List Mgmt. Collingwood Trade and FA

[sr36]

It’s not about sport being more important, it’s about a balance of funding that’s best for the community and economy as a whole.

Yes, and with the public health system going to shite all around the country, some are understandably questioning that balance.

 

[Gaspard]

No offence, but seems like a lot of people down there are a bit backward. If you want your city to move on with the times, stuff like this needs to happen. Gotta get with the times.
They want the team but not stadium, when they go hand in hand.
Doesn't mean there shouldn't be money for other things as well though. Its not one or the other.

Sorry Jen, but the problem in Tassie is that the money they talk about doesn't actually exist. If it is to be found for the stadium, other things have to be sacrificed. The tragedy is that two stadia of the required size exist. York Park and Blundstone. For unexplained reasons, the fact that neither has a roof is a sticking point. Consider how much Collingwood likes playing at Docklands is assessing the importance of this roof.

 

[live fast pieyoung]

Not really. There would have already been money allocated to medical/hospitals from state and federal budgets. If you take the attitude of “that money could have been used for hospitals” for anything sport or recreation or anything else really then nothing else would get done.

It’s not about sport being more important, it’s about a balance of funding that’s best for the community and economy as a whole.

Maybe its part of a broader discussion about the proportion of money that goes to sport in this country?

Australia always seem to overachieve at the olympics, I'm assuming because we allocate a relatively high proportion of funds to sport compared to other countries

Like someone else said on a post here, majority rules. AKA suck it up sweetheart if you happen to be in the minority that prioritise other values such as the arts, education, nature etc etc and probably everything else where you don't agree with the majority

Wouldn't it be great if the people who aren't in the majority could just F off to a wilderness at the end of the world and we could just leave them to do their own thing?

Oh wait...

 

[jimmy35]

I think it was reported yesterday that Port are open to trading him.

Nice

 

[JuniorB]

Sorry Jen, but the problem in Tassie is that the money they talk about doesn't actually exist. If it is to be found for the stadium, other things have to be sacrificed. The tragedy is that two stadia of the required size exist. York Park and Blundstone. For unexplained reasons, the fact that neither has a roof is a sticking point. Consider how much Collingwood likes playing at Docklands is assessing the importance of this roof.

A thing a lot of people don't realise about Hobart, is that it is in a rain shadow because of the mountains to the west.
Average temperatures during the footy season are only a little cooler than Melbourne, and the average rainfall is similar.
It underlines your point about a roof - why not just light towers at Blundstone?

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

Houston staying put though isn’t he?

His partner is now living in Melbourne. I highly doubt Houston remains in SA.....

 

[Chrispiesssss]

I think a Lukociius for Houston give up is about right.
Too the deal up with Richards and a second rounder to GC with us prob about right without us having to give up a F1.

Pies: Houston
GC: Noble and a 3rd rounder
Port: Lukocious and Richards

GC and Port end up keeping picks that they would use to trade for incoming players.

Would like a F3 from port or GC to come our way, or an upgrade in future picks but would probably settle for Noble and Richards for Houston.

Thats too cheap for Houston imo.

 

[Scodog10]

I think a Lukociius for Houston give up is about right.
Too the deal up with Richards and a second rounder to GC with us prob about right without us having to give up a F1.

Pies: Houston
GC: Noble and a 3rd rounder
Port: Lukocious and Richards

GC and Port end up keeping picks that they would use to trade for incoming players.

Would like a F3 from port or GC to come our way, or an upgrade in future picks but would probably settle for Noble and Richards for Houston.

In what world does Lukocious on almost $1m pa bridge the gap between Houston and Richards? The guy is a back to back AA in his prime the last three guys we’ve had at that level were Pendles, Grundy and Naicos. That deal gets you laughed out the building.

 

[sam_e]

Richards is main list. The others look right. Agree with that list. I'd take out Ryan as he's young and has got 2 years left on his contract, but I'd add in Macrae.

But the thing is only Murphy, Noble, Krueger, AJ, Reef, Macrae and Richards (who we've offered a contract to) are on the main list.

