2012 jumper numbers

[Sloth]

Yep.

42 isn't though, and I doubt it ever will be, the Millane family seem set on keeping it as a retired number, and that's their call, so fair enough.

Why is it their call, are they on the Collingwood board? I mean seriously, the death of Millane was a tragedy but why does his family get to dictate jumper numbers?

 

[Shellz]

Why is it their call, are they on the Collingwood board? I mean seriously, the death of Millane was a tragedy but why does his family get to dictate jumper numbers?

Do you really need to ask that?

The family do not dictate jumper numbers. The club and family chose to retire the number. It will always belong to Pants who was taken from the game and life too early. The jumper number is a lasting tribute.

 

[Optimax]

Why is it their call, are they on the Collingwood board? I mean seriously, the death of Millane was a tragedy but why does his family get to dictate jumper numbers?

Because he was their son and brother?

 

[Shellz]

I guess for me 42 represents that he didn't retire. No chance to play his last game.

 

[Sloth]

Because he was their son and brother?

Yeah I get that...I just don't get how they have the authority.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Why is it their call, are they on the Collingwood board? I mean seriously, the death of Millane was a tragedy but why does his family get to dictate jumper numbers?

Agreed. It should be the club's call.

 

[Jelly Bean]

The no.35 rule was introduced before we drafted Fasolo and we never knew who we were going to get at that pick.

Whoever we pick at 50-odd this year gets the jumper, so what if he doesn't play a match, it's the principle of teaching young players the history of the club...

And there are no other ways of teaching yound kids the history of the club? And what makes the first selected more special than the next selected?

 

[Jelly Bean]

I am fully aware that Fasolo was a 2nd round pick and based on what I saw him he was worthy of a 1st round pick and the club knew it at the time when they drafted him, so it is no surprise that he was given the number 35 jumper.

I have serious doubts that we will land a player with pick 50 which will ultimately ruin the credibility of what they’re trying to achieve.

It was only by luck that Daniel Farmer was picked after Fasolo (immediately after) and not before, otherwise he would be wearing the 35. And given the depth of this year's crop, and our late start, I wouldn't hold too many hopes for this year's top draft pick either...

It is a silly custom, in my opinion.

 

[DermiesLuvChild]

Agreed. It should be the club's call.

It is the clubs call - & Eddie decided to allow the Millane family to influence/recommend the future of the #42 (club decision). Earlier this year the Millane family (brother/mother) advised that they would have no problem bringing it out of retirement, if the 'appropriate' respect could be maintained somehow. They said there are a few ideas that they will consider by the end of 2011. If we hear something soon (by the AGM) then so be it, if not, then in retirement it shall remain.
I don't think that CFC has one player on our list at the moment that one could say "he plays just like Millane".

 

[WWSD]

I'll take a guess...

1. S.Buckley
3. B.Sinclair
9. New Draftee
15 T.Young
25 J.Witts
27 M.Clarke
33 P.Yagmoor
37 New Draftee
38 New Draftee

 

[PhilMuzz82]

Hi All, on twitter last night Caolan Mooney posted

"@caolanmooney is the new 48 at Collingwood footy club"

 

[Peter Sidorkiewicz]

Krakouer 7 -> 3

Which frees up the no. 7 for the return of Meddie!

 

[Footy 4 Fox]

confirmed by the main man at Collingwood to me directly....

Krakouer is taking his dad's number 3

Witts will be wearing number 15

that's all i could get from him.

 

[DermiesLuvChild]

confirmed by the main man at Collingwood to me directly....

Krakouer is taking his dad's number 3

Witts will be wearing number 15

that's all i could get from him.

So maybe:

#1 Clarke
#3 Krak
#7 Fasolo
#15 Witts
#33 Yagmoor
#35 Pick 50
#38 Elliott
#41 Pick 65

 

[Footy 4 Fox]

So maybe:

#1 Clarke
#3 Krak
#7 Fasolo
#15 Witts
#33 Yagmoor
#35 Pick 50
#38 Elliott
#41 Pick 65

and number 9?

 

[DermiesLuvChild]

and number 9?

Maybe save for Jamie Stewart for next years draft (2013 list), assuming we father/son him?? I guess a lot of water to go under the bridge yet.
Or they may give #9 to Clarke & rest #1 until a suitable candidate earns it.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

What if you have to take Stewart with your first-round pick? Wouldn't he need to wear 35 then?

 

[DermiesLuvChild]

What if you have to take Stewart with your first-round pick? Wouldn't he need to wear 35 then?

Ha ha You are correct, if (a) Collingwood choose to f/s him & (b) if another club decides to bid for him with their 1st round pick.
Although next years draft supposed to be very strong, so other clubs focus could be on other players? Collingwood may not want to give up their 1st round for him? & let him go if someone else bids? A lot depends on Collingwoods 1st pick next year (assume anywhere from pick 12-18? subject to priority picks/compensation picks).
Expect many compensation picks to be activated next year.