List Mgmt. List Management Philosophy

[Blue and Silver]

Without getting too into the whole nature of the universe deal, there is clearly an extended overreaching debate going on this board about how we best approach list management. It consumes and colours each thread from the Blumour to the List Management to news threads about Caleb Marchbank.

I recently wrote a post in the Blumour thread, but I feel like getting more in depth with the point so I thought I would create this thread.

In that thread I proposed that there were two camps: Youth and Long-term Development (YLD) AND Culture, Leadership and Medium-Term Progression (CLM).

I also think that many posters react to a previous camp, Paycheck and Short-Term Returns (PSR).

So let's elaborate:

YLD- I tend to think of this as a sort of min-maxing idealisation of list management theory. The priority is on setting up a list to win a premiership in 5-6 years or so. Proponents oppose acquiring players who will not be around for this hypothetical window. They also advocate trading out players with value who will not be around at this point such as Gibbs, Murphy, Kreuzer and Tuohy. They are very keen on the draft. Many of them treat high draft picks like a guarantee of sorts, but not players drafted with high picks (see Jaksch, Marchbank, Pickett etc).

CLM - Tend to place heavy emphasis on team environment and shared success over individual talent. Team-first probably understates how heavily this view focuses on the importance of culture and leadership. In the most extreme version of this view players are not just individuals playing football, or teammates or role-players. They are interchangeable parts of a whole. Each of them is tasked with improving the environment and success of the team. They all have some leadership capacity to fulfil, they are all obligated to play some role in achieving goals. Players who can do this are kept, unless they wish to go. Players who can't will be offered opportunities elsewhere.

PSR - Buy the players you need. Wave the money at them, recruit the best and put them all under the best coach money can buy. In the end, the money will talk and the stars will rise. If they don't? fire the coach, sack the players who can't perform and buy more players and coaches till you get it right.

Now, forgive me, let us try and parse the underlying assumptions in each approach.

YLD - Success is achievable when you maximise talent within an age-range. Players are resources, with output (performance) and value. Achieving best value at one point in time is the path to a premiership. This approach treats individuals as assets more then people.

CLM - Success is built out of the culture and environment of the football club. Players are more then resources, they are contributors with more value than on-field performance. Premierships come as the result of a committed long-term effort from the entire unit.

PSR - Success is the result of money put in and the shrewdness of its use. Players are resources, with output and value. Achieving a premiership is the result of out-foxing other teams and acquiring the most talented players from other lists.

YLD and PSR share a significant overlap in assumptions, particularly in the way they treat players as resources. I think it might not be too great a stretch to suggest YLD grew out of the disillusionment with PSR. CLM is fundamentally holistic and refers not just to the playing list but all members of the coaching staff, recruiting team and club employees.

Thoughts?

 

[HARKER]

I think I've put enough forward already on this topic without actually discussing it as a stand-alone topic.

We're currently building the base which includes all our future leadership.
Rogers may have said it but the same principle seems to be applied: We'll get the best players for Carlton.
These players are smart, hard-working footballers and not air-heads that may have ability but not the resolve to maximise those abilities.

All being well, we should have one more year of setting a good platform for growth and only then, will we be waving about the big dollars.
For now SOS is being Scrooges Scrooge. He has to do it that way for the pieces to fall into place.

 

[Aphrodite]

Oh great another List Management thread!

 

[HARKER]

It's a good thread Aph as it's not about what we may do but by way of players but for what processes we adopt for the decision making.

It may not have much legs but it could just be a beauty....never know if you don't have.........

 

[ShanDog]

YLD- I tend to think of this as a sort of min-maxing idealisation of list management theory. The priority is on setting up a list to win a premiership in 5-6 years or so. Proponents oppose acquiring players who will not be around for this hypothetical window. They also advocate trading out players with value who will not be around at this point such as Gibbs, Murphy, Kreuzer and Tuohy. They are very keen on the draft. Many of them treat high draft picks like a guarantee of sorts, but not players drafted with high picks (see Jaksch, Marchbank, Pickett etc).

ShanDog's tl;dr version:
If you are over 26 you are a list clogger and unless you are best 22 for last-year's premiership team, you can't football.

CLM - Tend to place heavy emphasis on team environment and shared success over individual talent. Team-first probably understates how heavily this view focuses on the importance of culture and leadership. In the most extreme version of this view players are not just individuals playing football, or teammates or role-players. They are interchangeable parts of a whole. Each of them is tasked with improving the environment and success of the team. They all have some leadership capacity to fulfil, they are all obligated to play some role in achieving goals. Players who can do this are kept, unless they wish to go. Players who can't will be offered opportunities elsewhere.

