List Mgmt. 2025 List Management discussion

[Xxxx66]

James Van Es nominated for MSD

Return of the king

Has he had much of an impact with Port melb? Good size, still young but not sure he has lit up the vfl.

 

[SaintsofSteel]

Listening to the latest Gettable podcast, the first item of discussion was Cal Twomey’s assessment of St Kilda’s rebuild strategy and where it was.

Twomey sounded optimistic despite the disappointment of last week. He said we are on the right path and we are on our way, but we have to stay the course. Don’t deviate. Keep drafting while continuing to pitch for quality players.

Twomey also said that if we miss out on our recruiting targets then we shouldn’t get disheartened. Keep trying but don’t lose focus on the draft. We are doing the right thing. I found his assessment to be reassuring.

On an unrelated note, Twomey was wondering why Ollie Dempsey hadn’t re-signed at that with Geelong’s pursuit of other players he might be Gettable with an offer “to good to refuse”. Such an offer wouldn’t necessarily be more than $900,000 pa (Twomey suggested the figure).

Twomey also suggested Geelong might be vulnerable to a raid and their reputation for being the hunter and holding off the predators might unnecessarily discourage potential bidders.

I know Dempsey isn’t a priority for us, we have other needs, but boy can he play. Whether it be on the wing or as a mobile marking forward. I wonder if Saints have at least considered an approach to him.

Anyone who can find the ball and kick goals like Dempsey should be an absolute priority. Plus to drag a player of his quality out of cheatsville would be glorious! He would be a much better option than Bergman IMO.

 

[The Punter]

Dempsey is a very good footballer, but make no mistake: he's a front-running, icing on the top type.

 

[stavro#4]

Listening to the latest Gettable podcast, the first item of discussion was Cal Twomey’s assessment of St Kilda’s rebuild strategy and where it was.

Twomey sounded optimistic despite the disappointment of last week. He said we are on the right path and we are on our way, but we have to stay the course. Don’t deviate. Keep drafting while continuing to pitch for quality players.

Twomey also said that if we miss out on our recruiting targets then we shouldn’t get disheartened. Keep trying but don’t lose focus on the draft. We are doing the right thing. I found his assessment to be reassuring.

On an unrelated note, Twomey was wondering why Ollie Dempsey hadn’t re-signed at that with Geelong’s pursuit of other players he might be Gettable with an offer “to good to refuse”. Such an offer wouldn’t necessarily be more than $900,000 pa (Twomey suggested the figure).

Twomey also suggested Geelong might be vulnerable to a raid and their reputation for being the hunter and holding off the predators might unnecessarily discourage potential bidders.

I know Dempsey isn’t a priority for us, we have other needs, but boy can he play. Whether it be on the wing or as a mobile marking forward. I wonder if Saints have at least considered an approach to him.

His main key point was to also trade out experienced & good senior talent. Ie the Grant Thomas idea. (Thommo has been banging on about this since Ross returned)

I can’t imagine the majority of the fanbase is on board with trading Marshall Sinclair etc.

The key point in this was also to use the picks at the draft - the same draft he has crapped on in terms of quality and depth in the last few weeks.

The hardest part about our direction is that we are seemingly needing to chart a course and we haven’t seen our best 22 in action once across the last 2 years.

 

[The Jack]

Dempsey is a very good footballer, but make no mistake: he's a front-running, icing on the top type.

Kicks a remarkable amount of goals from the goal square.

 

[SainterinSydney]

His main key point was to also trade out experienced & good senior talent. Ie the Grant Thomas idea. (Thommo has been banging on about this since Ross returned)

I can’t imagine the majority of the fanbase is on board with trading Marshall Sinclair etc.

The key point in this was also to use the picks at the draft - the same draft he has crapped on in terms of quality and depth in the last few weeks.

The hardest part about our direction is that we are seemingly needing to chart a course and we haven’t seen our best 22 in action once across the last 2 years.

I predict if we land TDK that Marshall will get traded. We could land a very good deal for him.

