by RustyCage » Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:17 pm
by stan » Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:12 am
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?
by kickinit » Sat Oct 25, 2014 9:48 am
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?
by daysofourlives » Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:19 am
by Jim05 » Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:31 am
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
by Spargo » Sat Oct 25, 2014 5:28 pm
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.
by Booney » Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:39 am
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.
by gossipgirl » Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:20 pm
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.
by carey » Mon Oct 27, 2014 12:41 pm
by RustyCage » Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:12 pm
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 ?
by bennymacca » Mon Oct 27, 2014 1:22 pm
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 )
by heater31 » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:12 am
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
by bennymacca » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:13 am
by smac » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am
by heater31 » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:25 am
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.
by smac » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:26 am
by woodublieve12 » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:39 am
smac wrote:Their profession is overpaid. They are fine.
by Booney » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:39 am
smac wrote:Their profession is overpaid. They are fine.
by Booney » Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:40 am
woodublieve12 wrote:smac wrote:Their profession is overpaid. They are fine.
Actually underpaid compared to other sports around the world.
by The Dark Knight » Tue Oct 28, 2014 9:06 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |