List Mgmt. Squad reduction

Remove this Banner Ad

I can't understand the fascination some on here have with delisting Banfield.

- 22 years old
-190 cm
-92 kg
-Defensive Forward/mid
-excellent defensive side
-strong overhead
-by end of 2021 he'll be around 50 games experience
-played round 1, 2020 (and both Marsh)

He won't be delisted.
 
Last edited:
WilloTree said:
I can't understand the fascination some on here have with delisting Banfield.

- 22 years old
-190 cm
-192 kg
-Defensive Forward/mid
-excellent defensive side
-strong overhead
-by end of 2021 he'll be around 50 games experience
-played round 1, 2020 (and both Marsh)

He won't be delisted.
Click to expand...
He could be a bit heavy??
 

Log in to remove this ad.

As a matter of policy I don’t quote Malthouse on anything but unusual times etc...Yesterday on the ABC he suggested that rather than cut lists to 35, lists could be say 40. If the TPP is now around $13 million and say it drops to $10 million then it is a matter for the clubs/players to adjust the players contracts to fit according. That makes more sense to me.🤷‍♂️
 
BettercallSaul said:
As a matter of policy I don’t quote Malthouse on anything but unusual times etc...Yesterday on the ABC he suggested that rather than cut lists to 35, lists could be say 40. If the TPP is now around $13 million and say it drops to $10 million then it is a matter for the clubs/players to adjust the players contracts to fit according. That makes more sense to me.🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Sorry just saw others have basically said the same thing previously.
 
BettercallSaul said:
As a matter of policy I don’t quote Malthouse on anything but unusual times etc...Yesterday on the ABC he suggested that rather than cut lists to 35, lists could be say 40. If the TPP is now around $13 million and say it drops to $10 million then it is a matter for the clubs/players to adjust the players contracts to fit according. That makes more sense to me.🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

20-25% Haircut across the list, about as fair as it’s going to get.
 
Ysaye said:
4. Isiah Butters - really unlucky as he hasn't had much of chance to show anything yet, but hasn't done enough to survive.
Click to expand...

Strange logic. I have heard from people connected with school footy who think he has more talent/potential than Henry. Just hasn't been able to make it click consistently. Kicking 4 in the GF was not a fluke, it was actually the game most representative of his capabilities. Would not even entertain the thought of cutting him when we have so many plodders to move on first.
 
I’d like to see butters and Dixon in particular kept off the rookie list. I feel like both those guys have both got more talent and a higher ceiling than many players on the main list. Dixon looked good on his debut last year and a natural footballer, while butters deserves a proper opportunity. Would agree the 40 man list including rookies is the way to go and hopefully that’s what we end up with next year at least. Would allow us to delist 6 or 7 guys and then bring in a couple of top 25 draftees and the two NGA rookies in western and walker. In saying that there are currently 48 listed Fremantle players including cat B rookies. I’d say the cat B rookies might end up outside the 40 man total list?
The only reason to cut to 35 is to protect the salaries of the top players. That’s probably what the AFLPA led by Dangerfield will push for but doesnt mean it’s right though.
 
Dockeroo said:
I’d like to see butters and Dixon in particular kept off the rookie list. I feel like both those guys have both got more talent and a higher ceiling than many players on the main list. Dixon looked good on his debut last year and a natural footballer, while butters deserves a proper opportunity. Would agree the 40 man list including rookies is the way to go and hopefully that’s what we end up with next year at least. Would allow us to delist 6 or 7 guys and then bring in a couple of top 25 draftees and the two NGA rookies in western and walker. In saying that there are currently 48 listed Fremantle players including cat B rookies. I’d say the cat B rookies might end up outside the 40 man total list?
The only reason to cut to 35 is to protect the salaries of the top players. That’s probably what the AFLPA led by Dangerfield will push for but doesnt mean it’s right though.
Click to expand...
The other reason is to cut non player football spending.

