Bulldogs to pass on two rookies

[BulldogBelle]

Hot off the press...

Bulldogs to pass on two rookies (http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/sport/afl/story/0,27046,24677913-5016169,00.html)
The Herald Sun
Mark Stevens | November 19, 2008

THE Western Bulldogs may play only a cameo role in the rookie draft because of financial restraints. Although the Dogs are poised to announce a profit of more than $600,000 this year, their football budget remains tight.

The Dogs are allowed to take up to seven rookies into next season under new AFL rules, but are set to go in two short.

Three of the Dogs' 2008 rookies will be retained and New South Wales scholarship-holder Chris Ogle will be counted as a rookie next year.

It means the Dogs are likely to take only one player in the rookie draft, to be held after the pre-season draft on December 16.

The rookie draft has become a golden recruiting ground and the Dogs have benefited as much as any club in the past, picking up Dale Morris and Matthew Boyd there.

Bulldogs football manager James Fantasia, who recruited Nathan Bock and Ben Rutten as rookies in his time at Adelaide, said the club had to decide between spending on another player welfare staff member or extra rookies.

Each rookie costs $35,000-$40,000 a season.

"It is a decision based on financials . . . we might go in two short," Fantasia said.

The Dogs can't afford to expand their list and keep up with the richer clubs, who will take advantage of the AFL's offer of two extra rookies.

"It is a good move for the AFL to allow two extra rookies per club, but they are not paying for those extra rookies," Fantasia said.

"It makes it difficult for the less financial clubs. So it's the same old story: the rich benefit and the ones who don't have the money don't.

"We're not crying poor, but the rules support the ones with money. In some ways, it can defeat the very reason for having a salary cap."

The Bulldogs, who at one stage could not afford any rookies, can maintain five, but not push to seven.

"We're being very diligent and we've climbed back to the extent we've got five rookies, but we can't just find another $80,000," Fantasia said.

The Dogs will retain James Mulligan, Henry White and John Shaw as rookies next year.

Cash-strapped Melbourne has the funds to chase a full allotment of rookies.

The Demons raised more than $20,000 at their best-and-fairest night to ensure they would snare a full complement.

Clubs are now allowed a total of eight veterans or rookies. The Dees will have six rookies and two veterans.

[Go_Dogs]

The Bulldogs, who at one stage could not afford any rookies, can maintain five, but not push to seven.

Does this mean we will be picking up at least one rookie in the rookie draft? That's how I read it anyway. Won't be too disappointed if we go in with 5 rookies.

[Mofra]

Does this mean we will be picking up at least one rookie in the rookie draft? That's how I read it anyway. Won't be too disappointed if we go in with 5 rookies.
That's how I read it too. Will be intersting to see who we go for - big or small. If Mulligan is an athletic freak who is being groomed for key position and Cordy is more of a forward, would we be looking at another ruckman perhaps?

[Scraggers]

Does this mean we will be picking up at least one rookie in the rookie draft? That's how I read it anyway. Won't be too disappointed if we go in with 5 rookies.

I disagree ... It is very disappointing that we can't keep up with the more affluent teams.

Again our team is behind the eight ball.

It saddens me when a team in financial crisis such as Melbourne can go in with a full quota, yet we fall short by two players ($80,000) after posting a profit (small it may be, but a profit none the less).

Maybe it is because I am naive, but I don't understand why we would chase another player welfare person over the opportunity of the two extra rookies the year before the GC17 draft ... doesn't make sense to me !! :(

[Desipura]

If 400 of us passionate supporters put in $100.00 each we can get at least 1 rookie.

[Go_Dogs]

I disagree ... It is very disappointing that we can't keep up with the more affluent teams.

Again our team is behind the eight ball.

It saddens me when a team in financial crisis such as Melbourne can go in with a full quota, yet we fall short by two players ($80,000) after posting a profit (small it may be, but a profit none the less).

Maybe it is because I am naive, but I don't understand why we would chase another player welfare person over the opportunity of the two extra rookies the year before the GC17 draft ... doesn't make sense to me !! :(


You've got to remember we've turned over a very large percentage of our list over the last few drafts, we have a very young list needing development and perhaps the club has made the decision based on that.

Rookie's are usually very speculative anyway, so I don't think we're really going to miss out on too much.

I guess the one negative is w/ the new rookie rules allowing a rookie to be upgraded regardless of long term injuries this coming season. It would be nice to have a couple of 'ready made' players who we could upgrade, but I don't see it having too much of an impact.

[westdog54]

Maybe it is because I am naive, but I don't understand why we would chase another player welfare person over the opportunity of the two extra rookies the year before the GC17 draft ... doesn't make sense to me !! :(

Perhaps the club is mindful of protecting player welfare and ensuring that they are happy and healthy at the club?

Is two young players not good enough to be drafted worth more to you than the welfare of the 40+ already on our list?

[Rocket Science]

If 400 of us passionate supporters put in $100.00 each we can get at least 1 rookie.

I hear Tom Davidson's available.

