List Mgmt. The 2024 Draft (Nov 20/21)

[Keys]

Quick links

• Player contract status
• Draft prospect video highlights (thanks to noobermensch)
• Provisional 2025 Draft order

---

Drafted

• Bo Allan - Pick 16
• Jobe Shanahan - Pick 30
• Tom Gross - Pick 46
• Lucca Grego - Pick 48
• Hamish Davis - Pick 65
• Malakai Champion - Cat B

List Spots Available

• One on either main OR rookie list to be filled as a SSP selection following train on assessments

Trade and draft period

In: F1, F2, F3, Baker, Owies, Graham, Allan, Shanahan, Gross, Grego, Davis, Champion
Out: 3, 63, F3, F4, Barrass, Darling

 

[Wooshaaaa]

I am really struggling to understand the clubs who refuse to bid on club tied players at their value. Thank goodness for Geelong and Sydney.

The majority of experts had Ashcroft at No 1 while some had him at 2. I do not agree on bidding and taking a risk The acid test is if you bid, would you like the outcome if you got him.

Firstly Richmond - I understand why they wanted Lalor to be No 1 and I have no drama in them not bidding. But Norf??? Then Carlton then Crows?? Thank goodness for Jason Taylor and common sense at the Demons.

I just did the maths.

If Norf had bid on Ashcroft at pick 2 plus the Dogs bid on Marshall at pick 20 (roughly where he was rated and I expected some spite for Lions underpaying for Dunkley), the Lions would have been close to being wiped out on picks and points.

Instead, they were sucked on the old codpiece.

They finished up with Ashcroft, Marshall and Gallop (they would have had to sell a F3 to cover this NGA) plus they added 3 x F3 (Eagles, Suns and Dogs) and a F4 (Saints)

Oh well, I hope this tradition continues in 2025 when we have Charlie Banfield, Walley and Evans.

To make it reasonable, the AFL should ask all clubs on the night of the draft where each NGA/FS is on their draft board (in secrecy so clubs don't know where other clubs rate them), making each club legitimately say where they would take a player in the draft. The AFL then collates the 17 results and averages it out.

Ashcroft for example. Most would've had him at one or two. Call it 1.3 average.

During the draft the AFL then announces the bid on its own behalf closest to the average. Both the club with that pick and the club tied to the player can choose to match. The club tied to the player gets the preference and the 10% discount. The other club pays full price is successful.

Ashcroft was easy. But the other lions acadamy kids last night is a gun, and I had him almost top 10, yet he went at 25 FFS. If the clubs were surveyed as above, Brisbane would've payed a much greater premium.

On Pixel 6 Pro using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[briztoon]

Can someone please explain how the bidding system works?

I look at the below matched bids and it doesnt seem consistent or even remotely fair. Not sure why all the picks used to match arn't consumed when a bid is matched? It just doesnt make sense that if you use 4 picks you still get 3 back.

Brisbane essentially traded pick 20 with Richmond for Picks 32, 42, 43, 45 which was way overs what they paid for Ashcroft at pick 5! A 20% discount on bids does not translate from pick 5 to 20 in my mind. Additionally, they also got 3 late picks back in addition to Ashcroft? I get that its a point system but it doent make sense that you get picks back. I mean GCS use pick 58 in their Lombard bid and then got pick 58 back in compensation, explain the logic in that?


Draft Night Matched Bids Below

5. Brisbane Lions - Levi Ashcroft (midfielder, Sandringham Dragons/Old Brighton Grammarians) [Melbourne bid matched using picks 40, 42, 43 and 46, gaining 68, 94 and 97]

9. Gold Coast Suns - Leo Lombard (midfielder, Gold Coast Suns Academy/Broadbeach) [St Kilda bid matched using picks 40, 41, 48 and 58, gaining 58, 89 and 94]

13. Essendon - Isaac Kako (small forward, Calder Cannons/Northern Saints) [Richmond bid matched using picks 33 and 34, gaining 60]

42. Brisbane Lions - Ty Gallop (key forward, Maroochydore) [Geelong bid matched using picks 56 and 59]

54. Carlton - Lucas Camporeale (wing, Glenelg/Brighton Districts & Old Scholars) [Sydney bid matched using picks 63, 67]

OK, some of it's been explained to you, here's the rest. Essentially it amounts to draft tampering within the rules.

Teams can only take the same amount of draft picks to draft as they have list spots. But once the draft starts, it's open season on shenanigans.

