Bock Compo - Appeal to the AFC and AFL

[SurfingTheVoid]

Just as a side note, did anybody hear what Gerard Whateley had to say about the Crows and Bock?? I can't find the link, but he was scathing on the Adelaide administration and said they were "whinging" too much about Bock, and that the club wouldn't get more than a first round pick on the free market. Whinging?? Has he got the wrong club?

Not withstanding this, I think we have to choose our battles wisely. Even if we're heard, what will we achieve? A draft pick ten places higher up? The fact that the compensation involved is a draft pick makes it very uncertain compensation even at the best of times.

Let this one slide I reckon, folks. Save both barrels for when we really need them.

Is that a joke? Since when have we ever used "both barrels"?

a. Home final taken away against Melbourne
b. Bryce Gibbs taken away by Carlton
c. Bock taken away for shit compo

How about, for once in our pathetic administration's existence, we stand up for something?

 

[cmndstab]

no its not.

yes its true that the clubs agreed the compensation scheme, but that's not really relevant.

what is really relevant is the amateurish mistake of not agreeing a proper grievance procedure. IF its true that Vlad and mini me are the appeals board, having sat originally, then that's unforgivable - no one should have agreed that.

Is that really the case, though? Did the clubs sign off on the conditions without having checked to see how the appeals process would proceed? Or was it just made that way by the AFL and dictated to the clubs?

I understand the clubs agreed that GC should be able to take uncontracted players, but they did not have any right to say yes or no on the nature of compensation. Furthermore, even if they did and I'm wrong, the AFL then proceeded to change it in-house. It doesn't seem at all unrealistic to me that the AFL could have simply sent the clubs all a memo saying "by the way, appeals board is set up, contains members: blah blah blah" and not given the clubs any ability to question it (or at least, a similar ability to question it as they've been given ability to appeal the compensation - sure, come and question it, but nothing will change).

 

[Crow-mo]

it would be just as amateurish in that circumstance

 

[macca23]

no its not.

yes its true that the clubs agreed the compensation scheme, but that's not really relevant.

what is really relevant is the amateurish mistake of not agreeing a proper grievance procedure. IF its true that Vlad and mini me are the appeals board, having sat originally, then that's unforgivable - no one should have agreed that.

My understanding of this is that the clubs agreed to the broad brush ideas, leaving the detail to the AFL.

That's like playing Russion Roulette with a bullet in every barrel!!

Naive!!

 

[TDRP]

Wrote a bit a blasting email at the club re compo for Bock vs Brown and got a personal response from Phil Harper.. which was good of him given I probably went a bit too far in my criticism of the club re this issue. I thought I was venting to some faceless email department so to get that response was unexpected but decent nonetheless.

Logic given was that Campbell brown was in fact an AA in 2007, and finished in the top 10 B&F 5x to Bock's 1x and both are 27 y.o

I still think there would have been enough salary difference between Bock and Brown to satisfy a band 2.. given one is a back pocket and the other is a chb. What sort of salary was C. Brown getting??? Was bock around $650-700, Campbell Brow would have been $400... if he's getting much more than that... good luck to them for wasting so much money.

 

[cmndstab]

it would be just as amateurish in that circumstance

I'm not sure how much choice we would have had... but either way, it's a concern.

 

[Crow-mo]

I'm not sure how much choice we would have had... but either way, it's a concern.

we have the same choice that Eddie and Jeff has. the league does run scared from the public scrutiny these guys can and do bring.

we should have been changing our line of sight, if we couldn't get victory we should have changed our goal to get transparency and public scrutiny. thereby threatening to embarass the league the way these 2 do.

Vlad bends us over because he can, and like a victim we cower in the corner and self rationalise why its not really their fault they hit us. you bring light to the situation, and then let the media and public opinion do the rest.

just like Geelong had the league invent a whole new category for Gablett after it first broke there would have been just an end of round 1st as maximum under the system. the court of public opinion demanded that.

triggy just needs to say no to domestic abuse.

 

[Crow-mo]

My understanding of this is that the clubs agreed to the broad brush ideas, leaving the detail to the AFL.

That's like playing Russion Roulette with a bullet in every barrel!!

Naive!!

precisely, file this under "what did you think was going to happen"?

 

[Crow-mo]

the other thing is having made the school boy mistake of not having a proper grievance procedure in place, what was the point of posturing and making a big deal about appealing if you weren't going to follow through?

it was the sticking your head above the parapit, screaming with revolutionary revour and then realising you needed to get home for dinner before mum got mad, that really makes us look 2nd rate.

 

[cmndstab]

we have the same choice that Eddie and Jeff has. the league does run scared from the public scrutiny these guys can and do bring.

we should have been changing our line of sight, if we couldn't get victory we should have changed our goal to get transparency and public scrutiny. thereby threatening to embarass the league the way these 2 do.

