List Mgmt. 2020 List Management

[HereComesJuddy]

keep roos for the laughs........

Was going to throw the saints into the mix. Id honestly love a 12 team comp tbh. 3 less games a week, so much more talent on the park each game. They talk about having viewable, quality games... simple imo

 

[Jimmae]

The AFL have legitimately lost their minds if they want to reduce list sizes while having games more often. I understand that there's government restrictions at play, but there has to be a cut-off point where the AFL says 'season is over' instead of doing dumb shit like dropping down the list size to 35.

At the absolute minimum, the standard of the competition will slide a lot without teams having a reserves competition.

 

[AlecDuncan]

If we were to cut to 36 for example, we are cutting 10 and thats pre draft and trading. As id expect a draft in some capacity and clubs/players still wanting to change, we are looking at around 12-14 being cut from the list.
It will be sad, in a football sense and tough.

It'll also be impractical. On a list size of 36 there will be clubs that need access to top-up players. i.e. us in 2012.

Doesn't mean it won't happen of course.

 

[Jeremias]

The AFL have legitimately lost their minds if they want to reduce list sizes while having games more often. I understand that there's government restrictions at play, but there has to be a cut-off point where the AFL says 'season is over' instead of doing dumb shit like dropping down the list size to 35.

At the absolute minimum, the standard of the competition will slide a lot without teams having a reserves competition.

Pretty sure they're talking about a reduction from 2021, not this season.

 

[Eiffel 65]

I hope they only cut it to 40, 35 seems to tight, often clubs have 10 injured players, if that becomes 9 or 8 due to a smaller list it’s still only 26 or 27 fighting for a spot in the 22. Too many will be gifted games, teams won’t be able to have depth in some areas..
Can’t the last 6 on the list be on apprenticeship type wages?

There will probably be some sort of avenue to tap into the reserves competition if required.

I think what may happen is clubs will put an emphasis on depth as opposed to focusing efforts on that one high profile recruit. I'm basing this on the assumption that fewer list spots will make teams more exposed to the negative impacts of injuries.

This will probably change the landscape of the FA market.

 

[Carlton1234]

Please note I feel sick to my stomach for even recommending these cuts to the list. I want to see all of them succeed, but unfortunately Covid-19 has other ideas.

I'm also assuming you can't get rid of a dozen of your cheapest players due to a significantly reduced salary cap, hence why some of the senior guys are in the list. Main reasons are retirement, injury prone, behind others in a similar position and the requirement to reduce the number of project players on the list.

How players perform when the season resumes will play a big factor, but this is how I see it at the moment:

1. Simpson (Retire)
2. Kennedy (Behind others)
3. Kreuzer (Retire - always injured - hopefully TDK can take 1st ruck next season or Pittonet gets an opportunity at the top level) Could potentially seek a trade?
4. Lang (Behind others)
5. Betts (Retire)
6. Macreadie (Behind others - always injured)
7. Polson (Behind others)
8. BSOS (Project - not enough list spots)
9. O'Dwyer (Project - not enough list spots)
10. Goddard (Behind others)
11. Cottrell (Project - not enough list spots)
12. Moore (Behind others)

Note: I've kept Owies, Honey and Phillips off this list because they've shown a lot of potential.

gotta keep Kennedy for sure

 

[Team DJ]

I dare say it would be a list of 36 with maybe 4 Train on players who train with the club a few times a week and play state league. Then they can be called up as injury replacements.

The 10 I'd move on are:
Delist - Moore Cotteral Goddard McCreadie Lang Polson Odwyer
Retire - Betts Simpson
Trade - Kreuzer + 2nd for Future 2nd and 3rd


That gets us to 36.

Then to bring in a draft pick or two the likes of: Owies BSos Kennedy Phillips and Honey would be fighting for 3-4 spots.

