Smaller list sizes | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • If you are having trouble logging in to the forum please contact [email protected] // When reseting your password or awaiting confirmation please check that your email is correct and also your junk/spam emails.
  • IMPORTANT! Our inbox is full of email errors from members who have not updated their emails, please follow the instructions on how to update here
  • 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.

Smaller list sizes

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
14,377
5,670
There was talk a few months ago about smaller list sizes for the 2021 season, 35 was the number being speculated.
We have great depth, and fantastic development coaches. If reduced list sizes come into force it will have a big impact on us, and the stronger clubs.
We are now reaping the benefits of having the best club organisation in the AFL.
Now that the season has recommenced, and with reduced crowds numbers now being allowed, does anyone know whether list numbers is still on the agenda?
Are reduced list sizes still required?
It is imperative for us to stay strong, that we and the likes of Collingwood, the Eagles etc fight against these mooted changes.

CARN THE TIGES!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rancey18

Tiger Champion
Mar 15, 2014
2,996
1,337
They were discussing it a couple of weeks ago I think on Fox Footy saying that by extending next season by a couple of games (in lieu of the pre season), it may result in there not being a need to drastically reduce list sizes. Im sure the clubs and players would be open to doing so if it kept more of them in jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
14,377
5,670
They were discussing it a couple of weeks ago I think on Fox Footy saying that by extending next season by a couple of games (in lieu of the pre season), it may result in there not being a need to drastically reduce list sizes. Im sure the clubs and players would be open to doing so if it kept more of them in jobs.
Thanks for that, the AFL would love to even up the completion.
 

Quickdraw

End of the drought
Jun 8, 2013
1,985
2,342
I'm interested to hear what others on here think about the issues surrounding the playing list decisions that Richmond (and nearly every other club) faces.

It seems that the list may reduce from the current 42 to maybe 40.
There will be a draft this year but it's not clear how many new players we must select. 2 or 3 ?
It would be straightforward to delist an out of contract player, but where would the club stand if they wanted to delist a player that still has say a year left on his contract?
Lots of unknowns at this point but assuming the list is reduced to 40 and we have to take 2 in the draft, we've got to drop 4 off. I'm assuming Houli goes around again, and that no players are looking for a transfer.

Oh, and when does the 7ft bloke officlially get counted on the list?

Thoughts?
 

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
24,363
3,605
I'm interested to hear what others on here think about the issues surrounding the playing list decisions that Richmond (and nearly every other club) faces.

It seems that the list may reduce from the current 42 to maybe 40.
There will be a draft this year but it's not clear how many new players we must select. 2 or 3 ?
It would be straightforward to delist an out of contract player, but where would the club stand if they wanted to delist a player that still has say a year left on his contract?
Lots of unknowns at this point but assuming the list is reduced to 40 and we have to take 2 in the draft, we've got to drop 4 off. I'm assuming Houli goes around again, and that no players are looking for a transfer.

Oh, and when does the 7ft bloke officlially get counted on the list?

Thoughts?
I posted elsewhere today that the latest rumour is a list of 42 (38 on the main and 4 on the rookie/Cat b rookie list)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

toothless

Don't push me 'cos I'm close to the edge...
Aug 16, 2009
1,445
600
https://ministryofsport.com.au/afl-clubs-brace-for-impact/ this article seems fairly confident if a cut will be made at all, as it currently stands subject to afl and aflpa negotiations it will be a max of 40 players (38/2 rookies) per team next year. How category a and b rookies are factored in I don't know if anyone knows?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Baloo

Delisted Free Agent
Nov 8, 2005
38,314
7,764
With the AFL seeding the idea of 28 matches next year, I don't think they could reduce lists at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Raoul Juke

Tiger Rookie
Mar 23, 2019
443
635
With the AFL seeding the idea of 28 matches next year, I don't think they could reduce lists at the same time.