Vlad bends us over because he can, and like a victim we cower in the corner and self rationalise why its not really their fault they hit us. you bring light to the situation, and then let the media and public opinion do the rest.

just like Geelong had the league invent a whole new category for Gablett after it first broke there would have been just an end of round 1st as maximum under the system. the court of public opinion demanded that.

triggy just needs to say no to domestic abuse.

100% agree with all of this. I don't think we're going to get anything changed, but geez I wish we'd make some noise about it. I'm sick of being the team that everyone knows will just take whatever they're given and do little more than grit their teeth if they don't like it.

 

[headache1]

Spot on, I think some of you need to take your coloured glasses off and read Jenny's post again.

I stopped reading when I got to the 17 games out of 46 part.

 

[King Elvis]

And lets not forget Bocks part in all this. Not once has he come out and said that he hopes the AFC gets adequately compensated. Piece of garbage human being is N Bock.

Yea, I'm sure if Bock had told the AFL to give us a first round pick for himself, they definitely would of.

What a shit comment.

 

[Slippery Pete]

100% agree with all of this. I don't think we're going to get anything changed, but geez I wish we'd make some noise about it. I'm sick of being the team that everyone knows will just take whatever they're given and do little more than grit their teeth if they don't like it.

Is it time for some changes at the top then?

 

[Big Gazoongas]

Is that really the case, though? Did the clubs sign off on the conditions without having checked to see how the appeals process would proceed? Or was it just made that way by the AFL and dictated to the clubs?

I understand the clubs agreed that GC should be able to take uncontracted players, but they did not have any right to say yes or no on the nature of compensation. Furthermore, even if they did and I'm wrong, the AFL then proceeded to change it in-house. It doesn't seem at all unrealistic to me that the AFL could have simply sent the clubs all a memo saying "by the way, appeals board is set up, contains members: blah blah blah" and not given the clubs any ability to question it (or at least, a similar ability to question it as they've been given ability to appeal the compensation - sure, come and question it, but nothing will change).

Not sure about the other clubs but pretty sure Triggy presented a proposal that the GC should be made to give up one of their draft picks in exchange for any uncontracted player signed by them. Triggy was not in favour of a compensation pick which was going to be determined by the AFL, he was pretty adamant a pick should be given up.

 

[BACCS]

Harbrow shouldn't be worth anymore than a band 4 pick, if Bock is only worth a band 3.

 

[headache1]

Harbrow shouldn't be worth anymore than a band 4 pick, if Bock is only worth a band 3.

If what I'm hearing is correct and the ranking is based on their new salary and future earning potential, then he will be worth just as much as Bock, given he's 22.

 

[Slippery Pete]

There is only one answer to all this:

Smash the Gold Coast off the park when we play them next year.

 

[cmndstab]

Is it time for some changes at the top then?

I certainly wouldn't be upset if we made changes that had us showing more teeth. Whether those are personnel changes or simply changes in approach from the current personnel is another question again.

 

[SydCrow]

There is only one answer to all this:

Smash the Gold Coast off the park when we play them next year.

Hendo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bock

 

[dplggr47]

If what I'm hearing is correct and the ranking is based on their new salary and future earning potential, then he will be worth just as much as Bock, given he's 22.

all the Bulldogs fans are expecting Harbrow to be worth band 2, due to his age (22) and the large salary he is being offered by GC, so i won't be surprised if he is ranked higher than Bock.

 

[Crow-mo]

I'd be shocked if harbrow isnt band 2.

 

[cmndstab]

I'd be shocked if harbrow isnt band 2.

Given the apparent important of age, I'm inclined to agree.

 

[big78sam]

band 3. I'm convinced this is a really wide band, along with band 4, designed to catch pretty much everyone.

edit - source afl site

 

[WALL-e]

Band 1 may as well be called Ablett.

Band 2.......Godd knows.

Band 3 -everyone who's played more than 20 games

Band 4 - Krakour

 

[srv23]

Band 1 may as well be called Ablett.

Band 2.......Godd knows.

Band 3 -everyone who's played more than 20 games

Band 4 - Krakour

Maybe what happened is the AFL already knew exactly which players were going to the GC and came up with the following system

Band 1 - First round pick immediately after club first pick - For the superstars otherwise known as "The band previously known as Ablett"
Band 2 - First round pick after first round Any other player playing AFL footy week in week out
Band 3 - Second Round pick - any other spud on an AFL list who has played at least one game
Band 4 - Third rounder - any other spud on an AFL list who hasn't played as game

Then Geelong discovered that if they may end up with pick 18 for Ablett and complain to the AFL resulting in the AFL inventing a new band thus leaving the following ratings

Band 1 - The band now known as Ablett
Band 2 - The band previously known as Ablett but now has no players within it.
Band 3 - Any half decent player playing regular AFL footy
Band 4 - Any spud on an AFL list