 

[stavro#4]

I predict if we land TDK that Marshall will get traded. We could land a very good deal for him.

What’s a very good and realistic deal?

 

[SainterinSydney]

What’s a very good and realistic deal?

I posted awhile ago that when those rumours spread about Marshall wanting to potentially be traded that it was GWS who were after him. I wouldn't be surprised if Leek Aleer and GWS 1st for Marshall could be a deal. Or some variation of that if there is another player we are after etc.

 

[SainterinSydney]

His main key point was to also trade out experienced & good senior talent. Ie the Grant Thomas idea. (Thommo has been banging on about this since Ross returned)

I can’t imagine the majority of the fanbase is on board with trading Marshall Sinclair etc.

The key point in this was also to use the picks at the draft - the same draft he has crapped on in terms of quality and depth in the last few weeks.

The hardest part about our direction is that we are seemingly needing to chart a course and we haven’t seen our best 22 in action once across the last 2 years.

I also think if we get a core group of top youngsters all peaking in their mid-20s at the same time and we are a top 4 team, we are suddenly a very appealing club to come join, so the Bailey Smith types etc which Geelong usually land will be more inclined to come to us. Our team could then suddenly explode and power to a flag.

 

[CaptainRisky]

Trouble is Port have to fit them all into the salary cap. And that would be a problem if Port back up the truck to re-sign Bergman and Butters.

Im pretty sure clubs are a lot smarter than the average supporter and could find a way to sign all of them if required , if we pay overs for Bergman i will be spewing though as he is a good player but no star and wont make a big difference to our side IMO

 

[Diehard Saint]

I predict if we land TDK that Marshall will get traded. We could land a very good deal for him.

Especially if we think Dodson will be a go-er. He sounds very promising from various reports on here.

 

[stavro#4]

I posted awhile ago that when those rumours spread about Marshall wanting to potentially be traded that it was GWS who were after him. I wouldn't be surprised if Leek Aleer and GWS 1st for Marshall could be a deal. Or some variation of that if there is another player we are after etc.

There is a wide ranging view on Leek Aleer on here.

I cbf debating the merits of trading v keeping Marshall today.

But I’ll bet the large majority won’t be happy with a teens pick & Leek Aleer.

 

[The Punter]

GWS would want a pick, any pick worth points, going back their way in any trade.

With the northern teams, they always want points.

 

[dudeintheswamp]

Not sure who might grab him before us but I'd like to think we'll stick Cordy on the long term injury list and pick up Kreuger in the midseason draft next week.

 

[SainterinSydney]

There is a wide ranging view on Leek Aleer on here.

I cbf debating the merits of trading v keeping Marshall today.

But I’ll bet the large majority won’t be happy with a teens pick & Leek Aleer.

Don't get me wrong, I could see a world where both Ro and TDK are in the same team. Both being able to do ruck/fwd. I'd be very happy with that.

Keep in mind Ro will be 30 at the end of this season and Aleer was a first rounder (and we will be showing his value to us by paying him likely $900k). Would be nice to get Aleer, 1st rounder and maybe Max Gruzewski, or Aleer plus two firsts. However, I'm just being realistic.

Wasn't their talk last year about Cadman being a whisper? That could be a spicy meatball if Ro wants GWS. Though we would likely need to give a 1st as well.

 

[Nutsngum]

Not sure who might grab him before us but I'd like to think we'll stick Cordy on the long term injury list and pick up Kreuger in the midseason draft next week.

Thats if we even can.. Cordy's injury may be long but its not season ending. AFLPA agreement might stipulate we cant as it would stop Cordy being able to play any more games I would think?

 

[Browny2Carlisle]

Thats if we even can.. Cordy's injury may be long but its not season ending. AFLPA agreement might stipulate we cant as it would stop Cordy being able to play any more games I would think?

Good. Cordy in the bin, get Crossley, plonk him at FF. Win win win

 

[bakes10]

I don’t mind the idea. Ollie Dempsey offers something different to the stock standard running wings, and realistically would be a long term replacement for Wood as a taller, marking and goal scoring wing. It’d offer flexibility with Wilson too.

