-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Another year no club wants a Richmond player
- Thread starter Mr Magic
- Start date
Freezer said:
G'day fridge magnet,
several posts in the Petts thread said we were obligated to pay his wages during his recovery. Some also said n princicple it was the right thing to do to look after our injured players.
This gave me the impression we had a legal obligation to pay Petts until he was fit again. Hope it is wrong and rumour about him being off to Canberra is right.
ROLLS ROYCE said:
Although I have no expertise in the area, I wouldn't be so sure we're obligated to keep him on or pay his wages. My guess is that the club would have insurance policies that would cover this exact scenario i.e. rehab costs and lost earnings. Petts could easily earn money doing something other than playing football (e.g. coaching - and that will only be for next year).
He'll earn big bucks up the country once he's delisted but I have no doubt the Tigers will look after him while he's recovering.
How this sort of stuff affects TPP and salary cap, I have no idea.
No-one was willing to trade picks for players this year as everyone has been panicking over the GC17 and Sydney pillaging of future drafts.
Liam Pickering raised an interesting point on SEN this morning regarding the draft this year.
He said that while this years draft was fairly good there is not much more than speculation in any draft by the late third rounders.
No one was willing to give up early picks and rightly so, but what happens when clubs start looking at an average kid at pick 55, 68 or 80? Pickers thinks that a lot of clubs may seriously look at recycling players that never raised any interest during the trade talks. Just as Port picked up DRod with their last pick, clubs may look to seagull players late this year.
Liam Pickering raised an interesting point on SEN this morning regarding the draft this year.
He said that while this years draft was fairly good there is not much more than speculation in any draft by the late third rounders.
No one was willing to give up early picks and rightly so, but what happens when clubs start looking at an average kid at pick 55, 68 or 80? Pickers thinks that a lot of clubs may seriously look at recycling players that never raised any interest during the trade talks. Just as Port picked up DRod with their last pick, clubs may look to seagull players late this year.
TigerMasochist said:
This makes perfect sense actually.
Clubs have punted that they will be able to pick up recycled players in the ND anyway. Trading for them simply means paying a bit extra to make sure that you have the player. No doubt there will be a few delistings that will raise an eyebrow or two over the next couple of weeks.
The other thing that might happen is that some contracted players might be cut loose anyway. No doubt Carroll will, Harris might be if he and Laidley can't kiss and make up.
We picked up Collard this way last year. There might be a few more in a couple of weeks time.
Tigers of Old said:
Difference is Prismall is up and coming youngster who had played the last few games for Gellong before his injury whereas Pettifer is much older and on his way out and couldn't maintain a regular spot in the Tiger side before his knee injury. So I don't see it as that interesting. Pettifer had trade value before his injury in my opinion but the knee put an end to that.
what pickering doesnt say is most kids who arent taken after pick 50 the 3rd round basically , end up in the rookie draft. the way i look at it useing late picks gives you an early crack at the rookie draft.the only real downside to this is minimum 2 yr contract and a certified income.to top this of the trend has become for most clubs to utilise just one pick after the third round anyway.another trend is the taking of youing untried players thru the psd ie the matt white scenario at richmond. i look at adelaide the white scenario young players taken in the psd for them is edwards gill griffen hentschell porplyzia, throw in their rookies and picks taken after the 3rd round and about half their list has been taken what you would call late.geelong have a bout a third of thier list taken after pick 47 hawthorn about a quarter.TigerMasochist said:
all clubs must and do utilise late picks a late pick being after pick 50. they utilise psd and rookie picks all of which are an extension of the third round in the nd. substantial amounts of all clubs lists are made up so called late picks. you expect to get good 10 yr players with early picks you expect a higher fail rate with later picks' the listmanagement debate on this site comes into its own when you look at the psd rookie and late nd. list management is if you refuse to use early picks on certain types you must load up late.
an example is our rucks. we refuse to take eone early so it become imperative that we load up with lots late its not rocket science but we continually fail to do this.
to me its better to delist 4 of say pettifer hyde tivendale johnson if we find just 1 good player from the 4 late picks delisting these types get us. apart from johnson i throw him in because of age we have lost nothing we are not getting what we need from them they are not taking us where we need to go. in turning them over we find one more good player its a win.if we find noone we have lost nothing we have delisted 4 players who should be gone anyway.you can do it with another 4 meyer jackson pattison king what do you lose, 4 players who are incapable of taking you anywhere. what do you gain? the opportunity to perhaps find a good 10 uyr player or 2 who is capable of taking you where you want to go.
I agree with most of what you've said there Claw. The main issue I have is, giving a speculative kid a 2 year contract. When picks beyond 30 are something like a 20% chance to play 22 AFL games, that's an awful lot of cash for being speculative.
I think given our financial status, we tend to hold on an extra 12 months so we can delist the following year in one of the three mandatory picks. It'd be nice to be in a position financially where we could be a lot more aggressive, but I reckon we've been conservative in delisting because of this factor.
Would it be better to move Richo et al off the Veterans list, and use the extra two spots on rookies? We are supposedly miles below the actual salary cap, so we should be able to afford that.
On the actual topic, when we start winning more, people will value our players more. Look at Geelong, people climbing to get a hold of Prismall. No star, and in another year, he might have got a higher pick. How about getting midfielders from Brisbane during their run? No one got dudded there did they? Oh wait, what's his name, Rory....
I think given our financial status, we tend to hold on an extra 12 months so we can delist the following year in one of the three mandatory picks. It'd be nice to be in a position financially where we could be a lot more aggressive, but I reckon we've been conservative in delisting because of this factor.
Would it be better to move Richo et al off the Veterans list, and use the extra two spots on rookies? We are supposedly miles below the actual salary cap, so we should be able to afford that.
On the actual topic, when we start winning more, people will value our players more. Look at Geelong, people climbing to get a hold of Prismall. No star, and in another year, he might have got a higher pick. How about getting midfielders from Brisbane during their run? No one got dudded there did they? Oh wait, what's his name, Rory....
The_General said:
Agreed. Doesn't make much sense to pay a heap for a speculative player, unless you'd decided to take them earlier and they slipped.
I totally agree with Claw on this one. 
The money will be spent anyway. You might as well use it on players who might be premiership quality rather than those who won't be (with our club anyway).
It also has the addes benefits of creating a culture that if you are not up to speed, you're gone!
A few extra people doning the club colours also makes things a bit interseting and shows supporters we don't put up with mediocrity.
The money will be spent anyway. You might as well use it on players who might be premiership quality rather than those who won't be (with our club anyway).
It also has the addes benefits of creating a culture that if you are not up to speed, you're gone!
A few extra people doning the club colours also makes things a bit interseting and shows supporters we don't put up with mediocrity.
YeahNah said:I totally agree with Claw on this one.
The money will be spent anyway. You might as well use it on players who might be premiership quality rather than those who won't be (with our club anyway).
It also has the addes benefits of creating a culture that if you are not up to speed, you're gone!
A few extra people doning the club colours also makes things a bit interseting and shows supporters we don't put up with mediocrity.
I've been quietly convinced by much of what Claw says about drafting policy for a while now. I can see the benefit of ruthlessy sifting through the available talent until you strike gold. I wonder however, if you start to lose ground with such things as team spirit and cohesiveness if a club wields the axe too frequently and heavily. Mind you, we're nowhere near that stage.