2011 Rookie Draft

[CROWS84]

Any news on whether you guys will pick Justin Clarke at pick 4 in the rookie draft? Thought he might be a fair chance as he is training with you

 

[irel]

A couple of reasons not to take the extra rookies we're entitled to:

- According to the CBA, the wages are included in our salary cap. That's about $35K per player, increasing if the player plays senior footy. Therefore, 3 extra rookies equals a minimum of $105K that can't be spent on senior listed players.

- The cost to the club of taking additional players is more than salaries. Equipment and clothing, medical, insurance, relocation costs if applicable, etc. More players means a potential increase in these costs.

- It spreads the club's coaching and support staff thinner. Of course, the difference between 46 and 49 players (or whatever it is) makes this marginal but it does mean a little less time that each coach/support staff can spend per player.

Not necessarily saying that I agree with any of the above but they might go some way to explaining the club's position.

We have not received many free kicks from the AFL. The ability to have first access to QLD rookies and extra two rookie spots (Outside the TPP for Bris. & Sydney to my knowledge unless it has changed) is a free kick that we have not used wisely in IMO. As a club we should have loaded our rookie list to the maximum. Who is to say that Barlow would not have been one of those a year earlier than the Dockers, or Podsiadley or whomever? The opportunity is given to us and we effectively abuse it and pay it very little respect.

I am of the opinion if Brisbane once again this year does not use its full complement of rookies it is time the AFL take it away and give it to clubs that are prepared to give more opportunities to list the number of rookies. Clubs such as Collingwood, West Coast, Freo would love the extra spaces that is afforded to Brisbane.

It is poor list management when we PASS on an opportunity to fill our total list.

 

[whatboutbob]

The other obvious one that people are missing is the academy.

How much are we ploughing into the academy & do we think that this is more worthwhile than an extra 1 or 2 rookies? Difficult to tell at this stage as to where more senior players may come given the infancy of the academy, but it still should be considered within the whole debate.

Kerr went out of his way to mention the academy when assessing trade week (& the high hopes they have for some in it). It is an area that we do have an advantage over others so perhaps resources are being poured its way rather than the traditional methods.

Fair point BB. The Club, sadly, does have finite resources.

I still reckon Kerr's line about the "up-and-coming academy rucks" was a red herring to make GWS think we'd pass on Longer. I thought it was pretty transparent given that, if true, they'd be 4 years off being any assistance whatsoever...but there I was overestimating Gubby again...

 

[irel]

Any news on whether you guys will pick Justin Clarke at pick 4 in the rookie draft? Thought he might be a fair chance as he is training with you

Unlikely that the club will announce its intentions publically. However the fact that Brisbane has invited Clarke to train with the team is a fair indication he is in consideration for that no 4 spot if he is still available.

One thing that may go in Adelaide's favour is that last year Brisbane had three invitees training and we did not pick any of them. In fact we passed on our picks bar one.

 

[irel]

Fair point BB. The Club, sadly, does have finite resources.

I still reckon Kerr's line about the "up-and-coming academy rucks" was a red herring to make GWS think we'd pass on Longer. I thought it was pretty transparent given that, if true, they'd be 4 years off being any assistance whatsoever...but there I was overestimating Gubby again...

I'm not sure anyone believes it to be otherwise Bob. My belief is that GWS tried to be a bit too clever in their manoeuvring and shot themselves in the foot.

 

[POBT]

Gotta correct myself. Reading through the CBA, clause 4.7 of Sch B would indicate that payments to rookies are not included in Total Player Payments, unless the rookie is promoted to the senior list and then retained on the senior list after the long term injured player has returned. 50% of "nominated rookie" (ie rookies nominated on list before the season where club has one or more player on veterans list) payments are included in the Total Player Payments.

It is poor list management when we PASS on an opportunity to fill our total list.

Too black and white for me, I'm afraid. It costs money and we're poor. I'd prefer it if we didn't have limits on how much we can spend on football dept stuff but that is the reality. It may not be poor list management - it may be prudent financial management. We're not in a position to judge.

What I would prefer is some transparency from the club on this - so that we can better understand what we would need to forego in order to fill the spots. Is this a matter of Arizona v Rookies? Or Murray Davis+Charmo v Rookies? What is the opportunity cost of filling all rookie spots? More importantly, what is the club's justification of choosing, for several years now, not to take advantage of this?

 

[Baby_Jenks]

Any news on whether you guys will pick Justin Clarke at pick 4 in the rookie draft? Thought he might be a fair chance as he is training with you

I think that depends on the clubs interpretation of the "permission to train" list. I got the impression last year that it was a weeklong scouting exercise for players with question marks, as opposed to getting 41 rather than 40 weeks worth of training into your rookies.

