List Mgmt. 2025 List Management discussion

[Captain Paddy]

Having a top 5-10 player at the club for 2 more years...

Most fans:

Some St.Kilda fans:

aW BuT wOt iF hE LeAVeS In TwO YeARS

 

[akaifu]

Another point to add is that if we cave in and meet Williams’ demands MONTHS out from the trade period, imagine how easy other players would think it is to squeeze STK of all their money

More and more player managers will begin to do this with our club

IF SOS really was planning on paying max value for NWM, never in a million years would he do it at this point in the season where the situation isn’t as desperate as people are making it out to be

 

[jwikked]

Literally been begging for a dynamic midfielder for 10+ years... get one and now we want to cheap put on it

If the cap is only going up... what do you think the free agency cost of landing a jet midfielder is going to be in 2 years time

Who is cheaping out?

 

[The_Steadier]

For the record, I hope we entice Nas to sign for longer, but if we can only get him to sign a 2 year deal, we just need to get that done.

A week is a long time in football- 2 years is an eternity.

Jager Omerea looked to be tracking to be the greatest footballer in history after his first couple of years before injury.

Signing nas for only 2 years isn't totally devoid of upside for us.

A lot can happen in 2 years

 

[stavro#4]

Having a top 5-10 player at the club for 2 more years...

Most fans:

Some St.Kilda fans:

aW BuT wOt iF hE LeAVeS In TwO YeARS

Paddy you would be in the group of supporters who would blame the club if he left irrespective of if the player came out and said he was never ever staying and he just wanted to go home.


You have missed the point. Well done.

 

[littlecreatures]

A few pages later - someone showed how many players each club has signed beyond 2027. We are one of the least.

Exactly mate, and this hard line approach is going to get harder to sustain with an increasingly volatile and aggressive market in 2027.

We need to be shoring up our own player contracts early on which means erring on the other side of low balling, and paying overs if we have to.

 

[stavro#4]

Exactly mate, and this hard line approach is going to get harder to sustain with an increasingly volatile and aggressive market in 2027.

We need to be shoring up our own player contracts early on which means erring on the other side of low balling, and paying overs if we have to.

So my point that a long term commitment + a lot of money for the player is the right way to go.

As opposed to a 2 year commitment and lots of money to the player.

 

[bennymc7]

Today then?

 

[CaptainRisky]

There was a segment on the news, but it wasn’t real footage. It was some silly cartoon thing where they showed a dining room table and then popped in the people one by one, cartoon style

That’s why I asked if you had seen actual footage of the night on the news because it wasn’t on the news I watched and I haven’t seen it anywhere.

In other words it wasnt as if the Saints had allowed anyone at the dinner to film it and then it had leaked.

That was all.

Shit , i need better glasses , all good

 

[stavro#4]

Shit , i need better glasses , all good

It’s right here.

 

[Joffaboy]

Jesus , I take the dog for a walk and all hell breaks loose.
Turbo's
Champ's
Moron's
and dickheads abound.

Forum in full meltdown mode.

One thing not considered in losing NAZ.
We will have TDK coming in on huge coin. Rightly or wrongly ( I think wrongly) the Saints supporters will put the blame on him. The guy has done nothing wrong but accept a huge offer.
No matter it will fracture the fan base and make the young guys life hell.
No telling what it will do to the playing group, but hey don't pay NAZ, be tough don't get bent over ( although we will in trade capital) because we fear end of 2027.
Holy hell this club is cooked if we don't retain NAZ.

 

[jwikked]

TDK has nothing to do with NWM, anyone linking the two has got it wrong.

 

[St Neil]

What intrigues me is what Port Adelaide is doing. Both contract wise and trade wise.

What does going “all in” mean? Because if it is only the value of the contract and not the trade table then they aren’t going “all in”.

I’m just speculating about this after the remarks on the Gettable podcast.

Maybe NWM’s game last week tipped Port over the edge. They have decided to go all-in to just get it done.

Is it possible that Port has decided, with a single focus, to do whatever it takes to get NWM and pay a hefty trade price to do it, even though he is OOC?

Ruthlessly get business done with only a small core of senior players not on the trade table?

I know the PA supporters on BigFooty wouldn’t like that, but is it possible that might be the case?

If that is what Port intends to do then the dynamics are different. Saints will have a real fight on their hands to retain NWM.

