Inequity of the veteran's list system

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Charlie
    On the Rookie List
    • Jan 2003
    • 4101

    Inequity of the veteran's list system

    This rule sucks.

    We will not be able to use the veteran's list until at least 2006. That's assuming Matthew Nicks and Stuart Maxfield are still going around that year. I think we all realise that's relatively unlikely. Realistically, we probably won't get ANY benefit out of the veteran's list until 2008, when Micky can go on the list, assuming that he is still playing by that time.

    It's not the salary cap part that's bothering me. It's that clubs with veteran's list players - the vast majority - have the ability to access further depth than we do. We're capped at 38 players. Teams like Brisbane or the Kangaroos, with at least two veteran's list players, can have 40.

    That's not fair. If we get an equally long injury list to Brisbane or the Roos, they've got an advantage. They can simply play one of their extra players, or at least promote one without any difficulty. They'd have Rogers on their senior list right now. The Swans? For the same depth, one of our players must be out at least 8 weeks. Great, huh?

    My suggestion is simple. Go back to 40 player lists. If clubs have 4 players for the vet's list, fine. Those four players each have 25% of their salary outside the cap, and they are counted amongst their 40 players. That doesn't bother me. But they shouldn't have more players. We should be able to promote one or two rookies if we want, to be able to get to the same list size as other clubs if we wish.

    This anomoly is much, much more inequitable than any perceived inequity with the salary cap. This is actually preventing us from having our best side on the field in round one.
    We hate Anthony Rocca
    We hate Shannon Grant too
    We hate scumbag Gaspar
    But Leo WE LOVE YOU!
  • DST
    The voice of reason!
    • Jan 2003
    • 2705

    #2
    Re: Inequity of the veteran's list system

    Originally posted by Charlie
    This rule sucks.

    We will not be able to use the veteran's list until at least 2006. That's assuming Matthew Nicks and Stuart Maxfield are still going around that year. I think we all realise that's relatively unlikely. Realistically, we probably won't get ANY benefit out of the veteran's list until 2008, when Micky can go on the list, assuming that he is still playing by that time.

    It's not the salary cap part that's bothering me. It's that clubs with veteran's list players - the vast majority - have the ability to access further depth than we do. We're capped at 38 players. Teams like Brisbane or the Kangaroos, with at least two veteran's list players, can have 40.

    That's not fair. If we get an equally long injury list to Brisbane or the Roos, they've got an advantage. They can simply play one of their extra players, or at least promote one without any difficulty. They'd have Rogers on their senior list right now. The Swans? For the same depth, one of our players must be out at least 8 weeks. Great, huh?

    My suggestion is simple. Go back to 40 player lists. If clubs have 4 players for the vet's list, fine. Those four players each have 25% of their salary outside the cap, and they are counted amongst their 40 players. That doesn't bother me. But they shouldn't have more players. We should be able to promote one or two rookies if we want, to be able to get to the same list size as other clubs if we wish.

    This anomoly is much, much more inequitable than any perceived inequity with the salary cap. This is actually preventing us from having our best side on the field in round one.
    I see no issue with this rule what so ever.

    It encourages clubs to invest and retain young talent in the hope that they can in the future use the veteran's rule.

    Also depending on how many players you have on your vet's list you can't have on your rookie list (ie 2 vet's, you must have 2 rookies less than the rest) so what goes around comes around anyway.

    Besides, your arguement re the Roos is all over the shop considering that they don't have any rookies this yeay due to monetry issues, we actually have a larger list than they do (albeit with two less senior listed players).

    DST
    "Looking forward to a rebuilt, new, fast and exciting Swans model in 2010"

    Comment

    • CureTheSane
      Carpe Noctem
      • Jan 2003
      • 5032

      #3
      I have no problem either.

      Sure there is inequity with the rule, but at least it is something that in the big picture, can be controlled by the clubs.

      There are some positives to it.

      It extends players careers.
      It leaves room to add youth.

      I know everyone can justify the salary cap concessions we get, but a supporter from another club would think it is a bit rich to have a Sydney supporter complaining about unfair rules in the AFL.
      You know, to them, we have a pretty good deal already.
      The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

      Comment

      • robbieando
        The King
        • Jan 2003
        • 2750

        #4
        What is the rule???

        I thought it was 10 years on the list from the year of the first senior game and 200 games and that would mean Magic could go on at the start of next year if he play's 19 matches this season????
        Once was, now elsewhere

        Comment

        • robbieando
          The King
          • Jan 2003
          • 2750

          #5
          I was just reading AFL 2004, trying to find out about the veteran list rule and I came across a rule that might help us out

          Nominated Rookies

          A club may nominate up to two players on its rookie list to be eligible for senior selection for home and away and finals matches if it has 38 players, not including veteran players, on its senior list. If a club has no veterans outside its primary list then it may have two nominated rookies or if it has one veteran outside this primary list then it can have only one nominated rookie.