 

[irel]

Gotta correct myself. Reading through the CBA, clause 4.7 of Sch B would indicate that payments to rookies are not included in Total Player Payments, unless the rookie is promoted to the senior list and then retained on the senior list after the long term injured player has returned. 50% of "nominated rookie" (ie rookies nominated on list before the season where club has one or more player on veterans list) payments are included in the Total Player Payments.


Too black and white for me, I'm afraid. It costs money and we're poor. I'd prefer it if we didn't have limits on how much we can spend on football dept stuff but that is the reality. It may not be poor list management - it may be prudent financial management. We're not in a position to judge.

What I would prefer is some transparency from the club on this - so that we can better understand what we would need to forego in order to fill the spots. Is this a matter of Arizona v Rookies? Or Murray Davis+Charmo v Rookies? What is the opportunity cost of filling all rookie spots? More importantly, what is the club's justification of choosing, for several years now, not to take advantage of this?

Crying poor. Why? Doesn't financial mismanagement reflect on the standard of administration of the club? Just as recruitment mismanagement reflect on the standard of the Footy Department.

We have been poorly administered in almost every area and there are signs that in spite of the recent major review, elements of the club are still in need of major surgery.

IMO not utilising all the privileges accorded to us by the AFL to promote football in QLD is not what I expect to happen. By not utilising these privileges we are demonstrating that we do not need them. So the AFL may as well give them to the financially efficient clubs who can afford to have the extra rookies. Because the argument is clear we are poor therefore we will not use them. Collingwood is rich so they may as well have the extra rookie spots.

 

[dlanod]

There is. One year minimum contracts for rookies. So we should have no fear of taking our full compliment and still have the option to make room for next year's super draft.

Well technically yes, one year. Given all delistings/promotions happen at the end of a given year (barring exceptional circumstances) I was distinguishing from the two year minimum for ND recruits.

 

[Nick Lions]

IMO not utilising all the privileges accorded to us by the AFL to promote football in QLD is not what I expect to happen. By not utilising these privileges we are demonstrating that we do not need them. So the AFL may as well give them to the financially efficient clubs who can afford to have the extra rookies. Because the argument is clear we are poor therefore we will not use them. Collingwood is rich so they may as well have the extra rookie spots.

Giving them to a rich Victorian club would do nothing to promote the game in QLD, which is the main reason Brisbane have been given the extra picks. Because of our current financial situation we can't necessarily afford to pay, relocate, house and support the full complement of rookies, therefore we need to pick rookies based on quality, or potential for quality, rather than quantity. It's not that we don't need them, more that we can't afford them at this point in time. I'm sure if the club were in a strong financial position, these players would be given a shot. Should the club not use all of it's rookie places, then the club obviously sees better areas to invest their money.

 

[POBT]

Crying poor. Why?

Because we are poor.

Doesn't financial mismanagement reflect on the standard of administration of the club?

Of course it does. But you can't get blood out of a stone. There is no point saying that not drafting rookies is "poor list management" if the money is not there for the list managers to use. If you want an argument on our financial management over the past 10 years, you won't get one from me. But it isn't poor list management. We have to deal with the circumstances as they present to us - we've got limited funds to spend and so have to spend them wisely. Such is life supporting a poor club instead of a rich one. There is no point having expectations on the footy dept spend that can't be realised by the club's finances.

However, having greater expectations on the club to improve its finances and therefore allow greater spending on the footy dept is a reasonable position, IMO. But that's not a "flick of a switch" improvement. I venture that we'd have to be at least 5 years from putting ourselves back in the top half of the comp in terms of profitability - if it ever occurs.

We have been poorly administered in almost every area and there are signs that in spite of the recent major review, elements of the club are still in need of major surgery.

The money is not going to magically appear because of a review. The finances aren't on the improve....yet. Whether they will or not is a point of debate but we're no better off financially from last year to next.

If availability of funds is the issue (and we don't know that), then the review isn't going to be a panacea that will suddenly allow us to spend whatever we want on football dept matters.

So, if the money still isn't there, the club has two options:

- continue not to fill the rookie list;
- find the money from somewhere else (which obviously means another area of the club misses out).

What I want is to better understand the decision making process on this issue.

By not utilising these privileges we are demonstrating that we do not need them. So the AFL may as well give them to the financially efficient clubs who can afford to have the extra rookies. Because the argument is clear we are poor therefore we will not use them. Collingwood is rich so they may as well have the extra rookie spots.

I don't think rewarding the rich through draft concessions is quite what the AFL has in mind for its equalisation policy. However, I can understand and probably support an argument to say that we shouldn't have what we don't use.

Incidentally, when I last looked at this (which could have been a couple of years ago), the Swans did not use their full allocation either.

 

[Brisbane Bare]

I think that depends on the clubs interpretation of the "permission to train" list. I got the impression last year that it was a weeklong scouting exercise for players with question marks, as opposed to getting 41 rather than 40 weeks worth of training into your rookies.