I can't see any way 28 matches becomes a thing. If they do then that means they most likely will stick with the shorter game time, which is at a total detriment to the quality of the game IMO. Footy has been pretty crap this year Why would you do it? It doesnt even mean everyone plays each other twice?

I think the answer to cutting list numbers and cost down is to cut the list to 33, then have teams be able to hold 15 players on a "Reserves" roster spot. Essentially the 15 reserve listed players are treated the same contractually as a rookie currently. Low pay, but can earn bonuses on senior match payments & try to earn a spot on a senior list the next season. It would be complicated, but it could work in keeping people employed and in the footy system, while helping cut the cost down.

A mass delisting of quality players would be a horrible thing to do - these players have committed their whole lives to try and make it in the AFL. We can't let the cut in cost take that from them, it would be a Mental Health disaster
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

waiting

Tiger Legend
Apr 15, 2007
9,732
4,363
melbourne, victoria
I can't see any way 28 matches becomes a thing. If they do then that means they most likely will stick with the shorter game time, which is at a total detriment to the quality of the game IMO. Footy has been pretty crap this year Why would you do it? It doesnt even mean everyone plays each other twice?

I think the answer to cutting list numbers and cost down is to cut the list to 33, then have teams be able to hold 15 players on a "Reserves" roster spot. Essentially the 15 reserve listed players are treated the same contractually as a rookie currently. Low pay, but can earn bonuses on senior match payments & try to earn a spot on a senior list the next season. It would be complicated, but it could work in keeping people employed and in the footy system, while helping cut the cost down.

A mass delisting of quality players would be a horrible thing to do - these players have committed their whole lives to try and make it in the AFL. We can't let the cut in cost take that from them, it would be a Mental Health disaster
Talk is of increasing game time to 18 mins per quarter.
Game is resembling nothing of its past greatness & uniqueness.
Haven’t heard the 28 game season.
Keep hearing 17 or 22.
 

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
14,377
5,670
The AFL need to make a decision on list sizes asap. Clubs need to know, especially those who miss out on the finals. The season finishes for those clubs in a few days. What are they supposed to say at player post season exit meetings........ you are a required player, we have role for you next season, unless list sizes are cut to........
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

St Kevin

Vlastuin 3:16
Apr 1, 2014
4,826
1,516
Think lists will be cut to 40.

We currently have 44 including rookies and Rance.

If there’s a season to go into the draft with less picks it’s this year imo. Draft will be more of a lottery than usual.
 

tigertim

something funny is written here
Mar 6, 2004
24,363
3,605
The AFL knocked the idea of a 28 round season on the head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

toothless

Don't push me 'cos I'm close to the edge...
Aug 16, 2009
1,445
600
Think lists will be cut to 40.

We currently have 44 including rookies and Rance.

If there’s a season to go into the draft with less picks it’s this year imo. Draft will be more of a lottery than usual.
I'm guessing with a compulsory minimum of 2-3 players needed to be drafted this year, this would mean something along the lines of 7 players (including Rance) who will need to be delisted? If so it's near impossible trying to figure out who they may be.

Houli, Miller, Eggmolesse-Smith, Turner, Graham, Aarts, English, Pickett, Broad, Markov, Collier-Dawkins, Garthwaite, Nankervis are all out of contract at the end of this year
 

St Kevin

Vlastuin 3:16
Apr 1, 2014
4,826
1,516
I'm guessing with a compulsory minimum of 2-3 players needed to be drafted this year, this would mean something along the lines of 7 players (including Rance) who will need to be delisted? If so it's near impossible trying to figure out who they may be.

Houli, Miller, Eggmolesse-Smith, Turner, Graham, Aarts, English, Pickett, Broad, Markov, Collier-Dawkins, Garthwaite, Nankervis are all out of contract at the end of this year

I think it ends up being:

English
Markov/Broad
Garthwaite
Miller
Rance
Pickett/Caddy
Turner

I think the club will want to keep Nankervis, RCD, Graham and Aarts, though Graham looks to have offers elsewhere.