 

[Cripptonite]

My crack at a the off-season assuming the 35 playing list goes ahead (for what it’s worth I hope not):

Trades
-Papley and Swans 2nd for our first
-Matt Kennedy for pick upgrades
-Wines and change for a future first

Retire
-Betts
-Simpson

Delist
-Moore
-Lang
-Polson
-Owies
-Macreadie
-O’Dwyer
-BSOS
-Cottrell
-Goddard
-Phillips (extremely unlucky)

Draft 2 Players early in the second round

Best 22
Plowman, Jones, Marchbank
Docherty, Weitering, SPS
Walsh, E. Curnow, Murphy
Kreuzer, Cripps, Wines
Martin, Charlie, Cuningham
Papley, McKay, McGovern

Newman, Dow, Fisher, Setterfield

Depth: Casboult, Gibbons, JSOS, Newnes, Stocker, Philp, Kemp, TDK, Willo, Pittonet

 

[true blue19]

I hate the idea of cutting the list to 35 but it is interesting to see what people will do. IMO if the afl cut list sizes they will lift the draft age, so there won't be many kids to bring, just delisted players and mature players. Obviously I don't know who we could bring in but depending on who is out there to pick up will change a little bit on who goes. I think most clubs will look at keeping ready made player and only have 2 or 3 developing player.

If I start with the team that played Round 1, I would keep most of them but Simpson will probably retire and there needs to be a question on Kreuzer, can we keep a injury prone 31yo?.

If we then look at the injured players that missed out in round 1. McKay, Curnow and Kemp are the future and must keep. Betts is interesting he'll be 34 next year but I would keep him unless we find a replacement. Macreadie and Marchbank 2 injury prone tall defenders, who in my opinion aren't in our best 22 but I would keep Marchbank.

The other players on our list, Pittonet and De Koning are must keep. Williamson is a must keep with Simpson retiring. Kennedy, OBrein, Stocker I'll keep all 3 because they might not be best 22 but can hold there own if they come in. Philp and Ramsay IMO should be ready to play regular games next season, so keep. Lang, Goddard, Polson and Moore have had opportunity at AFL level but too me are not up to it and must delist.

Developing player O'Dwyer, Cottrell, Owies, Phillips, Honey and BSOS. For me BSOS is a must keep but we need to change his development so he is more of a tall utility rather than a defender. So he can be a replacement for Casboult who's flexibility will be a major weapon with smaller lists. Honey is probably the only other one I might keep.

To go
Simpson
Lang
Macreadie
Polson
Goddard
Moore
O'Dwyer
Cottrell
Owies
Phillips

50/50
Kreuzer
Betts
Honey

 

[The Bighouse]

Out: Betts, Simpson, Kreuzer, Murphy (4) retired & $ off the S/C to keep all our up & comers & attack in other targets / FA’s
*Papley, Z.Williams, GWS $ squeeze
Next: Kennedy, Lang, Macreadie, Polson, O’Dwyer, BSOS (? as losing a lot of KP backup), Goddard, Moore, Newnes then Cottrell, Owies (Cat B maybe survive in another form), Phillips, Honey but some talent there. All depends on the numbers to be cut. Would like to see majority cut play with our VFL team for another call up, if possible.

Will draftees be able to be let go inside their initial contract, and same for every other contract being capable of being outed under the circumstances?

Could also be trades thrown in, maybe some that want to return home or value in swapping for those being on the outer at their own club. $$’s could be a deciding factor on who’ll take what type of cut, or perhaps look elsewhere.

That would leave a mid-range squad on age.
1989: Ed
1990: Casboult
1991: Jones
1993: Docherty, Newman
1994: Plowman, McGovern
1995: Crippa, Martin, Gibbons
1996: Marchbank, Pittonet
1997: JSOS, Weiters, McKay, Charles, DC, Owies (?)
1998: SPS, Setterfield, Fisher, Williamson,
1999: Dow, LOB, TDK
2000: Walsh, Stocker
2001: Kemp, Philp, Ramsay (?) + Honey & Phillips

 

[Jimmae]

Pretty sure they're talking about a reduction from 2021, not this season.

