List Mgmt. Pies list changes for 2016

[TradeDraft]

So with Hine using 4 live picks (plus 1 for Frost upgrade), we have a senior list of 39.
Hence we will go with 5 Cat A rookies & 2 Cat B rookies.
So the rookie draft we shall add 2 more players (in addition to Keeffe & Thomas).

Senior: 31 plus Frost, Treloar, Aish, Howe, Sier, Phillips, Wills & Crocker
Cat A rookie: Gault plus 2 live picks, plus Keeffe & Thomas
Cat B rookie: Cox & Wyatt

Total 39 + 5 + 2 = 46

Do we rookie Golds?

I be Surprised IF we don't Rookie Golds

 

[Crazy Tails]

So with Hine using 4 live picks (plus 1 for Frost upgrade), we have a senior list of 39.
Hence we will go with 5 Cat A rookies & 2 Cat B rookies.
So the rookie draft we shall add 2 more players (in addition to Keeffe & Thomas).

Senior: 31 plus Frost, Treloar, Aish, Howe, Sier, Phillips, Wills & Crocker
Cat A rookie: Gault plus 2 live picks, plus Keeffe & Thomas
Cat B rookie: Cox & Wyatt

Total 39 + 5 + 2 = 46

Do we rookie Golds?

Cheers for that wasn't sure if we would have 2 live picks or 1.

I think taking Golds is a given now with the Shaz LTI and the fact he could play a similar role.

Id like for us to look at either Callum Moore or Hisham Kerbatieh with our one live pick (7).

 

[35Daicos]

I've been hoping all along (and there's a chance the club may have been) that someone else might take Keeffe and/or Thomas in the Rookie Draft, saving us from having two players who are ineligible to play on our list for another year. Brisbane seemed the best chance to take any of the Queenslanders, but after last night's draft their list appears to be 40/3 (they also have 2 Cat. B Rookies), so they should have room for just one more player on the Rookie List, perhaps making it far less likely they would take either of them.

 

[MyManLynch]

I've been hoping all along (and there's a chance the club may have been) that someone else might take Keeffe and/or Thomas in the Rookie Draft, saving us from having two players who are ineligible to play on our list for another year. Brisbane seemed the best chance to take any of the Queenslanders, but after last night's draft their list appears to be 40/3 (they also have 2 Cat. B Rookies), so they should have room for just one more player on the Rookie List, perhaps making it far less likely they would take either of them.

Doubt any club would seriously consider listing players that are not available for 12 months & with no guarantee they will make it back in 2017. Collingwood is there only chance. Even then, there must have been some extended internal debate, pros & cons of keeping them on the list.
Fortunately for them, the club decided to back them & give them a 2nd chance.
Time will tell if a wise decision or not.

 

[Crazy Tails]

I've been hoping all along (and there's a chance the club may have been) that someone else might take Keeffe and/or Thomas in the Rookie Draft, saving us from having two players who are ineligible to play on our list for another year. Brisbane seemed the best chance to take any of the Queenslanders, but after last night's draft their list appears to be 40/3 (they also have 2 Cat. B Rookies), so they should have room for just one more player on the Rookie List, perhaps making it far less likely they would take either of them.

Me too! Waste of two spots for the year.

 

[12kilos]

Agree with the above comments about keefe and thomas. There is no logic to it. Rookies get 12 month contracts.
It would make much more sence to if anything to guarantee them rookie spots next year. If no one picks them up.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Agree with the above comments about keefe and thomas. There is no logic to it. Rookies get 12 month contracts.
It would make much more sence to if anything to guarantee them rookie spots next year. If no one picks them up.

Yes it is 12 months, but with the option to extend to a total of 3 years
The "sense" is, we gave them a commitment we would endeavor to rehabilitate them back into the system....we are just honouring our word

You may well have an argument that we should have cut them lose as soon as they tested positive, but we didn't.
After that decision was made (to keep them) the rest is irrelevant

 

[12kilos]

Yes it is 12 months, but with the option to extend to a total of 3 years
The "sense" is, we gave them a commitment we would endeavor to rehabilitate them back into the system....we are just honouring our word




You may well have an argument that we should have cut them lose as soon as they tested positive, but we didn't.
After that decision was made (to keep them) the rest is irrelevant

I do understand that we have given our word. At the same time i am nit saying we should cut them loose. My view is we should have agreed to pick them up in next years draft . It makes no sence to pick them up this year.Although i do agree we have given our word and they will be picked up.with our 3rd and 4th selection if no one else does

 

[jackcass]

Yes it is 12 months, but with the option to extend to a total of 3 years
The "sense" is, we gave them a commitment we would endeavor to rehabilitate them back into the system....we are just honouring our word

You may well have an argument that we should have cut them lose as soon as they tested positive, but we didn't.
After that decision was made (to keep them) the rest is irrelevant

I fully support the clubs decision to support Keeffe and Thomas via the rookie list. Ethically right given our commitments to them and morally right in terms of team ethos. Questions about the timing of that process are completely valid as we could conceivably unearth another long term gem via those 2 rookie spots in 2016.

The irony is though that you have to wonder if Thomas would have survived on the list beyond the 2015 season without the drugs issue. He would have had to have a very good season I'd have thought.

Have they nominated for the rookie draft? Do they have to nominate or do they qualify through being delisted or in much the same way that kids overlooked in the ND do?

