Hawthorn completely short-changed by the AFL

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Pessimistic said:
Or, like Dawes, sign them up then convince them they want to leave...

I wonder how many times they'll get away with that one
Click to expand...

Certainly beats doing pretty much nothing, then whining about losing out because you thought you'd get the same result from the AFL's compensation as you would from a trade. Pretty amateur approach.
 
tazhawk said:
Blind Freddy can see the AFL are trying to help our Port Adelaide with this FA compensation crap.
Click to expand...
Chaplin and Pearce have multiple top 5 finishes in the BnF, losing those two players hurts Port.

Have guys like Byrnes, Young, Knights ever finished top 10 in a club BnF??

It seems that Hawks fans think that their fringe players are better than another clubs top 5-10.
 
I don't get the anguish over Young. Hawthorn had every opportunity to keep him. In all likelyhood a 2 year contract at 250-280k a year would have done it. Normally agents and the press talk up player contracts but all of the reported figures on Young were very low. Hawks initially offered him a sub 200k contract. The pies offered something in the ball park of 250k and 3 years. Hawthorn upped their initial offer by 15% but this still fell short of the pies offer and likely didn't offer the 3rd year.

Since neither party threw much cash at Young he didn't attract much compo.

Compo picks are not an exact science. You win some, you lose some. Hawthorn made out like bandits with their compo for human crab Campbell Brown. This time they may have gotten slight unders but that is mainly a function of their ladder finish.

Compos should be dispensed with or at the very least not tied to ladder position.
 
Two Eyes, I suspect they are tied to ladder position as a form of equalisation akin to the draft order itself but in principle I agree there should be no compensation. Force better list management rather than compensate poor results. There will times when clubs will do a lot right but still lose out but that's just reality.
 
Chewy said:
I think it's a bit unfair on the top teams that the AFL's compensation is heavily tied to the salaries of the players. Top teams have less space in their salary cap. Their players receive a fair wage (or slightly under, which is why Young chose to leave.) Someone like Danielle Pearce has been an overpaid player for a bottom side (who had plenty of room in their cap) and has been traded to a contender willing to overspend on his salary and shuffle their player payments in order to make a tilt towards the 2013 flag.

It's ridiculous that a player's salary is the main consideration for compensation. The underlying logic of this is faulty. It assumes that every player receives the money he is worth.
Click to expand...
I agree with you - and as I'm Geelong and you're a Hawthorn supporter, this of course means that we must be correct.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Burgarama said:
Very risky move IMO. They could have been stuck with Dawes for another 2 years. :p
Click to expand...
OH GOD I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT THAT WAY
The horror! The horror!

(Win-win move all round in the finish, though. Melbourne can accept that he's not a superstar, and fills a need. Collingwood lose their favourite whipping boy for a first rounder. Dawes can actually develop as a player without needing to win a flag hanging over his head.)
 
Two Eyes said:
I don't get the anguish over Young. Hawthorn had every opportunity to keep him. In all likelyhood a 2 year contract at 250-280k a year would have done it. Normally agents and the press talk up player contracts but all of the reported figures on Young were very low. Hawks initially offered him a sub 200k contract. The pies offered something in the ball park of 250k and 3 years. Hawthorn upped their initial offer by 15% but this still fell short of the pies offer and likely didn't offer the 3rd year.

Since neither party threw much cash at Young he didn't attract much compo.

Compo picks are not an exact science. You win some, you lose some. Hawthorn made out like bandits with their compo for human crab Campbell Brown. This time they may have gotten slight unders but that is mainly a function of their ladder finish.

Compos should be dispensed with or at the very least not tied to ladder position.
Click to expand...

This would be fine if it was the case, however I would be shocked if Hawks offered Young a contract under 200k per year.

If the AFL came out and said Young is on considerably less that Chaplin and Pearce (and it was true) then I have absolutely no problem with the decision.

Do you think that Clinton Young is on more money the Lynch? They received the same compo despite age quoted as a determining factor Young is 26, Lynch is 30.
 
Chewy said:
All of their rules are designed to give massive favouritism towards the clubs who are struggling.
But what they are really doing is sowing the seeds for today's bottom teams to become tomorrow's dominant teams.

It isn't equalisation. That's the illusion. It is really just cyclical inequality.
Click to expand...

m8...
After 3 wins last yr and 5 wins this year, we are still sitting on ZERO priority picks and on top of that ZERO top 5 picks period.
After losing two established first 22 players, Port received 2 picks in the 30s. Why are people implying that the AFL have sympathetically given us a leg up with these picks. If anything I say we still got unders for Pearce (subjective) but in reality the FA picks were never going to totally cover losses. What is clear is that the picks are based ONLY on the market value of a player (objective).
What I'd hate to happen is, after wading through the sludge of players that GC and GWS have left in their wake, somehow finding a team to contend with them, and then potentially winning a premiership, that people will point to this as some kind of loophole (a la Geelong: father/son, Sydney: salary cap, Hawthorn: behind tactic etc) that makes it invalid.

