Delistings - confirmed changes on p9

Laguna Legend · **Joined:** Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:09 am **Posts:** 497

BlueBelle32 wrote:

Chris Johnson was told he wouldn't be getting a new contract at the end of the season. Not sure if that's changed now after trade week, but can't see why not.

Anderson got a new 2 year contract.

as what? the janitor at VisyP?

BigKev · **Posted:** Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:10 pm

Sydney Blue wrote:

Tough gig this AFL it a shame to see guys barely 20 thrown on the scrap heap

I cant think of any other industry where people are taken in and spat out so quickly it makes you think the system is wrong . You employ an apprentice and you have him for four years and to get rid of him in that time they pratically have to commit murder . AFL kid finishes y12gets drafted then runs like he has never before most develop niggles along the way then at the end of year 2 it see you later son.

a better system would be to have a senoir list of 30-32 and an under 21 competition , If the kid is good enough he can still get selected if he is not up to it it at least gives him 3 years to prove himself in a competition that is more even rather than turning out at preston and manning up on some guy who has been round the traps a bit . the guys older than 21 not selected can always go back to the VFL or WAfl or whatever

I hope the guys delisted all fall on their feet somewhere be it on a footy field or elsewhere and I really hope that the clubs and AFL have prepared them for life after footy - But I doubt it

I can think of a lot situtations young men in our society find themselves in at 20 that make them a lot more worthy of sympathy than these guys.

blue4 · **Joined:** Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:04 pm **Posts:** 976

Donstuie wrote:

Our old pal Blueinblood believes we'll rookie ROK

Quote:

Will be back on our rookie list. Pre-Listed after ND and PSD.

I hope this is the case. This guy has something no-one else on our list has, and would be a crucial part of the team if he can his fitness right.

He also believes we'll draft a couple of 'experienced' players in the draft

Quote:

While the delistings werent suprises, alot of our 'depth' has really gone out the window. We will be drafting one if not two older more seasoned players.

Yep, reckon ROK is definitely worth to be on an AFL list - deserves a rookie spot.

BlueBelle32 · **Joined:** Tue Sep 07, 2010 11:31 am **Posts:** 75

Laguna Legend wrote:

BlueBelle32 wrote:

Chris Johnson was told he wouldn't be getting a new contract at the end of the season. Not sure if that's changed now after trade week, but can't see why not.

Anderson got a new 2 year contract.

as what? the janitor at VisyP?

Just repeated what another poster put up here on this site re Anderson :wink:

my two cents · **Joined:** Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:28 pm **Posts:** 572

ROK medical must have been iffy for us to delist him. Good size, long accurate kick, hard at it, are qualities we do not have enough, on our list. Hopefully we can rookie him to see how well he recovers over the next 12 months.

Leaving Fish stranded on 99 games is poor form and show of disloyalty by the MC. It dosen't matter how many games Fish should have played, but if you have a player on 99 games then you get him to 100. We should have played him against Richmond, but then we have a coach who has very little confidence in himself and the team to consider these matters. Any talk of ruthless is just BS, the current lot in charge are more confused and insecure than ruthless.

DIAMOTISM · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:07 am

my two cents wrote:

the current lot in charge are more confused and insecure than ruthless.

Agreed, Carlton are flowerED and we all should barrack for Collingwood :donk:

club29 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:08 am

my two cents wrote:

ROK medical must have been iffy for us to delist him. Good size, long accurate kick, hard at it, are qualities we do not have enough, on our list. Hopefully we can rookie him to see how well he recovers over the next 12 months.

Leaving Fish stranded on 99 games is poor form and show of disloyalty by the MC. It dosen't matter how many games Fish should have played, but if you have a player on 99 games then you get him to 100. We should have played him against Richmond, but then we have a coach who has very little confidence in himself and the team to consider these matters. Any talk of ruthless is just BS, the current lot in charge are more confused and insecure than ruthless.

Thats crazy talk. No confidence in himself for not playing a bloke who wasnt part of the future and didnt fit our game style in a must win game just so this player can get to 100. Sounds like you are more confused than "the lot in charge".

Fish is a pro and one of the leaders in of the club. No way he would have wanted to risk the team a finals appearance or a chance at a home final. He would want to be picked when the coaches think he deserved it.

Fisher has been fantastic for our club.

JohnM · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:28 am

The slight chance he'd one day have a kid good enough to play AFL football should be all the reason you need to get a player from 99 to 100 games. It's not all about the warm and fuzzies... if Essendon* is ever able to draft one of Rioli's kids under F/S, they'll be bloody glad Sheedy deliberately got him to 100 games for that express reason.

May not pay off, but I reckon the potential long-term reward is worth finding a single extra game in the season.

london blue · **Joined:** Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:08 pm **Posts:** 3258

my two cents, i am sure i would benefit from some of your insight:

what specifically demonstrates that the coach lacks confidence in himself? what would he do differently if he had confidence in himself?

those in charge are insecure (and who are they)? you are pre-supposing that if, they were secure in themselves, they would have played Fish?

cheers

blue4 · **Joined:** Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:04 pm **Posts:** 976

Fish is great value but lets be honest he was lucky to get to 50 games let alone 99 games.