This assumes Houli doesn’t retire, and the club doesn’t draw a line through Stack and CCJ.

Can see Broad/Markov/Caddy and Pickett all as trade possibilities, particularly Caddy and Broad.

Garthwaite and Miller will probably be forced out due to Balta’s emergence and our success with an undersized backline this year.
 

toothless

Don't push me 'cos I'm close to the edge...
Aug 16, 2009
1,445
600
I think it ends up being:

English
Markov/Broad
Garthwaite
Miller
Rance
Pickett/Caddy
Turner

I think the club will want to keep Nankervis, RCD, Graham and Aarts, though Graham looks to have offers elsewhere.

This assumes Houli doesn’t retire, and the club doesn’t draw a line through Stack and CCJ.

Can see Broad/Markov/Caddy and Pickett all as trade possibilities, particularly Caddy and Broad.

Garthwaite and Miller will probably be forced out due to Balta’s emergence and our success with an undersized backline this year.
I had Rance (retire), Houli (retire), Miller (rookied), English, Garthwaite, & Turner (rookied) but this no doubt changes from week to week and is anyone's guess
 
Last edited:

Raoul Juke

Tiger Rookie
Mar 23, 2019
443
635
This is the issue - its not real fair on players like Pickett, Caddy, Markov etc to be delisted over blokes like Stack & CCJ after what they pulled. Yes they are both contracted, but they are both also suspended for half the season. They are only contracted for half a season. We'd be better off to try and flip them for pick upgrades - unfortunately their value has been totally neutralised due to their stupidity & their suspension. Also if Rance wants to come back, then i hope we let him & find a spot. We could do with his character around the club & I would prefer his career end in a better way with us than it did.

The AFL needs to figure out a way where the clubs can keep players without them having to be paid massive contracts, via a reserves list. A Rookie listed player currently earns $85k. Make it that we have a seniors cap which has about 33 players on it with strong earning capability, mixed with a "reserves" list of about 15 players which cannot exceed $85k. It essentially drops the list number, but raises the rookie list numbers. Rookie listed players can still play seniors and be paid match payments for it.

I also think the AFL should allow players to defer contracts for 12 months with an option of taking a year on the "reserves list" - This would mean Stack & CCJ for example can defer themselves to the reserves contract for 2021 - but still be owed for their current final year of their contract in 2022. This will allow the AFL another 12 months to get "back to normal". The lower cap might only be for one year, if a vaccine is made and crowds are back next year, the game will boom heading into 2022.

This will keep the AFL dream alive for a lot of these men. Once you drop off an AFL list, its exceptionally harder to get back on. You can't just let their lives free-fall, its systematically wrong. Under this system I would offer

Garthwaite
Miller
Eggs
Turner
Stack
English
Cumberland
RCD
Chol
Byoung
Naish
Ralphsmith

Houli retires
Broad likely traded
CCJ likely traded
Caddy maybe traded
Rance maybe retires/maybe not.

They really need to think outside the square for this, to keep these players in the system. Its dangerous to allow them to free-fall out of it on a mass scale - It would be downright liable behaviour IMO, we do not want more Shane Tucks :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Rancey18

Tiger Champion
Mar 15, 2014
2,996
1,337
Seems ridiculous that the AFL are yet to announce this given we are now at the completion of the season for most teams.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Quickdraw

End of the drought
Jun 8, 2013
1,985
2,342
Seems ridiculous that the AFL are yet to announce this given we are noe at the completion of the season for most teams.
Agree. I know they are negotiating with the Players Association. I'm sure the PA will be pushing hard to keep numbers and salary cap.

What's not clear is whether Covid will be sorted sufficiently to be able to attend matches in Melbourne by next season. I expect we will but possibly with some restricted numbers.

So if, other than reduced crowds, we are back to normal, why do we need to reduce list sizes? Has the AFL lost so much money this year that they are looking to recoup some of those funds? We know that they have wasted many millions of $ and have nothing in reserve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user