endakis
i found love in a hopeless place
- Feb 22, 2013
- 63
- 271
- AFL Club
- Richmond
F*ck off you loser. We couldn't give two fu*cks what the other boards have to say. Pull your head in. You are done here.
-
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Player Watch #5: Brandon Ellis - off to GC pick 39 as compo
- Thread starter Roachy8
- Start date
- Tagged users None
F*ck off you loser. We couldn't give two fu*cks what the other boards have to say. Pull your head in. You are done here.
Hi guys, apologies for the intrusion but I was talking to a Richmond supporter mate of mine about the compensation. It does seem a bit low, and he said the only comparison has been Buddy to Swans for pick 19.
Ok, so I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5, and I'm wondering whether the AFL's 'secret formula' is specifically secret because it takes into account drug strikes?
Perhaps there is a 10 pick penalty for a strike? This would make Buddy a pick 9 and Ellis 29 which is more within the realms of reasonable compensation for these two players. Obviously there's been rumors about Franklin for years, and Ellis definitely went through a major trough in his career.
Thoughts?
Ok, so I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 5, and I'm wondering whether the AFL's 'secret formula' is specifically secret because it takes into account drug strikes?
Perhaps there is a 10 pick penalty for a strike? This would make Buddy a pick 9 and Ellis 29 which is more within the realms of reasonable compensation for these two players. Obviously there's been rumors about Franklin for years, and Ellis definitely went through a major trough in his career.
Thoughts?
And you think Ellis is worth pick 20.... I did say a few spots to high but after the reaming we have given the draft in relation to our latest pick up's ie Lynch for nothing, a 1st rounder for Lids!! I hardly think we can afford to complain. Swings and roundabouts. I don't really care what the AFL have doled out before, they are constantly botching things. The thing about trades are they have to be fair or other sides get their nose out of joint. Trades should be what is fair on a consistent basis, not the ad hoc way it is done at the moment. So I think 39 whilst half a dozen places to high, is still okay for Ellis.
I think you can rule out drugs for Brando. It's a hunch but he is a success story as from where he has come from and where he is now, I don't think drugs would be in that mix. As far as a formula goes with the AFL, good luck trying to find consistency there.
Jesus wept!
And the time to make those trades fair is exactly the time BEllis goes to the GCS...
So it isn't quite fair. Happy for Ellis, happy for Richmond to have a new spot open up on the wing and happy that we have benefitted amazingly from the draft trades in the last few years. We lose on Ellis slightly, no big deal. Imagine GC losing Lynch last year and Prestia the year before and then they are premiership players the same year. We can hardly complain.
Do people expect anything to actually happen from here, I know Gale asked the AFL to review it but he did state they came back to club with a response.
I cannot actually see anything happening, which is a load of shit!
I cannot actually see anything happening, which is a load of shit!
Yeah, the key issue is the lack of clarity of process and apparent inconsistency of application. I get that the League wants some wriggle room in the process, call it a captain's pick if you like, but the differences between the Motlop and Lycett deals are glaringly obvious. Until the League publishes the criteria for compensation, in advance Gil if you please, it can't complain if people seeing favoritism in particular cases. The most bizarre case for us is that some of our best players have arrived outside the main draft. Like Grimes, Lambert, Soldo, Stack and Pickett. If I were Benny, I'd be arguing for the second round pick to be placed about half way through the list rather than at the end and inviting Gil and Co to apply the discretion they seem so fond of claiming to have.
Blah blah blah. You are comparing apples with oranges. Lids is not relevant, Lynch is not relevant, our dark corrupt secretive AFL overlords did not engineer those deals. Richmond and GWS did, Richmond and Lynch did, and either parties could have walked away at any moment. So yes we can afford to complain - Lycett and Motlop now that is relevant. And not from some dark half forgotten prehistory but from last year.
To hell what Ellis is 'worth'. THIS IS NOT A TRADE! It is about Ellis's age, the length of his contract and what that same deal delivered a mere 12 months ago and what it has delivered now. You know the concepts of consistency, transparency and fairness. Got to say some people have become very casual and comfortable with our second premiership ie not worth worrying about, she''ll be right mate, ehh what can you do etc. Finally it is not our responsibility to be the light on the hill, to say 'well it was actually the Motlop and Lycett compensation that wasn't fair, the Ellis one is, glad the AFL has started to get their house in order and I'm glad that we have helped set the new standard even if it is at our expense'. Again only care about Richmond and we have been fleeced. I'm glad that Gale has called it out, even if you're not.
Last edited:
This is an excellent point and may be the telling point of difference. Or as was mentioned earlier in the thread salary cap inflation since the precedent deals(Motlop, Rockliff, Lycett) may have also made some difference.