We (the Lions) had 6 draft picks at the start of the draft: 27, 34, 42, 43, 49, 58.

When the draft started we traded pick 27 to the Bulldogs for 35 & 48.

When then flipped 34, 35 and 58 to Essendon for 40, 46, 53, 54.

So when the bid on Levi came, we actually held picks 40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 53 & 54.

The first pick "used" moves up the draft order to where the bid is made, the next few picks move back to the end of the draft, and if there are residual points left over from a pick, it creates a "new" pick to the value of that pick.

So the Ashcroft bid used picks 40, 42, 43 and 46. Not all of pick 46 was used up, and it created a "new" pick at 68. And two end of draft picks at 94 and 97.

Because 3 picks slid back in the draft, our remaining picks all moved up 3 spots, and ALSO "acquired" to points values of those picks. So 48 moved up to 45 and acquired more points, 49 moved up to 46 etc.

So we now held 45, 46, 50, 51, 68, 94 & 97.

When the Sam Marshall bid came in, our picks had moved up further, because of the Lombard and Kako bids using up more picks, so we held 43, 44, 48, 49 and 66.

We used 43 and 44 to match Marshall bid, and got back pick 57 due to residual points creating a "new" pick.

With more bids on other nga's and father sons coming in before the bid on Ty Gallop, our remaining picks moved up further, and you saw us trading them out for future 3rds. 57 and 66 moved right up to the late 40's and mid 50's, and those picks in the 90's moved right up to the 60's.


As a side note. **** Geelong. Geelong flew Gallop down last week for an interview, so we knew the bid was coming.

He's a 196cm, Hawkins type of KPF. Not saying he's as good as, just that's his playing style.

 

[amazingjoshy]

Bazzo Chesser Brockman Barnett would need to be knocking the best 23 door down next year to not be delisted at the end of it.

On Pixel 6 Pro using BigFooty.com mobile app

Reckon Bazzo gets leeway given what he's been through and even what he's shown when given the chance

The other 3 I completely agree

 

[bzparkes]

Reckon Bazzo gets leeway given what he's been through and even what he's shown when given the chance

The other 3 I completely agree

Thought Brockman was on a 3 year contract?

Reckon Chesser gets another go also. 2 injury-interrupted years, then sent to rot on the gimp wing.

 

[Morbidly_Obese]

To make it reasonable, the AFL should ask all clubs on the night of the draft where each NGA/FS is on their draft board (in secrecy so clubs don't know where other clubs rate them), making each club legitimately say where they would take a player in the draft. The AFL then collates the 17 results and averages it out.

Ashcroft for example. Most would've had him at one or two. Call it 1.3 average.

During the draft the AFL then announces the bid on its own behalf closest to the average. Both the club with that pick and the club tied to the player can choose to match. The club tied to the player gets the preference and the 10% discount. The other club pays full price is successful.

Ashcroft was easy. But the other lions acadamy kids last night is a gun, and I had him almost top 10, yet he went at 25 FFS. If the clubs were surveyed as above, Brisbane would've payed a much greater premium.

On Pixel 6 Pro using BigFooty.com mobile app

It would be easier for the afl to scrap the whole academy thing and just spend the millions to fund the youth development pathways themselves they're rich enough and there would actually be more kids come through the system instead of clubs just cherry picking the 2 or 3 best kids and ignoring the rest.

 

[Get_The_Gaff]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it

I'll judge him on the state of the list and I'm feeling like it's not the doom and gloom it's been looking the last few years, so I'm giving him a pass so far

It could very well be that we have a good state of the list in the future and you would call that a win

The draft team has a lot to do with that also

Without taking every period into isolation that good list could have been great or exceptional if we had of kept more resources due to better negotiations

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

OK, some of it's been explained to you, here's the rest. Essentially it amounts to draft tampering within the rules.

Teams can only take the same amount of draft picks to draft as they have list spots. But once the draft starts, it's open season on shenanigans.

We (the Lions) had 6 draft picks at the start of the draft: 27, 34, 42, 43, 49, 58.

When the draft started we traded pick 27 to the Bulldogs for 35 & 48.

When then flipped 34, 35 and 58 to Essendon for 40, 46, 53, 54.

So when the bid on Levi came, we actually held picks 40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 53 & 54.

The first pick "used" moves up the draft order to where the bid is made, the next few picks move back to the end of the draft, and if there are residual points left over from a pick, it creates a "new" pick to the value of that pick.