It's still utterly stupid. There isn't a professional team sport on the planet that has such restrictive roster rules, nor are any of them trying to do this.

If the AFL is being so horribly mismanaged that this is how it responds to a 24-month period in which they will only be hit hard for 6-9 months, they should be utterly ashamed of their business acumen.

 

[Red Bull]

My crack at a the off-season assuming the 35 playing list goes ahead (for what it’s worth I hope not):

Trades
-Papley and Swans 2nd for our first
-Matt Kennedy for pick upgrades
-Wines and change for a future first

Retire
-Betts
-Simpson

Delist
-Moore
-Lang
-Polson
-Owies
-Macreadie
-O’Dwyer
-BSOS
-Cottrell
-Goddard
-Phillips (extremely unlucky)

Draft 2 Players early in the second round

Best 22
Plowman, Jones, Marchbank
Docherty, Weitering, SPS
Walsh, E. Curnow, Murphy
Kreuzer, Cripps, Wines
Martin, Charlie, Cuningham
Papley, McKay, McGovern

Newman, Dow, Fisher, Setterfield

Depth: Casboult, Gibbons, JSOS, Newnes, Stocker, Philp, Kemp, TDK, Willo, Pittonet

Wines is an interesting one.
I’d grab him if a future 1st would get it done.
There were rumblings last off season that he/his management were interested in Carlton.
Port have stripped the captaincy from him and you get the feeling that they and Wines may both be happy to part ways.
If Wines were to nominate Carlton, a future 1st just might get it done and he’d be a very solid senior bodied replacement for Murphy and Curnow who will be nearing the end of the road sooner rather than later ...

 

[Eiffel 65]

Wines is an interesting one.
I’d grab him if a future 1st would get it done.
There were rumblings last off season that he/his management were interested in Carlton.
Port have stripped the captaincy from him and you get the feeling that they and Wines may both be happy to part ways.
If Wines were to nominate Carlton, a future 1st just might get it done and he’d be a very solid senior bodied replacement for Murphy and Curnow who will be nearing the end of the road sooner rather than later ...

I'm hoping Kemp comes through as the big bodied midfielder we need.

I also think Setterfield will become an elite player next season. He's listed as 192cm and 87kgs at the moment. If he can add another 3-4kgs next offseason and play more of an inside role, it sort of negates the need for Wines.

 

[The Bighouse]

It's still utterly stupid. There isn't a professional team sport on the planet that has such restrictive roster rules, nor are any of them trying to do this.

If the AFL is being so horribly mismanaged that this is how it responds to a 24-month period in which they will only be hit hard for 6-9 months, they should be utterly ashamed of their business acumen.

In saying that, Jim, the sporting landscape will be dented along with the economy, the longer this continues.
Sponsorship dollars could be light on as co’s look at boosting their own cash back into their businesses etc and confidence resumes along with unemployment levels & consumer spending. Do prices drop for games, membership + broadcast funds will be on the decline from all reports.

I’m sure the AFL will be the same in wanting to get back into a cash surplus & out of any debt (the amount of the line of credit used will be interesting). We’ll see what changes will be implemented, likely some on the agenda from HO for a while. They may be hoping to swindle some power away from the ALFPA too.

If the average list number used is 36 p/a, then that should do with a supplementary list to choose from, or rookies as we have now. The alternative is to just lop off 20% across the board.

State league (WAFL example mentioned) could head in the same direction, with less list numbers, no reserves (align with amateur clubs) but colts still their own development league, though funding, as per the NAB league could be reduced. What happens with the VFL will be interesting, or do we just go down the path of AFL reserves - then list numbers need to increase again..

 

[Eiffel 65]

gotta keep Kennedy for sure

He's one of those guys you would monitor closely when the season resumes.

Has the talent, just hasn't delivered.

 

[Red Bull]

I'm hoping Kemp comes through as the big bodied midfielder we need.

