Goose gone ...

[ace]

The List Managers have to make the calls.
Posters can only do half the job.
Don't delist this guy but don't offer an alternative.

Seems the club has chosen to go with only 1 veteran outside the list and have a nominated rookie instead.

Once that decision was made they had to delist one more player before 13 November to create 2 picks in the National Draft.
Seems many here would like that to have been Leigh Fisher but others point out that he has a contact for next year that the club may be unable payout under this years salary cap.

The list manager then had to delist someone who did not have a contract for next year.
If you want to criticise the decision to delist Matt Maguire you should have the courage to name the out of contract player you would delist instead.

Personally I am very disappointed to see Matt delisted and hope that the club gets the chance and takes it to redraft him with national draft pick 60, pre season draft pick 15 or rookie draft pick 20.

I am also hoping he does not take up any offer to train with other clubs.
Training at another club would be a sign that St Kilda has NOT told him he is going to being redrafted.

[To the top]

We have delisted the likes of McQualter and Ferguson over the Lyon period.

And then re-drafted them.

Then there is Miles - now up-graded again.

It would be up to Maguire to show he has the appetite and to then show he has the skill set.

As with Ball, remuneration comes last in paving the way for a return to the Club.

The Club needs to establish what is in if for the Club first - and that is what the player brings to the paying list.

The ball remains in Maguire's and Ball's respective courts.

They have to sell themselves.

The Club will then make the decision.

[plugger66]

Goose isnt going to be redrafted. Why would they delist him if they still wanted him?

[To the top]

Merely I point out that it has happended during Lyon's tenure - and I give 2 examples which come to my mind of players de-listed and then re-drafted.

There are precedents.

That is the point I make, Plugger.

And where there are recent examples I would suggest that to argue that there are no such examples and, accordingly, "The Goose is cooked" as far as St Kilda go because there are no such examples of St Kilda re-drafting de-listed players does not stand up to the heat in the oven.

There is form and from afar you could speculate that Maguire may emulate McQualter or Ferguson - plus we drafted Begley who was de-listed by Brisbane last year.

And we 'Rookied' Dawson who was de-listed at Hawthorn.

Time will tell.

We are not privy to the full text of conversations between Maguire and the Football Department.

Only that Lyon has said AFL games await anyone who wants to play.

So it rebounds into the hands of the player.

And the directions of the Football Department, who are charged with on-field performance and who, therefore, are charged with putting our most competative combination on the park - in pristine condition and form.

[plugger66]

Merely I point out that it has happended during Lyon's tenure - and I give 2 examples which come to my mind of players de-listed and then re-drafted.

There are precedents.

That is the point I make, Plugger.

And where there are recent examples I would suggest that to argue that there are no such examples and, accordingly, "The Goose is cooked" as far as St Kilda go because there are no such examples of St Kilda re-drafting de-listed players does not stand up to the heat in the oven.

There is form and from afar you could speculate that Maguire may emulate McQualter or Ferguson - plus we drafted Begley who was de-listed by Brisbane last year.

And we 'Rookied' Dawson who was de-listed at Hawthorn.

Time will tell.

We are not privy to the full text of conversations between Maguire and the Football Department.

Only that Lyon has said AFL games await anyone who wants to play.

So it rebounds into the hands of the player.

And the directions of the Football Department, who are charged with on-field performance and who, therefore, are charged with putting our most competative combination on the park - in pristine condition and form.

There is no logical reason to delist Goose and take the risk another club may grab him before us. There were logical reasons for delisting both Mini and Ferg. The goose is cooked as far as the Saints are concerned.

[ace]

Goose isnt going to be redrafted. Why would they delist him if they still wanted him?

Because the club has only made one veteran, off the list.
That meant they had to make another space for the National Draft where they must make 2 picks.
If they could not afford to pay out someone's contract they had to delist before 13 November, someone who was out of contract.

The club can also give the player a chance elsewhere if they think he is likely to be backup only, but when he fails take him back because they belive he is good backup.

The mature age rookie structure also allows a player with a long recovery from injury to take his time recovering.
Providing that is, that no other club interfers.
That is what Richmond are hoping for with Polak.

If the player does not allow other clubs access to their medical details or do a fitness test, other clubs may not take the gamble.

[Moccha]

Merely I point out that it has happended during Lyon's tenure - and I give 2 examples which come to my mind of players de-listed and then re-drafted.

There are precedents.

That is the point I make, Plugger.

And where there are recent examples I would suggest that to argue that there are no such examples and, accordingly, "The Goose is cooked" as far as St Kilda go because there are no such examples of St Kilda re-drafting de-listed players does not stand up to the heat in the oven.

There is form and from afar you could speculate that Maguire may emulate McQualter or Ferguson - plus we drafted Begley who was de-listed by Brisbane last year.

And we 'Rookied' Dawson who was de-listed at Hawthorn.

Time will tell.

We are not privy to the full text of conversations between Maguire and the Football Department.