So the Ashcroft bid used picks 40, 42, 43 and 46. Not all of pick 46 was used up, and it created a "new" pick at 68. And two end of draft picks at 94 and 97.

Because 3 picks slid back in the draft, our remaining picks all moved up 3 spots, and ALSO "acquired" to points values of those picks. So 48 moved up to 45 and acquired more points, 49 moved up to 46 etc.

So we now held 45, 46, 50, 51, 68, 94 & 97.

When the Sam Marshall bid came in, our picks had moved up further, because of the Lombard and Kako bids using up more picks, so we held 43, 44, 48, 49 and 66.

We used 43 and 44 to match Marshall bid, and got back pick 57 due to residual points creating a "new" pick.

With more bids on other nga's and father sons coming in before the bid on Ty Gallop, our remaining picks moved up further, and you saw us trading them out for future 3rds. 57 and 66 moved right up to the late 40's and mid 50's, and those picks in the 90's moved right up to the 60's.


As a side note. **** Geelong. Geelong flew Gallop down last week for an interview, so we knew the bid was coming.

He's a 196cm, Hawkins type of KPF. Not saying he's as good as, just that's his playing style.

Oh yeah, **** Geelong

 

[maxrm]

I'm stoked with our draft and pumped for 2025. This is what I'm envisioning...

AFL level

Hough - Edwards - Baker
Duggan - McGovern - Ginbey

Hunt - Yeo - Hutchinson
B. Williams - Harley - Graham

Hewett - Allen - Kelly
Ryan - Waterman - Owies

INT: Allan (Defence), J. Williams (FWD/RUCK), Chesser (Mid), Dewar (FWD/Wing)
SUB: Maric (Utility)

Potential strengths:

• Big, athletic, tough defence with plenty of power and dash
• Harley and Yeo doing their thing, unleashed by a supporting role from Graham, with high-octane spells from Hewett, Allan, Ginbey, and Baker
• Quality KPFs, Owies pestering, and Hewett and Kelly as MID/FWDs both pushing up the ground and snagging goals

Weaknesses:

• Skilful rebounding from defence. We'll be very reliant on run and carry
• Is Chesser ready to step up as a full time mid?
• Forward pressure; are Hewett and Kelly going to defend hard enough?
• Ruck situation; can one of B. Williams or Flynn step it up?

Next in line:

• Bazzo and trialling A. Reid or Shanahan for KPDs, Cole and Johnston for general defenders
• Hall in the guts, Davis on the wing or high half-forward I could see getting early game time
• Long and Cripps are arguably the most unlucky to miss and will be pushing hard for a HFF position, although I do want Long to spend some time playing mid to hone his skills there. Petch a chance, too.
• I expect Shanahan and Archer Reid to be knocking down the door hard, and whilst I'd love to see them developing their connection as twin towers in the forward line, if opportunities present down back then I can't wait to see what they show there either.
• I think Champion is a smokey for an early look-in too. Perhaps Gross although he may have to leapfrog Long for it.

Developing but list spot is safe for now:
Chesser, Hutchinson, Dewar, Maric, Bazzo, Grego, Johnston, Hall, Davis, Long, Gross, Shanahan, Archer, Champion

Delisting on the cards if they don't perform well:
Cole, Brockman, Flynn, Petruccelle

Likely delisting, needs a big year:
Jamieson, Barnett, Livingstone, Rawlinson, Sheed

Retirement: Cripps

WAFL level

Cole - Jamieson - Bazzo
Grego - Barnett - Brockman

Johnston - Hall - Davis
Flynn - Long - Petruccelle

Cripps - Shanahan - Gross
Champion - A. Reid - Rawlinson

INT: Livingstone, Sheed?

Notes: Give Barnett and Brockman a crack as a KPD and rebounding defender respectively down back. Long and Gross swapping between mid and fwd. Cripps and Cole narrowly missing out on AFL selection but providing invaluable experience here. Shanahan and A. Reid as our next-gen KPFs working in tandem, but throwing one back at times to see how they go, both have tremendous potential as KPDs as well as KPFs.

Side note:
Add Warner and Rodriguez next year and squeeze another good year from Gov and Yeo in 2026, and we will be genuinely dangerous. Our NGAs and Banfield will be exciting additions too. Cody Curtin as a KPD prospect another key target, especially with much of our KPD depth on the delist pile.