Apologies if the following has been covered somewhere else.
There is an obvious problem with this system as I understand it. If the system is based on a principle of equalisation, it only follows this principle in every second band which is needlessly random. Ie:
- band 1 compensation follows the principles of equalisation and falls after the club's first round pick, thus you get pick 19 for the premier Hawks when Franklin left and pick 3 for the lowly Melbourne when Frawley left.
- but then band 2 compensation abandons the principles of equalisation, and ALL teams regardless of ladder position get end of first round selections for band 2. Thus we get Lycett, Motlop, Rockliff etc.
- then magically equalisation reappears at band 3, and your pick is tied to your ladder position, thus Vickery attracts 27.
- then voila, band 4 the equalisation principle re-vanishes, and everyone gets end of second round compensation regardless of finishing position.
- but band 5...you guessed it, equalisation is now deemed important again, and it is a third rounder tied to ladder position.
Now the repeated appearance and disappearance of the equalisation principle as you descend through the bands is foolish and leads to such crazy outcomes as for the premier there is no difference between bands one and two but for the wooden spooner there is a massive difference hingeing on perhaps a tiny difference in contract.
It is obvious that for the system to make more sense then the equalisation principle should effect each compensation pick equally. My suggestion would be to do away with he bands and just have a sliding scale where a certain set of circumstances...say age 28, contract $800k counter offer $500k attracts 1200 draft points and to this figure you add or subtract any equalisation premium. So the bottom team may get 45%, second bottom 40%, third bottom 35% added and the top team 45% subtracted and the middle placed team gets no premium or discount, something along those lines.
Beyond that, I think Richmond have indicated they have appealed the outcome, and this is what should be done if they think the decision does not follow from precedents. After the outcome of the appeal to the AFL is known, if the club still thinks the compensation is not fair according to what other clubs have been granted then they should challenge the matter externally and presumably have VCAT apply external scrutiny to both the decision and system of compensation. No fanfare, just go through the process.
I would have to say that if the aim of this free agent compensation system is to compensate the club losing the player with fairness and precision(as it should be) then it will not achieve that aim as the system stands. So it needs changing, and perhaps a legal challenge is one way to get the AFL to do this.
Edit: I just re-read Brendan Gale’s tweet on the matter and he said they had asked the AFL to review the decision and got the explanation that he fell just short of band 2 compensation in 2019. So that was a very fast process seemingly without any proper challenge to the original decision. And the review appears to have been simply the AFL re-stating their original decision. The club should not be satisfied with this and should pursue the matter at least to the point they are fully satisfied the decision is fair. The AFL should be given the opportunity to conduct a full hearing on the matter, and if they don’t, or even if they do and the club is still not satisfied, it should be off to VCAT for a hearing by an external body. Great fan of Benny Gale but it would not be good enough to leave the matter there without a better explanation to satisfy Richmond supporters and members in my opinion.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #5,942
Lycett was last season. after wce won. inflation is a bit rich of a point to use
- Jan 7, 2010
- 12,608
- 37,143
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Strikers
Where is the state of the game expose to highlight the inconsistencies of the compensation pick
Sir_Loin
🏆🏆🏆
I can’t see how that’s a factor when you have to fit players into your available TPP which is set by the AFL. You can’t penalise a club for managing their TPP within the rules
Caveman68
Club Legend
- Apr 27, 2015
- 1,273
- 3,496
- AFL Club
- Richmond
You have more chance of the Vatican having an open house than the grubs at AFL house coming clean about anything. Fair dinkum we need a Royal Commission into the shenanigans of the AFL. The distrust from ordinary footy followers is extraordinary.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #5,946
well said
I presume you are referring to the Richmond offer to Ellis....it has been reported in some places that this is one of the factors taken into account. Whether this is true or not I am unsure but I would think it is a fair and relevant factor to use in determining the value of a player for compensation purposes. Your point about the TPP...I don’t think this should be a mitigating factor because all teams have an available TPP cap and within that they have the ability to value players according to their own judgement. Gold Coast within its TPP have valued Ellis it seems at $600k per season where Richmond have reportedly valued him at a lot less, all clubs are ultimately equally constrained by TPP.
All for that legal process if the AFL do not reconsider their decision and improve the pick slightly more in our favour!
To right I'm comfortable with where we are at. I waited 30 odd years to see us with a list like this and two weeks after a GF smashing can't be arsed getting in a knot over an 'unfair' Brandon Ellis trade. Quite happy with the trade even though it might not be as kosher as we would like. Anyone that can seriously justify Ellis as a player as a swap for a first round draft pick is deluded I don't care what ridiculous precedent the aFL had done in the past. Hawks got pick 19 for Franklin!!!
