Rumour GFC 2025 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists Pt 1

[Turbocat]

So does this clarifies it a bit… ?

In theory ...

2025 ..R1, R2 , R3

2026. R1, R2, R3

2027 R1


and must be in compliance of 2 in 4 to trade out. To me this means , we could go into mega debt this year and next year as we have R1 in 2022 and 2023. We would not technically be in breach till the completion of the 2026 draft. We would then not be able to trade out R1’s till we are back in compliance by taking two selections in R1.

Bombers ruck in talks, next free agency moves, ex-Magpie back on radar

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

FUTURE PICK FLOODGATES OPEN​

CLUBS will be able to trade away all of their 2026 picks with the extension of future trading to two years in advance.

Under the new rules, clubs will be allowed to trade a full suite of their future picks one year ahead as the AFL this year introduces two years' worth of future picks being up for grabs in deals.

Under the previous future trading rules, clubs would need to retain a 'full suite' of second and third-round selections in their future draft hand to be permitted to trade their future first-round pick. That caused some challenges among clubs as deals were left hanging by the need to retain picks to meet the criteria.

TRADE HUB All the latest player movement news

But with the advancement of future trading to two years, that rule now applies to the second year of future trading and no longer to the first.

For example this season, clubs will be able to trade their 2025 picks and all of their 2026 picks, but then have to carry their 2027 second and third-round selections to trade that year's first-round pick, or to trade out their 2027 second and third-round picks, they need to retain that year's first-round pick.

The AFL has kept its 'two-in-four' condition to future trading, meaning clubs must use at least two first-round picks over a rolling four-year period to be able to trade out their future first-round selections.

The extra hand of picks, plus no limits on the number of selections a club can trade one year in advance, means clubs will have far more assets to play with at the trade table this year. It is why many list bosses believe big deals can be arranged later than ever with more chips to play with and why clubs believed the AFL's call not to introduce the move last year stopped any chance of Christian Petracca

5

Christian Petracca

Age

29

Ht

187cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.4

5star

K

9.5

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

3.5

4star

T

3.0

5star

CL

2.5

4star

D

24.4

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

14.0

5star

M

3.5

3star

T

3.6

4star

CL

3.4

4star

D

19.0

5star

K

7.8

3star

HB

11.2

5star

M

3.0

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.0

4star

being able to land anywhere as no clubs had enough assets to satisfy a deal. – Callum Twomey

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Wonder how desperate Reid is to get to us? I mean he's underperforming. Flipping the bird. And it's only round 6. What's the nuclear option? Pull a gun on a teammate?

WCE will just say “ look wells, any publicity is good publicity. Sure he put a gun to the captains head at training and knocked McGovern out with a tight hook, but the press eats it up! It’s great for marketing”

 

[Kitcat]

Freddy to the Saints… ?

Bombers ruck in talks, next free agency moves, ex-Magpie back on radar

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

THIRD TIME LUCKY?​

FORMER Collingwood and Geelong utility Nathan Kreuger is back on the radar of AFL clubs ahead of next month's Mid-Season Rookie Draft.

The 25-year-old joined Geelong's VFL program after being delisted by the Magpies last year and has starred while playing predominantly in defence across the first month of the season, averaging 15.7 disposals and eight marks to draw the attention of recruiters.

Kreuger played for the VFL in the state game win against the SANFL in the Barossa Valley on Saturday.

Melbourne, St Kilda and Collingwood are understood to be a few of the clubs keeping tabs on the South Australian, who can provide readymade coverage at either end of the ground.

The Magpies delisted Kreuger at the end of last season after 13 games across three injury-interrupted seasons – following two appearances for Geelong in three years – but Craig McRae was a fan of the 196cm swingman and tight list spots were behind that decision.

Collingwood will have a spot available after Reef McInnes ruptured his ACL last month and is considering options for defensive coverage. With seven rounds to play between now and the Mid-Season Rookie Draft, other clubs could need key position depth by then. – Josh Gabelich

I would like to draft him but I think he will be gone by the time our turn comes, even if we have created a spot.

 

[Strange Cat]

On one hand I can see the stance that the club would be willing to trade out the picks with the view of Tassie diluting the draft even more than what it is …on the other hand we will have to trade away a bunch of established players to get this high drafts pick to bundle together for even higher picks

At what stage do you think taking 1-3 highly rated draft kids over Ried would be far better scenario?