PA offers NWM a compelling monster long term contract AND do whatever they need to do to satisfy St Kilda at the trade table?

It’s hard to see how they would achieve this but there are ways if they are ruthless enough. It would cause genuine pain losing assets to get the deal done.

It’s not outside the realms of possibility. Although 100% speculation on my part.

I suppose that’s what these forums are for.

 

[Saints TV]

TDK has nothing to do with NWM, anyone linking the two has got it wrong.

Correct.

 

[The Punter]

What intrigues me is what Port Adelaide is doing. Both contract wise and trade wise.

What does going “all in” mean? Because if it is only the value of the contract and not the trade table then they aren’t going “all in”.

I’m just speculating about this after the remarks on the Gettable podcast.

Maybe NWM’s game last week tipped Port over the edge. They have decided to go all-in to just get it done.

Is it possible that Port has decided, with a single focus, to do whatever it takes to get NWM and pay a hefty trade price to do it, even though he is OOC?

Ruthlessly get business done with only a small core of senior players not on the trade table?

I know the PA supporters on BigFooty wouldn’t like that, but is it possible that might be the case?

If that is what Port intends to do then the dynamics are different. Saints will have a real fight on their hands to retain NWM.

PA offers NWM a compelling monster long term contract AND do whatever they need to do to satisfy St Kilda at the trade table?

It’s hard to see how they would achieve this but there are ways if they are ruthless enough. It would cause genuine pain losing assets to get the deal done.

It’s not outside the realms of possibility. Although 100% speculation on my part.

I suppose that’s what these forums are for.

It would have to include Butters, and he'd have to agree. Significant bars for PA to jump over IMO.

 

[CaptainRisky]

It’s right here.

Ah , i was very busy preparing the pate for the spatchcock we were having for dinner when that was on and only glanced at the tv and thought it was real , silly old me must have had too much Grange that night

 

[akaifu]

Jesus , I take the dog for a walk and all hell breaks loose.
Turbo's
Champ's
Moron's
and dickheads abound.

Forum in full meltdown mode.

One thing not considered in losing NAZ.
We will have TDK coming in on huge coin. Rightly or wrongly ( I think wrongly) the Saints supporters will put the blame on him. The guy has done nothing wrong but accept a huge offer.
No matter it will fracture the fan base and make the young guys life hell.
No telling what it will do to the playing group, but hey don't pay NAZ, be tough don't get bent over ( although we will in trade capital) because we fear end of 2027.
Holy hell this club is cooked if we don't retain NAZ.

Genuinely if I was TDK I’d rather take unders at Carlton than come to St Kilda to ‘replace’ their best player

Going by this forum I’d be scared for my life

 

[Joffaboy]

TDK has nothing to do with NWM, anyone linking the two has got it wrong.

Absolute logic, you speak, however emotion is not logical.
Of course they are separate, does that mean he won't cop the blame.
Look at the shit Hill copped for 900k a year.
You understand the situation, the average punter will see TDK on huge coin but we wouldn't pay for NAZ, the details and facts won't matter.
I reckon losing NAz is an existential threat to the long term viability of the club. Sounds hysterical? Maybe. However I take into account 15 years of nothing, NGA and FS rorts and in 2027 the Tassie compromised drafts.
If we don't set ourselves up with a successful team, strong membership, strong coaching and admin and a hopeful future by 2027, we will never win a flag.
Supporters live in hope, no hope no supporters and a failing club.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

We didn't really do this.

It's worked out like that, and I'm beyond happy it did, but there's no way in August last year the list management team said "Yep, screw Battle, he can bugger off, we've got a Flying Viking coming our way"

If Tauru goes to North at Pick 2, I'm not sure we're so happy with the move if we had Langford plodding around half forward right now.

I think we knew how talented & deep the draft was so were happy to let Battle walk, while acting that we really wanted him to stay in the hope that Hawthorn pumped their offer up giving us band 1 compo.

If Tauru was taken earlier, we knew one of the top end mids would fall our way.

You must not have seen much of Langford this season... he's had a belter of a debut year.

 

[stavro#4]

Absolute logic, you speak, however emotion is not logical.
Of course they are separate, does that mean he won't cop the blame.
Look at the shit Hill copped for 900k a year.
You understand the situation, the average punter will see TDK on huge coin but we wouldn't pay for NAZ, the details and facts won't matter.
I reckon losing NAz is an existential threat to the long term viability of the club. Sounds hysterical? Maybe. However I take into account 15 years of nothing, NGA and FS sorts and in 2027 the Tassie compromised drafts.
If we don't set ourselves up with a successful team, strong membership, strong coaching and admin and a hopeful future by 2027, we will never win a flag.
Supporters live in hope, no hope no supporters and a failing club.

No one is saying we won’t pay nas.

Not everyone agrees with paying him whatever his agent might want and having no deal beyond 2027.

You do it all over again, but their starting point next time is higher then the current deal he is on

 

[Joffaboy]

No one is saying we won’t pay nas.

Not everyone agrees with paying him whatever his agent might want and having no deal beyond 2027.

You do it all over again, but their starting point next time is higher then the current deal he is on

Worry about that then

 

[MUFASA12]

TDK will be great for us as sole ruck, people need to relax, Carlton playing him in the forward pocket as punishment of course he will look average in that position.

 

[The Punter]

Absolute logic, you speak, however emotion is not logical.
Of course they are separate, does that mean he won't cop the blame.
Look at the shit Hill copped for 900k a year.
You understand the situation, the average punter will see TDK on huge coin but we wouldn't pay for NAZ, the details and facts won't matter.
I reckon losing NAz is an existential threat to the long term viability of the club. Sounds hysterical? Maybe. However I take into account 15 years of nothing, NGA and FS sorts and in 2027 the Tassie compromised drafts.
If we don't set ourselves up with a successful team, strong membership, strong coaching and admin and a hopeful future by 2027, we will never win a flag.
Supporters live in hope, no hope no supporters and a failing club.

I broadly agree with this assessment of the predicament the club is in, and share Joffaboy's views on how the league's systems work more effectively than for the last 30 years in keeping some teams up and other teams down.

The club could start a death spiral and succeed after such a death spiral, but only with direct AFL intervention. Melbourne got it, Brisbane got it, North Melbourne got it. I mean, are North bloody Melbourne more important to the league than St Kilda? The operative question is whether, if the situation got sufficiently bleak, would the league intervene to save the club.

This is aside from all the systemic league issues that are manifesting themselves this season into nine good teams and nine other teams considerably worse than the nine good teams.

 

[thekizzler]

The harsh reality is that some of our players aren't sure if they want to stay beyond 2027 as the rebuild is still in progress and the possible result of it is still unknown. That's the reason why we have more than other clubs.

Not all of the players unsigned beyond 2027 are in this category, but some will be.

Others will be positioning themselves for Tasmania's entrance, hoping to get the biggest pay day possible.

This why canning SOS for the shorter contracts is ridiculous. It's like people think the players must accept the club's bidding.

If we get to the end of 2027 and we are still struggling with no imminent signs of challenging for some sort of success, and players start to depart the club, then SOS is due all the criticism a lot of you crave.

Until then, it's all guesswork presented as fact and opinion.

 

[Diehard Saint]

What intrigues me is what Port Adelaide is doing. Both contract wise and trade wise.

What does going “all in” mean? Because if it is only the value of the contract and not the trade table then they aren’t going “all in”.

I’m just speculating about this after the remarks on the Gettable podcast.

Maybe NWM’s game last week tipped Port over the edge. They have decided to go all-in to just get it done.

Is it possible that Port has decided, with a single focus, to do whatever it takes to get NWM and pay a hefty trade price to do it, even though he is OOC?

Ruthlessly get business done with only a small core of senior players not on the trade table?

I know the PA supporters on BigFooty wouldn’t like that, but is it possible that might be the case?

If that is what Port intends to do then the dynamics are different. Saints will have a real fight on their hands to retain NWM.

PA offers NWM a compelling monster long term contract AND do whatever they need to do to satisfy St Kilda at the trade table?

It’s hard to see how they would achieve this but there are ways if they are ruthless enough. It would cause genuine pain losing assets to get the deal done.

It’s not outside the realms of possibility. Although 100% speculation on my part.

I suppose that’s what these forums are for.

The only deal to satisfy us would have to include Butters.
Realistically how would it help Port to lose one star in order to get another one in?
I highly doubt we’d only want draft picks, even if Port managed to get 3 first rounders (and how would they manage that anyway?)
so it appears to be a real stalemate.

Anyway