List Mgmt. 2024 List Management 📃

[passmark]

This is going to entertaining to watch, IMO it’s going to interesting to see what Fantasia needs to produce to get/keep a spot.
Competition is going to be fierce & I’d be a little concerned if I was one of our existing small forwards.

This very much feels like a “Voss” pick selection to me, good luck getting a game when he has a favorite competing for the spot.
There was a lot of talk about “selection integrity” thru the last season, this should be a doozy to watch play out.

IMO Fantasia at his best is an upgrade, you would think that with a good preseason & further development that Mots has the other spot (for now)

Given they are all very similar size & style it’s going to be a battle & a half for the spots.

Hope we are very hard but fair, good form in the 1s or 2s gets u the gig over anyone under performing but that’s a 2 week minimum block.

So we’ve moved on from “why recruit him he won’t be available due to injury “ to “if he gets a game it’s because he’s Vossy’s pet”

Good luck Orazio, you’re gunna need it with our supporters.

 

[Coona Blues]

Can anyone give a summary of Fantasia's last 2 seasons at Port? How much of his time was out due to injury and did he spend much time in the 2s, was he just not performing to get a spot back in the 1s?

I am not all over Fantasia injury V Form, but reports have him playing in the back half of the year. His spot was clearly taken over by Junior Rioli making him expendable at Port. They paid a significant amount to recruit him a second and a third rounder from memory, so expect he was on a salary relevant to that, maybe $4-500k. Being offered rookie spots there or at GWS would hardly be attractive. The two year contract clearly concerns many of us, but there are mechanisms around the LTI list and upcoming mid season trade as well as MSD to replace injured players.

Hopefully he is a mentor type with future coaching creds to make it a dual purpose signing. If he can enhance the development of Mots, Durds and others there is further positives.

I am surprised to say the least, but have to believe we have done due diligence and have faith in Russell managing a program to return him to his best form.

Supposedly a shallow draft and we clearly are not enamoured by what is available late.

 

[HarryFlashman]

So we’ve moved on from “why recruit him he won’t be available due to injury “ to “if he gets a game it’s because he’s Vossy’s pet”

Good luck Orazio, you’re gunna need it with our supporters.

Think he’s an upgrade if he’s fit, doesn’t mean he can’t also be Vossys pet
In all seriousness u would think that Voss played a big part on this one given his previous role.

 

[Bletch]

I’m running with Pom & the commentary on Duffy & Monahan both being rookied as Cat B’s.

Main: 32 + 1 (Fantasia) = 33 of 36
A: 6 (37, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46)
B: 3 (Akuei, 2 x Irish)

Like Stam said, maybe Pom has some inside word on a rule change, but as best as we know right now, the maximum list size is 44, and maximum Cat-B rookies is 2.

See posts below where I've cut and pasted from the rules (Feb 2023).

This is from the Feb 2023 doc:

View attachment 1832514

It's really poorly worded - prob a factor of multiple revisions over time. Here's the App. 1 detail mentioned above:

View attachment 1832517

Clearly, here it spells out a maximum of 2 Cat-B rookies, with a maximum list size of 44. I don't believe that 10.1(b) is saying that you can have 2 more than this, though perhaps it could be interpreted that way. It's just repeating that you can have 2 Cat-B players (beyond Cat-A).

Further, "Ireland" is only mentioned once in the document, in the definition of "International Development Region".

View attachment 1832526

So an Irish player is an "International Player", but is not part of an "International Development Region".

Also - "International Development Region" isn't relevant to the Rookie List discussion, it relates only to a separate International Scholarship List that clubs may set up.

All we've got to go by is the published AFL rules, last updated in February 2023 (there's usually an update around this time each year).



Rule 10.1 (a), along with the appendix 1 - list sizes, is fairly emphatic that there is a maximum of 2 Cat-B rookies.

But... 10.1 (b) is a little ambiguous. I think it's left-over wording from a previous edition of the rules. But it has this phrase "a maximum of two (2) extra players on its Category B Rookie List..."

Maybe we're hanging our hat on that wording, and taking it to mean you can have 4 Cat-B rookies ("2 extra"). But it's a bit of a stretch - the section before that refers only to Category A, so I'd take it to mean the extra is on top of Cat A only.

And then, yes, there's always the possibility that the rules have changed without any notification.

Emphasis on that last sentence.

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

Can anyone give a summary of Fantasia's last 2 seasons at Port? How much of his time was out due to injury and did he spend much time in the 2s, was he just not performing to get a spot back in the 1s?

Pre port summary

Orazio Fantasia fact file

Get to know our newest recruit, crafty forward Orazio Fantasia.

www.portadelaidefc.com.au

At Port:

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Like Stam said, maybe Pom has some inside word on a rule change, but as best as we know right now, the maximum list size is 44, and maximum Cat-B rookies is 2.