I also think Setterfield will become an elite player next season. He's listed as 192cm and 87kgs at the moment. If he can add another 3-4kgs next offseason and play more of an inside role, it sort of negates the need for Wines.

I too have high hopes for Kemp, but it will be some time before he is fully developed and seasoned enough to partner Cripps in the heat of the kitchen.
Setterfield doesn’t strike me as the deadset midfield, coal face bull type that Wines is, perhaps his skill set is better suited to the outside.

 

[Eiffel 65]

In saying that, Jim, the sporting landscape will be dented along with the economy, the longer this continues.
Sponsorship dollars could be light on as co’s look at boosting their own cash back into their businesses etc and confidence resumes along with unemployment levels & consumer spending. Do prices drop for games, membership + broadcast funds will be on the decline from all reports.

I’m sure the AFL will be the same in wanting to get back into a cash surplus & out of any debt (the amount of the line of credit used will be interesting). We’ll see what changes will be implemented, likely some on the agenda from HO for a while. They may be hoping to swindle some power away from the ALFPA too.

If the average list number used is 36 p/a, then that should do with a supplementary list to choose from, or rookies as we have now. The alternative is to just lop off 20% across the board.

State league (WAFL example mentioned) could head in the same direction, with less list numbers, no reserves (align with amateur clubs) but colts still their own development league, though funding, as per the NAB league could be reduced. What happens with the VFL will be interesting, or do we just go down the path of AFL reserves - then list numbers need to increase again..

Good points. Money will be tight and spending patterns won't be the same.

In saying that, the AFL should consider taking away the minimum value of player payments in the salary cap, or at least reduce it.

No more salary cap dumps. It might go some way towards maintaining healthy list numbers!

 

[Jeremias]

It's still utterly stupid. There isn't a professional team sport on the planet that has such restrictive roster rules, nor are any of them trying to do this.

If the AFL is being so horribly mismanaged that this is how it responds to a 24-month period in which they will only be hit hard for 6-9 months, they should be utterly ashamed of their business acumen.

It's not ideal, but if that's what they deem necessary short-term to keep the game afloat, then I'm all for it.

How can you say it's "utterly stupid" without knowing the details of the league's finances?

 

[Coona Blues]

Reading between lines, the AFL is offering hypothetical ambit claims to the AFL Player's Association. Some of the discussion is preparing the landscape for some dramatic changes.

Threat to cull lists threatens in the vicinity of 25% of current players and half if not more of the prospective draftees.
The shortened games were well received by pretty much everyone in the industry.
The prospect of three games in two weeks per team, if not even more frequent would have them salivating.

Lets have the axe hanging over a couple of hundred players, then offer to keep them on the proviso that the players participate in a 34 game
home and away season. This will utilise a considerable percentage of each list with "forced" rotations. It will change the landscape, increasing the longevity of
players, often moved along to make way for project players while still being solid depth types.

Don't be surprised if the AFL is trying to turn short term pain in to significant long term gain. The bastion of traditionalism has been blown away, if
significant change has been discussed, this is the mechanism. "Seasons" in elite sport have been eroded significantly across most games/events
players often lament the long preseasons and most would rather play "real" matches a month early than slog it out on the track.

 

[Red Bull]

Reading between lines, the AFL is offering hypothetical ambit claims to the AFL Player's Association. Some of the discussion is preparing the landscape for some dramatic changes.

Threat to cull lists threatens in the vicinity of 25% of current players and half if not more of the prospective draftees.
The shortened games were well received by pretty much everyone in the industry.
The prospect of three games in two weeks per team, if not even more frequent would have them salivating.

Lets have the axe hanging over a couple of hundred players, then offer to keep them on the proviso that the players participate in a 34 game
home and away season. This will utilise a considerable percentage of each list with "forced" rotations. It will change the landscape, increasing the longevity of
players, often moved along to make way for project players while still being solid depth types.

