Strategy How would you fix free agency?

[Laphroaig]

Yes, and this system still gives the weaker teams preferential access as 18th place as about 300% more points before the trade period than 1st place. If 18th place went into the draft with that many more points than 1st, they are going to get a lot more highly touted players in the draft than the 1st place team.

It is like being at a car auction. You are far more likely to walk out with better cars if you have a budget 300% higher than another guy at the auction.

It also means if lets say Adelaide really want Thilthorpe, who isn't really a pick 1, but they really want him, they can in theory pay less for him under the new system than they would next month, as Adelaide would have to use pick 1 for him, even though he is not really a pick 1 player, when under the proposed system they could pay a pick 4, or even pick 5 price for him.

Lets close it off with I don't share your faith in the unproven assumptions this is based on.

 

[RUNVS]

Lets close it off with I don't share your faith in the unproven assumptions this is based on.

If you go by "well this hasn't been proven" then nothing would ever change. Radical ideas sometimes require a leap of faith.

 

[bebji]

If you go by "well this hasn't been proven" then nothing would ever change. Radical ideas sometimes require a leap of faith.

Why don't you build some data, by running a few mock drafts under this system and posting the results. Do it on previous seasons and show some of the possible differences.

 

[Laphroaig]

If you go by "well this hasn't been proven" then nothing would ever change. Radical ideas sometimes require a leap of faith.

And contrary to an often held opinion, change and progress are not synonyms.

 

[stew42]

- Remove the soft cap to allow poor teams to create cap space to compete for free agents.
- remove players contracted to have a say where they play and renegotiating contracts. Eg you sign a 4 year deal with a team and you get traded after 1 year. Salary stays the same. No renegotiations.
- increase the minimum salary due to movement factor above as compensation.

after the above is done remove compensation. Before the above is done the system will always be unfair.

pros to the above. At the moment North Melbourne atm pay 95% cap compared to geelong after they sign Cameron Higgins smith and have a star studded team.

north’s best bet would be to sign all young guns on long contracts that are crazy front ended. You can’t do this atm as players would just get paid and leave halfway thru. They could then in 3 years have these young talented players now stars or good players on minimum contracts with huge cap space and able to poach free agents.

that’s how the system should work and balance out. Reward good management and strategy.

it also makes trading more interesting as contracts are fixed. So players may be worth a 2nd rounder but in an amazingly cheap contract so that makes them worth more.

pretty simple solution. The current system is just overly complex and bias to good teams. This is why teams stay at the top longer. Soft cap & player contract “rights”.

I completely agree, except with that last bolded bit. Since 2000, basically every club except for Gold Coast has been in a Grand Final.

 

[rusman]

I completely agree, except with that last bolded bit. Since 2000, basically every club except for Gold Coast has been in a Grand Final.

Fair enough mate.

Geelong, Hawks, Collingwood has been able to maintain success continually due to being able to top up with talent due to being able to offer success, a good club & a similar dollar amount to bottom clubs. That's just what I see, why would you go to north, dees (when they were bad) went you can go to a premiership contender for 50k less. You'll double the difference in sponsorship & Post career opportunities.

 

[TheTassieHawk]

So using my points value from earlier, just as a guide since I could not be arsed to make another one but

18th position - 4647 points (Adelaide)
17th position - 4088 points (North)
16th position - 3740 points (Sydney)
15th position - 3478 points (Hawthorn)
14th position - 3263 points (Gold Coast)
13th position - 3077 points (Essendon)
12th position - 2913 points (Fremantle)
11th position - 2765 points (Gold Coast)
10th position - 2631 points (Carlton)
9th position - 2504 points (GWS)
8th position - 2388 points (Melbourne)
7th position - 2279 points (Western Bulldogs)
6th position - 2174 points (West Coast)
5th position - 2077 points (Collingwood)
4th position - 1983 points (St Kilda)
3rd position - 1894 points (Brisbane)
2nd position - 1809 points (Geelong)
1st position - 1726 points (Richmond)

So Geelong want Cameron. Geelong have 1809 points.

Now Geelong and GWS are able to make a deal, them able to work out together how many points Cameron is worth. Lets say they agree that Cameron is worth 1100 points, that means GWS go up to 3604 points while Geelong go down to 709 points.