 

[AsterixTheGaul]

OK, some of it's been explained to you, here's the rest. Essentially it amounts to draft tampering within the rules.

Teams can only take the same amount of draft picks to draft as they have list spots. But once the draft starts, it's open season on shenanigans.

We (the Lions) had 6 draft picks at the start of the draft: 27, 34, 42, 43, 49, 58.

When the draft started we traded pick 27 to the Bulldogs for 35 & 48.

When then flipped 34, 35 and 58 to Essendon for 40, 46, 53, 54.

So when the bid on Levi came, we actually held picks 40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 53 & 54.

The first pick "used" moves up the draft order to where the bid is made, the next few picks move back to the end of the draft, and if there are residual points left over from a pick, it creates a "new" pick to the value of that pick.

So the Ashcroft bid used picks 40, 42, 43 and 46. Not all of pick 46 was used up, and it created a "new" pick at 68. And two end of draft picks at 94 and 97.

Because 3 picks slid back in the draft, our remaining picks all moved up 3 spots, and ALSO "acquired" to points values of those picks. So 48 moved up to 45 and acquired more points, 49 moved up to 46 etc.

So we now held 45, 46, 50, 51, 68, 94 & 97.

When the Sam Marshall bid came in, our picks had moved up further, because of the Lombard and Kako bids using up more picks, so we held 43, 44, 48, 49 and 66.

We used 43 and 44 to match Marshall bid, and got back pick 57 due to residual points creating a "new" pick.

With more bids on other nga's and father sons coming in before the bid on Ty Gallop, our remaining picks moved up further, and you saw us trading them out for future 3rds. 57 and 66 moved right up to the late 40's and mid 50's, and those picks in the 90's moved right up to the 60's.


As a side note. **** Geelong. Geelong flew Gallop down last week for an interview, so we knew the bid was coming.

He's a 196cm, Hawkins type of KPF. Not saying he's as good as, just that's his playing style.

Not with you saying Fcuk Geelong. That is how it should be done. Problem is the wet pussies at Norf, Carlton and Adelaide ignored the obvious and gifted you (a) 3 x F3 and 1 x F4 plus (b) you should have needed to go into deficit to get Gallop.

I say we should salute Geelong and Sydney as they are strong enough to stand up in the heat of battle.

WTF should the other 17 clubs help strengthen the reigning premiers?

Stephen Wells has an eye for talent where the lazy recruitment teams don’t bother. That should be lauded not belittled like you are doing

 

[Kegs15]

To make it reasonable, the AFL should ask all clubs on the night of the draft where each NGA/FS is on their draft board (in secrecy so clubs don't know where other clubs rate them), making each club legitimately say where they would take a player in the draft. The AFL then collates the 17 results and averages it out.

Ashcroft for example. Most would've had him at one or two. Call it 1.3 average.

During the draft the AFL then announces the bid on its own behalf closest to the average. Both the club with that pick and the club tied to the player can choose to match. The club tied to the player gets the preference and the 10% discount. The other club pays full price is successful.

Ashcroft was easy. But the other lions acadamy kids last night is a gun, and I had him almost top 10, yet he went at 25 FFS. If the clubs were surveyed as above, Brisbane would've payed a much greater premium.

On Pixel 6 Pro using BigFooty.com mobile app

Do agree with this as fairer value in an idealistic sense, but don't actually see a way that plays out fairly.

Would work for Ashcroft but for someone like Lombard clubs with picks in ranges not relevant to him (like us or say Collingwood who didn't come in for ages) may as well just 'rank him' at #1 so GC had to pay a premium. Any club who had their next pick coming up well below the next NGA/FS would have nothing to lose overranking them knowing it wouldn't impact them and would eat up picks so their own ones would go earlier.

I'd be more in favour of just doing it so that the main pick used to match points has to be within say 10 picks of the bid. So for Ashcroft Brisbane would want to secure pick 11 which would be eaten up whether the bid came at 1 or 5, with a bid at 5 just saving them the tailend of points right at the end but essentially being a similarish outcome.

Would force clubs with those prospects to secure themselves in draft ranges they actually rated their players in rather than just stockpiling late picks from clubs that don't need them, whilst still applying the discount etc. Would also mean picks in earlier ranges were eaten up more often meaning clubs after the bids were pushed down a bit less.