Bit of a sack-job not getting him to 100 - not sure he overly deserves it other than being a great guy.

That's life - we move on...

Rexy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am **Posts:** 28227

club29 wrote:

my two cents wrote:

ROK medical must have been iffy for us to delist him. Good size, long accurate kick, hard at it, are qualities we do not have enough, on our list. Hopefully we can rookie him to see how well he recovers over the next 12 months.

Leaving Fish stranded on 99 games is poor form and show of disloyalty by the MC. It dosen't matter how many games Fish should have played, but if you have a player on 99 games then you get him to 100. We should have played him against Richmond, but then we have a coach who has very little confidence in himself and the team to consider these matters. Any talk of ruthless is just BS, the current lot in charge are more confused and insecure than ruthless.

Thats crazy talk. No confidence in himself for not playing a bloke who wasnt part of the future and didnt fit our game style in a must win game just so this player can get to 100. Sounds like you are more confused than "the lot in charge".

Fish is a pro and one of the leaders in of the club. No way he would have wanted to risk the team a finals appearance or a chance at a home final. He would want to be picked when the coaches think he deserved it.

Fisher has been fantastic for our club.

the oracle has spoken :roll:

jim · **Joined:** Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:21 pm **Posts:** 8206

blue4 wrote:

Fish is great value but lets be honest he was lucky to get to 50 games let alone 99 games.

Bit of a sack-job not getting him to 100 - not sure he overly deserves it other than being a great guy.

That's life - we move on...

Might have got close to 130 games if not for injury.

club29 · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 1:23 pm

Rexy wrote:

club29 wrote:

my two cents wrote:

ROK medical must have been iffy for us to delist him. Good size, long accurate kick, hard at it, are qualities we do not have enough, on our list. Hopefully we can rookie him to see how well he recovers over the next 12 months.

Leaving Fish stranded on 99 games is poor form and show of disloyalty by the MC. It dosen't matter how many games Fish should have played, but if you have a player on 99 games then you get him to 100. We should have played him against Richmond, but then we have a coach who has very little confidence in himself and the team to consider these matters. Any talk of ruthless is just BS, the current lot in charge are more confused and insecure than ruthless.

Thats crazy talk. No confidence in himself for not playing a bloke who wasnt part of the future and didnt fit our game style in a must win game just so this player can get to 100. Sounds like you are more confused than "the lot in charge".

Fish is a pro and one of the leaders in of the club. No way he would have wanted to risk the team a finals appearance or a chance at a home final. He would want to be picked when the coaches think he deserved it.

Fisher has been fantastic for our club.

the oracle has spoken :roll:

Easy Rexy. You are quite Oracle like at times.

Maybe that statement come across harsher than i meant. Sorry 2 cents.

Rexy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:46 am **Posts:** 28227

Fair enough, let's both agree to be a bit less oracle like then. :beer:

cecil89 · **Joined:** Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:54 pm **Posts:** 2521

Seems as though Chris Johnson is not too happy with his delisting:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/c ... 5942366772

Would've thought he would have seen it coming. Nothing too much to complain about in my opinion.

dane · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:14 am **Posts:** 22357

Classic misquoting.

buzzaaaah · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:31 am **Posts:** 17893

cecil89 wrote:

Seems as though Chris Johnson is not too happy with his delisting:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/c ... 5942366772

Would've thought he would have seen it coming. Nothing too much to complain about in my opinion.

I think the headline is more inflammatory than his comments. Unusual for the H-S to do that. :roll:

But he may be just trying to talk himself onto another list.

he wasn't a scapegoat for the team's disappointing season. He was a scapegoat for his shitfulness.
There would have been many questions asked if he got a contract extension.

Besides Betts and nick Stevens (which was a no-brainer), the PSD hasnt worked out too well for us.

camel · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:55 pm

I like the spin from the Hun that we had a disappointing season. :roll:

Mickstar · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:40 pm **Posts:** 7357

blue4 wrote:

Fish is great value but lets be honest he was lucky to get to 50 games let alone 99 games.

Bit of a sack-job not getting him to 100 - not sure he overly deserves it other than being a great guy.

That's life - we move on...

Blue4 you are entitled to your opinion,but that is just plain wrong.Brad Fisher earnt every single game he played.In fact he was a maynstay in our dark years...................our second half of the year was garbage and there were plenty getting a game who were very ordinary to say the least.The Fish was playing very well in the magoos and more than earnt a recall.Ratten had plenty of oppurtunity to limp him to his 100....................not doing so sends a terrible messaget to the playing group.Its screaming out of heartlessness..............The team doesnt come first.The club comes first.Making little tiny gestures,small significant acts here and there..............thats what makes your club.It sets the tone.And what our great club has done to Brad Fisher is a despicable shameless bastard act.There is a massive diferance between ruthless and callous.

DIAMOTISM · **Posted:** Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:11 pm

camelboy wrote:

I like the spin from the Hun that we had a disappointing season. :roll:

It is far from a disappointment, it was a disaster. Collingwood and Saints drew in a premiership remember. Not sure what happened the week later though, and don't really care.

Delistings - confirmed changes on p9

Who is online