To me that seems like a very fair deal. Basically means GWS lose one of the best key forwards in the competition, but they are rewarded and instead of being in the 9th position in points, they just jumped up to 15th, giving them a lot more power in the draft than they previously had.

and if someone wants Treloar, then if they are willing to pay 600 points for him then he can be theirs. It means any of the other 17 clubs have the currency to take Treloar if they want him, rather than the current system where Treloar has a range, and if a club does not have a pick within that range then odds are they can't get him, even if they do want him.

Collingwood get a return on trading Treloar that is based on picks or players received as well as salary cap relief.

If a team has a good pick to offer but not quite enough for Collingwood to accept then they can up the dollar component as stake knives or throw in a future pick or future pick swap.

I considered proposing a points based trading system in a fantasy league I play in. In the end I preferred the simplicity of a classical draft model, particularly in a real world professional league.

 

[Blueeygrey]

RANT...
I’d like much more transparency. The AFL seems to pick and choose the various rule interpretations. The successful clubs, particularly Victorian (bigger pool), are able to maintain draft position whilst poaching A grade players. Simplify the system. The integrity of the point system needs to be a priority. Forget discounts, Academy & F/S nominated teams already get first mover advantage. Teams bringing in top FA top 20 picks should receive a deficit calculation. The other side to FA is the cultural mess Trade radio & comprised draft has fanned. The forums are overwhelmed with bickering & vitriol. Trade radio is just an extension of advertisement fuelled, shock jock toxic waste. The focus is more about AFL paying themselves and less about Australian football, development, community. This American style rush to the top dollar, opinionated commentary & divisive , unhealthy advertising is not sustainable. There are much more imaginative, rewarding & informative modals available. The revamp of any FA model must be more inclusive to values & fans of Australian Football. I understand there’s a paid service, but the online platform is marketed as inferior to the pay TV platforms. This is ridiculous. The service is not transparent & support is non existent. I watch better quality, insightful commentary from far less resourceful online individuals. The Traders is another chore. Is becomes exhausting with little reward. Australian Football cards were once a big thing. Today? I people get better feed back from an Apple Watch badge than anything the AFL provides. FA is a symptom of a power driven channelEd executive. Creative simple solutions can bring similar financial outcomes, but unless the AFL bring transparency, consistency & good experiences to all aspects of their services they won’t gain trust. Trust is what the AFL inherited from Australian Football & the countless individuals who umpired, coached & invested themselves in the community. This was prevalent in the early to mid 1900’s. Grandfathers & fathers. Today the AFL is a reflection of McLachlan & Co; unapproachable, vague & exorbitant. The whole system reflects the multinationals sponsorship products like gambling, junk food & beer. I’m not saying leave cash on the table, but they can do a much, much better Alignment! The AFL in coordination with State leagues should be investing or running other businesses that compliment, assist & benefit towns, & urban communities that invested in Australian football. The upcoming digitisation is a big opportunity for the AFL to present a different face & still be profitable. I find myself questioning; was my father & grandfather’s investment in coaching , umpiring & building community in vain? For the life of me I don’t understand why the AFL is not involved in development of digital remote services in communities. They should have their own research & development program to help small towns build 5g or provide services. Digital camera recognition statistic services, remote coaching. The ideas a endless. FA & the AFL will have to CHANGE first.

 

[simmo97]

if we are going to have FA compensation it should only be for players who are in your clubs top 8-12 paid players and all picks should be after the 1st

Otherwise scrap FA Compensation completely.

 

[Blueeygrey]

RANT...
I’d like much more transparency. The AFL seems to pick and choose the various rule interpretations. The successful clubs, particularly Victorian (bigger pool), are able to maintain draft position whilst poaching A grade players. Simplify the system. The integrity of the point system needs to be a priority. Forget discounts, Academy & F/S nominated teams already get first mover advantage. Teams bringing in top FA top 20 picks should receive a deficit calculation. The other side to FA is the cultural mess Trade radio & comprised draft has fanned. The forums are overwhelmed with bickering & vitriol. Trade radio is just an extension of advertisement fuelled, shock jock toxic waste. The focus is more about AFL paying themselves and less about Australian football, development, community. This American style rush to the top dollar, opinionated commentary & divisive advertising is not sustainable. There are much more imaginative, rewarding & informative modals available. The revamp of any FA model must be more inclusive to values & fans of Australian Football. I understand there’s a paid service, but the online platform is marketed as inferior to the pay TV platforms. This is ridiculous. The service like the AFL is not transparent & support non existent. I watch better quality, insightful commentary from far less resourceful online individuals. When individuals are streaming better quality video with iPhones , have to question why the AFL don’t develop a ground up platform themselves. The Traders is another chore. Is becomes exhausting with little reward. FA is a symptom of a power driven channelEd executive. Creative simple solutions can bring similar financial outcomes, but unless the AFL bring transparency, consistency & good experiences to all aspects of their services they won’t gain trust. Trust is what the AFL inherited from Australian Football & the countless individuals who umpired, coached & invested themselves in the community. This was prevalent in the early 1900’s to 1970’s. Fathers & grandfathers. Today the AFL is a reflection of McLachlan & Co