Its offensive for you to say that these picks are somehow a handout from the AFL, giving us a leg up.

I also don't think you were crying foul over "cyclical inequality" when you were heading into the 2004 draft loaded with 2 top 5 picks, courtesy of the AFL.
 
melanChronic said:
m8...
After 3 wins last yr and 5 wins this year, we are still sitting on ZERO priority picks and on top of that ZERO top 5 picks period.
After losing two established first 22 players, Port received 2 picks in the 30s. Why are people implying that the AFL have sympathetically given us a leg up with these picks. If anything I say we still got unders for Pearce (subjective) but in reality the FA picks were never going to totally cover losses. What is clear is that the picks are based ONLY on the market value of a player (objective).
What I'd hate to happen is, after wading through the sludge of players that GC and GWS have left in their wake, somehow finding a team to contend with them, and then potentially winning a premiership, that people will point to this as some kind of loophole (a la Geelong: father/son, Sydney: salary cap, Hawthorn: behind tactic etc) that makes it invalid.

Its offensive for you to say that these picks are somehow a handout from the AFL, giving us a leg up.

I also don't think you were crying foul over "cyclical inequality" when you were heading into the 2004 draft loaded with 2 top 5 picks, courtesy of the AFL.
Click to expand...

How many wins your team have had for the last year or two, hell even since 1997 when your club was established should have absolutely no bearing on any compensation received for a free agent.

The problem with the compensation system is that it is anything but transparent. Player contracts are not published so we have no idea why clubs received the picks that they did. People are of the opinion that it is bizarre that Chaplin and Pearce and on bigger money than Young as this is the only logical explanation. If the AFL said Young's contract was worth $350k per year but Pearce and Chaplin are on $450k plus then it would be ok to swallow. But they won't, because I dont think that that is true. It appears the AFL have simply applied the 'what we want to happen' formula to the compensation picks.

Priority picks have nothing to do with this issue. If a team won less than 5 games for a season they got a priority pick, not at all open to AFL discretion, if you cant see the difference then you are ignorant.
 
tazhawk said:
Blind Freddy can see the AFL are trying to help our Port Adelaide with this FA compensation crap.
Click to expand...

No, I think it is based on age + pay. Young not going to the pies for great cash I would imagine which has crippled the Hawks' compensation.
 
Tas said:
No, I think it is based on age + pay. Young not going to the pies for great cash I would imagine which has crippled the Hawks' compensation.
Click to expand...
And apparently ladder position, which is a crock.
Might also explain how Port did so well.
 
I don't have a problem with the formula other than ladder positioning. How that determines a players value is beyond me and quite frankly not just. Based on that jack watts would be worth more than buddy. Interesting times ahead you would think and lends itself more to there being no compensation for free agency at all.
 
I agree with Brian Cook - there should be no compensation for losses under free agency. Why? Firstly teams like Hawthorn have had many years service from the likes of Young. Secondly, all clubs had the right and ability to pick up free agents.
 
DeadlyAkkuret said:
Just imagine I posted a picture of a crying baby.
Click to expand...

You sydney guys need to reset your "winging indignation detector"

Geelong starts season 2013 with three six-day breaks, largely due to the fact its home ground, Simonds Stadium, is unavailable until the new grandstand and lights are completed in late May.​
The Cats will meet Hawthorn at the MCG on Monday in round one, North Melbourne (Etihad Stadium) the following Sunday, Carlton (Etihad) on Saturday in round three, then Sydney at the SCG on the Friday night of round four.​
''I'm expecting our boys to be pretty tired by the second and third six-day break,'' Geelong chief executive Brian Cook said. ''That's a really tough start.'' The Cats will also play six games interstate.​
​
​
Click to expand...
​
​
Funnily enough, sydney benefitted form exactly the same thing when they played Hawthorn in early 2012​
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Hawthorn completely short-changed by the AFL

Similar threads

Cleric
List Mgmt. If you could change the AFLs team list structure, what would you do?
Replies
22
Views
456
hawkman
hawkman
Chief
Opinion Team Changes for AFL Round 12 - Post 'em
Replies
0
Views
279
Chief
Chief
Satan
News New scoreboard at Geelong at risk of delay in completion
Replies
5
Views
469
Sttew
Sttew
Cleric
Analysis So what did Brisbane change to turn around their player retention issues?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
WillHayward
WillHayward
Gazza Greatness
The 2001 AFL National Draft is forever known as the AFL Superdraft
Replies
6
Views
512
Fadge
F
S
  • Locked
Let’s cut to the chase- can Hawthorn win a prelim in Sydney?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
151
Views
8K
Seattle Mariners
S
M
change the ball
Replies
6
Views
437
CURVE
CURVE

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top