-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Delistings
- Thread starter ELfooty
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Is Scott still in contract?
Nightwolf_69 said:
Yeah, both Scott and Kane will be among the delisted grouping for sure.
Holland
Beaumont
Dixon
Ball
Ladson
Greene
Scott
Kane
Hopefully Lekkas can be talked into continuing, or Ladson may get a reprieve.
I'm no huge wrap for Barker, but with our KPP stocks raw and lean, I'd give him another year. Both Barker & Lekkas are popular and experienced players around the club and could be useful in helping to bring younger players on.
I'd actually send Ries on a long walk down a short road before several of these guys, but its not worth paying out his contract.
Why is Ben Dixon not at 100%? 
10 years people.
10 years people.
I don't like jacobs, falls into my germ type player catergory, delist him or send him back to windy hill, though i doubt they will take him.
Depth Shmepth - 10 bloody years - I've had a gutful.
- Jan 31, 2005
- 567
- 1
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Hawthorn
- Banned
- #9
binxy24 said:Why is Ben Dixon not at 100%?
10 years people.
Worst player in the team list. Being played to ensure Hawthorn gets a priority pick in the national draft. In fact, the worst player I have seen in a Hawthorn jumper.
What makes it even more galling is that I reckon he's on 300-350K a season.
thurgood33
Senior List
danny jacobs!! twice as bad as dixon. worst player i have ever seen, i'd also have dixon over vandenburg (had vandenburg not instigated that brawl last year he would've been out the door & now his captain
Is this possible within the realms of physics?thurgood33 said:
While we're on Dixon - is he eligible for the veterans list?
ELfooty said:
We can't put Everitt on it because he hasn't been with us for ten years.
Given that Dixon was taken in the 1994 draft, he should be eligible for the veteran's list this year.
ELfooty said:
Actually, that's a good point.
I know you have to have spent ten years at the club to be on the list, but it ispossible that you also have to be at least 30 years of age, which would rule out Dixon.
I only ask because it would hurt less knowing he's only getting paid $125k to drop sitters and run backwards.binxy24 said:
ELfooty said:
Nah mate, the old Frere Jacques didn't join up with us until 1998.
I'd keep him on anyway.
Not because I think he's anything great, because he clearly is not, but he is a KPP and he does have experience and a good rep around the club.
We may be in some danger of getting too unbalanced with experience and inexperience at the club. As such I'd like to keep Barker & Lekkas on if possible.
Both could be cut at the end of next season; Smith & Vandenburg the year after; then Crawford & Everitt could retire at the end of 2008 (all going well).
binxy24 said:
Well, he'd still be getting paid the $250k, its just that only half of it would be getting recognised under the cap.
Not a good enough reason to keep him on in my view. If Barker or Lekkas say they don't want to continue then I may give him another season.
- Jan 31, 2005
- 567
- 1
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Hawthorn
- Banned
- #21
CyberKev said:
That's just what the club needs given it's going to be announcing a $million+ loss. You could use it in your membership promotions for next season - despite winning just six of our last thirty-six games, the most lazy, self-indulgent and gutless footballer on our list over the last four years is going to be lining up next season.
The good part is that only half his salary needs to be disclosed in the salary cap. I wonder how many memberships will need to be sold to service the salary of this useless prick. The club would be better off with any of the following alternatives: putting Jason Cloke on our list, promoting Kirkby from the rookie list, or exercising the 151st pick in the national draft.
I think I love you.