ShanDog's tl;dr version:
I have an emotional attachment to grown men who have never met me and I hate anyone who advocates trading them!

PSR - Buy the players you need. Wave the money at them, recruit the best and put them all under the best coach money can buy. In the end, the money will talk and the stars will rise. If they don't? fire the coach, sack the players who can't perform and buy more players and coaches till you get it right.

ShanDog's tl;dr version:
Money talks and bullshit walks - hand me my brown paper bags!


Hope that helps!

 

[Coona Blues]

Pirates of the Carribean philosophy for me.
Not rules so much as guidelines.

Overall aim to bring in as much elite young talent as possible in the shortest possible time.
So many provisos though.
Need battle ready depth across the park to alleviate untenable loads on individuals.....this was largely achieved last year
......with the exception of midfield depth.

Bolton's philosophy of maximising "Leadership Density"

Drafting ....... big tick. Trading last season......tick (Plowman, Kerridge, Sumner, Phillips medium/long term keepers; Lamb
some depth and a necessary evil re contract absorbtion, Gorringe I rate as unnecessary and risky...had this debate recently)

We traded out "conditional players" which were also rated highly enough to pull some high picks in return.

Not sure how I rate SOS's likely move of trading out mid aged heart and soul types like Tuohy. We need the picks, but I
find it distasteful....better him than me with the hard calls. If he doesn't the journey becomes a little longer.

Now to the "guidelines"
age profile has been trumpeted repeatedly.....but......we have one glaring deficiency which we have most of the personnel
from a talent perspective to rectify. That being forward structure and entries. We are devoid of leadership in the front half.
I understand this thread is not about individual players, but I feel the need to reference some to make a point. Everitt shows
how easy it can be to create space and hit the scoreboard, unfortunately he ignores other facets of the game which place
undue pressure on his team mates. Young Silvagni has the smarts to find space and present to good areas, but is not a leader.
The current debate, overwhelmingly negative toward Harvey as a short term conduit to fast track the education of our young
forwards flies in the face of our "policy", but has considerable merit. The likes of Grimes as a possible free agent has some merit
as well due to the injury to Byrne and the possible trading of Tuohy, as well as having the scope to go through the midfield
with a mature body to support Crippa while keeping draft picks to draft likely talented young upgrades who fit our profile.

Modern society, business, all areas of life have gravitated scarily to models based on statistics and accepted tenets. The ability
to think on one's feet, to see outside of the box is being lost with current teachings. People with the ability to think outside
the box are harder to find. Stereotyping is rife. Footy is no different.

Percentages will give you a successful model. They will more often than not get an organisation 60 to 70% of the way to the top.
We want premierships, not a year or two in the bottom end of the eight.That last 30% is produced by courageous decision making,
intangibles and of course bloody hard work.

GUIDELINES, not hard and fast rules. The only way with the playing field we have.

Optimum talent, optimum age, optimum depth....we are on the way, but the last few steps need some creativity, some
boldness. The willingness to take a couple of steps sideways or even backwards if the final goal becomes more accessible.
We have a system holding up the Hawthorns, Geelongs and Sydneys to retain top end talent, GWS have been given a monstrous
leg up with talent saturation and ongoing access to multiple first rounders through their academy and culling of secondary talent,
or go home types. The traditional cycles are not there as a guaranteed pathway to "our turn". Build a base, but creativity is
required to get "there".

Clear as mud.

 

[thylacine60]

OP is too complicated for us simple country, god-fearing folk................

 

[Blue and Silver]

OP is too complicated for us simple country, god-fearing folk................

I so want to Windhover this post

 

[Tony Lynn 15]

Considering the last 2 threads I started were Mick Martyn and Favourite Black Sabbath Song I do not feel I am anywhere near qualified to respond!

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

OP is too complicated for us simple country, god-fearing folk................

You can say that again

 

[Nori]

My observations are the strategy has largely focused on targeting high quality talls through trades and the national draft.

I fully expect the focus on recruiting quality talls to continue this year with perhaps the addition of 1-2 really promising young mids.

The following year the focus will shift to recruiting very high calibre mids and maybe 1-2 promising talls.