So thats 6 potential main list spots until we know what's happening with Richards.
Murphy, Noble, Krueger, AJ, Reef, Macrae.

We need to have 3 vacancies for the draft plus as many vacancies as we recruit.

If we'd signed Reef already, with your delistings/re-rookies we'd be down to 5 potential vacancies and capped at recruiting 2 players during trade week - without pushing out someone else. Plus you'd want to have the option to keep Noble if GC don't offer enough. So at this stage, it'd really only be 1 player we could confidently add in trade week.

Hopefully, he gets another year with us - but if he's as good a prospect as many on here think - he'll be snapped up by someone else - I wouldn't be holding my breath, but think that's a chance.

we currently hold picks 32, 48, 50, 84

so 4 draft picks in total or 3 if you discount 84 (which is so far down pecking order it will likely be bundled to try and improve one of the other 3, or used as rookie upgrade, which is very unlikely this year given quality of our rooks).

so 3 draft picks

3 draft picks + whatever we get for Noble and Richards (either draft picks back our way or potentially player for player eg. Noble for Davies).

but at most, it's 3 draft +2 trade = 5; that is, unless we pick up any free agents (and i think they're all going elsewhere). albeit if we cash in our future 1st into this year's draft /trade then ..

so in toto, -5 to -7 main list spots (1.Murphy, 2.Kreug, 3.AJ, 4.Noble, 5.Richards and/or 6.Reef, 7.Macrae) to make room for 3 drafts + 2 trades max. .. therefore we have room

and that's before you take into account what i was proposing (stand to be corrected) actually culling some of the hail-mary deadwood from your rookie list (Bytel, Sully, Long) in order to move a couple of the 'fringe' (&/or contracted) main listers (MacRae, Reef, Kreugs) into those rookie spots

ps: i would be v.surprised if we don't bundle as many of our existing draft picks + Noble/Richards incoming draft picks to move up the draft order

 

[sr36]

we currently hold picks 32, 48, 50, 84

so 4 draft picks in total or 3 if you discount 84 (which is so far down pecking order it will likely be bundled to try and improve one of the other 3, or used as rookie upgrade, which is very unlikely this year given quality of our rooks).

so 3 draft picks

3 draft picks + whatever we get for Noble and Richards (either draft picks back our way or potentially player for player eg. Noble for Davies).

but at most, it's 3 draft +2 trade = 5; that is, unless we pick up any free agents (and i think they're all going elsewhere)

so in toto, -5 to -7 main list spots (1.Murphy, 2.Kreug, 3.AJ, 4.Noble, 5.Richards and/or 6.Reef, 7.Macrae) to make room for 3 drafts + 2 trades max. ie. we have room

and that's before you take into account what i was proposing (stand to be corrected) actually culling some of the hail-mary deadwood from your rookie list (Bytel, Sully, Long) in order to move a couple of the 'fringe' (&/or contracted) main listers (MacRae, Reef, Kreugs) into those rookie spots

In terms of the first bolded bit, you're including Richards as a vacancy - he's not yet. So that'd only be 1 vacancy for a traded in player - we'd want more flexibility than that.

And in terms of the seconded bolded paragraph - it is taking that into account.

By the looks of it, we're keeping our options open for trade week and may or may not sign guys like Krueger/Reef/Sullivan/etc... after that - depends on what happens in trade week. In the meantime, those guys would be hunting for a club willing to offer them a contract during trade week. And after trade week, there will be some delistings and signings from us - I think it's likely that there will be some blokes shuffled down to the rookie list like you're suggesting.

 

[Vicky Park]

A thing a lot of people don't realise about Hobart, is that it is in a rain shadow because of the mountains to the west.
Average temperatures during the footy season are only a little cooler than Melbourne, and the average rainfall is similar.
It underlines your point about a roof - why not just light towers at Blundstone?

I agree that a redeveloped Blundstone seems a better choice. Also closer to the airport.

But the argument for the new stadium - setting aside the cost which admittedly is hard to set aside - is that it will be walking distance to the Hobart CBD, and part of a precinct which the state government wants to regenerate, with benefits to local businesses etc. So while it will cost the earth, there are expected to be related economic benefits which go beyond the initial employment benefits.

I’m sure one of our resident Big Footy Van Demonians will set me straight on this.

But I’m not an apologist for the new stadium. Why not upgrade Blundstone and let the new club settle in and develop, before committing $ to the new stadium?

The roof is a furphy.

 

[Apex36]

Maybe its part of a broader discussion about the proportion of money that goes to sport in this country?

Australia always seem to overachieve at the olympics, I'm assuming because we allocate a relatively high proportion of funds to sport compared to other countries

Like someone else said on a post here, majority rules. AKA suck it up sweetheart if you happen to be in the minority that prioritise other values such as the arts, education, nature etc etc and probably everything else where you don't agree with the majority

Wouldn't it be great if the people who aren't in the majority could just F off to a wilderness at the end of the world and we could just leave them to do their own thing?

Oh wait...

Pro sport creates jobs and high amounts of revenue. That high revenue is then taxed by the government. The more high revenue ventures that can be funded, the more revenue can be created, the more taxes can then be obtained. Those extra taxes can then be allocated towards “important” things like medical/hospitals etc.

There’s obviously more complicated layers to it, but it’s not that hard to understand the basic economics as to why these sort of projects are actually important enough to get funding instead of just saying “mAjOrItY RuLeS tHeY CaN **** OfF”.

 

[stormskye]

I agree that a redeveloped Blundstone seems a better choice. Also closer to the airport.

But the argument for the new stadium - setting aside the cost which admittedly is hard to set aside - is that it will be walking distance to the Hobart CBD, and part of a precinct which the state government wants to regenerate, with benefits to local businesses etc. So while it will cost the earth, there are expected to be related economic benefits which go beyond the initial employment benefits.

I’m sure one of our resident Big Footy Van Demonians will set me straight on this.

But I’m not an apologist for the new stadium. Why not upgrade Blundstone and let the new club settle in and develop, before committing $ to the new stadium?

The roof is a furphy.

The spot for the stadium would be excellent. Right on the docks and easy walk to the city. Blundstone is the same as the old AAMI stadium, to far out to be a success. The change to Adelaide oval was a huge success for Adelaide, walking distance to everything.

Regarding the roof, must have IMO. If only for the fans and gate money.

They have do do it right the first time, or there will be never ending talk about the location and or lack of roof.

This is coming from one of those backward tassie people

 

[stormskye]

GETTABLE: Key to Eagles list calls, clubs hunt gun Sun, latest on GWS duo, Pies plans

Riley Beveridge answers your questions and is joined by GWS recruiting manager Adrian Caruso

www.afl.com.au

 

[cfc19902010]

The spot for the stadium would be excellent. Right on the docks and easy walk to the city. Blundstone is the same as the old AAMI stadium, to far out to be a success. The change to Adelaide oval was a huge success for Adelaide, walking distance to everything.

Regarding the roof, must have IMO. If only for the fans and gate money.

They have do do it right the first time, or there will be never ending talk about the location and or lack of roof.

This is coming from one of those backward tassie people

Tassie will find out the hard way that when it comes to attracting players , even on big money , convincing player partners that a cold wet location is the place to be . Could be a real issue
Sydney Queensland Perth have beaches and better weather and Melbourne has chadstone and restaurants bars for them but I don’t think Mona gallery and Salamanca market will cut the mustard with the fairer sex

 

[Vicky Park]

This is coming from one of those backward tassie people

I don’t think you’re backward. In fact, Tasmanians may live in the best place on earth.

All it needs to be perfect is a proper footy stadium!

 

[NMBB]

Tassie will find out the hard way that when it comes to attracting players , even on big money , convincing player partners that a cold wet boring location is the place to be . Could be a real issue
Sydney Queensland Perth have beaches and better weather and Melbourne has chadstone and restaurants bars for them but I don’t think Mona gallery and Salamanca market will cut the mustard with the fairer sex

What about meeting some hunky yachties after the Sydney - Hobart?

 

[JuniorB]

I don’t think you’re backward. In fact, Tasmanians may live in the best place on earth.