If you are going to to go through all that effort I think a few highly rated kids vs Ried would be a better outcome.

 

[And_ROOS]

Bailey Williams is a spud I would spew if we went near him.
Bryan is a no now he's done an acl.
There is Draper but id be really surprised if we did.
Reeves isn't a Geelong style ruck.
Marshall is contracted long term-while I'd love him I don't see st kilda moving.
Tdk would be ideal but we aren't going to pay him 1.5 so he won't come.
I wonder if we would go at ROB again as a free agent to buy us 2 years to find a better ruck? I'd take pittonet but Carlton won't move him if tdk goes.
You could always try and get someone like ramsden or visinteni cheap as a gap filler. The other option is soldo but I doubt he passes a medical.

I think Marshall is absolutely gettable, if TDK goes to the Saints for that coin he isn't being paid that money to be back up ruck, he is there and displacing Marshall, and thats when we should be telling Marshall the ruck spot is his while we wait for Conway etc to develop.
Marshall is 29 now, will be 30 start of next season so we likely get 2 or 3 seasons out of him, but thats enough time for either Conway becomes durable, or we see potential out of Edwards/Pike/Molier, or we find a different journeyman ruck.

And we have had good success stealing rucks off St Kilda...

 

[Masked Magician]

Have heard a whisper that TDK to Geelong is a decent chance of happening.

 

[Jumping Jack]

No doubt there's a bit of fun speculating and throwing around scenarios that could see us get Reid. History tells us however, that if Reid were to tell WCE he wants out - and he also nominated Geelong - then I think we have a reasonable idea how that plays out.

My mail is that Oliver was over the line and thought he was a Geelong player - well before the Rhys Stanley

1

Rhys Stanley

Age

35

Ht

200cm

Wt

102kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.6

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

6.4

4star

CL

3.4

5star

HO

27.6

5star

D

12.0

3star

K

7.5

3star

HB

4.5

3star

CL

5.0

5star

HO

21.5

5star

D

11.8

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

6.4

4star

CL

3.0

5star

HO

33.0

5star

farm visit. Another hour of trade deadline and he was a Geelong player 100%. These deals generally have a knack of getting done - particularly when Geelong are involved. So my point here is that arguments over 3x first round picks etc are just semantics. WCE don't want a player who openly says they want out (Oscar Allen

12

Oscar Allen

Age

26

Ht

196cm

Wt

96kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.8

2star

K

6.6

3star

HB

3.2

3star

M

3.8

4star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.1

4star

No current season stats available

D

8.6

3star

K

5.8

3star

HB

2.8

3star

M

3.8

4star

T

2.0

4star

G

1.2

4star

the same) and clubs won't damage their reputations amongst players and player managers by being seen to be hard to deal with.

If we get to the point where Reid wants out - and he wants Geelong - then he'll be a Geelong player. And popular opinion seems to point to Hawks or Geelong. Both clubs offer varying points of difference but hopefully the pull of family and a childhood love of Geelong are enough.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Have heard a whisper that TDK to Geelong is a decent chance of happening.

Huh?!

 

[ShadowCat]

No doubt there's a bit of fun speculating and throwing around scenarios that could see us get Reid. History tells us however, that if Reid were to tell WCE he wants out - and he also nominated Geelong - then I think we have a reasonable idea how that plays out.

My mail is that Oliver was over the line and thought he was a Geelong player - well before the Rhys Stanley farm visit. Another hour of trade deadline and he was a Geelong player 100%. These deals generally have a knack of getting done - particularly when Geelong are involved. So my point here is that arguments over 3x first round picks etc are just semantics. WCE don't want a player who openly says they want out (Oscar Allen the same) and clubs won't damage their reputations amongst players and player managers by being seen to be hard to deal with.

If we get to the point where Reid wants out - and he wants Geelong - then he'll be a Geelong player. And popular opinion seems to point to Hawks or Geelong. Both clubs offer varying points of difference but hopefully the pull of family and a childhood love of Geelong are enough.

But you said this before the start of trade period?

"Don't expend any oxygen worrying about Oliver. He is not on our radar and I'm told he never was. Club is not prepared to pay overs and carry that length contract, and there's some serious doubts about off field indiscretions that have gone some way to contributing towards Melbourne's issues."

 

[Cataholic]

Have heard a whisper that TDK to Geelong is a decent chance of happening.

Hasn't he been quoted as wanting to play with his brother, though the expectation has been that SDK would leave to join him somewhere?

 

[Strange Cat]

Have heard a whisper that TDK to Geelong is a decent chance of happening.

Can’t see it happening unless he’s taking massive unders ..would be hard to walk away from a contract that the saints are reportedly offering

 

[Jumping Jack]

But you said this before the start of trade period?

"Don't expend any oxygen worrying about Oliver. He is not on our radar and I'm told he never was. Club is not prepared to pay overs and carry that length contract, and there's some serious doubts about off field indiscretions that have gone some way to contributing towards Melbourne's issues."

Melbourne were at loggerheads at board level and Oliver was being shopped (as we now know). The board was split and Brad Green stepped in right towards the deadline and made a call. I think the "we're not interested" narrative coming out of the club prior to that was largely a smoke screen but it was 100% what some were saying. I just share what I've been told but I clearly don't sit in on list management meetings. I'm not going to go into detail, but the message I got was from someone who I believe would be well placed to comment.

As with some other current matters (not to be discussed) I think our club does a pretty good job of keeping things in house.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Melbourne were at loggerheads at board level and Oliver was being shopped (as we now know). The board was split and Brad Green stepped in right towards the deadline and made a call. I think the "we're not interested" narrative coming out of the club prior to that was largely a smoke screen but it was 100% what some were saying. I just share what I've been told but I clearly don't sit in on list management meetings. I'm not going to go into detail, but the message I got was from someone who I believe would be well placed to comment.

As with some other current matters (not to be discussed) I think our club does a pretty good job of keeping things in house.

So I'm guessing we should give you a status of ITSS?

In the smoke screen?

 

[Bagelboy]

IF Harley does nominate us, it's going to very interesting how it gets done.

 

[ShadowCat]

Melbourne were at loggerheads at board level and Oliver was being shopped (as we now know). The board was split and Brad Green stepped in right towards the deadline and made a call. I think the "we're not interested" narrative coming out of the club prior to that was largely a smoke screen but it was 100% what some were saying. I just share what I've been told but I clearly don't sit in on list management meetings. I'm not going to go into detail, but the message I got was from someone who I believe would be well placed to comment.

As with some other current matters (not to be discussed) I think our club does a pretty good job of keeping things in house.

So essentially any mail you get can't be trusted then, if they're putting out false information? Is that why you haven't ever got a single piece of mail correct (besides Smith, which was common knowledge).

Not attacking, genuinely asking. Have you considered your 'source/s' might not actually be that good when it comes to intel? Because as far back as your posting history allows, nearly everything you've said has been proven verifiably incorrect (I look at proposed ITK's and their history, to get an idea of if I can trust said rumour or not - so this isn't limited to just you)?

Might need some new sources if that's the case.

 

[Jumping Jack]

So essentially any mail you get can't be trusted then, if they're putting out false information? Is that why you haven't ever got a single piece of mail correct?

Not attacking, genuinely asking. Have you considered your 'source/s' might not actually be that good when it comes to intel? Because as far back as your posting history allows, nearly everything you've said has been proven verifiably incorrect - besides Smith which was common knowledge (I look at proposed ITK's and their history, to get an idea of if I can trust said rumour or not - so this isn't limited to just you)?

Might need some new sources if that's the case.

I don't mind either way. The passive aggressive attack is still an attack though by definition

I've said a few times before but I think the day people start holding themselves out as the arbiter of other peoples content (within respect and good reason) I think that maybe a few have lost the concept or basic premise of this being a forum. If we're honestly saying people should only post if they have a gold stamped certificate of authenticity then we might just be taking it all a bit too seriously.

There's also the aspect of respecting people's confidentiality - so whilst I'd love to, I'm clearly not going to name names simply for the purposes of defending a post. But on this matter (and some others) I think you'd be surprised at where some of this stuff originates. Doesn't mean it's always right, but I thought the whole idea was to just share what we're hearing, particularly on a thread that has the word "rumour" in it.

 

[ShadowCat]

I don't mind either way. The passive aggressive attack is still an attack though by definition

I've said a few times before but I think the day people start holding themselves out as the arbiter of other peoples content (within respect and good reason) I think that maybe a few have lost the concept or basic premise of this being a forum. If we're honestly saying people should only post if they have a gold stamped certificate of authenticity then we might just be taking it all a bit too seriously.