          Looks like we have found a way to get Rogers on the senior list without needing to have a player go down injuried long term.
          Once was, now elsewhere

          Comment

          • penga
            Senior Player
            • Jan 2003
            • 2601

            #6
            Originally posted by robbieando
            What is the rule???

            I thought it was 10 years on the list from the year of the first senior game and 200 games and that would mean Magic could go on at the start of next year if he play's 19 matches this season????
            the vet has to be 30, as well as played for 10 years for the club
            C'mon Chels!

            Comment

            • Charlie
              On the Rookie List
              • Jan 2003
              • 4101

              #7
              Re: Re: Inequity of the veteran's list system

              Originally posted by DST
              I see no issue with this rule what so ever.

              It encourages clubs to invest and retain young talent in the hope that they can in the future use the veteran's rule.

              Also depending on how many players you have on your vet's list you can't have on your rookie list (ie 2 vet's, you must have 2 rookies less than the rest) so what goes around comes around anyway.

              Besides, your arguement re the Roos is all over the shop considering that they don't have any rookies this yeay due to monetry issues, we actually have a larger list than they do (albeit with two less senior listed players).

              DST
              I don't have a problem with the vet's list itself - only that the first two players are outside the 38. I see no reason why it can't be 40 players including possible veterans, or simply 40 senior listed players. As it is, clubs with long-term players have an actual on-field depth advantage over other clubs. And what good is it having more rookies, if, indeed, you can't play them?

              As for the 'Roos - they were just an example. If you want to use that to decide that I'm "all over the shop", more power to you. Seems to me that you're looking for any minor little detail which could discredit my post.

              CTS - This doesn't really have anything to do with the salary cap. This is about an entirely different issue which has the potential to affect every single club. That is, clubs with older players have a greater ability to choose players than those without.

              Robbie - do I understand you correctly? Can we actually promote Rogers that easily?
              We hate Anthony Rocca
              We hate Shannon Grant too
              We hate scumbag Gaspar
              But Leo WE LOVE YOU!

              Comment

              • robbieando
                The King
                • Jan 2003
                • 2750

                #8
                Re: Re: Re: Inequity of the veteran's list system

                Originally posted by Charlie
                Robbie - do I understand you correctly? Can we actually promote Rogers that easily?
                Its seems we can, this is a cracker of a rule
                Once was, now elsewhere

                Comment

                • Charlie
                  On the Rookie List
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 4101

                  #9
                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Inequity of the veteran's list system

                  Originally posted by robbieando
                  Its seems we can, this is a cracker of a rule
                  In which case, my original point no longer applies.

                  Rogers must play round one.
                  We hate Anthony Rocca
                  We hate Shannon Grant too
                  We hate scumbag Gaspar
                  But Leo WE LOVE YOU!

                  Comment

                  • CureTheSane
                    Carpe Noctem
                    • Jan 2003
                    • 5032

                    #10
                    Charlie, that was a bad example.
                    I know they are teo different issues, I was speaking as a non-supporter of the Swans would, and they would drag it into the argument.
                    As far as the vetrans rule itself goes, like I said, I have no real problems with it.

                    As for what Robbie said, well, I am not one to be bothered scouring the net looking up stuff like that.
                    What WOULD be nice is if one of the many people from the club who read this board and others took the time to make a post and let us know instead of just lurking.

                    Wouldn't it be nice to have an interactive club?

                    \Other clubs would be jealous.

                    I really didn't like Terry Wallace much at all, sounds weird as I never met him.
                    Suppose the Kelly vs Libba thing and the fact that he seemed to condone it comes into play a bit, but I loved how he made himself so accessable to the supporters.

                    Rant over
                    The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

                    Comment

                    • barry
                      Veterans List
                      • Jan 2003
                      • 8499

                      #11
                      We'll have to wait until Buckley retires before collingwood, errr, I mean the AFL, reviews the veterans rule.

                      Comment

                      • stellation
                        scott names the planets
                        • Sep 2003
                        • 9720

                        #12
                        maybe Roos is aware of the rule Robbie brought up... so maybe his mentioning Rogers as a possible replacement to Schauble doesn't instantly mean Andrew is out for a really long time... which we should find out today anyway...
                        I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
                        We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time

                        Comment

                        • CureTheSane
                          Carpe Noctem
                          • Jan 2003
                          • 5032

                          #13
                          lol @ Barry

                          true
                          The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.

                          Comment

                          • penga
                            Senior Player
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 2601

                            #14
                            But with no veterans on their senior list, the Demons can promote Davey onto their senior list immediately as long as they can come up with the extra $15,000 in payments ? which is the difference between a senior list and a rookie list player.


                            it seems more than just RWOites now know that rule
                            C'mon Chels!

                            Comment

                            • robbieando
                              The King
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 2750

                              #15
                              Originally posted by penga
                              http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=new...ticleid=137101

                              it seems more than just RWOites now know that rule
                              Great, so at least we know we can do it. Rogers will now play Round 1
                              Once was, now elsewhere

                              Comment

                              Working...