 

[brockbruiser]

I really hope we give Ryan Pendlebury a rookie spot

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Have they nominated for the rookie draft? Do they have to nominate or do they qualify through being delisted or in much the same way that kids overlooked in the ND do?

I think there is an obscure rule buried away in the Player rules that says a player who was on a club list doesn't need to nominate for any draft for up to three years as they automatically qualify

 

[MyManLynch]

I think there is an obscure rule buried away in the Player rules that says a player who was on a club list doesn't need to nominate for any draft for up to three years as they automatically qualify

Correct, once a registered player, even if delisted, you are auto eligible for draft (for a period)
Even new draft hopefuls who register for the draft, but miss out, remain on the draft list for 3 years, so no need to register again the following year.

 

[Crazy Tails]

As they are under suspension I assume that Thomas and Keeffe will not be getting paid whilst on the rookie list next year?

How does that go in relation to the salary cap? Do we have to nominate what we would have paid them (min rookie wage) and keep that amount available in the cap? Or have we just got two blokes on the list that are taking up zero salary cap?

 

[MyManLynch]

As they are under suspension I assume that Thomas and Keeffe will not be getting paid whilst on the rookie list next year?

How does that go in relation to the salary cap? Do we have to nominate what we would have paid them (min rookie wage) and keep that amount available in the cap? Or have we just got two blokes on the list that are taking up zero salary cap?

Not sure of the rules covering this situation.
Can we draft a player & not pay them!
Or do we declare their salary, pay them, yet the players return the salary in the form of a fine?
They will be contracted to the Collingwood Football Club for 2016.
I doubt they could be contracted for zero dollars.

 

[Bard]

I really hope with Keeffe and Thomas in their contract is a clause that if they are to play football in 2017 it HAS to be with us if we offer them a contract. If we keep them on our lists in 2016 and they leave to play at another club in 2017 even when tabled an offer by us all hell would break loose.

 

[35Daicos]

I really hope with Keeffe and Thomas in their contract is a clause that if they are to play football in 2017 it HAS to be with us if we offer them a contract. If we keep them on our lists in 2016 and they leave to play at another club in 2017 even when tabled an offer by us all hell would break loose.

Or if one of them, after taking up a precious list spot that could have gone to someone else who might have turned into a star, decides to just pull the pin and quit the AFL at some stage during the next year, all hell would probably also break loose. I just hope the club can somehow get something out of this and they get rewarded for their incredible act of charity.

 

[frizzle]

Agree with the above comments about keefe and thomas. There is no logic to it. Rookies get 12 month contracts.
It would make much more sence to if anything to guarantee them rookie spots next year. If no one picks them up.

Because next year other teams will pick them up. This year we can pretty much guarantee they will remain pies.
This is what the other players wanted. For the club to give them a second chance.

 

[NT.Thunder]

I fully support the clubs decision to support Keeffe and Thomas via the rookie list. Ethically right given our commitments to them and morally right in terms of team ethos. Questions about the timing of that process are completely valid as we could conceivably unearth another long term gem via those 2 rookie spots in 2016.

The irony is though that you have to wonder if Thomas would have survived on the list beyond the 2015 season without the drugs issue. He would have had to have a very good season I'd have thought.

Have they nominated for the rookie draft? Do they have to nominate or do they qualify through being delisted or in much the same way that kids overlooked in the ND do?

I'm not sure about the ethics, morals and team values here. Sounds great but I'm still really disappointed in both and IMO they are very lucky to be going around again with us.

The club should be doing what's right for the club in this situation and not JT & Keefe.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

I'm not sure about the ethics, morals and team values here. Sounds great but I'm still really disappointed in both and IMO they are very lucky to be going around again with us.

The club should be doing what's right for the club in this situation and not JT & Keefe.

But If the clen was in the coke, then realistically there as guilty as Carlisle & a s**t load of other footballers, most of whom have never been caught.

 

[jackcass]

I'm not sure about the ethics, morals and team values here. Sounds great but I'm still really disappointed in both and IMO they are very lucky to be going around again with us.

The club should be doing what's right for the club in this situation and not JT & Keeffe.

You assume that the 2 things are mutually exclusive.

 

[NT.Thunder]

You assume that the 2 things are mutually exclusive.

No I understand that, but lets not forget that these two ****ed us over to be blunt, right in a crucial period where we needed them to develop.

 

[Stoods]

I think Keeffe could be pretty handy, tall defenders don't grow on trees.
Thomas will be a good depth player, at least as of next year we have proven depth and don't have to play developing players if we get injuries.

 

[MyManLynch]

We have 4 rookies on our list who have all played AFL.
No other club can say that...

 

[jjsmitty8]

The Oakleigh Chargers have been good to us as of late. De Goey, Moore, Golds, Crocker and Phillips in the last two years.

Excluding Golds, the other 4 boys have all come out of Oakleigh in Premiership years. Quality football factory down there.

 

[MyManLynch]

So our final list is:
39 Senior
5 Cat A rookies
2 Cat B rookies

Total 46 players (2 ineligible for 2016 season).
We have to nominate a rookie to upgrade prior to season commencement, hence one of Gault, Golds or Smith to be upgraded (based upon NAB game performances).
We can also upgrade another rookie for LTI (Schazza), which I imagine we will hold over initially & see what develops early in season...maybe big Cox puts his hand up...will be dependant upon rookie player performances, senior performances & or injuries.
Time to roll out the jumper numbers...