After this they will have the luxury of targeting the best available players whilst keeping a keen eye on the depth and age profiles of all positions.

The suitability of players will come down to talent, competitive drive, athleticism, game smarts, versatility and character. Not necessarily in that order.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Clues from the club are:
- No short cuts
- Build the spine first
- When trading in, want players ideally in 22-24 yo age bracket (also not looking for a gun free agent)
- Not limited to particular positions (lack depth of talent)

I started believing again when the club moved away from the 'things can change quickly line' to the 'no quick fixes' and 'reset' lines.

Not sure if it is philosophy or something else, but depth of talent and honest appraisal of the list are just so important.

So, as I see it:

Ruck division: Kreuzer, Phillips, Gorringe, Korcheck and Casboult. I think we are in serious trouble if one or both of Kreuzer and Phillips cannot play. I am not sure Kreuzer has more than 2-3 years left.

Backs: Weitering, Simpson, Docherty, Tuohy, Rowe, Plowman, Byrne, Sheahan, White ... JGM (rookie) ...
Docherty and Simpson are A grade
Weitering looks like becoming an exceptional player
Plowman a solid contributor
Simpson and Rowe each has maybe 2 years left
Byrne and Sheahan often injured
Can see why Tuohy might be traded and why club is interested in Marchbank
White often thrown forward, may struggle when depth of talent increases

Forwards: Casboult, Jones, Silvagni, Wright, Sumner, Lamb, Buckley, C Curnow, McKay, Everitt, Armfield
Hope is that C Curnow, McKay and Silvagni come on. C Curnow may move up the ground
Wright solid
Need another year on Sumner and Lamb
Buckley and Armfield may struggle when depth of talent increases
Everitt best to move on to another club, cannot see him playing on after 2017 if he has another season like 2016
Casboult is an exceptional mark, however an average kick and not particularly nimble in moving the ball on (but in saying that the crumbers around him are average)
Jones 1 year left on his contract, I cannot see him continuing at senior AFL level after that.

Midfield: Cripps, Murphy, Gibbs, E Curnow, Kerridge, Boekhorst, Cunningham, Graham, Whiley, Tutt, Thomas
A good starting midfield of Cripps, Murphy and Gibbs.
E Curnow probable our most improved player, solid.
Kerridge, solid, noticeably turns the ball over. Graham not so solid, finds the ball and also noticeably turns it over. Graham might benefit from change of club.
Murphy often injured and rarely has a proper pre season.
I like what I saw of Cuningham in his 3 games at the end of the season.
Simply need to increase the depth of midfield talent and plan for Life after Murphy and Gibbs.
Boekhorst, for an outside runner, is never on the move when he receives the ball and tends to run backwards first. Will struggle when depth of talent increases (if Fremantle want him, take the 4th or 5th round pick they offer).
Whiley and Tutt, I think Tutt got 1 game in 2016 and Whiley was the last player given a senior contract last year (or second last if it was Armfield).
Thomas, has 2 years on his contract so has time to prove me wrong, shadow of the player he was at Collingwood, looked too bulky in the upper body.

 

[ferrisb]

Considering the last 2 threads I started were Mick Martyn and Favourite Black Sabbath Song I do not feel I am anywhere near qualified to respond!

Stop being paranoid...

 

[thylacine60]

I so want to Windhover this post

you know you've made it when you're a verb Windhover

 

[KohPhi]

Just get players who can kick the pill..

 

[Faz 2000]

YLD FTW on List Mgt. Culture and environment is the club's job (board, CEO, Coach, etc) and an ongoing activity. It becomes a selection criteria for the list, but YLD is still where it's at.

 

[Tony Lynn 15]

WTF is where I am at!

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I think Richmond are using the LOL method, Collingwood the FIGJAM method and * are using a combination of the TB4/AOD methods.

My point is, we should steer clear of those.

 

[HARKER]

Trigg pretty much spelling it out on SEN right now.
More of the same is the theme.......just as we thought it would be.

 

[RudyBlue]

Great thread.

Following the Hawthorn/StK/WB/Melb model of combined CLM-YLD suited to our needs has been the right move. Whilst 2017-18 will reveal a lot about StK and Melbourne, this model looks promising.

It looks as though our legacy due to our infamous generation gap will be acquiring young, undervalued assets (GWS kids, Kerridge, Hrovat?) from other clubs whilst maintaining a strong presence at the early end of the draft. Recycling of players is risky, but those who do it well with targeted and well considered acquisitions often end up having a good say on GF day.