See posts below where I've cut and pasted from the rules (Feb 2023).






Emphasis on that last sentence.

Recently published CBA to 2027.
No change to list sizes.

CBA

Find out more about The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and what this means for players.

www.aflplayers.com.au

 

[myblueroan]

If I'm honest, we don't yet have a small forward that you'd call outstanding.
But...
Far too early to put a limit on our smalls.
Let's see how far they can go!

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

I think we agreed when it was announced that Fog had earned a one year contract due to his backend proving he was depth in a mid/fwd role but beyond that he was likely to be one of the easier delist targets on the list.

There had been some discussion about DC wanting and getting a 2 year contract. Club wisely - in my opinion - gave him the one due to a combination of the injury history and that he simply disappeared too often in games this year. If he steps it up should find himself awarded that additional year next year.

Big year for Durds. Need him healthy ASAP so he doesn't fall down the pecking order too far. Another year like this year and his career could hang by a precipice. I really like him but stalled development is a career killer.

I'm most interested with Owies. See him as a long term foot soldier type but not sure if he's th Ed type you go into a GF with which seems to l mirror the selectors consensus given his droppinf from the prelim. Will be eager to see where he sits in the pecking order should everyone be healthy at some point. Wouldn't surprise me if he was highly rated nor would it shock if he wasn't a best 23 consideration.

Then you factor in others like Cotts and the two incumbents.

Personally, I would like to see us add a Jamie Elliott type prospect - a pure goal scoring forward prospect - as I think we may soon have that mid/fwd rotation stacked but still lack that type you believe in to truly be capable of giving you 3+ goals any game they play.

Harry and Charlie both underperformed through the finals' games...

Owies wasn't Robinson Crusoe (is my point).

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

100%, Durds/Motts being left out after kicking 4 in the 2s & Owies/Fantasia kicking 1 in the 22 will fire up the opinions and Dow finishing 2nd in the 2024 Brownlow

 

[passmark]

Think he’s an upgrade if he’s fit, doesn’t mean he can’t also be Vossys pet
In all seriousness u would think that Voss played a big part on this one given his previous role.

Who knows.
But claims of preferential treatment and damaging selection integrity before he’s officially signed on, let alone trained with the team, is just errant nonsense.

 

[WyntersGame_]

Fantasia is an interesting one, his injury history is awful which is an interesting choice when our small / half forward line has an average injury record as it is.

It's also interesting that we elected to take him when Billings was offered. In their careers both have had similar impacts where they have looked amazing in some games and invisible in others.

Based on the small forwards we have on the list vs the half forwards I would have leant more to Billings as Half Forward as it is somewhere we have lacked which is why we have brought in Hollands.

If his injury worries are minimal then it will be interesting if nothing else to see how he goes

As long as he is performing then I have no concerns, it is when a run of games results in no impact from him that it will be interesting to see how he is managed as he isn't a long term solution as a small forward

 

[Wickzki]

Who knows.
But claims of preferential treatment and damaging selection integrity before he’s officially signed on, let alone trained with the team, is just errant nonsense.

Spot on. Huge difference between selection integrity and adding a bloke to the list where several of your key staff have seen enough on and off field to know that he can contribute to our success in some capacity.

Can see it now had he gone to GWS or * or stuck with Port and had some impact "he was available and cheap why didn't we go and get him when he met a need...x

 

[Doro]

Just having a look at his injuries at Port, 3 x arthroscopes for bilateral knee soreness 21/22 and then recurring quad strains into this season. Certainly nothing too concerning, provided the knees have some cartilage left.

 

[The Bighouse]

Like Stam said, maybe Pom has some inside word on a rule change, but as best as we know right now, the maximum list size is 44, and maximum Cat-B rookies is 2.

See posts below where I've cut and pasted from the rules (Feb 2023).






Emphasis on that last sentence.

CFC reported that both were Cat B rookies for the Irish lads (and Dom re-signed as well), as have other outlets despite the initial report from IE that Duffy was an A rookie, which was understood to be correct with the split.

Pommylovescarlton alluded to mis-information ~06:30
Soapy V has also raised enquiries being in play over the Irish too.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

CFC reported that both were Cat B rookies for the Irish lads (and Dom re-signed as well), as have other outlets despite the initial report from IE that Duffy was an A rookie, which was understood to be correct with the split.

Pommylovescarlton alluded to mis-information ~06:30
Soapy V has also raised enquiries being in play over the Irish too.

Whether they are A or B doesn't give us an extra total list spots.
It just means whether we end up with 4 + 3 or 5 + 2 rookies (or whatever).

