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)
With Stack a ? mark along with last years draftees who the club will know more of.
Turner's shown enough ILHO.
Naish is contracted next year
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.
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.