 

[BigFatNorthFan]

There are different ways you can run an auction. Are you proposing that teams bid using points?

Yep.

In concept I like the idea, but in practice, it'd be a nightmare.

The first round of the draft would take ages.

Ever been to an auction? It'd be quicker than the current version.

 

[weevil]

When you need to blithely say "just tweak it when it doesn't work" it is obviously not straightforward.

Here's something that actually is so straightforward it could not be more so. Finish last, get pick one. Use it or trade it as best suits your objectives. Rinse and repeat.

This thread is an amazing exercise in non-logic. We already have a system which gives the highest draft picks to the lowest teams. So lets bring in an incredibly arcane and convoluted alternative which has a considerable risk of NOT giving the highest draft picks to the lowest teams.

But that's ok. We'll just tweak it to try and make it give the highest draft picks to the lowest teams, and make it even more convoluted. And if that tweak doesn't work, just add another tweak.

Sounds quite similar to the process which led us to a situation where not even players and umpires have a clue what the rules of the game are. They can't see the rules because all the tweaks are in the way.

No, that is the entire point, It would be incredibly straightforward

Making adjustments to ensure lower teams are not exploited is a perfect example of how simple a currency system could make things. You can adjust the multiplier to favour the lower placed teams, or you can put limits on how much upper teams can use on individual picks, or you can implement any number of other things. All of that is basic mathematics and can be modelled and tested rigorously.

Fixing those things in a barter system is much more clumsy, eg the entire free agent compensation shemozzle.

Yes, a currency system requires a single layer of abstraction that would have to be applied to everything. But it makes every single other issue massively more straightforward.

The barter system is the opposite, simpler initially but it makes everything else you want to do massively more complex and difficult.

The entire world uses currency because it makes things easier.

 

[Laphroaig]

Fixing those things in a barter system is much more clumsy, eg the entire free agent compensation shemozzle.

Get rid of it. Problem solved.

 

[Chiz]

To address some of the concerns raised with the proposed system.

The AFL's points do not accurately reflect a draft pick's value.

I'm not sure how the original points values were estimated, but there is definitely a significant premium attached to the top picks. With the data available in the game today it should be relatively easy to re-estimate the value of each pick. Also, an auction system would go a long way to resolving this and would help to established a long-term value for each pick.

A points system with an auction would be manipulated by clubs to try and move up the draft order.

Potentially there may be a scenario where pick 1 is the next Dustin Martin and a few clubs may try to amass as many points as possible so they can get pick 1 for 3000 points instead of having to bid say 5000 points. Where I can see this being an issue might be clubs trading points between years - eg you could trade 1200 points from next season for 1000 points this season to ensure you have a high balance, then trade 1000 points back for next season after you've got pick 1.

As always, there are rules you can put in place to prevent this type of thing happening. For instance, you could prevent the trading of points between years during the draft.

I doubt this would be much of an issue outside the top 5 picks. Another option could be to have a pure auction for the first 5 picks (that is, if you want pick 1, you have to pay the most points), and a restricted auction for picks 6 to 73. That is, the points for picks 6 to 73 would be scaled up or down depending on how many points were used for picks 1 to 5. The team with the highest points balance after the top five picks would get pick 6 for a pre-determined value, and could choose to use it or auction it off (this benchmarks the points for pick 6, and ensures that there is no over-bidding of points). If you bid 5000 points for pick 1, you are potentially giving away picks 6, 7 and 8 (4946 points).

I think it's also worth noting here the degree to which the current system is manipulated, particularly around FA compensation and NGA/FS selections - as noted earlier, the points system would prevent this sort of manipulation.

