Free Agency Compensation must be abolished

[Obeanie1]

This is actually a fallacy. Most teams have lost free agents and most teams have gained free agents. It’s not just players leaving small/shit clubs to big/good clubs.

Grading the 49 AFL free agents who have moved clubs in the last 10 years

We've gone through the 49 players who have moved via free agency in the last decade and given them a grade.

www.sen.com.au

Nice deflection.

Let's talk in the broadest terms possible.

Gun free agents move for success and stronger clubs. It's why Franklin chose Swans not GWS and pissed off the AFL. And the sooks hit Swans with a trade ban.

Average free agents move for money and don't care where they go. Hunt from the Dees was on the delist pile. Moved West to extend his earnings not for success.

All free agents are not equal.

Just like not all clubs are equal when it comes to who they can attract.

 

[Obeanie1]

Because every other club is disadvantaged by the pick you gain.

The pick is regularly worth more than the player you lost.

Barass would possibly be pick 3 compo if he was a free agent, but because he is contracted the eagles will be lucky to get a mid teens pick.

As a free agent hawthorn would get him for free, as a contracted player they have to pay.

The system is broken.

The compensation for losing a player is the chance for you to get a player. That should be it. Everyone has the same salary cap - use that money to recruit someone else.

To prevent top teams getting all the free agents, Restricted free agents should only be available to bottom 8 teams (they can go to top teams via a trade)

Problem is gun FAs walk to strong teams and the North's get nothing?

Please explain to us how North 'just use that money to recruit someone else'?

They have been trying that for 10 years and noone wanted to go there.

 

[iameviljez]

Problem is gun FAs walk to strong teams and the North's get nothing?

Please explain to us how North 'just use that money to recruit someone else'?

They have been trying that for 10 years and noone wanted to go there.

Yeah, exactly. This isn't an American league where the salary cap is so tight relative to the star player salaries that Godfather money can shift star players.

 

[The Tilt]

If you want a compromise, a club must use their top pick in this scenerio AND combine points from lower picks to make up the value - but they can't trade out their top pick, it must be used on the FS

Yes - this is the fix to the problem of the first round being compromised by pick-sliding. A simple rule that says if a club trades out of the first round, they're no longer able to match a bid on a player in the first round. That way Brisbane is forced to use pick 18 on Ashcroft, but they'll also need to pay whole lot more than that, actually paying something close to his value.

The trouble with pre-matching is not just that already strong clubs get elite talent on the cheap. It also disadvantages lower finishing clubs who are forced to use (for example) pick 3 to match a bid on a player who is rated at 14 to 18.

 

[oak79]

Problem is gun FAs walk to strong teams and the North's get nothing?

Please explain to us how North 'just use that money to recruit someone else'?

They have been trying that for 10 years and noone wanted to go there.

I literally did explain that... Restricted free agents shouldn't be available to top teams (except via trade)

 

[oak79]

Yes - this is the fix to the problem of the first round being compromised by pick-sliding. A simple rule that says if a club trades out of the first round, they're no longer able to match a bid on a player in the first round. That way Brisbane is forced to use pick 18 on Ashcroft, but they'll also need to pay whole lot more than that, actually paying something close to his value.

The trouble with pre-matching is not just that already strong clubs get elite talent on the cheap. It also disadvantages lower finishing clubs who are forced to use (for example) pick 3 to match a bid on a player who is rated at 14 to 18.

If you have pick 3, and a bid is at pick 14, you shouldn't have to use pick 3 under my suggestion - you would use next pick (ie 21).

You would only have to use pick 3 if a bid is at 1, 2 or 4.

 

[Dogflogger]

Problem is gun FAs walk to strong teams and the North's get nothing?

Please explain to us how North 'just use that money to recruit someone else'?

They have been trying that for 10 years and noone wanted to go there.

that's when you throw 1 mill at Polec. or 900k on an aged Brad Hill, Dont worry everyone get their fair share of FA's

 

[The Nostradamus]

Remove it for unrestricted free agents

Keep it for restricted free agents

This year only unrestricted free agents left and would’ve been no compo given if the above rule was in place

 

[Dirty Bird]

On RFA I 100% agree.
UFA? That's where the argument comes in.

What I hate about it is that it basically is a win/win for the 2 clubs involved, and a loss for the other 16 (soon to be 17) teams.

Why should team a get a player of need
team b get a draft pick made out of thin air

And the other 16 teams get ****ed over by having their draft hand affected.

The status quo is basically allowing 1 team to trade with capitol they don't even have, get the player, and screw everyone else over.

Take it away from RFA, and we might actually get teams matching a bid. Forces a fair trade which doesnt screw over the rest of the league.

 

[Tonythetiger]

Simple fix could be a team goes into points deficit the year after a free agent comes to them when compensation is awarded, to 50% or something of the value of the pick given.

So Battle is a good example, pick 8 or 1550 points, GWS gets their first pushed back by 775 points next year. So yes the rest of the comp get pushed back this year, a bunch of picks come forward next uear.