There's also the aspect of respecting people's confidentiality - so whilst I'd love to, I'm clearly not going to name names simply for the purposes of defending a post. But on this matter (and some others) I think you'd be surprised at where some of this stuff originates. Doesn't mean it's always right, but I thought the whole idea was to just share what we're hearing, particularly on a thread that has the word "rumour" in it.

Got no problem at all with things not coming to fruition. But the issue lies, in the fact that you can't expect people to trust what someone is saying, if they have no track record of being correct?

That's how trust is built, by confirmation. You can say trust me the first few times, but if you get to the 50th time and you still haven't built that implicit trust by way of confirmed information that supports your contention, then you can't expect people to trust you the 51st time.

Simply, you can say something, but you can't expect people to believe it if you can't point to other evidence that supports you as a reliable source. That's peer-referencing 101.

So if people say 'nah I don't think so', when you put something forward, then you're going to have to accept that. Simultaneously if someone does have credits in the bank, and can point to supporting evidence, you can't dismiss them because it conflicts with what you're saying - because they have the supporting evidence and you don't.

TL; DR you've said yourself that your sources can be a 'smokescreen', so there's no reason to believe that what you say in future would be true - given you can't point to a time when your sources have gotten it correct. Others can, so their info should be more reliably trusted. You definitely can share whatever you want, but once you put it out there, others can test the veracity of your claims. That's how forums work.

 

[Jumping Jack]

Got no problem at all with things not coming to fruition. But the issue lies, in the fact that you can't expect people to trust what someone is saying, if they have no track record of being correct?

That's how trust is built, by confirmation. You can say trust me the first few times, but if you get to the 50th time and you still haven't built that implicit trust by way of confirmed information that supports your contention, then you can't expect people to trust you the 51st time.

Simply, you can say something, but you can't expect people to believe it if you can't point to other evidence that supports you as a reliable source. That's peer-referencing 101.

So if people say 'nah I don't think so', when you put something forward, then you're going to have to accept that. Simultaneously if someone does have credits in the bank, and can point to supporting evidence, you can't dismiss them because it conflicts with what you're saying - because they have the supporting evidence and you don't.

TL; DR you've said yourself that your sources can be a 'smokescreen', so there's no reason to believe that what you say in future would be true - given you can't point to a time when your sources have gotten it correct. Others can, so their info should be more reliably trusted. You definitely can share whatever you want, but once you put it out there, others can test the veracity of your claims. That's how forums work.

I'll move on - perhaps you need to as well. I think you're more intent on lecturing than actually comprehending what I'm saying. Maybe provide me with your preferred wording for a disclaimer and I'll add it to my posts to satisfy your search for posting excellence.

It's got very little to do with how many times you're right or wrong. It's a forum and the concept is to share stuff you hear. If you have the time or interest in keeping a scorecard on peoples success ratio with sharing intel then that's fine. I'm just saying that it's perhaps taking things a little too seriously and missing the whole point of an online forum.

The other option is just ignore what I post - or others post, but don't get high and mighty approach and playing moral arbiter after the fact. I don't need any validation on what I post and it's not the reason most would post in here anyway. I just post what I hear on the slight chance its remotely interesting to others. I'm not losing too much sleep if it consumes some people and gives them a reason to keep scorecards or provide them with feedback after the fact.

 

[Kobe Gryant]

Wonder how desperate Reid is to get to us? I mean he's underperforming. Flipping the bird. And it's only round 6. What's the nuclear option? Pull a gun on a teammate?

Throw chairs at his exit meeting.

Any tips, Mitch?

 

[ShadowCat]

I'll move on - perhaps you need to as well. I think you're more intent on lecturing than actually comprehending what I'm saying. Maybe provide me with your preferred wording for a disclaimer and I'll add it to my posts to satisfy your search for posting excellence.

It's got very little to do with how many times you're right or wrong. It's a forum and the concept is to share stuff you hear. If you have the time or interest in keeping a scorecard on peoples success ratio with sharing intel then that's fine. I'm just saying that it's perhaps taking things a little too seriously and missing the whole point of an online forum.

The other option is just ignore what I post - or others post, but don't get high and mighty approach and playing moral arbiter after the fact. I don't need any validation on what I post and it's not the reason most would post in here anyway. I just post what I hear on the slight chance its remotely interesting to others. I'm not losing too much sleep if it consumes some people and gives them a reason to keep scorecards or provide them with feedback after the fact.