 

[Windhover]

you know you've made it when you're a verb Windhover

I've been called worse, I'll admit that much.

 

[BLUEALLTHRU]

My philosophy is keep hitting the draft hard, look to trade for picks inside top 20 where possible. Do this for 2 more years atleast always keeping our eyes and ears open. keep trading in players who are young and not getting games elsewhere due to their clubs strengths.

 

[LordLucifer]

Considering the last 2 threads I started were Mick Martyn and Favourite Black Sabbath Song I do not feel I am anywhere near qualified to respond!

No need to be Paranoid about that, we are going through Changes to find our own Planet Caravan.

 

[Windhover]

Without getting too into the whole nature of the universe deal, there is clearly an extended overreaching debate going on this board about how we best approach list management. It consumes and colours each thread from the Blumour to the List Management to news threads about Caleb Marchbank.

I recently wrote a post in the Blumour thread, but I feel like getting more in depth with the point so I thought I would create this thread.

In that thread I proposed that there were two camps: Youth and Long-term Development (YLD) AND Culture, Leadership and Medium-Term Progression (CLM).

I also think that many posters react to a previous camp, Paycheck and Short-Term Returns (PSR).

So let's elaborate:

YLD- I tend to think of this as a sort of min-maxing idealisation of list management theory. The priority is on setting up a list to win a premiership in 5-6 years or so. Proponents oppose acquiring players who will not be around for this hypothetical window. They also advocate trading out players with value who will not be around at this point such as Gibbs, Murphy, Kreuzer and Tuohy. They are very keen on the draft. Many of them treat high draft picks like a guarantee of sorts, but not players drafted with high picks (see Jaksch, Marchbank, Pickett etc).

CLM - Tend to place heavy emphasis on team environment and shared success over individual talent. Team-first probably understates how heavily this view focuses on the importance of culture and leadership. In the most extreme version of this view players are not just individuals playing football, or teammates or role-players. They are interchangeable parts of a whole. Each of them is tasked with improving the environment and success of the team. They all have some leadership capacity to fulfil, they are all obligated to play some role in achieving goals. Players who can do this are kept, unless they wish to go. Players who can't will be offered opportunities elsewhere.

PSR - Buy the players you need. Wave the money at them, recruit the best and put them all under the best coach money can buy. In the end, the money will talk and the stars will rise. If they don't? fire the coach, sack the players who can't perform and buy more players and coaches till you get it right.

Now, forgive me, let us try and parse the underlying assumptions in each approach.

YLD - Success is achievable when you maximise talent within an age-range. Players are resources, with output (performance) and value. Achieving best value at one point in time is the path to a premiership. This approach treats individuals as assets more then people.

CLM - Success is built out of the culture and environment of the football club. Players are more then resources, they are contributors with more value than on-field performance. Premierships come as the result of a committed long-term effort from the entire unit.

PSR - Success is the result of money put in and the shrewdness of its use. Players are resources, with output and value. Achieving a premiership is the result of out-foxing other teams and acquiring the most talented players from other lists.

YLD and PSR share a significant overlap in assumptions, particularly in the way they treat players as resources. I think it might not be too great a stretch to suggest YLD grew out of the disillusionment with PSR. CLM is fundamentally holistic and refers not just to the playing list but all members of the coaching staff, recruiting team and club employees.

Thoughts?

Interesting analysis B&S, I do not deny there is utility in the 3 categories selected though I doubt anyone would actually admit to sitting comfortably in one to the complete exclusion of the other 2.

I agree players are resources and am prepared to "value" them as "assets more than people" and thus have much time for the YLD category. But there is a difference between "valuing" a player and "treating" them. In order to get the best value out of anyone they need to be treated as the complex individual they are. Could we have got more "value" out of Yarran (on the field or on the trade table) if we had responded to his needs better? Who knows, certainly not me.

Players should not to be valued for their individual talent as such but rather for the value of that talent to contribute to "the game plan". The Game Plan is itself a living, breathing, ever-changing representation of the coach's idea, modified to the opponent of the day but always with the long-term objective of winning a flag. (Balme proved he was not a coach the day Melbourne played Port and Balme went all defensive in the last half only intending to minimise the extent of the loss without any thought to future development. And he was rightly sacked as a result).