[mighty_west]

If 400 of us passionate supporters put in $100.00 each we can get at least 1 rookie.

I'm sure you could get more to put in less, i would have no dramas in putting in some $$$, not too sure if i could afford the $100, but a 20, no dramas!

Perhaps the club should hold some kind of event for members to put in some cash for rookies.

[Scraggers]

Perhaps the club is mindful of protecting player welfare and ensuring that they are happy and healthy at the club?

Is two young players not good enough to be drafted worth more to you than the welfare of the 40+ already on our list?

If we didn't have anyone looking after player welfare I would agree with you but we do ... and to answer your question, in this case, yes two rookies the year before the GC17 Draft who may or may not make the move to AFL are more important than another welfare officer

[Scraggers]

You've got to remember we've turned over a very large percentage of our list over the last few drafts, we have a very young list needing development and perhaps the club has made the decision based on that.

Rookie's are usually very speculative anyway, so I don't think we're really going to miss out on too much.

I guess the one negative is w/ the new rookie rules allowing a rookie to be upgraded regardless of long term injuries this coming season. It would be nice to have a couple of 'ready made' players who we could upgrade, but I don't see it having too much of an impact.

I think you're right ... the likelyhood of us getting a star through the rookie list is slim ... but if we prefer to pay $80,000 to a welfare officer rather than two extra rookies, then the chances are even slimmer.

Your point about the rookie upgrade is a valid one ... the more affluent teams will have more possibilities than teams like us that can't afford the full compliment

[azabob]

If we didn't have anyone looking after player welfare I would agree with you but we do ... and to answer your question, in this case, yes two rookies the year before the GC17 Draft who may or may not make the move to AFL are more important than another welfare officer

I tend to think a welfare or development coach is money much better spent. As you put it the affluent clubs have more rookies but they probably also have more resources in the development area.

[westdog54]

If we didn't have anyone looking after player welfare I would agree with you but we do ... and to answer your question, in this case, yes two rookies the year before the GC17 Draft who may or may not make the move to AFL are more important than another welfare officer

So in your opinion quantity is better than quality on an AFL list?

[LostDoggy]

I am happy to put in $100 - anyone else?

[Scraggers]

So in your opinion quantity is better than quality on an AFL list?

No that's not what I am saying....but from quantity you can pick quality.

[Scraggers]

I tend to think a welfare or development coach is money much better spent. As you put it the affluent clubs have more rookies but they probably also have more resources in the development area.

You can pay me $80,000 a year to wipe the bums of AFL players anyday.

[westdog54]

You can pay me $80,000 a year to wipe the bums of AFL players anyday.

If that's your idea of player welfare then I think its best that you simply stay away from this discussion.

[Mofra]

You can pay me $80,000 a year to wipe the bums of AFL players anyday.

*Please let that be a just figure of speech... Please let that be a just figure of speech... Please let that be a just figure of speech...*

[Scraggers]

If that's your idea of player welfare then I think its best that you simply stay away from this discussion.


*Please let that be a just figure of speech... Please let that be a just figure of speech... Please let that be a just figure of speech...*

Sorry ... it was meant as tongue in cheeck only !! :)

[LostDoggy]

I would put a hunge in for an extra rookie, not sure how the club would go asking for it though as they were already fairly insistent about memberships. Maybe if all the fair weather supporters bit the bullet and got a membership we wouldnt be in this position...

[GVGjr]

I would put a hunge in for an extra rookie, not sure how the club would go asking for it though as they were already fairly insistent about memberships. Maybe if all the fair weather supporters bit the bullet and got a membership we wouldnt be in this position...

I'm not sure this is really a total membership issue but it's probably more related to the speculation of things getting very tight. For example I could see a lot of people dropping down their commitment slightly but still being very active members.

Westerners moving to the Player Sponsors group
Players Sponsor moving to the Top Dog group
17 game members moving to 11 game members etc etc

I question the real need to get more rookies anyway. It would be nice but perhaps a luxury that we don't really need.

[Desipura]

I'm not sure this is really a total membership issue but it's probably more related to the speculation of things getting very tight. For example I could see a lot of people dropping down their commitment slightly but still being very active members.

Westerners moving to the Player Sponsors group
Players Sponsor moving to the Top Dog group
17 game members moving to 11 game members etc etc

I question the real need to get more rookies anyway. It would be nice but perhaps a luxury that we don't really need.
If we missed out on a Dean Cox or a Nathan Bock, I would be annoyed. The more players you have on your list the more opportunities you have of discovering a special talent.
Some would argue we should be able to identify one of the above in the 'main draft', some players mature later than others. This is why we need all selections in the rookie draft.

[azabob]

I'm not sure this is really a total membership issue but it's probably more related to the speculation of things getting very tight. For example I could see a lot of people dropping down their commitment slightly but still being very active members.

Westerners moving to the Player Sponsors group
Players Sponsor moving to the Top Dog group
17 game members moving to 11 game members etc etc

I question the real need to get more rookies anyway. It would be nice but perhaps a luxury that we don't really need.

