Langford? WTF?

#30 as a number sucks. It’s also plenty high enough to move. 20 and below would be the only numbers it’d be “strange” to upgrade from.


What has #30 ever done to deserve your scorn?


Saad may want 42, it’s available.



McGrath to 5
Saad to 42
Stringer to 1 just think he would love it!
Smith to 4


hmmm. i like it!\

but give McKenna 4


Having a single number as a ‘revered number’ like Collingwood do with 5, Bulldogs have done with 3, Sydney with 14 etc has got whiskers on it, and besides that, we have plenty of legends to honour.

5 has really only had TD and Hird, and Hird was probably only given 5 because he had 49 and 5 was newly free.

Sheeds liked having numbers like 19 and 27 for rucks only, but those numbers were never legendary numbers before Simon.


They could give the 4 and 5 to either Heppell or Hooker, as both should be playing in lower numbers IMO.

The new guys can sort the other numbers out between themselves suburban footy club style.



#4 McKenna
#5 Fantasia
#9 Stringer
#10 Smith
#13 Long
#25 Saad
#31 Goddard - Keeping number warm for one year before young Fletch added
#34 Francis - Demoted
#47 Lavender
#35 Morgan - Demoted


Well…■■■■ me!!!


hahaha demoted.




There are a lots of stupid suggestions in this thread


I tend to agree with you that that should be the case. However, they had no compunction in giving away Coleman’s number to Francis before he proved himself.


I want to add a 1 in front of every number.


Might take a bit of pressure off francis having a higher number.


Yeah…because we allocate vacant numbers in the order they’re drafted.

Vacant numbers get given to imports and number promotions first, then go in order to draftees. That’s the way it’s worked the Worsfold years.

And we don’t do stupid crap like ■■■■ Hawthorn and ■■■■ Richmond and allocate from the bottom of the list and promote later.


have said it before but we need to find a way to get Stringer into 17.


Stringer isn’t even at Essendon?


I think he already found… never mind.