Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

Why the bloody hell are we chucking in 48 as well (or 67) on top of Beams?
I thought they put Crisp on the deal to make it better for us, now we are going back to them with 67 or even worse 48!!!! Something is not adding up!!

it does seem strange. would love to have been a fly on the wall during the conversations.

As per trade radio, we may find something out at 11.30 when all the powerbrokers in this Beams trade are have a meeting.

I wonder if they're picks the club was planning to use?

Maxwell, Ball, Clarke, Lynch, Lumumba, and Beams off the senior list of 38 (or does Oxley make that 39) and Hudson, Mooney, Martin and Yagmoor off the rookie list.

Already added Moore. Add Varcoe, Crisp, Greenwood. That only leaves 5 & 30 to get to the 38 which would allow for Frost + Oxley to be upgraded and a few rookie draft picks.

According to Jake Niall, we wouldn't have used pick 67. I'm not sure that there are too many places left on our list for draftees after we add Moore and pick 5.

pick 67 went. no use for it. fair enough.

Not using it so who cares?

Not using it so who cares?

Ok yep I understand the list numbers will restrict what picks we need to use. Im not sure on the numbers because I remember something about clubs allowed to have less senior spots but having more rookies on the list.
I think that was due to salary cap payments...


If someone could answer the question of how many we are having on senior list that would be great.

Ok then no use for it . Question answered, should be able to work it out now anyway. Thankyou.

neil wrote:Not using it so who cares?

Im not sure I completely understand how folks are being so matter of fact about the beams deal?

Do the lions deserve another pick?????? They're already screwing us without it FFS.

If we didn't need the pick and are just throwing it away, why not just pass?

Or better still use it in other trades?

I'm blown away we would strengthen the brions any further just simply because "we're not using it".

magpieazza wrote:Ok then no use for it . Question answered, should be able to work it out now anyway. Thankyou.

It's 38-6 through to 40-4 giving a total of 44. Cat B rookies like Cox are in addition and a club can have up to 3 of them.

magpieazza wrote:Ok yep I understand the list numbers will restrict what picks we need to use. Im not sure on the numbers because I remember something about clubs allowed to have less senior spots but having more rookies on the list.
I think that was due to salary cap payments...


If someone could answer the question of how many we are having on senior list that would be great.

Don't think I've seen Derek Hine make a comment about how many spaces we'll fill this year but last year it was 38. I believe the maximum is still 40. I have been trying to do a little list analysis and have not yet finished but, as things stand, I think we will probably have at least 39 after the draft, unless there are to be further delistings.

Edit: I see that jackcass has confirmed the required senior list number remains between 38 and 40.

who knows what went on with the trade talks.

jackcass wrote:

magpieazza wrote:Ok then no use for it . Question answered, should be able to work it out now anyway. Thankyou.

It's 38-6 through to 40-4 giving a total of 44. Cat B rookies like Cox are in addition and a club can have up to 3 of them.

Beauty thanks for that mate.

Ive just had a quick look...

7 going out... Maxwell, Clarke, H, Ball, Beams, Lynch & Hudson.

7 coming in....Greenwood, Varcoe, Crisp, Moore, pick 5, pick 30, pick 48.

No one left on the rookie list... Martin , Mooney, Yagmoor gone. So looks like we will be big players in the rookie draft.