Good point, but im not sure I agree. I think everything starts from your membership base. The more members we have, the more chance we have of members over time upgrading their membership. Signing major sponsors would be easier. How attractive would it be to say to a potential major sponsor "Hey we have 35,000-40,000 members who sign up every year regardless. As opposed to only 23,000 when we are on the bottom of the ladder and 28,000 when we are on the top of the ladder.

[GVGjr]

If we missed out on a Dean Cox or a Nathan Bock, I would be annoyed. The more players you have on your list the more opportunities you have of discovering a special talent.
Some would argue we should be able to identify one of the above in the 'main draft', some players mature later than others. This is why we need all selections in the rookie draft.

In recent times we have successfully moved three players from the Rookie list to the senior line-up so the Bock and Cox examples aren't that relevant. Good recruiting should have had them on a senior list anyway.

Regarding the highlighted section, I'm not sure I agree with that either. The more players you have on your list means that a higher portion of them will be shunted into the Williamstown reserves for a longer period of times. Shaw and Mulligan couldn't crack it for a senior game even when Street and Skipper were out and I think White only played one or maybe two senior games for the season. 3 or 4 rookies getting a few senior games is in my opinion better than 6 or 7 guys getting just 2 or 3 games.
Given we have kept 3 guys from last year, adding Ogle and one more should be more than OK.

[Desipura]

In recent times we have successfully moved three players from the Rookie list to the senior line-up so the Bock and Cox examples aren't that relevant. Good recruiting should have had them on a senior list anyway.

Regarding the highlighted section, I'm not sure I agree with that either. The more players you have on your list means that a higher portion of them will be shunted into the Williamstown reserves for a longer period of times. Shaw and Mulligan couldn't crack it for a senior game even when Street and Skipper were out and I think White only played one or maybe two senior games for the season. 3 or 4 rookies getting a few senior games is in my opinion better than 6 or 7 guys getting just 2 or 3 games.Given we have kept 3 guys from last year, adding Ogle and one more should be more than OK.

I understand where you are coming from. If Shaw, Mulligan and White were showing outstanding from, they would have managed more games and perhaps even elevation to the senior list if there was a spot available ie Harbrow (from 2nds at Werribee to Dogs seniors within 3 weeks. We'll have to agree to disagree.........

[mighty_west]

Was just reported on SEN that the club has found the funds to have a full list of rookies this year, so we won't miss out after all.

[Mantis]

Was just reported on SEN that the club has found the funds to have a full list of rookies this year, so we won't miss out after all.

Excellent news.

[alwaysadog]

I understand where you are coming from. If Shaw, Mulligan and White were showing outstanding from, they would have managed more games and perhaps even elevation to the senior list if there was a spot available ie Harbrow (from 2nds at Werribee to Dogs seniors within 3 weeks. We'll have to agree to disagree.........

It's always a balancing act; we shouldn't forget that they (Willy) are subject to the same financial pressures that the Doggies face and on field success is the only long term answer, so they face their own imperatives, but I'm with you Willy seemed to manage it better, they gave a real chance to those who had earned it, I really can't think of too many who deserved a go and didn't get it ... and if they are losing a few more than expected in the off season it is likely to open up even more opportunities.

[ledge]

Signing a major sponsor, wouldnt that give us the money to get the rookies?
Hopefully happens soon.
As far as the rookies go when do we name them?

[Mantis]

Signing a major sponsor, wouldnt that give us the money to get the rookies?
Hopefully happens soon.
As far as the rookies go when do we name them?

The rookie draft is on Dec 16.

[GVGjr]

On SEN, Jon Ralph indicated that we might still be drafting the two rookies.

[ledge]

Thanks Mantis, does it go like the normal draft , teams select in order, sorry i am a bit nieve to the rookie thing and how it works.

[Twodogs]

Thanks Mantis, does it go like the normal draft , teams select in order, sorry i am a bit nieveto the rookie thing and how it works.


Yep it does.

[Mantis]

On SEN, Jon Ralph indicated that we might still be drafting the two rookies.

I think there is a very realistic chance of this happening.

I hope to have some more information about this later in the week.

[LostDoggy]

Sibosado.. Sibosado.. Sibosado..

[Mantis]

Sibosado.. Sibosado.. Sibosado..

How many developing talls is too many?

[ledge]

Lantern I am with you....
Funny Mantis how in 2 days our whole thoughts can change, now we have too many talls, after screaming for 5 years we havent got anywhere near enough.
But gee i do like this kid.

[mighty_west]

I think Picken's a big show! [from the information i have]!

;)

[bornadog]

Lantern I am with you....
Funny Mantis how in 2 days our whole thoughts can change, now we have too many talls, after screaming for 5 years we havent got anywhere near enough.
But gee i do like this kid.

The average height of these kids these days is unbelievable. To me guys like Hargarve, Morris, Tiller and even Oshea are not considered tall but just above average height. You can never have too many talls.

[bulldogtragic]

I have been away and busy atm, are we keeping White, Mullian and Shaw. Plus adding Ogle.

Giving us two picks if we have the cash?