Points have no intrinsic value.

Not until they are benchmarked to something. In the proposed system they are benchmarked to a value for each pick - pick 1 is equivalent to picks 5 and 14, for example. If you trade a player for 3000 points, you can potentially use those points to get pick 1, or to significantly upgrade other picks you would have been able to get.

The top sides would bid for the top picks, penalising the bottom sides that need them.

The top sides would not have enough points to bid for the top picks unless they are willing to trade out good players. Sides that are in their premiership window are usually trying to trade in players, which would mean they have even fewer points.

As for bottom sides being penalised by being pushed back in the draft order - firstly, the bottom sides have as much right to bid on the top picks as any other side, and they are likely to have a higher points balance. If another club outbids them, the value of their points remains the same - their first pick may move back one spot, but their second pick might move up 10 spots.

Clubs would lose control of their picks.

Clubs have very little control of their picks under the current system. If you want pick 1, you can choose to play poorly for a season and finish on the bottom. If you finish near the bottom (say 13th), you might be given pick 6, but with FA compensation, NGAs and FS selections, this can easily be pushed back to pick 8 or 9 - this is quite a disadvantage.

If you have pick 1, you may prefer to trade this for two picks in the top 10 (picks 8 and 9 are roughly equivalent). But you then have to find another club that holds two picks in the top 10 and is willing to trade. At least with a points system you can spend your points how you like - go all out for pick 1, or save your points and pick up two top ten picks.

 

[Laphroaig]

Were already up to about 10,00 words in outline of how this "simple" system works.

Including additional volumes of what "we would just" do when the inherent flaws in the concept manifest themselves. And then we have to do it all again the next year because the constantly changing dynamic of Club aspirations and priorities adds up to a different dynamic. So all the things we "just did" in response to last years dynamic are useless.

I think the story has been told.

The core purpose of the draft is to give the highest draft picks to the lowest teams. It is not to facilitate trades of contracted players or make invented academies and ridiculous free agent compensation picks work better.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I've argued for this for best part of a decade. Simplifies EVERYTHING to do with player acquisition, retention and movement.

Trading: No more trades failing due to artificial "Goldilocks" restrictions. Players can be traded for fair market value, whether the target club happens to have a pick in the right range or not (so long as they have the points to spend). AFL Arbitration could even be brought in for when Dodoro gets involved. From a recruiting perspective, if Geelong want to spend 3000 points on Cameron and have to wait until every other club spends their points before they get a chance to bid in the draft, then so be it.

FA: No more FA required. I would prefer if FA was absorbed completely into trading (players can go back to draft or trade) but that horse has bolted, so options are: 1) No Compensation (bad luck - trade players in final year of contract instead); 2) Mediated Compensation taken from new club (arbitrated trade with cost determined by independent judge); or 3) FA Compensation awarded from AFL (which as now hurts all clubs not involved).

Given trading will be infinitely easier in this method, there actually is no requirement for FA - Once drafted, you can go to any club via trade and your current club will get fair compensation (either by choice or arbitration).

Drafting: It still favours the bottom clubs - in two ways:

• One, they get significantly more points than anyone else (as per draft picks now). By using points instead of picks they now have far more options too.
• Two, the 'auction' process, instead of being entirely open could still be nominated in reverse ladder order with protected bids.
  • For example:
    • Crows nominate a player and make opening (public) bid.
    • All clubs make (silent) bids,
    • top bid (points, not team) is shown to Crows who get chance to match or pass.
    • Winning bidder has points deducted, and next club's turn to nominate.
  • Perhaps drafted player salary is even linked to the points spent?
  • Points carry over from one season to the next to allow clubs to build up reserves for when needed.

I genuinely struggle to see downsides to such a change.

 

[Laphroaig]

I've argued for this for best part of a decade. Simplifies EVERYTHING to do with player acquisition, retention and movement.

Trading: No more trades failing due to artificial "Goldilocks" restrictions. Players can be traded for fair market value, whether the target club happens to have a pick in the right range or not (so long as they have the points to spend). AFL Arbitration could even be brought in for when Dodoro gets involved. From a recruiting perspective, if Geelong want to spend 3000 points on Cameron and have to wait until every other club spends their points before they get a chance to bid in the draft, then so be it.