Therefore the value of players as assets may change with the changes of the game plan. Further, the fitness and form of other teammates (assets) will increase or decrease the value of a given player. Jones in 2016 only got a game when our other key forwards couldn't play and to be fair he took some good marks and kicked some timely goals (eg Freo). He was undoubtedly "valuable" for the day, but had no long term value and was rightly dropped as soon as a preferred KPF (i.e. Caz) came back.

Your first statement about YLD - "YLD - Success is achievable when you maximise talent within an age-range" makes no sense to me. I do not understand what is meant by "talent within an age-range" and it is just trite that success is more achievable when talent is maximised. Because of the complex interplay between "talent" and "game plan" discussed above, it would be better to say "the chances of success are generally increased when the individual talents of each player on the field are maximised by the role the player is required to play within the game plan". Talented as Carey was, until he went to a half-back flank in the 1999 GF he was useless to North since SOS was his master. Put on a half-back flank, first the North players stopped kicking it to him (and therefore SOS) and secondly, Carey actually won a bit of the ball and showed what a terrific field kick he was (among other, better known and usually more applauded, talents). Smart move by Pagan, who knew how to coach.

Preferred List Management strategy
From the above it should be clear that our preferred strategy is to recruit the player whose individual talents, actual or prospective, are regarded as being best utilised in the Game Plan as it is intended to be when we are expecting to be able to compete for a flag.

On this basis, Boomer is useless for us, not because he wouldn't value add to the team in 2017 (I think he would) but because he wouldn't value add to the team when it is expected to be competitive for a flag. The plausible suggestion that he would be a good role model for younger players and help develop the list undersells us on 2 levels. First, what does it say about our coaching staff if we need Boomer to help develop the kids. Secondly, what does it say about the players we have recruited if they can't otherwise get the best out of themselves (like a Judd or a Cripps).

On this basis, because whatever our Game Plan is/is intended to be, I hope (and based on 2016, believe) it starts with having a rock solid defence since these teams more often than not win Flags. So Marchbank, who I rate, is worth getting even though we have Weiters, Plowman and maybe JGM, because we have the chance of building a really formidable defence that will allow us to be so much more attacking. And, if we do end up in the happy position of an over-abundance of KPD's, there is nothing to say one of those 3 might not have use as a KPF (like Kenny Hunter in 1982) to help us to a Flag.

On this basis I have very little interest in Stewart. It seems to me that he is at best likely to be an adequate KPF with no hope of becoming a star. We already have a whole heap of KPFs who have no hope of becoming a star (Gorringe, Jones, Caz, Jaksch) and only one, McKay, or possibly two if C Curnow became big enough (though I think his talents are more likely elsewhere as an attacking Bont-like mid), with star potential as KPFs (SOJ being a medium).
Whilst Stewart might be of value to the team next year I would prefer us to use his spot on the list to try and pick a KPF who has the potential to be a star, even if it happens the kid never plays a senior game. That, among other reasons, was why I was so dirty on giving up pick 7 (2m Peter being touted to still be available) for KJ (who then was going to be at best useful) and BB. To those who say "pick X that we traded for Stewart was never going to give us a KPF" the only response is "Wrong". Each draft is littered with late-pick players, including KPFs, who weren't considered much at the time but subsequently prove different (think Ben Brown, pick 47 in 2013).

Now there is no doubt that Flags are won by teams that have "good ordinary" footballers (and there was nothing ordinary about the Buzz) and it is not to say we could not win one with Stewart. But I would rather keep looking for champs when we have so few of them than missing the chance and picking a relative chomp of the sort easy to recruit anyway if needed when the rest of the team is right.

 

[Malifice]

Without getting too into the whole nature of the universe deal, there is clearly an extended overreaching debate going on this board about how we best approach list management. It consumes and colours each thread from the Blumour to the List Management to news threads about Caleb Marchbank.

I recently wrote a post in the Blumour thread, but I feel like getting more in depth with the point so I thought I would create this thread.

In that thread I proposed that there were two camps: Youth and Long-term Development (YLD) AND Culture, Leadership and Medium-Term Progression (CLM).

I also think that many posters react to a previous camp, Paycheck and Short-Term Returns (PSR).

So let's elaborate:

YLD- I tend to think of this as a sort of min-maxing idealisation of list management theory. The priority is on setting up a list to win a premiership in 5-6 years or so. Proponents oppose acquiring players who will not be around for this hypothetical window. They also advocate trading out players with value who will not be around at this point such as Gibbs, Murphy, Kreuzer and Tuohy. They are very keen on the draft. Many of them treat high draft picks like a guarantee of sorts, but not players drafted with high picks (see Jaksch, Marchbank, Pickett etc).

