sheesh! attention whore much MF?

Uh...Majak Daw much?

I believe he was a rookie upgrade - so Aliir Aliir warrants a special mention.

They both get full marks for excellent names.

Majak was a first round pick (9th overall) in 2009 #-o

Edited by afromanGT: 22/11/2013 09:36:31 PM

That's incorrect.

He was no. 9 in the 2010 rookie draft.

It's mentioned in this article as well:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-15/power-spring-harding-surprise/1179410

He was the first Sudanese-born on an AFL list, that is correct, but Aliir Aliir is the first to be drafted.

Sounds to me like the AFL has too many drafts. If you're drafted in one draft you're "Drafted" if you're drafted in another draft you aren't drafted. What?

Well yes, because there's one draft for players which puts them in the main squad (the one that happened last night, and that aliir was drafted in). And then players who aren't drafted there, can be picked up in the rookie draft, where they're drafted on to the rookie list, and ineligible to play for the seniors(which is where Daw was brought in).

So its a technicality, but it is correct.

Edited by Funky Munky: 22/11/2013 11:17:43 PM

Even so, I do miss the mid season draft

On topic with the draft I'm absolutely stoked with how Collingwood faired, trading up for pick six was a master stroke, and Scharenberg looks like he has the makings of a quality player that can step in and do a job from round one, especially with the void left by Heath Shaw. Whilst I like the look of the size and pace of Freeman, our list really is lacking on speed especially now Thomas has defected, so both top 10 selections fill an immediate need and represent exciting prospects for the future.

So they have to be picked again as a "rookie pick" in the draft the year after?

Wouldn't it make more sense to limit the squad size, have them all picked in one draft and then have any players who don't make the cut either delisted or registered on a "training squad" list? Then in the event of a major injury (say more than 6 weeks) allow a player from the "training squad" to be promoted to take that injured player's place.

Clubs can and often do use late round draft picks to upgrade rookies to the senior list if they impress enough.

Yeah, but they've spent a season in the wilderness before then haven't they?

Not always, for example Collingwood used a late round pick (87) on Sam Dwyer who played 21 senior games for us last season and was clear best 22. Also when players on a senior AFL list sustain long term injuries, a rookie can be upgraded to senior status to fill their spot on the list, and when this is the case players usually do enough to warrant an official upgrade for the next season.

Edited by fredsta: 23/11/2013 04:36:23 PM

So bottom line is that being a designated "rookie" draft pick is nothing more than ceremonial bullshit.

Not really, it's more of a second chance for players with a number of rookies being mature age VFL/SANFL/WAFL players. It also gives clubs the opportunity to take a chance and either blood a talented player who missed out for what ever reason, or to take a raw project type player (e.g Majak Daw) and develop them without the risk of wasting a draft pick on a more polished option.

So why not just add more rounds with more picks? developmental projects will get picked in the later rounds. Y'know, common sense and shit.

These lads with 'rookie' notation can still be selected for the club whether they've been drafted or not (in the case of Dwyer) then they just select them with a late round pick the next season once they're done picking their other players. It's sort of like a "hands off but we're not sure yet" kind of statement that baffles me.

It seems flawed to me. Especially with the introduction of free agency. If a player has been denoted 'rookie' for a club but is never fully drafted is he a free agent? And then if he moves to another club does he then have to be denoted as a rookie there too? Does he count towards the cap?

If you have all the players selected in one draft, it would make it harder for talented players to slip through the cracks and 'rookie' tags don't muddy the waters of Free Agency.

Edited by afromanGT: 23/11/2013 05:30:37 PM

In theory there's nothing wrong with what you suggest, but it all comes down to list management, there are only so many spots you can fill for the senior squad, which is why the rookie draft is useful in strengthening squad depth without interfering with the limitations of list restrictions.

As for the whole free agency debate, I'm not 100% sure how it all works but I imagine the contract signed upon being selected as a rookie would be no different to a senior or reserves contract in that it would hold you to the club. In the case of Dwyer he was offered a senior contracted about midway through last season, whether or not that came into effect immediately or started upon being selected in this daft is another thing though.


Edited by fredsta: 23/11/2013 05:50:05 PM

But how can you sign a contract before you're drafted? What if he signs a contract and then they don't draft him? Is he still under contract? Is he a free agent? The whole system is unnecessarily complex.

You can still have squad depth by denoting your standard draft players as "training squad" players as I suggested. It's basically the same principle but all the players are picked in one draft instead of spending a year or more in the doldrums.

You've just described exactly what happens, bolded aside, and just replaced the name "Rookie List" with "Training Squad" :lol:.

Edited by Funky Munky: 23/11/2013 06:31:16 PM

There's no cap on squad size though is there?

If you have it all in one draft it makes Free Agency more transparent, makes the draft process more simple and will stop young players from having to wait into their mid-twenties to get a second chance on a 'rookie list'.

Yes there is, clubs are only allowed 38 players in their Senior Squads.

The drafting process is fine as is. It's not complicated at all, I don't understand how you could think that.

As for players waiting on the rookie list, that's impossible. Players placed on the rookie list are only allowed on there for a year. The club can retain 3 players from the list for an extra two seasons, but only if the player agrees, otherwise the player must be delisted, or promoted to the senior squad.

There is, which is why most rookies only see game time after a senior player has been moved on to the long term injuries list.

In regards to contract holding, rookies are eligible for reserve games and as far as I know are contracted with the club no differently than any other player on the senior or reserve lists.

Further results for the 2013 season:

Collingwood: $16.35 million net* (reduced to a mere $5 mill after adjustments)
Carlton: $528,000
Essendon: -$3.2 million (includes ASADA/AFL costs)
Hawthorn: - $928,000 ($4 million impairment on consolidated revenue)

It looks like Colllingwood earns a decent premium on all those pet memberships (80,000 members in total)

How can Collingwood be making that much profit? That's dwarfing everybody significantly.

ou have a good understanding of professional sport - you know the answer.

Collingwood make more money than anyone else, but their expenditure is only marginaly higher than everyone else.

Player salaries are the same, the only differentiation is coaches, and trips to Arizona - and you can only do that so many times per annum.

The AFL has to work out a way to re-direct these excess revenues to other clubs. It's a waste of resources to have clubs who don't need it accumulate more and more, with nothing to spend it on.

Financial results for the 2013 season:

Collingwood: $16.35 million net* (reduced to a mere $5 mill after adjustments)
Richmond: $3.3 mill profit
Carlton: $528,000
Essendon: -$3.2 million (includes ASADA/AFL costs)
Hawthorn: - $928,000 ($4 million impairment on consolidated revenue)
Brisbane: - $1.5 mill ($43.5 mill in revenue)
North: $1 mill profit

Tom Boyd on the front page of Denmark's national paper:
http://www.mx.dk/sport/sportsnyheder/story/26575142

Halvdansker er nummer ét i Australien
En 18-årig knægt med dansk mor blev valgt først i draften i AFL. Tom Boyd hedder han og er lykkelig.


My Danish is a bit rough but it's referring to Boyd as the no. 1 draft and having a Danish mother.

ALF taking tremendous global strides.

The Geelong Football Club has announced a consolidated net profit of $1.2 million for 2013.

The club's net asset position is $11.2 million, and total turnover increased to $56.1 million.