Leo Re-signs ...

[Lucky Knickers]

Yes.

Thanks for confirming Liz.
I understand there is no limit on the veterans and they aren't counted in Salary cap or impact playing list numbers - seniors/rookies etc - is that correct?
If so, I'm glad they signed Leo.

[caj23]

I think the veterans list impacts on the number of rookies we can select (someone may wish to confirm)

[liz]

Thanks for confirming Liz.
I understand there is no limit on the veterans and they aren't counted in Salary cap or impact playing list numbers - seniors/rookies etc - is that correct?
.

no

[Lucky Knickers]

no

Thanks Liz,
How does vets listing impact the make-up of the list?

[Industrial Fan]

Thanks Liz,
How does vets listing impact the make-up of the list?

Yes.

[liz]

You can have up to two "outside vets" but for each one you have, you are entitled to two fewer rookies.

(It has been rumoured that the size of the rookie list is to be expanded by two this year, but not sure if that is confirmed. Plus the Swans get their extra entitlement to 3 NSW boys as rookies. Plus Mikey the Canadian counts as an additional rookie I think - as a non-Irish international rookie.)

You can have as many vets as you like in total (inside and outside) but the salary cap saving is only equivalent to one player at most. So if you have one veteran, half his salary is outside the salary cap. With two vets, half of each of their salaries are outside the cap. But once you go above two, the amount per vet reduces. So if you have three, a third of each of their salaries counts outside the cap. With four it is a quarter. So the marginal benefit becomes close to nil - it only becomes an advantage to add more players to the veteran list if the contracts of the new vets are larger than those of the existing vets. Also, once a player is a veteran, you can't "un-veteran" him so as to replace with another player unless you delist completely and chance your arm on redrafting.

[swansrule100]

leo barry should of retired the end of 2007

He rarely takes an opposition forward and beats them anymore and he has no real dash off the backline, just runs backwards and forwards and gets caught.

He offers the club nothing that a young player could not offer while they develop, the fact that we are keeping him and crouch is just plain stupid if you ask me. So much for rebuilding or even rejigging the side at all.

I expect we will chip the ball sideways every week and try to slow the game up and get beaten by the top teams in 2009 then.

Ive enjoyed seeing the older guys play but time to move on, im sure we will delist somone like davis who has a few years list and a few younger players so we can keep leo and crouchy too. Waste of time

[hot potato]

It was only one moment in time of Leo's 08, but he had possession, thought he would cruise away with the ball, did no awareness checks, no subtle swerve just in case, not a even a slightly backwards glance (too bloody tired)and was mown down in a flash. It was only one elementary mistake, but it is so much a younger mans game now. I wouldnt think he will see out 09. The game is way too fast for Leo now. He's been terrific. Give someone else a go.

[WauchopeAnalyst]

DAVIS in 06 GF

Does anyone remember Banfield against Davis in the 2005 GF?

Well I certainly remember it from the end I was at every time the ball came into a one-on-one contest Banfield controlled the contest marked it or brought the ball to ground and then rebounded with Nick lagging well behind.

Not a Nick knocker but can only beat 3rd or 4th best back these days and simply applies no pressure in defence.

He will always be a legend for what he did, but most legends fade as time goes on, I thank him for his efforts and wish him good luck.. ( Met his Dad, Craig, and he is a super bloke, with him as a dad Nick must have some good qualities, maybe they don't relate to working as hard as he needs too.)