Rogers, Meiklejohn, Hunt and McGlone delisted

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Damien
    Living in 2005
    • Jan 2003
    • 3713

    Rogers, Meiklejohn, Hunt and McGlone delisted

  • Jeffers1984
    Veterans List
    • Jan 2003
    • 4564

    #2
    hmmmmmm

    McGlone??????
    Official Driver Of The "Who Gives A @@@@ As The Player Will Get Delisted Anyway" Bandwagon.

    Comment

    • sharpie
      On the Rookie List
      • Jul 2003
      • 1588

      #3
      I would have thought Rogers could spend another year on the rookie list (this was only his first), but if the club doesnt see any potential for more senior level games, then its fair enough that they let him go.

      Having read this you would expect that Taylor and Potter will remain on the rookie list for next year. Perhaps noone else at all will be delisted now. Either a trade will come up, or the rest of the players will stay.
      Visit my eBay store -

      10% off for mentioning RWO when you buy. Great Christmas presents!

      Comment

      • Charlie
        On the Rookie List
        • Jan 2003
        • 4101

        #4
        No huge surprises. McGlone deserves a chance elsewhere; evidently he wasn't going to get it at Sydney. Hunt was going nowhere, Meiklejohn was probably not the right sort of ruckman for us.

        Rodgers is a bit of a disappointment, I thought he'd get another year on the rookie list. What was he like at reserves level? I don't think he got much of an opportunity at senior level, but did he deserve it?

        Expect to see the positions of Fixter, Powell, Sundqvist and Malceski reviewed after trade week. Of the quartet, I think Powell and Sundqvist will be delisted.

        I'm not sure yet whether this means Taylor and Potter can consider themselves safe.
        We hate Anthony Rocca
        We hate Shannon Grant too
        We hate scumbag Gaspar
        But Leo WE LOVE YOU!

        Comment

        • motorace_182
          On the Rookie List
          • Jan 2003
          • 961

          #5
          You would think Scooter and possibly Rogers would be re-drafted in the rookie draft later this year. The others could well be finding there chances gone.
          - Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in a world they've been given, than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact, it's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration, it's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing!

          Comment

          • Damien
            Living in 2005
            • Jan 2003
            • 3713

            #6
            Originally posted by motorace_182
            You would think Scooter and possibly Rogers would be re-drafted in the rookie draft later this year. The others could well be finding there chances gone.
            What is the age limit for the rookie list?

            It seemed from that article as if Andrew Ireland was farewelling them all from the club...for good?

            Comment

            • liz
              Veteran
              Site Admin
              • Jan 2003
              • 16778

              #7
              Originally posted by motorace_182
              You would think Scooter and possibly Rogers would be re-drafted in the rookie draft later this year. The others could well be finding there chances gone.
              I'd very much doubt that. There was no need to delist any of them if they wanted to keep them, and there are no minimum draft choice constraints for rookies.

              Comment

              • chammond
                • Jan 2003
                • 1368

                #8
                Originally posted by Charlie

                Expect to see the positions of Fixter, Powell, Sundqvist and Malceski reviewed after trade week. Of the quartet, I think Powell and Sundqvist will be delisted.
                Well, we've still got to cut two more senior spots, so there's certainly more 'reviewing' to come.

                Comment

                • midaro
                  On the Rookie List
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 1042

                  #9
                  Originally posted by liz
                  I'd very much doubt that. There was no need to delist any of them if they wanted to keep them, and there are no minimum draft choice constraints for rookies.
                  I'm not sure.
                  As Rogers and McGlone had been promoted, did they have to be delisted simply so they could be put back on the rookie list?

                  Comment

                  • midaro
                    On the Rookie List
                    • Jan 2003
                    • 1042

                    #10
                    Does the delisting of Meiklejohn perhaps indicate that we are chasing a ruckman?
                    Maybe it gives some credence to the Simmonds/Keating/Everitt/Ottens rumours.

                    Comment

                    • robbieando
                      The King
                      • Jan 2003
                      • 2750

                      #11
                      Originally posted by midaro
                      I'm not sure.
                      As Rogers and McGlone had been promoted, did they have to be delisted simply so they could be put back on the rookie list?
                      The weren't promoted to the full time list, just promoted to cover a long term injury or a spot not taken up by a vet list player. If the Swans wanted to keep them they could of as both still had a year left on their rookie list availabilty.

                      Overall only Rogers is a surprise to me, but not that big a surprise at the same time. At least this will stop the McGlone for a senior game threads.
                      Once was, now elsewhere

                      Comment

                      • robbieando
                        The King
                        • Jan 2003
                        • 2750

                        #12
                        Originally posted by midaro
                        Does the delisting of Meiklejohn perhaps indicate that we are chasing a ruckman?
                        Maybe it gives some credence to the Simmonds/Keating/Everitt/Ottens rumours.
                        A more likely outcome would us using one of our draft pick to draft a ruckman.
                        Once was, now elsewhere

                        Comment

                        • dendol
                          fat-arsed midfielder
                          • Oct 2003
                          • 1483

                          #13
                          so all those 40+ possession games from McGlone were obviously not good enough. It goes to show that we really have no idea what happens behind closed doors - there were so many on here ready to take up arms and march to Roos' home to demand Scooter get a run.

                          Comment

                          • Matt79
                            Bring it on!
                            • Sep 2004
                            • 3143

                            #14
                            To me, for someone like Scooter to play so well fairly consistently in the reserves and not get a senior gig is a surprise. To get delisted now when he is showing seemingly signs of promise is even more surprising!!

                            Perhaps his attitude was just not right? Who knows and we will probably never know!
                            Swannies for life!

                            Comment

                            • Jeffers1984
                              Veterans List
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 4564

                              #15
                              Footyhead's not going to be too happy.....
                              Official Driver Of The "Who Gives A @@@@ As The Player Will Get Delisted Anyway" Bandwagon.

                              Comment

                              Working...