It means if you poach a guy from a bottom four club you get stung with a decent penalty. If you take a free agent from the Premier, then it's not nearly as big an impact.

 

[vanders]

Maths lesson vanders, there's 10 teams that don't make finals, not 8.

But I'm with you, compo picks should not start until after non finalists get to use their first rounder.

Oops but yeah that

 

[EagleMan87]

Does crystal meth inhibit sperm counts for past players? Asking for a friend.

 

[Chronz]

Those 15 top 10 picks aren't at risk now are they? That's no good Deano.

 

[EastcoastDocker]

Not sure if it has been said but if rioli baker and Bolton were all free agents Richmond likely end up with picks 1 2 3 4 in this draft

 

[iameviljez]

Not sure if it has been said but if rioli baker and Bolton were all free agents Richmond likely end up with picks 1 2 3 4 in this draft

If you lose multiple FAs, do you actually get a pick per player?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

There should be no compo for UFA, as that’s what makes little sense.

I’m adamant that the second change should be that the bands of compo should be relevant to the contract that was offered by the club losing the player, and their finishing position for the prior 2-3 years.

For example, if North were to have offered McKay a 6yr deal to stay, and having been bottom 2 for 3 years they should absolutely get band 1.

In comparison a club like St Kilda who’ve offered Battle 6 deal but have not finished bottom 4 in the 3 years prior shouldn’t be able to get Band 1 compo.

Only clubs that have 2-3 years of bottom 4 finishes and lose a player that they’ve tried hard to keep should be able to get band 1 compo.

 

[MadMaxx]

Just make Round 1 absolutely sacrosanct. 1-18, wont ever change. If you want an NGA or a FS, nominate him prior and take it at your pick. If not nominated, they are open season in Rd 1.

Then all compensation and "suck job" picks can happen after rounds 2 onwards

 

[Mat Mann]

I love how it's Battle and S Kilda that's drawing the ire

GWS just got pick 16 and 21 and it's barely mentioned
Bassat was spot on

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Cos free agents tend towards leaving shit teams to go to good teams?

AFL had figured out the salary cap alone isn't enough.

North have had a "war chest" for ten years.

Only because the clubs are forced to pay 95% of the cap as a minimum anyway, so there isn't enough of a war chest to compete. Clubs should be allowed to pay as little as 50% of the Salary Cap, that way players will get compensated fairly and their value to the market more reasonable and therefore bottom teams will be able to compete with godfather offers.

 

[Messenger]

Just remove it completely. Clubs don’t need to compensated for a player they have for 7 years and can’t convince to stay.

Also what the St Kilda and GWS comp makes clear is the system wasn’t really designed for a marketplace where 5+ year contracts for non-superstar talent are becoming the norm.

 

[WillHayward]

Only because the clubs are forced to pay 95% of the cap as a minimum anyway, so there isn't enough of a war chest to compete. Clubs should be allowed to pay as little as 50% of the Salary Cap, that way players will get compensated fairly and their value to the market more reasonable and therefore bottom teams will be able to compete with godfather offers.

Totally agree clubs need more flexibility with the SC.
Over paying shit players doesn't help the shit clubs rise the ladder at all or help equalisation.

 

[WillHayward]

Just remove it completely. Clubs don’t need to compensated for a player they have for 7 years and can’t convince to stay.

Also what the St Kilda and GWS comp makes clear is the system wasn’t really designed for a marketplace where 5+ year contracts for non-superstar talent are becoming the norm.

They could keep the compo but just update the parameters to reflect the new reality.

Perryman worth about pick 30 and Battle about 25.

Everyone would have been fine with that outcome.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I love how it's Battle and S Kilda that's drawing the ire

GWS just got pick 16 and 21 and it's barely mentioned
Bassat was spot on

You got a top 10 pick as Compo for a player that you weren’t even paying enough to have them considered a restricted free agent.

Of course other clubs were going to be up in arms about it.

 

[Mat Mann]

You got a top 10 pick as Compo for a player that you weren’t even paying enough to have them considered a restricted free agent.

Of course other clubs were going to be up in arms about it.

how many players structure deals to coincide with agency to maximize value?
Josh had a deal for 850x6 in April
3 years ago, if we had paid Josh enough to qualify, people would bitch about that like they with Max today

 

[dmac_55]

doesn't make sense that Brisbane will get the no.1 pick for cheap straight after winning the flag, which includes at best pick 18 onwards, 2 years after Daicos who again was probably the best kid in the draft goes for a combination of pick less that the value of pick 4, after Pies traded out of the draft to skirt the cost
or the GCS picked up 4 players in the top 25 after trading out 1 pick into the following year and using 2nd 3rd and 4th round picks to pay for them all

I don't see a thread whinging about that, but St Kilda, must whinge about them getting something

Wait did I mention father son rule or academies? That’s a different conversation

Or you guys at the saints just want to lump everything together and cry poor?