Rookie list question

[admin]

I don't understand why we only have 3 players on the rookie list seeing it costs us nothing to have them there.
Can we add to the rookie list during the season at all, or is our list finalised now?

 

[admin]

I found the answer myself.

From afl.com.au

After an exhaustive off-season of player movement, including the trading period, three list lodgments, rookie promotions, father-son selections, the National AFL Draft, the AFL pre-season draft and the National AFL Rookie Draft, the final lists for 2003 are now locked in.

It seems list are final then. I really can't see why we'd have 2 spare spots on the rookie list when it costs nothing extra to have a full rookie list.
Maybe they are banking on the footy gods giving us an overdue injury free season.
There's not a lot of room to move when we have 3 empty spots on the main list too.
We have a few kids waiting in the wings for a regular senior position, but they don't have much height amongst them.
Bewildering to say the least!

 

[YeahNah]

I agree that it is a little perplexing. I can only imagine they are saving a few dollars, and that they did not believe that the talent available down the list would prove beneficial. Not too many rookies seem to have been promoted in the past, and I suppose that if we needed to promote more than 3, we were pretty stuffed anyway. We are probably better off concerntrating our efforts on bettering the abilities of 3 rookies rather than 5.
Then again, maybe not. Thoughts anyone?

 

[admin]

We are probably better off concerntrating our efforts on bettering the abilities of 3 rookies rather than 5.
Then again, maybe not. Thoughts anyone?

I think it would be a good move to make it compulsary for the rookie lists to be filled.
It costs the club nothing unless the rookie is promoted, so I see it as a way to get more kids involved with top level footy.
The AFL were disappointed so few kids were taken in the draft this year, so there must be plenty available for the rookie lists.
I can't see any reason clubs wouldn't take the maximum rookies they can, but maybe I'm missing something here?

 

[mightytiges]

It costs the club nothing unless the rookie is promoted.. I can't see any reason clubs wouldn't take the maximum rookies they can, but maybe I'm missing something here?

It still costs clubs money as rookies still get paid although not much. Around $15-20,000 I've heard but that could be wrong. It's becoming more attractive to the clubs as the payment doesn't count towards the salary cap unless a rookie gets promoted to the senior list.
Still you would reckon most clubs, with the exception of the likes of north or the bulldogs, would completely fill their rookie lists.

 

[PMac]

An official from the Bulldogs was saying that they estimated the full cost of bringing on a mimimum wage senior player before he played a single game was in the order of $80k while a rookie was around $50k.

Even for clubs like ours the idea of saving around $250-300k by going a little short on the rookies/developing seniors would be attractive.

 

[admin]

That was just bad wording on my post mightytiges. I meant the rookies cost nothing on the salary cap, not that they don't get paid at all, ha.
If 2 more rookies would cost an extra $100,000 I'd think there should be some way around it, maybe AFL subsidised somehow. It's them making noises about young guys not being given a chance.
I'd expect we have at least 2 of our 3 rookies marked for promotion seeing they have had seniors experience and we are 3 short on the main list.
That would leave one rookie as a future project.
Anyway I'm not trying to outguess the club here, and I don't claim to understand the finances, but I just think it's a waste having vacancies on the rookie list.