Don't be surprised if the AFL is trying to turn short term pain in to significant long term gain. The bastion of traditionalism has been blown away, if
significant change has been discussed, this is the mechanism. "Seasons" in elite sport have been eroded significantly across most games/events
players often lament the long preseasons and most would rather play "real" matches a month early than slog it out on the track.

More games = more TV
That would appeal to both the AFL and AFLPA.
It would also equate to quantity over quality as clubs full lists would need to be used over the course of the longer season.
There would be a lot of bloody awful games trotted out which of course the tragic’s would watch, but perhaps not many others would.
Cricket went down this path, so many meaningless games now that you wouldn’t bother looking over your back fence to watch.
Too much of a good thing is often a bad thing ...

 

[Jimmae]

In saying that, Jim, the sporting landscape will be dented along with the economy, the longer this continues.
Sponsorship dollars could be light on as co’s look at boosting their own cash back into their businesses etc and confidence resumes along with unemployment levels & consumer spending. Do prices drop for games, membership + broadcast funds will be on the decline from all reports.

I’m sure the AFL will be the same in wanting to get back into a cash surplus & out of any debt (the amount of the line of credit used will be interesting). We’ll see what changes will be implemented, likely some on the agenda from HO for a while. They may be hoping to swindle some power away from the ALFPA too.

If the average list number used is 36 p/a, then that should do with a supplementary list to choose from, or rookies as we have now. The alternative is to just lop off 20% across the board.

State league (WAFL example mentioned) could head in the same direction, with less list numbers, no reserves (align with amateur clubs) but colts still their own development league, though funding, as per the NAB league could be reduced. What happens with the VFL will be interesting, or do we just go down the path of AFL reserves - then list numbers need to increase again..

They should be taking a paycut at the top end of things if they have to, starting with the CEO.

Any solution that hampers player or viewer/supporter welfare should be the last thing to be cut back on.

 

[Red Bull]

They should be taking a paycut at the top end of things if they have to, starting with the CEO.

Any solution that hampers player or viewer/supporter welfare should be the last thing to be cut back on.

Calm down, it’s the bonuses that count in that world Jim.
Always ALWAYS back self interest ...

 

[DangerousD]

Reading between lines, the AFL is offering hypothetical ambit claims to the AFL Player's Association. Some of the discussion is preparing the landscape for some dramatic changes.

Threat to cull lists threatens in the vicinity of 25% of current players and half if not more of the prospective draftees.
The shortened games were well received by pretty much everyone in the industry.
The prospect of three games in two weeks per team, if not even more frequent would have them salivating.

Lets have the axe hanging over a couple of hundred players, then offer to keep them on the proviso that the players participate in a 34 game
home and away season. This will utilise a considerable percentage of each list with "forced" rotations. It will change the landscape, increasing the longevity of
players, often moved along to make way for project players while still being solid depth types.

Don't be surprised if the AFL is trying to turn short term pain in to significant long term gain. The bastion of traditionalism has been blown away, if
significant change has been discussed, this is the mechanism. "Seasons" in elite sport have been eroded significantly across most games/events
players often lament the long preseasons and most would rather play "real" matches a month early than slog it out on the track.

I might be way on my own here, but the idea of a 34 game season, just does nothing for me. As a long suffering Blues fan, the seasons have been long, for a long time. The AFL is desperate to inject life in to dead rubber games as it is and i feel a 34 game season will have large numbers of fans and clubs supporters, switching off.

Im not totally against it as i don't know what it would look like, i do find it dumb, that you would play a 34 round season, purely to decide if you get a double chance in the finals. If we were like a lot of soccer leagues and even cricket in the UK and it was a premiership for who finished top then id be on board.

 

[Team DJ]

34 games is wayyyyyyy to many. It will drag on something chronic.

20 is prime for me.
Everyone once plus 3 marquee games.
Rivalry Round
Heritage Round
& maybe a Charity Round

 

[thylacine60]

As long as Rivalry Round is us playing * not Richmond. But it won't be.