SA Footy

No. It's a way of telling him he probably won't play in the AFL again unless we have a few injuries.

dedja wrote:Excuse my scepticism, but isn't delisting then rookie listing Logan a way for Port to keep him playing in their SANFL side, therefore bypassing the trading rules imposed by the SANFL?

Like Renouf last season its just insurance for the list. Basically they are saying we only need you if we are ******.

dedja wrote:Excuse my scepticism, but isn't delisting then rookie listing Logan a way for Port to keep him playing in their SANFL side, therefore bypassing the trading rules imposed by the SANFL?

Logan would of been delisted if Newton had signed a new contract.

So can we assume that either Essendon didnt want Newton or Newton didnt want to go to Essendon in the Ryder trade?
Hope Essendon draft him

daysofourlives wrote:So can we assume that either Essendon didnt want Newton or Newton didnt want to go to Essendon in the Ryder trade?
Hope Essendon draft him

Bit of both, we didnt really want him and he wanted to get to Geelong I believe.
We wont be drafting him, first two picks will go on kids and then we dont have another pick until fairly late

RustyCage wrote:No. It's a way of telling him he probably won't play in the AFL again unless we have a few injuries.

I think we all know that Dedja's theory is far more believable.

Spargo wrote:

RustyCage wrote:No. It's a way of telling him he probably won't play in the AFL again unless we have a few injuries.

I think we all know that Dedja's theory is far more believable.

Yes and no.

Logan is unlucky to be demoted to the rookie list ( still don't understand how a bloke with his experience can be a "rookie", I think it should be called supplementary list or the like ) and I would not be surprised to see him elevated back onto the senior list if we find no suitable selections in the draft. Or if we find ourselves picking 3 kids in the draft, he may be elevated.

dedja, you're excused.

As for Benny Newton, it's an interesting one. Basically by knocking back a contract from Port and entering the draft he has, in effect, made himself a free agent after a handful of games over 3-4 years.

If he'd been up front about a proposed destination we could have been compensated in the trade period, instead we lose a player who adds to our midfield depth and one who is good quality cover for our first picked side.

Booney wrote:

Spargo wrote:

RustyCage wrote:No. It's a way of telling him he probably won't play in the AFL again unless we have a few injuries.

I think we all know that Dedja's theory is far more believable.

Yes and no.

Logan is unlucky to be demoted to the rookie list ( still don't understand how a bloke with his experience can be a "rookie", I think it should be called supplementary list or the like ) and I would not be surprised to see him elevated back onto the senior list if we find no suitable selections in the draft. Or if we find ourselves picking 3 kids in the draft, he may be elevated.

dedja, you're excused.

As for Benny Newton, it's an interesting one. Basically by knocking back a contract from Port and entering the draft he has, in effect, made himself a free agent after a handful of games over 3-4 years.

If he'd been up front about a proposed destination we could have been compensated in the trade period, instead we lose a player who adds to our midfield depth and one who is good quality cover for our first picked side.

but why would anyone leave port willingly ?

For the simple fact that Port at full strength He (Newton) doesn't get a look in.

gossipgirl wrote:

Booney wrote:

Spargo wrote:

RustyCage wrote:No. It's a way of telling him he probably won't play in the AFL again unless we have a few injuries.

I think we all know that Dedja's theory is far more believable.

Yes and no.

Logan is unlucky to be demoted to the rookie list ( still don't understand how a bloke with his experience can be a "rookie", I think it should be called supplementary list or the like ) and I would not be surprised to see him elevated back onto the senior list if we find no suitable selections in the draft. Or if we find ourselves picking 3 kids in the draft, he may be elevated.

dedja, you're excused.

As for Benny Newton, it's an interesting one. Basically by knocking back a contract from Port and entering the draft he has, in effect, made himself a free agent after a handful of games over 3-4 years.

If he'd been up front about a proposed destination we could have been compensated in the trade period, instead we lose a player who adds to our midfield depth and one who is good quality cover for our first picked side.

but why would anyone leave port willingly ?

Opportunities. He is behind Moore and Young in the "next in line" list.

Booney wrote:
Logan is unlucky to be demoted to the rookie list ( still don't understand how a bloke with his experience can be a "rookie", I think it should be called supplementary list or the like )

imo i don't think they should have a rookie list - just expand the list accordingly, but make it so that teams don't have to fill those spots if they don't want to.

maybe cat b rookies could be kept as is, but i think its a bit silly the way the rookie system works now, especially when you can put mature aged guys on there

bennymacca wrote:

Booney wrote:
Logan is unlucky to be demoted to the rookie list ( still don't understand how a bloke with his experience can be a "rookie", I think it should be called supplementary list or the like )

imo i don't think they should have a rookie list - just expand the list accordingly, but make it so that teams don't have to fill those spots if they don't want to.

maybe cat b rookies could be kept as is, but i think its a bit silly the way the rookie system works now, especially when you can put mature aged guys on there

The AFL Rookie list is a disguise for slave labour. Granted that you are working as a professional sportsman but in essence you are overworked and underpaid for basically doing everything that somebody does on the primary list.

Yep agree entirely

Pump the breaks! Let's define underpaid, shall we? Is it really someone who is 'only' paid somewhere in the vicinity of the average wage for an Australian?

They do just fine, but they can't buy a home on the beach front so we're supposed to feel for them?

Won't even touch the term slave labour.

smac wrote:Pump the breaks! Let's define underpaid, shall we? Is it really someone who is 'only' paid somewhere in the vicinity of the average wage for an Australian?

They do just fine, but they can't buy a home on the beach front so we're supposed to feel for them?

Won't even touch the term slave labour.

In comparison to the average wage in their profession. Yes they are underpaid, to the average Australian no they are probably not.


Until the Gold Coast came in Rookies used to be paid about half of what they get now.

Their profession is overpaid. They are fine.

smac wrote:Their profession is overpaid. They are fine.

Actually underpaid compared to other sports around the world.

smac wrote:Their profession is overpaid. They are fine.

Agreed.

AFL rookie wage - $54,000. ( Add match payments for those who get elevated and play AFL level )

Eat breakfast at the club, lunch at the club, get clothed ( in the main with official club apparel ), full medical cover, if a first or second year player probably get housed with a host family or live with 2-3 other rookies all the while training at elite level and doing what you love for a living.

Go ahead, make me an 18 year old "slave".

woodublieve12 wrote:

smac wrote:Their profession is overpaid. They are fine.

Actually underpaid compared to other sports around the world.

Perhaps, but the ludicrous $200,000+ per week some nancy boy shin guard wearing EPL dive team players earn is outrageous.

Last two posts well said Booney!