Kane Cornes

And clubs firmly believe that they don't have access to the best psychologist because of the soft cap.

And they also believe that there hasn't been enough consultation made before declaring that every club needs a full-time psychologist.

Kenny, you've got experience with this discussion, given what's happened at Port Adelaide, and now Port has a full-time psychologist.

How should this play out, do you think?

And what's fair from the AFL to ask, given the soft cap constraints?

I also said, we expect clubs to have a welfare staffer on three days a week.

And for the last however long, Geelong's had a welfare staffer on one day a week.

So they can say that they're going to mandate it.

But then if clubs don't follow suit, what do they do?

What's the league's process if clubs say, no, we actually want to do this instead?

And it's been proven that there's quite a bit of bureaucracy at the AFL.

And this...

to the cynic or to the people that have disagreed or found these latest announcements a little bit mind-boggling is just more bureaucracy and more red tape that they need to get through.

Yeah.

And I've spoken to probably half a dozen clubs in the last three or four days who've said that they aren't even going to try to get one full-time psychologist.

They'll try to get two on a full-time load and alternate in between.

Because the other element here is that there is a view that players want two psychologists within the club.

So if they don't feel safe with one, they can go to the other, which I think is a very real possibility.

There were very few details and they weren't even able to say whether that psychologist would have to be there on game day.

So this was very much a headline without the details below it.