List Mgmt. 2020 Trade Thread.....

[The Filth Wizard]

The AFL won't drop lists to 35 players, especially now they've secured bail-out money.

 

[DaveyBoy123]

The AFL won't drop lists to 35 players, especially now they've secured bail-out money.

Even still, we will need to cut at least 3 players to draft in the next Carey, Dench & Blight.

 

[Hatchy1992]

There won't be list cuts for next season or ever. Not least because it's too soon to implement it. Another reason is the workload on players in a normal season. 35 players isn't enough in a 22 game home and away + finals season.

My view is that they might gradually lessen the salary cap and tpp forcing players to take a paycut.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

Even still, we will need to cut at least 3 players to draft in the next Carey, Dench & Blight.

In that case our three worst blokes out of contract.

 

[The Nostradamus]

In that case our three worst blokes out of contract.

Jmac, and pending fitness Jacobs and EVW

 

[year of the roo]

Jmac, and pending fitness Jacobs and EVW

I'd have the worst performer of the group of McKay/Durdin/Walker, as well as Tom Dyson on the chopping block before EVW.

 

[Merlin007]

With the talk of reducing the list size down to 35, there'd be some hard decisions to make; thoughts?

 

[roos_fanatic08]

With the talk of reducing the list size down to 35, there'd be some hard decisions to make; thoughts?

There would be a lot of people in trouble. If you reduce the list size then you can ill afford to have players on the list that get injured.

It wouldn't bode well for guys like Jacobs and EVW. While it would put a heap more pressure on players like W.Walker and Garner to perform consistently.

Anyone without a contract for next year would be in serious trouble, guys like Durdin, Wood, Murphy, Crocker, Ahern, Xerri and Hoise.

Guys like Tyson who are yet to fire a shot would also be on the block.

 

[Waynesworld]

We'd have less players.

 

[Merlin007]

We'd have less players.

never, really?

 

[Merlin007]

There would be a lot of people in trouble. If you reduce the list size then you can ill afford to have players on the list that get injured.

It wouldn't bode well for guys like Jacobs and EVW. While it would put a heap more pressure on players like W.Walker and Garner to perform consistently.

Anyone without a contract for next year would be in serious trouble, guys like Durdin, Wood, Murphy, Crocker, Ahern, Xerri and Hoise.

Guys like Tyson who are yet to fire a shot would also be on the block.

and if there's still a draft, presumably you'd have to go below whatever the final cap number is, whether it's 35 or 37 or whatever, to fit in draftees. As you say, will be tough; you'd think there'd be some reasonable players being offered VFL contracts

 

[roos_fanatic08]

With the amount of injuries ect that clubs get I can't really see how they could go down to a playing list of 35. 38-39 maybe but even there maybe be issues.

 

[Tas]

You wouldn't want to be injury prone with reduced list sizes.

 

[Joshen]

You will see even more interesting (read: ridiculous) trade suggestions on this board.

 

[B4Bear]

Would not surprise me if they don't force changes this year, perhaps allowing for a slight increase in list size for 2 years.

 

[Passmore]

I'd have the worst performer of the group of McKay/Durdin/Walker, as well as Tom Dyson on the chopping block before EVW.

Tyson is contracted until 2021 isn't he? McKay definitely is. Given money will be tight, I can't see clubs being allowed to boot contract players unless they agreed.

Sent from my SM-A908B using Tapatalk

 

[Merlin007]

The AFL won't drop lists to 35 players, especially now they've secured bail-out money.

Maybe, but I would have thought the opposite; AFL has borrowed $500m, essentially to bail out the clubs. When you borrow, you have to cut costs and in a labour intensive industry, that's the wages bill. Cut list sizes by 9, and assume the fringe players bear the brunt (ie, the lowest paid) - let's say the average is $250k, by 18 clubs, that's a saving of $40.5 million (ie you repay the money in 10-11 years, which for a once in a generation event, is manageable)

 

[Snake_Baker]

We have to drop 10 blokes, plus another 3 at least for the draft in order to make a 35 player list.

A few fan favorites would be biting the dust. It won't happen, it's just not feasible.

 

[shimaburnsgrieg]

A short term (1-2 year) 20% reduction in playing lists seems sensible and proportionate with what the broader community will be asked to bear if they are working in heavily impacted CV industries.

This would result in list sizes around the 35-36 mark (inclusive of rookies).

A mid season draft would be required to top up lists during the year.

The AFL and PA would then review the arrangements in 2 years to see whether list sizes needed to be nudged back up.

 

[Snake_Baker]

How many rookies? Four?

I actually think pruning for the AFL is a good idea, but there's more that needs addressing aside from AFL lists.

Start with every socio-political venture the AFL undertakes, then kill off all of the administrative parasites, and then finally look at lists if it needs addressing.

 

[The Nostradamus]

You wouldn't want to be injury prone with reduced list sizes.

This

 

[Merlin007]

How many rookies? Four?

I actually think pruning for the AFL is a good idea, but there's more that needs addressing aside from AFL lists.

Start with every socio-political venture the AFL undertakes, then kill off all of the administrative parasites, and then finally look at lists if it needs addressing.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but if it's community outreach-type activities, shutting them down would be the quickest way to cripple the game in general and NMFC in particular. If we take NMFC's community-based business model as a starting point, that has delivered profits in 11 of the last 12 years, principally because it attracts corporate sponsorships who want to leverage off the NMFC brand in the community. From the 2019 Annual Report, we can see that those sponsorships are actually worth more to the club than memberships and gate receipts combined. Kill the community model and you will kill the club

 

[Snake_Baker]

Bullshit.

AFL football brings in all the money and its the only thing that needs protecting.

None of that crap exists without it.

 

[GarnerSmash]

I'm not sure what you mean here, but if it's community outreach-type activities, shutting them down would be the quickest way to cripple the game in general and NMFC in particular. If we take NMFC's community-based business model as a starting point, that has delivered profits in 11 of the last 12 years, principally because it attracts corporate sponsorships who want to leverage off the NMFC brand in the community. From the 2019 Annual Report, we can see that those sponsorships are actually worth more to the club than memberships and gate receipts combined. Kill the community model and you will kill the clubView attachment 861494

Snake will tell you that we should forgo all non essential activities and focus only on football. Unless you want to talk about pokies and how good the revenue stream is. But not the cost of running them and associated venues, because that makes the revenues look less enticing. Nor the massive debt accrued to get into the pokies game, which consequently would have killed us in the current climate.

But don't point all this out to him, or he will sook like a child and put you on ignore.

 

[Heaps of fun]

Bullshit.

AFL football brings in all the money and its the only thing that needs protecting.

None of that crap exists without it.