FA: No more FA required. I would prefer if FA was absorbed completely into trading (players can go back to draft or trade) but that horse has bolted, so options are: 1) No Compensation (bad luck - trade players in final year of contract instead); 2) Mediated Compensation taken from new club (arbitrated trade with cost determined by independent judge); or 3) FA Compensation awarded from AFL (which as now hurts all clubs not involved).

Given trading will be infinitely easier in this method, there actually is no requirement for FA - Once drafted, you can go to any club via trade and your current club will get fair compensation (either by choice or arbitration).

Drafting: It still favours the bottom clubs - in two ways:

• One, they get significantly more points than anyone else (as per draft picks now). By using points instead of picks they now have far more options too.
• Two, the 'auction' process, instead of being entirely open could still be nominated in reverse ladder order with protected bids.
  • For example:
    • Crows nominate a player and make opening (public) bid.
    • All clubs make (silent) bids,
    • top bid (points, not team) is shown to Crows who get chance to match or pass.
    • Winning bidder has points deducted, and next club's turn to nominate.
  • Perhaps drafted player salary is even linked to the points spent?
  • Points carry over from one season to the next to allow clubs to build up reserves for when needed.

Good workable situation if you're selling fish.

I genuinely struggle to see downsides to such a change.

Well if you keep adding yet another bolted on shoot from the hip shot level of complexity every time a downside is pointed out, I'm sure you don't.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Good workable situation if you're selling fish.



Well if you keep adding yet another bolted on shoot from the hip shot level of complexity every time a downside is pointed out, I'm sure you don't.

? I genuinely don't understand this idea of yours that the suggestion to replace all the current complexity and illogical artificial restrictions with a single currency is complex. What you are seemingly arguing against is what we have now.

Bartering is complex and essentially unworkable. The current dogs breakfast we have is comical in it's complexity - and it all stems from starting with the discrete valued nature of ordered selections creating chunky values.

Consider:
----------
Points are currency ($$$)
Points/$$$ awarded based on ladder position.
Spend points/$$$ to improve your team (by draft, trade, etc).
Everything uses the same base valuation method, in values that can be broken into smaller pieces.

vs

Picks / Product (Bartering)
Picks/Product are awarded based on ladder position.
If you want a player who is worth more than your pick, you need to find a different club who had the pick you need but wants something you have more.

==============
As an example: ($$$ vs Barter)

Team A has a Bucket, but wants a loaf of Bread.
Team B wants a Bucket, but has a Carton of Milk.
Team C wants a Carton of Milk, but has a loaf of Bread.

Team A buys Bread from Team C for $$.
Team B buys Bucket from Team A for $$$
Team C buys Milk from Team B for $

It doesn't even matter what each individual item is valued at, or that each club values them differently - they can all have different values and the changes can easily occur due to the common item of exchange ($$$).

now, if we remove $$$ and replace with Bartering (Picks).

Team A talks to C, but C doesn't want a Bucket. No trade occurs
Team B talks to A, but A doesn't want Milk. No trade occurs
Team C talks to B,but B doesn't want Bread. No trade occurs

No trades happen as no-one is happy with what they get back. Or - as happens now - you continually add additional elements and complexity to try and find a solution or compromise.

 

[Laphroaig]

? I genuinely don't understand this idea of yours that the suggestion to replace all the current complexity and illogical artificial restrictions with a single currency is complex. What you are seemingly arguing against is what we have now.

Bartering is complex and essentially unworkable. The current dogs breakfast we have is comical in it's complexity - and it all stems from starting with the discrete valued nature of ordered selections creating chunky values.

Consider:
----------
Points are currency ($$$)
Points/$$$ awarded based on ladder position.
Spend points/$$$ to improve your team (by draft, trade, etc).
Everything uses the same base valuation method, in values that can be broken into smaller pieces.

vs

Picks / Product (Bartering)
Picks/Product are awarded based on ladder position.
If you want a player who is worth more than your pick, you need to find a different club who had the pick you need but wants something you have more.

==============
As an example: ($$$ vs Barter)

Team A has a Bucket, but wants a loaf of Bread.
Team B wants a Bucket, but has a Carton of Milk.
Team C wants a Carton of Milk, but has a loaf of Bread.