Less spots less drafting resulting in reduced recruiting spending.

Less spots less development players and therefore less coaches, player welfare, conditioning staff etc.

Less kids reduces relocation costs for clubs.

Smaller lists reduces the need for seconds and players can be farmed out to state league teams.
 
I’m wrong about the 48 man total list. There is actually 47 players listed at freo in 2020. There must be 3 cat B rookies including butters, Thomas and O’reilly.
Adding to east Freos point above - it must be obviously cheaper for the club to draft WA players than equivalent interstate players, in terms of costs. I never really considered that before. Another reason to draft local in 2020!
 
WilloTree said:
I can't understand the fascination some on here have with delisting Banfield.

- 22 years old
-190 cm
-92 kg
-Defensive Forward/mid
-excellent defensive side
-strong overhead
-by end of 2021 he'll be around 50 games experience
-played round 1, 2020 (and both Marsh)

He won't be delisted.
Click to expand...

Who cares about his bio

It's his football ability and he's limited
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

WilloTree said:
If 'limited' is the criteria we'll end up with a list of about 10 players. Thankfully, it's what he can do and offers the team which counts.
Click to expand...
At the end of the day he’s an out of contract player this year who hasnt established himself in the team yet. It depends on how much of a list cut we are forced to make but he’s in a precarious position, unfortunately for him, along side about a dozen others. People like Giro And colyer are quite lucky to have another year left in contracts IMO.
 
WilloTree said:
If 'limited' is the criteria we'll end up with a list of about 10 players. Thankfully, it's what he can do and offers the team which counts.
Click to expand...

When someone states he's his age and height it has no bearing on his ability.
 
Dockeroo said:
who hasnt established himself in the team yet.
Click to expand...
Yes, he has. By the only measure we have in 2020 anyway. he played round 1.
Inveigh Slang said:
When someone states he's his age and height it has no bearing on his ability.
Click to expand...
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you. For example:

Lachie Weller was 21 when we traded him to the Suns. The reason we received pick 2 in the deal was primarily because of his age. Reckon we would have recieved the same deal if he was 30?

In regards to his height and weight. Have a quick look at the Tigers, Magpies, Giants and Eagles and you'll quickly discover that they're full of 'AFL' bodies. Big bodies who can hold their ground and battering-ram their way in traffic. It's not a secret (there's a whole thread on it) and one of the pieces of the puzzle as to why they are the top teams, and one of the reasons we aren't. It's not a criticism, just one of the by-products of a re-build. Players take time to develop physically. With Banfield you get one through the door ready to go round one.

It's particularly important in finals. (bobby Hill case in point - was flying until his shocker Prelim then omitted for the granny)

Maybe I could explain it another way. How many 'skinny kids' played in last year's grand final?
 
The AFL has already made the Rookie list redundant, by saying if you are on the Rookie list you can play AFL and don’t need to be upgraded.

Expect the Main List and Rookie list to be integrated into a fixed number playing group.

To reduce costs 20-25% which is what they are saying, it’s possible numbers on the new “Main” list will be reduced, and an across the board wages haircut too boot.

The current Rookie B list will be the new rookie list, and need an upgrade to enable AFL games.

Also I suspect 1 or 2 rounds of mid season drafts to occur to top up on an as needs basis.

My two bits worth.
 
BettercallSaul said:
As a matter of policy I don’t quote Malthouse on anything but unusual times etc...Yesterday on the ABC he suggested that rather than cut lists to 35, lists could be say 40. If the TPP is now around $13 million and say it drops to $10 million then it is a matter for the clubs/players to adjust the players contracts to fit according. That makes more sense to me.🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
It would be much easier to sell the idea of a general pay decrease by percentage than reducing list sizes so the top earners can still make their million plus
 
WilloTree said:
Yes, he has. By the only measure we have in 2020 anyway. he played round 1.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you. For example:

Lachie Weller was 21 when we traded him to the Suns. The reason we received pick 2 in the deal was primarily because of his age. Reckon we would have recieved the same deal if he was 30?