Built like a twig, would suit us perfectly.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Not sure who might grab him before us but I'd like to think we'll stick Cordy on the long term injury list and pick up Kreuger in the midseason draft next week.

So Collingwood delist him, and now everyone is chasing him because he kicked 7 goals in 8 games for the Cats?

 

[g_TRAIN]

Not sure who might grab him before us but I'd like to think we'll stick Cordy on the long term injury list and pick up Kreuger in the midseason draft next week.

Why? He's not that good.

We need less average players not more.

 

[Nutsngum]

Good. Cordy in the bin, get Crossley, plonk him at FF. Win win win

Did you misread what I wrote? Im thinking we cant put Cordy on the LTI list legitimately and frankly trying to pull a dodgy like that is highly unethical. Cordy might be an average player at best but he does not deserve to be treated like that.

 

[SainterinSydney]

Did you misread what I wrote? Im thinking we cant put Cordy on the LTI list legitimately and frankly trying to pull a dodgy like that is highly unethical. Cordy might be an average player at best but he does not deserve to be treated like that.

I predict if we put a player on LTI that it will be Dow.

 

[Circus]

For us uneducated Victorian folk, what’s the difference between Mac Point 1 and Mac Point 2?

Mac Pt 1 is proposed to be built jammed into a space currently full of colonial buildings on reclaimed land. That is a critical point. The drilling for the foundations has to be 20-30 metres deep to lock into the river-bed rock. The space around the stadium is very limited so it has to be sort of squeezed in. Very limited access now for when Dark Mofo events are held there.

The Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC) was formed about 25 years ago to manage and develop this space. Sort of original sewerage works on one end ($350M to remove), cruise ship mooring areas, the CSIRO and Antarctic vessels dock there, woodchip docks etc around the river perimeter with businesses such as boutique hotels, apartments, restaurants, high end craft shops, university arts precinct etc in the middle.

The MPDC would have to be the best public sector gig of all time here. A staff of about 20 people, all paid very nicely, thank you very much, and what has been developed over the quarter of a century......zilch, nada, nothing!!

David Walsh/Mona had a concept plan to develop layers of multi-themed public spaces within the precinct to showcase Tasmania's history, unique attributes and cultural heritage but it seems it was too imaginative for small minded political hacks to comprehend. Since then many other small concepts that have, as noted, amounted to ......some more plans!

Mac Pt 2 was the site proposed to build a new public hospital instead of rebuilding the Royal Hobart Hospital. That was about 12-15 years ago and the Royal is still being rebuilt........! It's about 1 km from Mac Pt 1, around the corner of the low headland. The geophysical work involved digging into part of the slope and filling in a bit of river, with the same geological rock bed so foundation drilling would be 6-8 metres. It was to create much more space. Other than the stadium the proposal is to incorporate a small public hospital, restaurants and 480 housing units, underground space for all equipment transfer and transport and easy access roads in and out for businesses, tenants and the public.

Best of all this was to be privately funded to the tune of about $1.2B + with investors lining up to be involved. The developer is a local engineer who has built stadiums around the world, and who proposed the new hospital on that site, so none of this is new to him.

Now the government stated many times that $325M was the maximum amount they would pay and "not a red cent more" for the proposed cost of $725M. They went to the election on that basis. The ALP opposed the stadium, was not elected, replaced their leader and immediately supported it, and continue to do so. The government has now said that we didn't read the fine print of its funding pledge and that the MPDC will now borrow the additional money. Still government dollars but from a different bucket!

One last critical issue. The Tas Planning Commission has long been established to provide expert advice on construction and development. It has a wide range of experts. Their latest interim report raised many concerns about the site, the design and the cost, including the fact that basic essential features of the stadium have yet to be included into the already ballooning cost. How does that happen? Anyway, the government is now introducing legislation to bypass the TPC so their concerns will no longer be considered. It will pass the lower house and they need two upper house members to support it otherwise its gone. There are elections this Sat for three members of the upper house with two of the three likely winners being returned, one yes one no, the third uncertain.