I'd think it'd make clubs more likely to bid where they actually see players given it'd make less difference whether they or the club right after them bid (so less of a slap in the face for trading relationships) as well as sort of force the clubs tied to the player to somewhat set the value themselves - if Brisbane only bothered to secure pick 15 say for Ashcroft it would mean they're willing to let him go for pick 2, which makes it more on them.

 

[JoshWoodenSpoon]

OK, some of it's been explained to you, here's the rest.

Give me the whole thing, brizzy!

We've got Daniel Annable next year who is projected to go mid/late 1st round.

Want in, honey? I know how much you like priority access.

 

[archiemoses]

Of course Knobel was saying he didnt want to come to us, he was probably told by Freo to play it cool and not speak to other clubs so he slides through. If we did draft him I bet he would have been fine after 10min as he didnt need to move and would jump up to being a chance of playing far quicker. He would have changed his mind very quickly and been a happy camper if he is close to getting games (after being no 4 at Freo). Hell, he may even come around to Gold Coast, they took a punt because he has the size and talent. We didnt even though we had much more in our favour. We were just short sighted, didnt have the balls and were nice guys - true to form.

This, you want him you take him. It's a rookie selection FFS, so you lose nothing if he leaves in a year.

I bet when he's playing AFL games for us next year he would have changed his mind.

 

[ghostbat12]

If you could point that out I’d appreciate it. Not sure that my advice is going to change something that has already happened no matter how many times you watch it but you do you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[eaglevision]

 

[mattyc75]

I'm stoked with our draft and pumped for 2025. This is what I'm envisioning...

AFL level

Hough - Edwards - Baker
Duggan - McGovern - Ginbey

Hunt - Yeo - Hutchinson
B. Williams - Harley - Graham

Hewett - Allen - Kelly
Ryan - Waterman - Owies

INT: Allan (Defence), J. Williams (FWD/RUCK), Chesser (Mid), Dewar (FWD/Wing)
SUB: Maric (Utility)

Potential strengths:

• Big, athletic, tough defence with plenty of power and dash
• Harley and Yeo doing their thing, unleashed by a supporting role from Graham, with high-octane spells from Hewett, Allan, Ginbey, and Baker
• Quality KPFs, Owies pestering, and Hewett and Kelly as MID/FWDs both pushing up the ground and snagging goals

Weaknesses:

• Skilful rebounding from defence. We'll be very reliant on run and carry
• Is Chesser ready to step up as a full time mid?
• Forward pressure; are Hewett and Kelly going to defend hard enough?
• Ruck situation; can one of B. Williams or Flynn step it up?

Next in line:

• Bazzo and trialling A. Reid or Shanahan for KPDs, Cole and Johnston for general defenders
• Hall in the guts, Davis on the wing or high half-forward I could see getting early game time
• Long and Cripps are arguably the most unlucky to miss and will be pushing hard for a HFF position, although I do want Long to spend some time playing mid to hone his skills there. Petch a chance, too.
• I expect Shanahan and Archer Reid to be knocking down the door hard, and whilst I'd love to see them developing their connection as twin towers in the forward line, if opportunities present down back then I can't wait to see what they show there either.
• I think Champion is a smokey for an early look-in too. Perhaps Gross although he may have to leapfrog Long for it.

Developing but list spot is safe for now:
Chesser, Hutchinson, Dewar, Maric, Bazzo, Grego, Johnston, Hall, Davis, Long, Gross, Shanahan, Archer, Champion

Delisting on the cards if they don't perform well:
Cole, Brockman, Flynn, Petruccelle

Likely delisting, needs a big year:
Jamieson, Barnett, Livingstone, Rawlinson, Sheed

Retirement: Cripps

WAFL level

Cole - Jamieson - Bazzo
Grego - Barnett - Brockman

Johnston - Hall - Davis
Flynn - Long - Petruccelle

Cripps - Shanahan - Gross
Champion - A. Reid - Rawlinson

INT: Livingstone, Sheed?

Notes: Give Barnett and Brockman a crack as a KPD and rebounding defender respectively down back. Long and Gross swapping between mid and fwd. Cripps and Cole narrowly missing out on AFL selection but providing invaluable experience here. Shanahan and A. Reid as our next-gen KPFs working in tandem, but throwing one back at times to see how they go, both have tremendous potential as KPDs as well as KPFs.

Side note:
Add Warner and Rodriguez next year and squeeze another good year from Gov and Yeo in 2026, and we will be genuinely dangerous. Our NGAs and Banfield will be exciting additions too. Cody Curtin as a KPD prospect another key target, especially with much of our KPD depth on the delist pile.