Team A buys Bread from Team C for $$.
Team B buys Bucket from Team A for $$$
Team C buys Milk from Team B for $

It doesn't even matter what each individual item is valued at, or that each club values them differently - they can all have different values and the changes can easily occur due to the common item of exchange ($$$).

now, if we remove $$$ and replace with Bartering (Picks).

Team A talks to C, but C doesn't want a Bucket. No trade occurs
Team B talks to A, but A doesn't want Milk. No trade occurs
Team C talks to B,but B doesn't want Bread. No trade occurs

No trades happen as no-one is happy with what they get back. Or - as happens now - you continually add additional elements and complexity to try and find a solution or compromise.

For god's sake.

I understand your position.

And discard it as childish.

 

[Choogler]

Scrap it and go back to free trade. Let the clubs spend to their own budgets.

Go on....howl it down....

No one can be that responsible for their own money...

As a supporter of a strong and viable club, an open marketplace would just serve to strengthen us and clubs like Richmond and Collingwood but would do nothing for the weaker clubs like a NM, STK, WB or Melb who, through no fault of their own, just don't have the supporter base to generate the revenue needed to genuinely compete. They already rely on AFL handouts just to survive in the current market.
Don't know how old you are but you seem not to remember that it was the very thing you advocate that brought the VFL to it's knees and resulted in half the clubs, including Collingwood and Richmond becoming technically insolvent.
If you want to see clubs wither and die then go back to a free market because it will just make the strong even stronger.

 

[Choogler]

This is seriously the easiest question to answer which is why it's so ridiculous. You have tried and tested FA models in place across the major american sports. You don't have to copy one, but FFS is it too much to ask to draw from models that work well? FA in the NFL works perfectly fine. Instead, it feels like they polled a group of primary kids to establish this model that they implemented. Fools.

Would their models work in a salary capped environment?

 

[Thetrader15]

1. Let everyone know the rules.
2. Compo is only for RFAs.
3. Picks are based on total contract $ over the length of the deal, not average yearly income, with band 1 must be at least 4 year deals.
4. Band 1 picks start at pick 11.
5. All other bands are at the end of each round.

Band 1:
Min 4 years, >$4m
Starts at pick 11

Band 2:
>$3m
Starts at pick 19

Band 3
>$2m
Starts at pick 37

 

[mezaire]

Just my idea....

Create a formula based on the following, and make the formula public!
- Average B&F finish, AFPA votes or/and coaches votes (perhaps best 3/4 seasons)
- Previous and new contract $$ and length
- Age

Then the formula creates a pick that has no relevance to the new or old clubs ladder position, simply creates a pick.
That pick could not be any higher than pick 5. If the pick created is higher than pick 5 then the old club would also receive a 2nd/3rd rd compo pick.
The old club would then have to give up 1/3 the points of the compo pick(s) off any picks they choose.

Eg,
Crouch triggers pick 8, Saints have to give up 520 points, equivalent to pick 36
Cameron trigger pick 5 + start of 3rd rd pick, Geelong have to give up 700 points, equivalent to pick 27

Just a thought.....

 

[Choogler]

My beef is that the existing FA system just serves to make the strong even stronger at the expense of weaker clubs and then compromises the draft.
If you take the Lynch example, Richmond got their man, which obviously strengthened their team, plus they retained their first round draft pick, another opportunity to strengthen their list. A double whammy if you like!
On the other hand, all GC got out of it was the loss of a star player and pick 2, which is simply an opportunity, not a guarantee, to recruit a new star. Much fairer IMHO, for Richmond to forfeit it's first rounder which is then upgraded to pick 2 as the compensation pick.
This means a shift in the draft order but no additional picks in the first round and ensures no club gets something for nothing.

 

[mezaire]

1. Let everyone know the rules.
2. Compo is only for RFAs.
3. Picks are based on total contract $ over the length of the deal, not average yearly income, with band 1 must be at least 4 year deals.
4. Band 1 picks start at pick 11.
5. All other bands are at the end of each round.

Band 1:
Min 4 years, >$4m
Starts at pick 11

Band 2:
>$3m
Starts at pick 19

Band 3
>$2m
Starts at pick 37

I don't mind this, although if compo starts at 11 then we will get far more matching. Whether that's a good thing or not, I don't know.
I'd also like to see more bands, eg. the difference between band 1 and 2 for Crouch is too great. If Band there was a band 1.5, it be closer to good value for both clubs