There is much, much more going on but that is the neatest basic summary of the bigger picture I can provide. It is not about Tasmanians not wanting either a team or a stadium, only about very strongly not wanting a guaranteed inappropriate unsuitable stadium on that site, especially when the cost is certain to increase significantly. The AFL insists it must be there. Why? They are not the developers, or the government, or represent the people of Tasmania who have to pay for it. It makes no sense at all unless they don't want it to go ahead. I'm not inclined to think like that in any way but, with this background, you have to think about it!

 

[DougalHoward]

We need Cordy back if we play finals

 

[The Punter]

Mac Pt 1 is proposed to be built jammed into a space currently full of colonial buildings on reclaimed land. That is a critical point. The drilling for the foundations has to be 20-30 metres deep to lock into the river-bed rock. The space around the stadium is very limited so it has to be sort of squeezed in. Very limited access now for when Dark Mofo events are held there.

The Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC) was formed about 25 years ago to manage and develop this space. Sort of original sewerage works on one end ($350M to remove), cruise ship mooring areas, the CSIRO and Antarctic vessels dock there, woodchip docks etc around the river perimeter with businesses such as boutique hotels, apartments, restaurants, high end craft shops, university arts precinct etc in the middle.

The MPDC would have to be the best public sector gig of all time here. A staff of about 20 people, all paid very nicely, thank you very much, and what has been developed over the quarter of a century......zilch, nada, nothing!!

David Walsh/Mona had a concept plan to develop layers of multi-themed public spaces within the precinct to showcase Tasmania's history, unique attributes and cultural heritage but it seems it was too imaginative for small minded political hacks to comprehend. Since then many other small concepts that have, as noted, amounted to ......some more plans!

Mac Pt 2 was the site proposed to build a new public hospital instead of rebuilding the Royal Hobart Hospital. That was about 12-15 years ago and the Royal is still being rebuilt........! It's about 1 km from Mac Pt 1, around the corner of the low headland. The geophysical work involved digging into part of the slope and filling in a bit of river, with the same geological rock bed so foundation drilling would be 6-8 metres. It was to create much more space. Other than the stadium the proposal is to incorporate a small public hospital, restaurants and 480 housing units, underground space for all equipment transfer and transport and easy access roads in and out for businesses, tenants and the public.

Best of all this was to be privately funded to the tune of about $1.2B + with investors lining up to be involved. The developer is a local engineer who has built stadiums around the world, and who proposed the new hospital on that site, so none of this is new to him.

Now the government stated many times that $325M was the maximum amount they would pay and "not a red cent more" for the proposed cost of $725M. They went to the election on that basis. The ALP opposed the stadium, was not elected, replaced their leader and immediately supported it, and continue to do so. The government has now said that we didn't read the fine print of its funding pledge and that the MPDC will now borrow the additional money. Still government dollars but from a different bucket!

One last critical issue. The Tas Planning Commission has long been established to provide expert advice on construction and development. It has a wide range of experts. Their latest interim report raised many concerns about the site, the design and the cost, including the fact that basic essential features of the stadium have yet to be included into the already ballooning cost. How does that happen? Anyway, the government is now introducing legislation to bypass the TPC so their concerns will no longer be considered. It will pass the lower house and they need two upper house members to support it otherwise its gone. There are elections this Sat for three members of the upper house with two of the three likely winners being returned, one yes one no, the third uncertain.

There is much, much more going on but that is the neatest basic summary of the bigger picture I can provide. It is not about Tasmanians not wanting either a team or a stadium, only about very strongly not wanting a guaranteed inappropriate unsuitable stadium on that site, especially when the cost is certain to increase significantly. The AFL insists it must be there. Why? They are not the developers, or the government, or represent the people of Tasmania who have to pay for it. It makes no sense at all unless they don't want it to go ahead. I'm not inclined to think like that in any way but, with this background, you have to think about it!

I always thought the stadium requirement was the AFL's way of getting out of a team in Tasmania. Makes it look like they tried, but it was not able to be done - that sort of thing.