The confusion seems to be because the rules say max of 2 cat B and then says you can add additional players under the cat B criteria but that they take spots of cat A (not in addition) yet doesn't specify if they will actually be cat A or B.

 

[Michael Jezz]

Brilliant lateral recruiting move by the club. Standing Ovation for Fantasia.
A high risk "animation" project, that could pay off in Spades

 

[GeoCoulthard]

I just hope that Orazio's injury worries are behind him and that he can have a protracted period of quality performances in front of him. On the wish list is the hope that he can play for the next 5 years and get to 100 games for us (just think of the melts from * supporters if that was to ever eventuate - and even moreso if that lead to father-sons/daughters in the future).

 

[TerryWallet]

After giving each ample opportunity, Vossy may have made his mind up on Cuners and Owies, in similar vein to what happened to the wingmen the previous year. They will continue to be at least depth options this year obviously, but Vossy seems to have laid his cards on the table face up with the Prelim omissions and now these 2 recruitments.

Just in my reading, i think Martin and Mots seem to hold dibs on a spot in the team. Durds, Cotts and Hollands would have priority next, if fit and training well. When fit, Orazio would be wanted for his x-factor next. Fog for his def/forward role is still in the mix. Cuners and Owies failed to grasp their opportunities and it now looks tough. Neither do enough.

Building, building. Huge depth all over the park now. The bolded could be looked at for wing/mid spots/depth too.

 

[BIuebagger]

Not sold but can be a tricky little player when fit and firing. Seemed nailed on for GWS. Taking a punt on a low salary isn’t the end of the world. It’s more about at 28, can he get his body right to go and get back to some good footy in his later years. I actually think it’s a smart move whilst we let Durdin develop a bit further, be it in the seniors or at VFL level.

Will back him in, Russell and his team have a job on their hands to get him right.

 

[Bletch]

CFC reported that both were Cat B rookies for the Irish lads (and Dom re-signed as well), as have other outlets despite the initial report from IE that Duffy was an A rookie, which was understood to be correct with the split.

Pommylovescarlton alluded to mis-information ~06:30
Soapy V has also raised enquiries being in play over the Irish too.

Again, all I'm referring to is the actual rules of the AFL competition as we know it - published Feb 2023. Could there be changes? Possibly, but as swuzzle pointed out, this won't affect the overall list size - maximum 44. Maybe there's a change that allows 3 Cat-B (and one less Cat-A), but that would largely be an academic difference if it doesn't affect the overall list size. And until the AFL post an update to the rules, how can anyone suggest otherwise?

Anyway, we must be coming up to the first list lodgment date (AFL haven't made the lodgment dates public this year, but it's likely to be this coming Tuesday). We'll have more certainty then.

 

[Bletch]

One more on rules and list sizes. A few posts back, swuzzlebubble posted a link to the recently (20-Sep) negotiated CBA with the AFLPA, which covers the playing agreements through to end of 2027.

Here is the relevant bit to this discussion:



Could that be any clearer?

Maximum list size is: 42 (senior + Cat-A Rookie) + 2 (Cat-B Rookie) = 44.

 

[marcmurphy3]

One more on rules and list sizes. A few posts back, swuzzlebubble posted a link to the recently (20-Sep) negotiated CBA with the AFLPA, which covers the playing agreements through to end of 2027.

Here is the relevant bit to this discussion:

View attachment 1841266

Could that be any clearer?

Maximum list size is: 42 (senior + Cat-A Rookie) + 2 (Cat-B Rookie) = 44.

Seems very straight forward. 2 open list spots for our two 2nd round draft picks plus we will need to elevate 1 rookie to keep our cat A rookies to 6.

 

[Bletch]

Seems very straight forward. 2 open list spots for our two 2nd round draft picks plus we will need to elevate 1 rookie to keep our cat A rookies to 6.

Yep (including Fantasia).

 

[BlackGoanna]

Fantasia can give us that X factor we need up forward.
We have Charlie & McKay but we lack genuine X factor options. Motlop can become one but is young. Durdin possible but nowhere near proven.
For all the good work of Fogarty Cottrell Cuningham Owies did this year they don’t scare an opposition. Silvagni is a worker as is Martin
We need more players that worry a defence and Fantasia & Hollands add that

I hope now we add a genuine young gun mid via the draft. If we can upgrade our picks it wouldn’t surprise me to go to draft with one pick and leave a spot free for pre season

Whatever happens I love what Austin & Co are doing. Seems organised and well thought out

Spot on


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[marcmurphy3]

Yep (including Fantasia).

Yeah. Consistent with Austin's approach too. The guy doesn't like using draft picks beyond 40 and never recruits new players via the rookie draft. It makes sense. The likelihood of getting a young decent player at that point is super low. Much better off using those spots on mature guys that can at least contribute.