Its good to have more talent and versatility. Trialling in different positions to give them a chance to retain their spots on the list is good too. With a strong draft hand next year we might need to delist guys like chesser who everyone likes due to his Nullarbor drive

On SM-S921B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

3-Rodriguez
13-Curtin
21-Swadling
30-Banfield match
48-Walley match

That would be so perfect
Then get Warner in psd
That would be our best draft ever

 

[Eastcoasteagle]

Do they have more Academy/F-S players next year that they are stockpiling pts for?

Or is it a bank of points to trade up from?

Dan Annable, another midfielder accumulater.

 

[eaglevision]

That would be so perfect
Then get Warner in psd
That would be our best draft ever

All realistic apart from the Warner PSD…

 

[ROYAL EAGLE]

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it

I'll judge him on the state of the list and I'm feeling like it's not the doom and gloom it's been looking the last few years, so I'm giving him a pass so far

List managers are judged by there trading and ability to stay within the salary cap
By resigning players to contract's good for player and club
And by also making sure age range is good

They are not judged on the quality of the list, that's the recruiting teams job

Duane has basically saved Clarke arse with his drafting,
because Clarke ability to negotiate has been brought into question
by his own work colleagues

 

[6285sutto]

Essentially it amounts to draft tampering within the rules.

Thank you very much briztoon. Based on your comment above it actually all makes sense now !

In all seriousness though, I was looking back through pages trade news trying to follow Brisbane's trades and it wasn't logical because the live picks kept moving up as bids were made it made it extremely tough to track.

From your explanation, it seems best way to match bids is to trade into multiple lower picks because when/if earlier picks are 'used' to match a different bid, the draft point increase is multiplied over multiple low end picks rather than a single higher pick. This could net a larger draft point increase each time it happens. Not sure if the math/points system supports this but that seems to be what Brissy did and it worked extremely well. Well done to you, smashed it.

 

[ghostbat12]

Clarke start here:

 

[ghostbat12]

Then this

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flamingEMBERS]

OK, some of it's been explained to you, here's the rest. Essentially it amounts to draft tampering within the rules.

Teams can only take the same amount of draft picks to draft as they have list spots. But once the draft starts, it's open season on shenanigans.

We (the Lions) had 6 draft picks at the start of the draft: 27, 34, 42, 43, 49, 58.

When the draft started we traded pick 27 to the Bulldogs for 35 & 48.

When then flipped 34, 35 and 58 to Essendon for 40, 46, 53, 54.

So when the bid on Levi came, we actually held picks 40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 53 & 54.

The first pick "used" moves up the draft order to where the bid is made, the next few picks move back to the end of the draft, and if there are residual points left over from a pick, it creates a "new" pick to the value of that pick.

So the Ashcroft bid used picks 40, 42, 43 and 46. Not all of pick 46 was used up, and it created a "new" pick at 68. And two end of draft picks at 94 and 97.

Because 3 picks slid back in the draft, our remaining picks all moved up 3 spots, and ALSO "acquired" to points values of those picks. So 48 moved up to 45 and acquired more points, 49 moved up to 46 etc.

So we now held 45, 46, 50, 51, 68, 94 & 97.

When the Sam Marshall bid came in, our picks had moved up further, because of the Lombard and Kako bids using up more picks, so we held 43, 44, 48, 49 and 66.

We used 43 and 44 to match Marshall bid, and got back pick 57 due to residual points creating a "new" pick.

With more bids on other nga's and father sons coming in before the bid on Ty Gallop, our remaining picks moved up further, and you saw us trading them out for future 3rds. 57 and 66 moved right up to the late 40's and mid 50's, and those picks in the 90's moved right up to the 60's.


As a side note. **** Geelong. Geelong flew Gallop down last week for an interview, so we knew the bid was coming.

He's a 196cm, Hawkins type of KPF. Not saying he's as good as, just that's his playing style.

Sorry what’s wrong with the the cats doing that?

 

[briztoon]

What year do you get that kid who would never have picked AFL but for the Brissie academy. Can’t remember his name, maybe something Hodge?

2026.

There's been a fair bit of overrating of Cooper Hodge, if you read certain posters who follow under age footy up here.

He's probably the 4th or 5th best kid in his age group in our academy.

 

[WA footy mad]

Barnett, Livingstone need more time, we have a lot of other players that need to go before these 2.