Spot on Baby Jenks. You don't get train-ons who the recruiters have been watching for 1-2 years and about who they have already made thier minds up about one way or the other. It is to get a look at those who, for one reason or another, they have not been able to see enough of yet.

 

[whatboutbob]

Patrick Keane on Twitter

2011 NAB AFL Rookie Draft, to be held next Tuesday Dec 13, will feature a total of 95 selections. Club selections will be as follows:

Patrick Keane on Twitter

Adelaide seven rookie draft picks - 5, 23, 41, 58, 73, 83, 89. Brisbane (4) - 4, 22, 40, 57. Carlton (4) - 14, 32, 50, 67.

 

[pauldrc]

Does that then mean 4 picks plus the 3 QLD selections??

 

[dlanod]

Does that then mean 4 picks plus the 3 QLD selections??

I think so. Looking at my previous calculations in http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=22890467&postcount=11, maybe Newell is outside the normal rookie list as a NSW scholarship player? I've heard rumours to that effect for other scholarship kids. That would add up to the four non-Qld slots.

 

[irel]

It appears to be inclusive of the QLD picks.
Compared to Sydney (we have similar rookie rules) it seems that we will only use 4 picks in total. If we go ahead with the three QLDers we will only have one other pick. This is the same as last year when we only picked Harvey in the main rookie Draft. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/gws-to-dominate-pre-season-draft/story-fn4hg9de-1226217394984

 

[irel]

Tha way I see it.
I calculate 5 available spots. Not sure why we are only having four picks?
Perhaps the club can clarify the situation?

1. Brown (outside the list - veteran)
2. Black (outside the list - veteran)
3. Harvey
4. Dyson
5. McKeever
6. Newell (NSW scholarship upgrade)
7. QLDer ?
8. QLDer ?
9. QLDer ?
10. ?
11. ?

 

[Quigley]

Yeh Insider would be handy on this one.

I have heard the talk to about the scholarship players being outside the normal rookie quota. That would take it up to 4 plus the qlders if true on my calcs.

 

[irel]

Yeh Insider would be handy on this one.

I have heard the talk to about the scholarship players being outside the normal rookie quota. That would take it up to 4 plus the qlders if true on my calcs.

My calculations above equate to 2 plus the QLDers.

How have you calculated 4 plus QLDers Qugs?

This certainly is very muddy.

 

[Haso]

My calculations above equate to 2 plus the QLDers.

How have you calculated 4 plus QLDers Qugs?

This certainly is very muddy.

http://www.lions.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/5085/newsid/126999/default.aspx

So 3 more, including the QLDers.

 

[irel]

http://www.lions.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/5085/newsid/126999/default.aspx

So 3 more, including the QLDers.

Effectively this is how the Rookie list may look like for the Lions.

1. Brown (outside the list - veteran)
2. Black (outside the list - veteran)
3. Harvey
4. Dyson
5. McKeever

6. Pick 4 - Justin Clarke (Booleroo Melrose Wilmington)
7. Pick 22 - QLDer ?
8. Pick 40 - QLDer ?
9. Newell (NSW scholarship upgrade)

 

[Fatcat08]

Effectively this is how the Rookie list may look like for the Lions.

1. Brown (outside the list - veteran)
2. Black (outside the list - veteran)
3. Harvey
4. Dyson
5. McKeever

6. Pick 4 - Justin Clarke (Booleroo Melrose Wilmington)
7. Pick 22 - QLDer ?
8. Pick 40 - QLDer ?
9. Newell (NSW scholarship upgrade)

I thought the 3 qld picks we had were on top of the regular 9 rookies we are allowed??? So hard to find official documents on this stuff, even the afl's own website still says rookie lists are 6.

Bit poor of them. Personally I'm with the AFLPA on them abolishing the rookie list and just having a larger primary list. Bit unfair that they do the same or more work for not as much pay.

I know they liken it to an apprenticeship but at the end of that you get a skill you can use for a job. AFL isn't the same.

 

[cheekyLionsFan]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/126989/default.aspx

Did we just pass on the psd?

The full order of the NAB AFL Pre-Season Draft is:

1 - Greater Western Sydney
2 - Greater Western Sydney
3 - Greater Western Sydney
4 - Greater Western Sydney
5 - Greater Western Sydney
6 - Greater Western Sydney
7 - Gold Coast
8 - Port Adelaide
9 - Richmond
10 - Fremantle
11 - Western Bulldogs

 

[irel]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/126989/default.aspx

Did we just pass on the psd?

We have a full list. No room for a PSD pick. We needed to delist someone to have a pick in the PSD.

 

[Haso]

Did we just pass on the psd?

Don't panic, we just don't have any room on the list. We still have our 3 rookie picks, but then we are all full up.