Only that Lyon has said AFL games await anyone who wants to play.

So it rebounds into the hands of the player.

And the directions of the Football Department, who are charged with on-field performance and who, therefore, are charged with putting our most competative combination on the park - in pristine condition and form.

There is no logical reason to delist Goose and take the risk another club may grab him before us. There were logical reasons for delisting both Mini and Ferg. The goose is cooked as far as the Saints are concerned.

Is he well done?

[plugger66]

Goose isnt going to be redrafted. Why would they delist him if they still wanted him?

Because the club has only made one veteran, off the list.
That meant they had to make another space for the National Draft where they must make 2 picks.
If they could not afford to pay out someone's contract they had to delist soneone who was not out of contract before 13 November.

The club can also give the player a chance elsewhere if they think he is likely to be backup only, but whne he fails take him back because trhey belive he is good backup.

The mature age rookie structure also allows a club with a player long recovery from injury to take his time recovering.
Providing that is, that no other club interfers.
That is what Richmond are hoping for with Polak.

If the player does not allow other clubs access to their medical details or do a fitness test, other clubs may not take the gamble.

Pretty sure every club knows the Tigers are going to redraft Polak because they have made it known they will. The Saints have done no such thing.

[Eastern]

There was suggestion on SEN this morning that Goose will probably do pre-season at Carlton . Whether that means they are really interested is anyone's guess !!

[rexy]

What I don't get is that Drain said he would have played against Hawthorn had he not tweaked his hamstring. That was barely a few weeks before the end of the season.

Since then, we've lost a Grand Final and lost one of the greatest defenders in the club's history. You'd have thought there was a spot for him. Extremely disappointing. Reckon this tugs at the fabric of the club just a little bit.

Occasionally - though rarely - you need to reward great clubmen and give them a little leeway because of what they can ultimately offer. Maguire deserved one more year - if he couldn't get it right in that 12 months, then it would have been acceptable to release him.

Sure this decision wasn't taken lightly, but with the club in desperate need of decent, tall defenders, this makes for a bizarre decision.

I pretty much agree with this. Very disappointing news.
We'd better hope that two of our big blokes down back don't miss games at the same time, or we could regret it, like Hawthorn probably did letting Zac go last year.
The club also needs to be careful how they treat those who've given their all for it, or blokes may stop doing so.
Geelong showed how it's done, by practically "carrying" Tom Harley at the end of the year (when he was apparently a "liability") and they came out of it with a flag. We dealt with Max, Goose and Bally (3 of the most courageous and best clubmen you'd ever want to have) in a certain way and we didn't win a flag. No surprises there.

ANP - get f***ed. That is a crap post!!

Intelligent response?

[joffaboy]

What I don't get is that Drain said he would have played against Hawthorn had he not tweaked his hamstring. That was barely a few weeks before the end of the season.

Since then, we've lost a Grand Final and lost one of the greatest defenders in the club's history. You'd have thought there was a spot for him. Extremely disappointing. Reckon this tugs at the fabric of the club just a little bit.

Occasionally - though rarely - you need to reward great clubmen and give them a little leeway because of what they can ultimately offer. Maguire deserved one more year - if he couldn't get it right in that 12 months, then it would have been acceptable to release him.

Sure this decision wasn't taken lightly, but with the club in desperate need of decent, tall defenders, this makes for a bizarre decision.

I pretty much agree with this. Very disappointing news.
We'd better hope that two of our big blokes down back don't miss games at the same time, or we could regret it, like Hawthorn probably did letting Zac go last year.
The club also needs to be careful how they treat those who've given their all for it, or blokes may stop doing so.
Geelong showed how it's done, by practically "carrying" Tom Harley at the end of the year (when he was apparently a "liability") and they came out of it with a flag. We dealt with Max, Goose and Bally (3 of the most courageous and best clubmen you'd ever want to have) in a certain way and we didn't win a flag. No surprises there.

ANP - get f***ed. That is a crap post!!

Intelligent response?

Correct response. Basically the OP is saying the team didn't try to win the flag.

Youa gree with this do you?

[ace]

There was suggestion on SEN this morning that Goose will probably do pre-season at Carlton . Whether that means they are really interested is anyone's guess !!

That would quoting a guy called Robert Harvey.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/bl ... 49709.html

[bobmurray]

Goose instead of Fev...

It's like replacing 1 Goose with another....

[TassieJones]

We have delisted the likes of McQualter and Ferguson over the Lyon period.

And then re-drafted them.

Then there is Miles - now up-graded again.

It would be up to Maguire to show he has the appetite and to then show he has the skill set.

As with Ball, remuneration comes last in paving the way for a return to the Club.

The Club needs to establish what is in if for the Club first - and that is what the player brings to the paying list.

The ball remains in Maguire's and Ball's respective courts.

They have to sell themselves.

The Club will then make the decision.

Really, really hop this happens. Doubt he will last long enough for us to redraft him though unfortunately

[saintbrat]

There was suggestion on SEN this morning that Goose will probably do pre-season at Carlton . Whether that means they are really interested is anyone's guess !!

