Veterans list

[Crowman32]

How old do you have to be or how many seasons do you have to play in order to qualify as a veteran on an afl club list?

How many crow players are due to qualify for this rule in the next few years?

 

[Eggzoi]

IIRC, it's 10 years on the list, 30 years old by Sept that year.

 

[-VC-]

Hart, Roo and Clarke qualify for us to my knowledge.
Edwards and McLeod debuted in 1995. I don't know if that qualifies them or if they were on the list earlier than that (which would definitely qualify them).
How many rookie spots will we be using because it seems we have a few that can be put on the vets list?

 

[Stiffy_18]

Clarke doesn't qualify because he hasn't been with the Crows for 10 years. He has played AFL footy for that long but not at one club.

You have to turn 30 by september (????) of that year to qualify and you have to be at the club for 10 years. In a case of Port Adelaide (where they have been in the comp for 8 years) then the player had to be there since day one and turn 30 this year.

We only have Roo and Hart that qualify for veteran's list.

 

[-VC-]

I read the rule wrong. I interpreted it as 30 years old OR 10 years at the club. So yeah, Hart and Roo are it for us.

 

[macca23]

Clarke doesn't qualify because he hasn't been with the Crows for 10 years. He has played AFL footy for that long but not at one club.

You have to turn 30 by september (????) of that year to qualify and you have to be at the club for 10 years. In a case of Port Adelaide (where they have been in the comp for 8 years) then the player had to be there since day one and turn 30 this year.

We only have Roo and Hart that qualify for veteran's list.

Correct Stiffy. McLeod becomes eligible for the veterans' list for season 2006.

 

[slappy]

so whats likely to happen then, would we just put roo on the veterans list this time round and then mcleod next year?

thats assuming mcleod is on much more $$$ than hart

 

[macca23]

so whats likely to happen then, would we just put roo on the veterans list this time round and then mcleod next year?

thats assuming mcleod is on much more $$$ than hart

I still think it's a bit trickier long term than it appears.

Once a player is declared as a veteran, my understanding is that whether he is still on the primary list or the veterans list, he stays as a veteran until he retires.

Hart is a veteran on our primary list, so always stays a veteran if my understanding is correct. In 2006 we will get relief under the salary cap for Roo, Harty, and Macca, but only for a third of each rather than the half of Roo and Hart we'll get in 2005.

Can you have more than 2 veterans on the veterans list, or would one have to stay on the primary list, but declared as a veteran??

If you can have more than 2 on the veterans list itself, would the club want 3 players on the veteran list, because that would restrict the number of rookies to 3, or would it rather have only 2 on the veterans list and keep the 3rd as a veteran on the primary list, so it could have 4 rookies?

 

[slappy]

well im not certain but i think you can only have a max of two on the veterans list and you declare a player a veteran so that they can be put on the vets list if needed

also i thought that you only get salary cap relief for those who are actually on the vets list and not for those who are just declared as veterans

once again im not real certain

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I still think it's a bit trickier long term than it appears.

Once a player is declared as a veteran, my understanding is that whether he is still on the primary list or the veterans list, he stays as a veteran until he retires.

Hart is a veteran on our primary list, so always stays a veteran if my understanding is correct. In 2006 we will get relief under the salary cap for Roo, Harty, and Macca, but only for a third of each rather than the half of Roo and Hart we'll get in 2005.

Can you have more than 2 veterans on the veterans list, or would one have to stay on the primary list, but declared as a veteran??

If you can have more than 2 on the veterans list itself, would the club want 3 players on the veteran list, because that would restrict the number of rookies to 3, or would it rather have only 2 on the veterans list and keep the 3rd as a veteran on the primary list, so it could have 4 rookies?

You can have more than 2 vets on the list, but then less of their salary can be excluded. eg. in 2006

1. Roo & Hart on the vets lists - half of their salaries are excluded from the cap.

2. Roo, Hart & Macca on the vets list - a third of their salaries are excluded from the cap.

Given that we are nowhere near going over the cap, we should rush putting anyone (except perhaps Roo as a top earner) on the Vets listy, given we will want to leave our options open in a few years time - strategically.

 

[Footyboy]

I wonder if Mcleod has now past his best. he deserves to be a veteran for the crows, I think Hart is always unrated as he normally plays in the back-pocket, has for Mark Ricciuto, hopefully he will become the club's longest serving captain.

 

[Eggzoi]

If he deserves it or not isn't really a question to me, if it can save $250 thousand a year on the salary cap, it's worth it.