His state of origin didn’t influence your thoughts here at all?Turner's shown enough ILHO.
Agree with the list although I’d have Garthwaite ahead of Miller.
His state of origin didn’t influence your thoughts here at all?Turner's shown enough ILHO.
His state of origin didn’t influence your thoughts here at all?
you're probably right (has to happen at some point), and i am probably being a little sentimental.- particularly with the smalls. we have so many the likes of English and Naish are easily replaced.You would expect we'll need to delist around 5 to 6. Who would they the be if not the above?
Wont delist them all (depends on list size) but FWIW in order of in the gun for leysy (Broad traded and Rance delisted)
English
Garthwaite
Miller
Naish
Mabs
Eggs
With Stack a ? mark along with last years draftees who the club will know more of.
Turner's shown enough ILHO.
Trade him to Port, like his old man. Is John Rombotis's son on their list, history could repeat.He can be traded. I suspect someone else will offer him a game and he'll take it.
Port don't need him. Rozee, Butters and Duursma in the year after Naish. Vastly superior x3. Maybe Adelaide? Norf?Trade him to Port, like his old man. Is John Rombotis's son on their list, history could repeat.
He's making Gil wait until they find out what the actual charges are against DeGoey? Gil does what he's told.Eddy hasn't told Gil what he want's to do with the slagpies list next year.
So we all have to wait.
Naish is contracted next year
The sunk cost fallacy will be ignored.Thinking outside the box here.
Pack up GWS and GC?
Of course. It's unthinkable really.The sunk cost fallacy will be ignored.
AFL will pay out the necessary contract payouts.This is what happens when you let the Suns have a mammoth 51 players on their list as part of the ridiculous concessions they received last year due to their incompetence. Now apparently the vast majority on their list are contracted for next year, so if the AFL intend to reduce list sizes then they will be entering a legal minefield. Now they've painted themselves into a corner and they don't know how to get out of it.
The AFL and clubs can't legally change their existing obligations to already contracted players, unless those players agree. Tigers in a relatively strong position because most of our players are already contracted for 2021. (Broad, Collier-Dawkins, English, Graham, Miller, Nankervis and Turner and others? are not in this group).
Because of these constraints the changes to list numbers and TPP may turn out to be minimal.
I hate flogbook but hope that’s true.a Facebook page Is stating Graham has signed for 4 and Nankervis is not far behind.
Agreed! We have done so well out of it over the past few seasons. In fact, some of our rookie selections will no doubt be remembered as legends of the club in years to come! Even Eggsmolesse-Smith and Stack could still be anything.So a club can have up to 6 rookies and 2 Cat B rookies ( Or at least 1 rookie)
So you could have 36 primary list players, 6 rookies and 2 Cat B rookies (44)
I’d like to see our rookies like Bakes and Marlion upgrade to the senior list and utilise the rookie list again as we have done so well from it.