List Mgmt. 2022 List Management and Trading Thread - Part 2
- Thread starter WeeBlake
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
- Oct 2, 2022
- 7,020
- 9,433
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Media reports are saying that the sub will be eliminated next year, and replaced with a fifth interchange.
It hasn't been confirmed, but typically the AFL leak things like that through their media channels so we get used to the idea.
that would be good
whoa_vardy
Rookie
- Oct 10, 2022
- 38
- 37
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
No disrespect, but I did say "if" they are back ended contracts.
That said, you've nailed the crux of the issue - both parties need to agree on the terms of the retirement and any payout amount.
Every person has a price, and obviously we haven't hit that for either seeds or Sloane. And given we'd rather keep them on the list than delist them, it suggests the club values not having the salary cap hit this year over the extra list spots.
Which on the face of it, for club in full rebuild where the value of a free list spot is high, they must be asking for a bit.
- Oct 13, 2017
- 20,783
- 34,980
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Glenelg, tigers
Geezuz..
How many fxxkin times does it have to be said that delisting newchurch doesnt free up a list spot before it clicks with some morons around here.
It literally gets said every second day..
WeedsMullet84
Cancelled
- Oct 31, 2018
- 2,982
- 4,825
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Celtic, Glenelg
And we know how sensitive you are about Newchurch
- Aug 9, 2019
- 37,961
- 65,692
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Panthers, GWV Rebels, Central Augusta
Why would we take him on for one year, I'll tell you why.North only moved 150k off their books
Seriously though, why wouldn't we make him a 1 year big offer, sell him and move on
We're not contending next year so all it does is take midfield minutes away from our developing young midfielders. Pointless exercise with no real gain other than perhaps winning a couple more games.
- Sep 28, 2016
- 10,145
- 20,481
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Great question. Talk about a fall from Grace. People were talking him up massively in his under-age year.
Now looks like just another SA kid who fell off the draft cliff.
Newchurch is a CAT B Rookie. He is an extra player as is Borlase. Delisting them does not free up any spots. And it is Butts and Strachan that need to be ugraded not Murray. He can stay for another year as a rookie.
- Jul 6, 2017
- 32,084
- 46,487
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Hard to see the dogs ultimately turning down pick 21 + f1 for dunkley + 39
- Jan 31, 2020
- 401
- 547
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I know we are limited with our main list, pick 23 and Max but do we have room on the rookie list?
How many rookie listed players can we draft?
- Jan 31, 2020
- 401
- 547
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
You usually hate everyone and everything at the Adelaide Crows, and you are old. Like in your 90’s, are you really John Reid?
We are allowed 4 cat A and 2 cat b.
Butts and Strachan need to be upgraded leaving us with Parnell, Murray and Davis. Davis will be delisted. So 2 rookie spots left
- Aug 30, 2021
- 19,409
- 38,428
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I can’t believe we are going to have another year of Nicks being asked about Crouch each week and having to lie. Horrible list management giving him 2 years. Just dumb.
- Oct 6, 2012
- 13,781
- 27,935
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Good. Stupid sub rule. Ruined Jarryd Lyons
How about the fact that almost none of those changes are likely to take place?
Rowe - this is almost certain to happen
Newchurch - is a Cat B rookie, so even if he is delisted it doesn't create a usable position
McHenry - your proposal is for 2023, so it doesn't create a vacancy in 2022 (which is when things are tight)
Murphy - won't be delisted in 2023, and even if he was, it does nothing for our list vacancies in 2022
McPherson - will probably be delisted in 2023, but there's pretty much zero chance of it happening in 2022
Seedsman - Should/will retire, but is contracted for 2023 which complicates matters
Congratulations - you've identified one (Rowe), possibly two (Seeds), vacancies which can actually be created this year - and both of those have already been taken into account by everyone doing the list mathematics.
Next year we'll see a much bigger turnover - Crouch, Seedsman, McPherson, Sloane, McAsey, Hately, and (hopefully not) Walker are all likely to see the exit door next year, and that's just the obvious ones 12 months out.
Putting Seedsman on the rookie list is about the salary cap. If he retires in 2022, and is removed completely from our playing lists, then his negotiated payment needs to be included in our 2022 salary cap - noting that we're already (presumably) doing this for Brown. We may not have room in the cap to pay out both players.
The expectation is that we'll put him on the rookie list, thereby freeing up a position on the senior list. After the RD, we would then place him on the inactive list, allowing us to fill his rookie list vacancy via the PSSP or MSD. This allows us to include his 2023 salary in the 2023 cap, while still operating with a full list in 2023.
WaynesWorld19
Moderator
- Moderator
- #43
Would be an easier call, if Crouch packed his bags
Generally players who are retiring, while contracted for the following year, negotiate a payout with the club. They don't forfeit the remaining part of the contract, but neither do they generally end up getting everything that was originally contracted.
If they're going off the list immediately, then the payout needs to be included in the current year's salary cap.
Yeah, well... is anyone surprised that there were no buyers for Crouch?
WaynesWorld19
Moderator
- Moderator
- #46
IF COLL were prepared to take Crouch's twin in Mitchell at 28 YO .....surely a younger Crouch could find a home at the WCE
But it does show the AFL Clubs desire for midfield speed and .....finally getting back to the origins of good footy .....getting the ball down to your FWD's ASAP .....rather than believing crabbing the ball is good footy
What an ugly era we supporters have had to endure
It depends on a few factors...
List Structure - Clubs have the options of 36/6, 37/5, or 38/4 list structures. We were 37/5 this year, and appear likely to move to 38/4 for 2023 purely because we need the extra senior list position.
Inactive Players - Seedsman and Brown are both contracted for 2023. Brown has already announced his retirement, and Seedsman's announcement surely can't be far away. Depending on our 2022 salary cap situation, we may end up needing to move one (or possibly both) to the rookie list, before placing them on the inactive list. If that happens, then that's one (possibly 2) less rookie list positions available for filling via the RD - though we would be able to fill the vacancies via the PSSP or MSD after the players are moved to the inactive list.
Note that Parnell & Murray are both contracted for 2023, and will be remaining on the rookie list. Turner isn't contracted for 2023, but is likely to be retained - though he may find himself delisted and then re-signed during the PSSP.
The market for crabs, who make glaciers look speedy, and who accumulate lots of possessions but have zero hurt factor (and frequently zero metres gained), is minimal. Even clubs like West Coast, which are starting a massive rebuild, don't need players of this ilk.
I am pushing for a harder cull now. What you have proposed I agree is the likely but thats also a big turnover next year
Im not so bullish on newchurch being retained despite cat B status
apoligies on the upgrades wrong that was a mind slip
on the cat Bs i disagree you have to be sure they can make it - evryone on a list takes time and effort they consume resources
i was bullish on newchurch earlier in the year but saw some stuff where i would just say good bye now
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