That would quoting a guy called Robert Harvey.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/rfnews/bl ... 49709.html

to be fair to Harves he did only intimate pre- season training..- went on to say list was where they wanted it.

[stinger]

What I don't get is that Drain said he would have played against Hawthorn had he not tweaked his hamstring. That was barely a few weeks before the end of the season.

Since then, we've lost a Grand Final and lost one of the greatest defenders in the club's history. You'd have thought there was a spot for him. Extremely disappointing. Reckon this tugs at the fabric of the club just a little bit.

Occasionally - though rarely - you need to reward great clubmen and give them a little leeway because of what they can ultimately offer. Maguire deserved one more year - if he couldn't get it right in that 12 months, then it would have been acceptable to release him.

Sure this decision wasn't taken lightly, but with the club in desperate need of decent, tall defenders, this makes for a bizarre decision.

I pretty much agree with this. Very disappointing news.
We'd better hope that two of our big blokes down back don't miss games at the same time, or we could regret it, like Hawthorn probably did letting Zac go last year.
The club also needs to be careful how they treat those who've given their all for it, or blokes may stop doing so.
Geelong showed how it's done, by practically "carrying" Tom Harley at the end of the year (when he was apparently a "liability") and they came out of it with a flag. We dealt with Max, Goose and Bally (3 of the most courageous and best clubmen you'd ever want to have) in a certain way and we didn't win a flag. No surprises there.

ANP - get f***ed. That is a crap post!!

actually...he has some valid points and i agree with him...besides ...if banger says goose is still worth another try that is good enough for me...end of argument in fact.....

[stinger]

love this quote...


"Harvey said he would be interested in a head coaching job in the future.

''The first year was good and I really enjoyed it and this year is another step up, responsibility-wise. I've enjoyed every part of it and at the moment, it is certainly something I'd look at down the track hopefully, [but] there's not too many assistant coaches in the league at the moment.''

However, he was not sure that a fairytale return to the Saints was on the cards.

''Obviously it was really hard to leave after so long at one club,'' he said. ''But … it was good to get a change and I learnt a lot and I don't think I could have learnt that much had I stayed at St Kilda, so I think it was a positive [move].''


i think that the acid will really be on ross to deliver a premiership to the long suffering fans within the next two years...otherwise the calls to replace him with a by then experienced banger might start to gain volume......

[SainterK]

Pretty sure another club will pick him up before we ever had opportunity to...

[ace]

"Harvey said he would be interested in a head coaching job in the future.

I would have thought he would need to go to University to get a psychology degree to do head coaching.
Now football coaching that would be more in his ball park.

[saintm]

Has now been confirmed by Brett Ratten that Matt will be training with Carlton, most probably from next Monday.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/c ... 5794648257

[desertsaint]

good luck at carlton goose!

[ace]

AFL Players Agreement covers delisted players training with other clubs as follows

15. Uncontracted Player
Where an uncontracted listed or recently delisted (at the end of the last AFL Season) Player trains with an AFL Club, the AFL Club shall pay the Player per week for each week the Player trains at the AFL Club no less than the following:
2007 $535
2008 $575
2009 $595
2010 $615
2011 $635
If an AFL Club enters into a contract with the Player that covers the period the Player trained with the Club and in respect to which the Player was entitled to receive payments under this clause, the payments the Player was entitled to may be taken into account in part satisfaction of the amounts due to the Player under the Player’s contract. An uncontracted listed Player is entitled to the benefits set out in paragraph 9.2 of this Schedule B.

9.2 Any player, not being a Player under a playing contract with an AFL Club, who participates in any practice Matches or training arranged by or on behalf of any AFL Club shall be covered, at no cost to such player, for top medical and hospital insurance and disability insurance and loss of wages to the same level as Players are covered in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and/or the AFLPA private health insurance program referred to in paragraph 9.1 above. The cost of such insurance shall be met by the AFL Club. The relevant AFL Club shall advise each such player in writing of the following:
(a) the name of the insurer/s;
(b) the level of cover;
(c) the expiry date of the policy;
(d) the name of the contact person at the Club to deal with matters relating to the
above insurance.

Matt needs that $595 a week to pay Paul Connors and the health insurance to cover that sick feeling in the stomach.

[SainterK]

Hope it all works out for him, sounds promising...

[ace]

Matt Maguire has spent more time in rehab than Benny Cousins.
AND Matt Maguire doesn't do drugs.

The latest news on Maguire may be an indication as to why St Kilda delisted him.

Despite playing for Sandringham last year, even he must have known everything wasn't right.
This off-season he has gone under the knife yet again.
This time to remove all the steelwork.
It must have been affecting him or they would leave it alone.

He may have been invited to train at Carlton but only as part of their rehab group.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

[saintbrat]

it would seem Matt still has a ways to go
Ratten praised his endeavour- not the output still alot of recovery going on