bosses upset with him, otherwise he might end up at the NT News.

[Macca19]

Originally posted by macca23
It's about time the Advertiser sacked that pro Port germ and his rubbish writings and put in someone capable of writing better balanced and less transparently biased football articles.

In other words, replace Rucci with yet another Pro-Crow biased journalist who brown noses the Crows and never says a bad word about them ala every other sports writer at the Advertiser?

[macca23]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
Macca pleeeease. Stop trying to give Rucci to us. We do not want him.


I can understand why you don't want him. He's an embarrassment during the year by fawning all over Port and then turns feral on you when you lose finals.

An example of during the year stuff, presuming the team he was writing about had 6 players out injured:

Adelaide

Headline: Crows decimated to rabble

A very average Crows team will have their normally very ordinary side reduced to a shadow of a football team after being forced to make 6 changes due to injury.

Even the most fanatical Crows supporter would have to concede that their task against Bordertown under 16's this week should be labelled "Misssion Impossible" as a result.

I'm sure that John Reid said "we're rooted", not "get rooted" to me, when I pointed out that they would be lucky to beat an egg with that team.

Port Adelaide

Headline: Port Adelaide excited to blood future new champions

A normally strong, powerful and brilliant Port Adelaide team will be even further strenthened by the opportunity to include 6 future Brownlow Medal winners all making their debut against Brisbane at the Gabba, due to the fantastic opportunity created by fortunate injury to 6 minor players.

Even the most conservative Power supporter would secretly be thinking that a 20 goal plus victory to the Power was now the most likely result this weekend.

Brian Cunningham appeared to nod his head in agreement when I pointed out that the 6 first game players were clearly better than the injured brigade, comprised of Tredrea, Cornes, Pickett, Wanganeen, Burgoyne and Brogan.

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
I can understand why you don't want him. He's an embarrassment during the year by fawning all over Port and then turns feral on you when you lose finals.

An example of during the year stuff, presuming the team he was writing about had 6 players out injured:

Adelaide

Headline: Crows decimated to rabble

A very average Crows team will have their normally very ordinary side reduced to a shadow of a football team after being forced to make 6 changes due to injury.

Even the most fanatical Crows supporter would have to concede that their task against Bordertown under 16's this week should be labelled "Misssion Impossible" as a result.

I'm sure that John Reid said "we're rooted", not "get rooted" to me, when I pointed out that they would be lucky to beat an egg with that team.

Port Adelaide

Headline: Port Adelaide excited to blood future new champions

A normally strong, powerful and brilliant Port Adelaide team will be even further strenthened by the opportunity to include 6 future Brownlow Medal winners all making their debut against Brisbane at the Gabba, due to the fantastic opportunity created by fortunate injury to 6 minor players.

Even the most conservative Power supporter would secretly be thinking that a 20 goal plus victory to the Power was now the most likely result this weekend.

Brian Cunningham appeared to nod his head in agreement when I pointed out that the 6 first game players were clearly better than the injured brigade, comprised of Tredrea, Cornes, Pickett, Wanganeen, Burgoyne and Brogan. ROFL!!!!!!

GOLD:D

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by lozstar
I wouldn't be suprised if he'd kissed Mark Williams feet by now, he looked pretty close to doing that last time I saw him down at Port training.

are you sure it was his feet ??

[noddy]

I don't mind a bit of bias from Mr Rucci to-wards his beloved "Port Power" as it's only human nature no matter how professional the jouno tries to be but with Mr Rucci he goes way beyond the bounds of fair play in his articles on the 2 SA AFL clubs, what i have noticed over the years is when ever there is a negative story concerning Port in the Advertiser there is not far behind an equal piece from Mr Rucci on the Crows.

But on the other hand he can be very unkind to the Port Power if they don't live up to his expectations but also is very quick to suck up to them when it suits his needs.

[Thunderstruck]

Bock, Marsh, Schell, Crowell they should go. Nelson is handy but will go anyways.

Mattner is borderline, gotta keep Skippy tho.

[PrideOf]

Originally posted by Macca19
In other words, replace Rucci with yet another Pro-Crow biased journalist who brown noses the Crows and never says a bad word about them ala every other sports writer at the Advertiser?

Pro-Crow journalist? You won't find them at the Tiser.

Not one of their AFL journos barracks for Adelaide. The majority of them barrack for Victorian teams. The only difference between them and Rucci is that they don't hate Adelaide the way Rucci does. Or if they do, they manage to put that aside while they write the story. That's another difference between them and Rucci. In doing that, they're actually being good journos.

[macca23]

I've just been on the phone with my source, who generally is pretty close to the mark.