In regards to his height and weight. Have a quick look at the Tigers, Magpies, Giants and Eagles and you'll quickly discover that they're full of 'AFL' bodies. Big bodies who can hold their ground and battering-ram their way in traffic. It's not a secret (there's a whole thread on it) and one of the pieces of the puzzle as to why they are the top teams, and one of the reasons we aren't. It's not a criticism, just one of the by-products of a re-build. Players take time to develop physically. With Banfield you get one through the door ready to go round one.

It's particularly important in finals. (bobby Hill case in point - was flying until his shocker Prelim then omitted for the granny)

Maybe I could explain it another way. How many 'skinny kids' played in last year's grand final?
Click to expand...

It's not his size not his attitude it's his kicking skills
 
Taylor said:
It would be much easier to sell the idea of a general pay decrease by percentage than reducing list sizes so the top earners can still make their million plus
Click to expand...
Yes agreed. It’s not beyond possibilities that the AFL has leaked the smaller list size idea expecting push back from AFLPA, to then say, well how about everyone agree to less money? If wedges the AFLPA as it’s either less money in the TPP or job loses.
 
BettercallSaul said:
Yes agreed. It’s not beyond possibilities that the AFL has leaked the smaller list size idea expecting push back from AFLPA, to then say, well how about everyone agree to less money? If wedges the AFLPA as it’s either less money in the TPP or job loses.
Click to expand...
I was listening to footy classified the other day and Caro, Ross Lyon and hutch all were saying that the top players needed to be paid more and we needed smaller list sizes to achieve that! Personally think they are a bit deluded!
 
WilloTree said:
Yes, he has. By the only measure we have in 2020 anyway. he played round 1.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you. For example:

Lachie Weller was 21 when we traded him to the Suns. The reason we received pick 2 in the deal was primarily because of his age. Reckon we would have recieved the same deal if he was 30?

In regards to his height and weight. Have a quick look at the Tigers, Magpies, Giants and Eagles and you'll quickly discover that they're full of 'AFL' bodies. Big bodies who can hold their ground and battering-ram their way in traffic. It's not a secret (there's a whole thread on it) and one of the pieces of the puzzle as to why they are the top teams, and one of the reasons we aren't. It's not a criticism, just one of the by-products of a re-build. Players take time to develop physically. With Banfield you get one through the door ready to go round one.

It's particularly important in finals. (bobby Hill case in point - was flying until his shocker Prelim then omitted for the granny)

Maybe I could explain it another way. How many 'skinny kids' played in last year's grand final?
Click to expand...
You make a great point about ‘AFL’ bodies.

We have done the hard years and now it’s time to let the list get stronger body wise.

Our list coming on and hopefully when the season gets back we have a major of the team with AFL bodies.

Getting back to drafting and reduced lists.

Some of the skinny kids will slide as players will be expected to play in the first two years.

Anybody with injuries will slide further as list get reduced.
 
eastfreo75 said:
You make a great point about ‘AFL’ bodies.

We have done the hard years and now it’s time to let the list get stronger body wise.

Our list coming on and hopefully when the season gets back we have a major of the team with AFL bodies.

Getting back to drafting and reduced lists.

Some of the skinny kids will slide as players will be expected to play in the first two years.

Anybody with injuries will slide further as list get reduced.
Click to expand...
Yes. Smaller lists mean lesss development/project players. You are much more likely to be expected to come in and play.

Guys who could football at junior level but don’t have the right athletic profile — think Neale or Daniels @ Bulldogs — would probably have to do a lot of hard years in the semi-pros to prove they can make it in adult footy before getting picked up, if they ever do.

Same with good juniors who had injuries, like Burton or Valente. Left-field project players like Sandilands, Cox, Kennelly, etc would never get a call up, let alone guys like Taberner or Hughes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top