The point of an online forum is to discuss, debate, and engage with each other, sometimes intellectually or sometimes for fun.

People can post what they want. If you want to post something, I have every right to question and critique it. If you can't support what you're saying, then I can question that too. It's surprising how defensive you are of this simple fact, given the amount of times I've seen you critique (quite dismissively and rudely) and question others on their provided info. Doesn't it go both ways?

I'll also point out that it absolutely does matter how many times someone gets something right or wrong, as that's how the world works. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. As I said, trust is built via confirmation.

Anyway, no worries we'll move on and go our separate ways. But just keep in mind, that just because you say something, doesn't mean I or others need to believe it or even care about it, given you have no past supporting evidence to test or support the veracity of your claims.

TL;DR if you post supposed ITK info, people don't need to believe you're an ITK or listen to what you say, simply because you say you are and we should trust what you say - especially if you've got no history that proves what you've said in the past.

See ya.

 

[Jumping Jack]

The point of an online forum is to discuss, debate, and engage with each other, sometimes intellectually or sometimes for fun.

People can post what they want. If you want to post something, I have every right to question and critique it. If you can't support what you're saying, then I can question that too. It's surprising how defensive you are of this simple fact, given the amount of times I've seen you critique (quite dismissively and rudely) and question others on their provided info. Doesn't it go both ways?

I'll also point out that it absolutely does matter how many times someone gets something right or wrong, as that's how the world works. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. As I said, trust is built via confirmation.

Anyway, no worries we'll move on and go our separate ways. But just keep in mind, that just because you say something, doesn't mean I or others need to believe it or even care about it, given you have no past supporting evidence to test or support the veracity of your claims.

TL;DR if you post supposed ITK info, people don't need to believe you're an ITK or listen to what you say, simply because you say you are and we should trust what you say - especially if you've got no history that proves what you've said in the past.

See ya.

More lecturing.

How about we agree that you're smarter and wiser than me and we just move on. I bow to your superior intellect.

 

[Turbocat]

Have heard a whisper that TDK to Geelong is a decent chance of happening.

But he is Stk bound …..

 

[Turbocat]

No doubt there's a bit of fun speculating and throwing around scenarios that could see us get Reid. History tells us however, that if Reid were to tell WCE he wants out - and he also nominated Geelong - then I think we have a reasonable idea how that plays out.

My mail is that Oliver was over the line and thought he was a Geelong player - well before the Rhys Stanley farm visit. Another hour of trade deadline and he was a Geelong player 100%. These deals generally have a knack of getting done - particularly when Geelong are involved. So my point here is that arguments over 3x first round picks etc are just semantics. WCE don't want a player who openly says they want out (Oscar Allen the same) and clubs won't damage their reputations amongst players and player managers by being seen to be hard to deal with.

If we get to the point where Reid wants out - and he wants Geelong - then he'll be a Geelong player. And popular opinion seems to point to Hawks or Geelong. Both clubs offer varying points of difference but hopefully the pull of family and a childhood love of Geelong are enough.

Any idea what the deal would have been? Maybe we are lucky as his form this year is hardly brownlow level..

 

[goyoucatters]

But he is Stk bound …..

I think you're right. And at the price point suggested, I'm entirely comfortable with that.

10 mill or so over seven years is just too steep for a player who's not going to singlehandedly transform our chances in any given season. I'm far happier keeping his brother on our list and all that money available for 'other projects'.

 

[Turbocat]

On one hand I can see the stance that the club would be willing to trade out the picks with the view of Tassie diluting the draft even more than what it is …on the other hand we will have to trade away a bunch of established players to get this high drafts pick to bundle together for even higher picks

At what stage do you think taking 1-3 highly rated draft kids over Ried would be far better scenario?

If you are going to to go through all that effort I think a few highly rated kids vs Ried would be a better outcome.

It would be a huge risk but I suspect that there are some at Geelong that almost wear risk as a badge of honour. What did CS say about dangerous conversation? Id think we would almost be unable to walk away from it. Three top 20 kids at a min … so maybe Holmes, Knevitt and Clark as an example.

The hardest factor in recruitment of talent (imo). is for getting that talent to want to come to your club. So if a player that is a high level and rated say that want to come ..it moves into trying to determine if it is achievable and would the cost be worth it. For a player like Reid ..its very hard to gauge as the cost would be high. Id probably defer to the club and let them determine that based on what they see the next few drafts will be like and who we might be able to draft.