No names, but he says his information is that Jars is correct when he says there are further delistings to come.

He is of the opinion that there are another 2 delistings to come, and that tomorrow - Friday - is the day.

If he's right, then my guess would be that the 2 to go in order are

Matthew Smith

James Gallagher

That would leave the way open to promote Parker onto the main list and also have at least 1 selection in the pre-season draft.

I certainly hope that he's at least half right so that we can swap Smith for Parker!!!

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
I've just been on the phone with my source, who generally is pretty close to the mark.

No names, but he says his information is that Jars is correct when he says there are further delistings to come.

He is of the opinion that there are another 2 delistings to come, and that tomorrow - Friday - is the day.

If he's right, then my guess would be that the 2 to go in order are

Matthew Smith

James Gallagher

That would leave the way open to promote Parker onto the main list and also have at least 1 selection in the pre-season draft.

I certainly hope that he's at least half right so that we can swap Smith for Parker!!! Mate, I hope you and Jars are right.

I would be happy with one delisting. Bye bye Matthew Smith, Aidan Parker welcome to the senior list.

Personally, I wouldn't get rid of Gags. Maybe we will promote one of Bratton or Porplyzia. Currently we have 4 picks in the National Draft. We usually leave one for the pre-season draft. I wouldn't be too happy if we use 4 picks in this year's draft as it drops away from pick 40 onwards.

It will be very interesting to see what happens. My guess is we will invite a few ruckman to pre-season training and select one of them in the pre-season draft. We will most likely select one that can be a back up ruckman straight away if Clarke or Biglands get injured.

Should be interesting.:)

[macca23]

One thing I forgot to mention about the John Reid interview the other day that confused me was when Reidy said that we will probably have 5 rookies this year.

A club is allowed to have a total of 6 veterans and rookies with a maximum number of veterans of 2.

Smart is on the vetrans list already, and if Hart is going onto the list as well, that only leaves room for 4 rookies.

Has Reidy got too many fingers or isn't Hart eligible for the veterans list this coming season?? :confused:

[spindoctor]

Hahahahah, Rucci. My pet hatred.

OK, did anyone actually notice his tune changed this season when Carey arrived? His pre-season write-up on the Crows was gushing with praise and how the premiership was theirs. In the first half to three-quarters of the season he was ****-riding the Crows no end - how brilliant they were blah blah blah, how important Carey was a CHF blah blah blah. Had them as his premiership tip.

Then those three losses to end the season and SUDDENLY - he starts writing about all these 'cracks' in the Crows gameplan that had been 'evident throughout the season, and were being exposed badly at the worst possible' time. He suddenly found all these 'holes' in the Crows team that magically HE DIDN'T NOTICE EARLIER IN THE SEASON. In other words, he had been found out for not being a good football writer, and had stolen what other football writers were pointing out about the Crows' structure.

I mean why else was he ****-riding the Crows all through the first part of the season and pre-season if the cracks were so 'obvious'?

We don't need that turncoat little sh|t saying nice things about the Crows thanks, he is a biased idiot who can keep to gushing about Port, preferably.

[ajmart]

I notice Rucci has another article in The Advertiser today bemoaning The Chokers inability to win finals. He's saying they had no Primus, Francou and James which was costly but they played in the 2002 finals series and failed then! They're now bringing in the psychologists:)

Seems to me, if I had Cornes and Tredrea in my team I would ban them from venturing out of the 50m area. How can 2 players take so many marks and kick so few goals unless they are taking them too far up the ground BECAUSE THE CHOKERS FLOOD ALL THE TIME! Until they accept that, they will not win finals matches. I hope they don't read this as I'm happy for them to continue to lose finals matches;)

Cheers,

a.j.

[Stiffy_18]

What happened to supposed further changes to the list??????:confused:

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
One thing I forgot to mention about the John Reid interview the other day that confused me was when Reidy said that we will probably have 5 rookies this year.

A club is allowed to have a total of 6 veterans and rookies with a maximum number of veterans of 2.

Smart is on the vetrans list already, and if Hart is going onto the list as well, that only leaves room for 4 rookies.

Has Reidy got too many fingers or isn't Hart eligible for the veterans list this coming season?? :confused: Maybe we will run with a smaller list.:confused:

[spindoctor]

How about we diss Michelangeol Rucci a bit more instead?

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by spindoctor
How about we diss Michelangeol Rucci a bit more instead?
Don't upset Rucci now, as he is a little thin-skinned about constructive criticism...;)

[spindoctor]

Bloody well need it.

[maccas_no1]

Mate I would love to bump into Rucci one day and Sheehan, I would absoultely do a number on both them pricks;) :mad: