List Mgmt. Hawk's List Management for 2025

[Scrads]

Usually do one of these before the trade period but was caught-up with other stuff this year so here is my post-trade period update! This is what I have at the moment. As you can see, firstly the list is STACKED in terms of talent (which we already knew) but is also pretty close to being completely full as it is. If what I have is correct, then we have 36 primary list, 4 Cat A and 1 Cat B locked in for next year which leaves us with limited options in terms of drafting next month and SSP/MSD in 2025.

If I had to guess, I'd say we are likely to delist-then-rookie one or both of Gunston and/or Breust for flexibility. Regardless, we can only intake a max of 2 players to primary/Cat A list at the moment plus the option of another Cat B player if we want (which I suspect we will re-sign Bennetts with).

As usual, if you spot any mistakes then please let me know

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Given the feedback you've been given on this one, and how other posters have responded to the situation, it's probably time for you to take a breath and reflect on how you come across.

He was blunt and forceful but it is a fair overall point he was making. I get wanting to defend your child and wanting the absolute best for them - but Bigfooty is very visible and clearly checked in on by folk at clubland and you could potentially be doing a disservice to your kid by posting on here. Birdland is admirable for being disappointed for his son - but I think discussing it here was probably ill advised. Remember when Teia Mils, I think it was, had his mates getting all stroppy on our socials about him not getting selected. He then ended up delisted and despite the consensus being he would get picked up at Geelong he never did. Now that's not to say those events wouldn't have transpired if his mates hadn't gone off - but you never know if they made life more difficult for him.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Please don't go by articles written last year.
It's simple maths. The maximum players on a senior list is 38 - we currently have 36. We can't use three picks as that would give us 39.

Therefore, two picks.

No I think the max is 44 throughout Primary and CatA&B.

"List sizes for 2023 are set at 36 to 38 primary listed players, four to six Category A rookies and up to two Category B rookies, with a maximum of 44 players overall"
I haven't found an article for 2024/2025 so assuming that's current.

So I'm not allowed to quote written rules from the AFL from 2024 but you're happy to quote an "article" from 2023 as your evidence?

Again though in regards to P&P and his misguided beliefs, if we do take three picks in the ND it'll be because we WANT TO not because we need to.

You can stop being a snarky campaigner, I have happily said that I will say I got it wrong if you can provide any written evidence to say that it is only 2 picks. You just have not provided that at all.

 

[Scrads]

No I think the max is 44 throughout Primary and CatA&B.

"List sizes for 2023 are set at 36 to 38 primary listed players, four to six Category A rookies and up to two Category B rookies, with a maximum of 44 players overall"
I haven't found an article for 2024/2025 so assuming that's current.

Page 185 in here:

Loading…

resources.afl.com.au

36 on primary list - you are allowed 1-6 Cat A rookies (i.e. a max of 42 players)
37 on primary list - you are allowed 0-5 Cat A rookies (i.e. a max of 42 players)
38 on primary list - you are allowed 0-4 Cat A rookies (i.e. a max of 42 players)

The "max of 44" comes from if you max out your Primary and Cat A rookies at 42, and then max out your Cat B rookies (2) on top of that.

 

[H00t]

Page 185 in here:

Loading…

resources.afl.com.au

36 on primary list - you are allowed 1-6 Cat A rookies (i.e. a max of 42 players)
37 on primary list - you are allowed 0-5 Cat A rookies (i.e. a max of 42 players)
38 on primary list - you are allowed 0-4 Cat A rookies (i.e. a max of 42 players)

The "max of 44" comes from if you max out your Primary and Cat A rookies at 42, and then max out your Cat B rookies (2) on top of that.

That graphic sums it up nicely. Also I’m almost certain this exact same discussion came up last year with the same talking points.

 

[eldorado]

The max is 44. We have 36 Primary & 4 rookies + one CatB (JUH). That means we currently have two primary & one rookie spot open. We could delist & rookie to free up another Primary

I'm sorry, you are incorrect.

The max is 44, INCLUDING 2 Cat Bs

The max for senior and Cat A's is 42. The mix of this can be anything from 36-6 to 38-4...but 42 is the maximum number of players on the playing roster (barring LTI Cat B elevations)

We currently have 40, as you say.

There are TWO spaces on the playing roster of 42, and room for another non-playing CatB.

 

[cryptor]

Here they all are

Is Crypt coming next?

Me or The Cryptkeeper ?

 

[BIGHAWK23]

Me or The Cryptkeeper ?

Not you my friend

 

[cryptor]

Not you my friend

Phew. RIP other Crypt

 

[Harper_Hawk]

Angry?

It’s professional sport

Grow up

Cmon…wouldn’t you be angry. Being a part of an AFL club is everything for these kids and their families. Everything. It’s bigger than just kicking the footy. If my kid was delisted by the Hawks I’d be devastated.. let alone how the kids feeling. You can be professional and have empathy at the same time. They’re mutually inclusive.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Yardie]

He was blunt and forceful but it is a fair overall point he was making. I get wanting to defend your child and wanting the absolute best for them - but Bigfooty is very visible and clearly checked in on by folk at clubland and you could potentially be doing a disservice to your kid by posting on here. Birdland is admirable for being disappointed for his son - but I think discussing it here was probably ill advised. Remember when Teia Mils, I think it was, had his mates getting all stroppy on our socials about him not getting selected. He then ended up delisted and despite the consensus being he would get picked up at Geelong he never did. Now that's not to say those events wouldn't have transpired if his mates hadn't gone off - but you never know if they made life more difficult for him.

Not disagreeing that the overall point was fair. More around how to deliver it.

 

[MazHawk]

Page 185 in here:

Loading…

resources.afl.com.au

36 on primary list - you are allowed 1-6 Cat A rookies (i.e. a max of 42 players)
37 on primary list - you are allowed 0-5 Cat A rookies (i.e. a max of 42 players)
38 on primary list - you are allowed 0-4 Cat A rookies (i.e. a max of 42 players)

The "max of 44" comes from if you max out your Primary and Cat A rookies at 42, and then max out your Cat B rookies (2) on top of t

Page 185 in here:

Loading…

resources.afl.com.au

36 on primary list - you are allowed 1-6 Cat A rookies (i.e. a max of 42 players)
37 on primary list - you are allowed 0-5 Cat A rookies (i.e. a max of 42 players)
38 on primary list - you are allowed 0-4 Cat A rookies (i.e. a max of 42 players)

The "max of 44" comes from if you max out your Primary and Cat A rookies at 42, and then max out your Cat B rookies (2) on top of that.

Exactly, so as I said we have room for two more draft picks and one more CatB .... and P&P - since we'll use those two picks to take our Primary list to 38 and we already have the maximum four CatA rookies that means TWO not three at the draft.

Even though it wasn't me that provided you with the "written evidence" I'll happily take all credit for being right

 

[Scrads]

Exactly, so as I said we have room for two more draft picks and one more CatB .... and P&P - since we'll use those two picks to take our Primary list to 38 and we already have the maximum four CatA rookies that means TWO not three at the draft.

Even though it wasn't me that provided you with the "written evidence" I'll happily take all credit for being right

I have no idea what you're trying to say, sorry. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

My point was the maximum is 42 across the Senior + Cat A lists and that delisting someone to rookie them doesn't give us any additional room for anyone else because we'd still have 40 across both which is 2 short of the max.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Exactly, so as I said we have room for two more draft picks and one more CatB .... and P&P - since we'll use those two picks to take our Primary list to 38 and we already have the maximum four CatA rookies that means TWO not three at the draft.

Even though it wasn't me that provided you with the "written evidence" I'll happily take all credit for being right

Ok, so you're just being a dumb **** now.
What I have showed you is a 2024 document from the AFL that says clubs need to take a minimum of three picks in the National Draft. These are words written by the AFL AND it also includes exceptions which they link to in that very document.
You now want to quote someone who quoted the same document as me. despite claiming the document was outdated.

You're being a hypocrite and a snarky campaigner for no reason. The AFL have literally written that clubs need to take a minimum 3 selections at the National Draft (with exceptions)
Maybe you can contact the AFL and tell them that they have written their draft rules incorrectly, because your issue is clearly with the written AFL draft rules.

Again, there has been no need to be a snarky campaigner about any of this, yet you continually have been in each post for some odd reason.

 

[TassieGrown]

 

[MazHawk]

I have no idea what you're trying to say, sorry. I think you're confusing me with someone else.

My point was the maximum is 42 across the Senior + Cat A lists and that delisting someone to rookie them doesn't give us any additional room for anyone else because we'd still have 40 across both which is 2 short of the max.

No I wasn't replying to you just used your post. My mistake was thinking that the list size of 44 could be made up of three CatB's if needed, or five CatA's and a CatB when you had 38 Primary's. Just pointing out to P&P that we only need two picks in the draft and we can't delist&rookie since we already have the four CatA rookies.

 

[MazHawk]

The AFL have literally written that clubs need to take a minimum 3 selections at the National Draft (with exceptions)

This has been my point and I apologise for being snarky but you just don't seem to get it.
How are we supposed to 'must take' three selections when we only have two Primary list spots open and have already filled the four rookie A spots?

 

[Yardie]

This has been my point and I apologise for being snarky but you just don't seem to get it.
How are we supposed to 'must take' three selections when we only have two Primary list spots open and have already filled the four rookie A spots?

I think you need to check out the bolded part of his sentence......

 

[PenAndPaper]

This has been my point and I apologise for being snarky but you just don't seem to get it.
How are we supposed to 'must take' three selections when we only have two Primary list spots open and have already filled the four rookie A spots?

And my point is, how are we supposed to take a minimum of three selections (which is what the AFL has said is the minimum) in the national draft if our list spots are filled?
These are their own rules, the fact that they may be incorrect is just extremely strange.

 

[MazHawk]

I think you need to check out the bolded part of his sentence......

I have, and I'm wondering what our (and Adelaide's) exception is? I can't see anywhere where these exceptions are outlined by the AFL and I can't see how we would qualify to only have the two draft picks.
Anyone?

 

[MazHawk]

And my point is, how are we supposed to take a minimum of three selections (which is what the AFL has said is the minimum) in the national draft if our list spots are filled?
These are their own rules, the fact that they may be incorrect is just extremely strange.

This I agree with completely.

 

[FB19]

This I agree with completely.

 

[Yardie]

I have, and I'm wondering what our (and Adelaide's) exception is? I can't see anywhere where these exceptions are outlined by the AFL and I can't see how we would qualify to only have the two draft picks.
Anyone?

Now that is a good question! I'm trying to work it out, might need to have a nap and channel my inner Sleepy.....

 

[brad sue well]

Haven’t read this thread much but a Storm contact said Hill is on his way to HFC.

 

[ahhhhhh]

Haven’t read this thread much but a Storm contact said Hill is on his way to HFC.

He was in the Gold Coast Academy.

 

[MazHawk]

Haven’t read this thread much but a Storm contact said Hill is on his way to HFC.

Can't find any details about him - height, weight etc. Only that in the NRL h's a gifted player "On-field he has a lot of X-factor and can do things that not a lot of other players can. He has a great sense for the game."