CLM - Tend to place heavy emphasis on team environment and shared success over individual talent. Team-first probably understates how heavily this view focuses on the importance of culture and leadership. In the most extreme version of this view players are not just individuals playing football, or teammates or role-players. They are interchangeable parts of a whole. Each of them is tasked with improving the environment and success of the team. They all have some leadership capacity to fulfil, they are all obligated to play some role in achieving goals. Players who can do this are kept, unless they wish to go. Players who can't will be offered opportunities elsewhere.

PSR - Buy the players you need. Wave the money at them, recruit the best and put them all under the best coach money can buy. In the end, the money will talk and the stars will rise. If they don't? fire the coach, sack the players who can't perform and buy more players and coaches till you get it right.

Now, forgive me, let us try and parse the underlying assumptions in each approach.

YLD - Success is achievable when you maximise talent within an age-range. Players are resources, with output (performance) and value. Achieving best value at one point in time is the path to a premiership. This approach treats individuals as assets more then people.

CLM - Success is built out of the culture and environment of the football club. Players are more then resources, they are contributors with more value than on-field performance. Premierships come as the result of a committed long-term effort from the entire unit.

PSR - Success is the result of money put in and the shrewdness of its use. Players are resources, with output and value. Achieving a premiership is the result of out-foxing other teams and acquiring the most talented players from other lists.

YLD and PSR share a significant overlap in assumptions, particularly in the way they treat players as resources. I think it might not be too great a stretch to suggest YLD grew out of the disillusionment with PSR. CLM is fundamentally holistic and refers not just to the playing list but all members of the coaching staff, recruiting team and club employees.

Thoughts?

I'm firmly in your 'YLD' camp, but I repudiate the underlying assumption you posit ('Success is achievable when you maximise talent within an age-range. Players are resources, with output (performance) and value. Achieving best value at one point in time is the path to a premiership. This approach treats individuals as assets more then people').

I come from a school of thought that bases its arguments on the fact that we've messed up close to a decade of drafting. Accordingly we have a large gap in talent in the 22-26 year old age bracket, and havent had a 'spine' or a key forward target since Fev left.

If this premise is true, we have two options. One, we seek to top up on 22-26 year old talented players for a tilt at the flag before the older brigade (Murphy, Gibbs etc) retire. Two, we reset the list entirely, and draw a line through the list at a certain age bracket and concentrate talent underneath that line. We accept short term pain for longer term gain, with an eye on a premiership assault circa 2020+ and building towards a sustainable list going forward from that point.

Clearly, the club are going with option 2. The reset 'line' at present is pretty much 23 years old and younger.

More specifically, the plan is (and correct me if Im wrong) build a team by loading up with (young) KPD and KPF's and a solid (indeed approaching elite) defensive back 6. Once the backline is set for a decade, get in the forwards, and then once both those are set, assemble a midfield around them. Then (via F/A in a few years) get in targetted players to fill any gaps in the list, while still hitting the draft hard.

Everything that has come out of the club has pointed to this outcome. We're targetting talls (particularly defenders, followed by forwards) in trades (Docherty, Plowman, Marchbank, Tomlinson) and the draft (Weitering, McKay, Curnow, Sivagni). All of whom are 22 and under. Cripps is the key in the centre, but for now (and probably next year as well) the priority is locking down a back 6 for a decade, and then repeating the process with a forward six, and then getting in mids over the follwing drafts and via F/A.

Trigg again repeated this was the plan on the radio yesterday.

There has been a consistent undercutting of senior players via contracts. Kruezer, Casboult, now Tuohy. We're saving for that warchest for F/A in 3 years. If the senior blokes think they can get more cash elsewhere, then they are free to leave for a side pushing for a flag (and we dont begrudge them for doing so). This nets us even more SC space, and picks coming back the other way to speed up (or improve the chances) of us bringing in more young talent.

That said, even if we get all our ducks in a row, we still need the game plan, mentality and culture right. Enter Bolton.

To quote the coach: We're one year into this journey. Its a process and its going to take time. We need to persevere, look for the green shoots where they appear. We stick to the plan. No quick fixes. No 27 year old DFAs. No messiahs. A whole of club commitment to getting the list where it needs to be, and working towards that one goal of sustainable success.