All it needs to be perfect is a proper footy stadium!

I love Hobart - if I was to live any where else in Australia, Hobart would be the place.
Great food and wine, along with magnificent natural attractions.
Of course, those things might not hold much interest for young men in their late teens or early 20s!

 

[sideswipe]

I don’t think you’re backward. In fact, Tasmanians may live in the best place on earth.

All it needs to be perfect is a proper footy stadium!

And Hobart is about to open a golf course at Seven Mile Beach - which from all reports will be a proper, world class Links course!

7 Mile Beach

world class public golf

7milegolf.com.au

 

[brockbruiser]

I agree that a redeveloped Blundstone seems a better choice. Also closer to the airport.

But the argument for the new stadium - setting aside the cost which admittedly is hard to set aside - is that it will be walking distance to the Hobart CBD, and part of a precinct which the state government wants to regenerate, with benefits to local businesses etc. So while it will cost the earth, there are expected to be related economic benefits which go beyond the initial employment benefits.

I’m sure one of our resident Big Footy Van Demonians will set me straight on this.

But I’m not an apologist for the new stadium. Why not upgrade Blundstone and let the new club settle in and develop, before committing $ to the new stadium?

The roof is a furphy.

Blundstone Arena, while a more than worthy stadium is built in a predominantly residential area, with very little surrounding it.

The problem with Tasmanians is they don't understand Economics. They purely see money going to the stadium as a cost that should be allocated to hospitals. What they fail to understand is the economic benefits that will come from building a stadium and having a professional sporting side. They will hopefully develop a revenue stream if done correctly which in turn can be used to fund other areas.

Having it in the CBD is just a no-brainer. If you want to encourage tourists to the state to watch footy, the ability to stay in the city, grab breakfast/lunch/dinner all within walking distance to the footy is appealing and easy. It will help businesses within the CBD and encourage more people to come into the city, which has long been a goal (which can be seen with the government moving the University into the CBD).

Rainfall in Tassie is actually lower per year than most states in Australia, albeit it's a couple of degrees typically colder than Melbourne, so perhaps the roof appeal was to get more bums on seats. It's something pushed by the AFL in the negotiations and many of the locals didn't understand why they needed to have it in order to get an AFL team. Many Tasmanians felt they AFL's requirements for them to have their own team were too much, especially in comparison to GC and GWS.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

GETTABLE: Key to Eagles list calls, clubs hunt gun Sun, latest on GWS duo, Pies plans

Riley Beveridge answers your questions and is joined by GWS recruiting manager Adrian Caruso

www.afl.com.au

Cliff notes please.

 

[Jen2310]

Cliff notes please.

Nothing really
Riley talked about our midfield interest in the off season given we have interest in peatling/davies

Thats really all.
Mentioned Tomlinson, but he likely more to the saints.

 

[OniAu]

Nothing really
Riley talked about our midfield interest in the off season given we have interest in peatling/davies

Thats really all.
Mentioned Tomlinson, but he likely more to the saints.

Other words " add pies on to the title to obtain more clicks"

 

[nahnah]

Suns just delisted 6 players, should we pick them all up??

 

[live fast pieyoung]

Pro sport creates jobs and high amounts of revenue. That high revenue is then taxed by the government. The more high revenue ventures that can be funded, the more revenue can be created, the more taxes can then be obtained. Those extra taxes can then be allocated towards “important” things like medical/hospitals etc.

There’s obviously more complicated layers to it, but it’s not that hard to understand the basic economics as to why these sort of projects are actually important enough to get funding instead of just saying “mAjOrItY RuLeS tHeY CaN **** OfF”.

all projects have economic multiplier effects
not sure australia allocates its funds on the merit of economic impact
but thats a whole other discussion

and thats even before we talk about how much money actually ends up taxed

with due respect, it may be the case that this specific project stacks up - i havent read the economic impact report
but thats why im referencing a wider discussion

on the other hand, if you think australia's public spending is a question of "basic economics" and not politics, i think theres a few rude awakenings . I'd like all our money back from Serco for starters