- Sep 26, 2004
- 47,650
- 64,496
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #1,314
Infractions and thread bans have been handed out.
Keep it civil and on topic, or keep it to yourself.
Thanks.
Keep it civil and on topic, or keep it to yourself.
Thanks.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
I understood you point and thought it to be abit rich that another club who time and time again benefits from lower clubs letting good players go in an effort to rejuvenate whinges about the system.No. I am not "upset"... Why would I be "upset" about St Kilda receiving pick 5? That doesn't effect Hawthorn. The Saints clearly need to get some talent on their list, so half their luck if they can finagle their way to an extra top 5 pick. Charity cases like North Melbourne and Gold Coast have been sticking their hand out for years and receiving top 5 draft picks. So why shouldn't other clubs get their lick of the ice cream?
The point of my post was quite clear... I reckon anyone with an IQ above 90 could understand where I'm coming from.
The AFL's FA compo rules seem to be predicated on the idea that the money offered to a free agent is a fair representation of his value when clearly it isn't. The market value can be inflated. Just because a club (or clubs) offer someone a multi-million dollar contract, it doesn't mean they are actually worth that. It could be that there's a bidding war between 2 clubs on a serviceable ruckman or key defender (e.g. McKay) ... Or it could be that a club with tons of salary cap space (e.g. Hawthorn) is prepared to pay massive overs in the short term to marginally improve their list.
Either way... the AFL have created a system where the "reward" for a club losing their free agent is too great. Lowly clubs weaken their list by letting go of the few decent players they have and replacing them with top-end Under 18's.
Is that the desired outcome of free agency and free agency compensation? I would think not.
Apologies in advance that you were triggered and upset by my posting on this subject. I was just hoping for some discussion. I am not operating under the delusion (shared by many on this forum) that anything people post here is going to have any effect.
Agree somewhat with your most of your sentiments... apart from the bit where you claimed Hawthorn "time and time again benefits from lower clubs letting good players go in an effort to rejuvenate..."I understood you point and thought it to be abit rich that another club who time and time again benefits from lower clubs letting good players go in an effort to rejuvenate whinges about the system.
The fact is that the players want greater movement. But clubs are not allowed to move a player on without their consent in return.
So, for Hawthorn - the value in Battle is that he is a free agent. He has no asset cost aside from your own cap space. There has to be an incentive for clubs like mine in this instance to allow its facilitation. Otherwise your club never gets better talent to continue pushing up the ladder and mine may never get enough talent to turn it all around whilst the northern clubs keep on having massive wins from their academies.
Has to be A grader salary given the "expected" band 1 compensation........Looks like this is the player that moves as a free agent this year
What $$$$ would be his value
Talking about rejects and quoting Dan hanneberry, Zak jones and paddy dowAgree somewhat with your most of your sentiments... apart from the bit where you claimed Hawthorn "time and time again benefits from lower clubs letting good players go in an effort to rejuvenate..."
Who the hell are you talking about? Which players would they be?
In case you hadn't noticed, all the free agents and good players coming out of contract end up at Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton, Geelong, Brisbane or Sydney
I'd argue the Saints have been more active than the Hawks in signing out-of-contract players from rival clubs: Jack Steele (c), Brad Hill, Dan Hannebery, Zak Jones, Dan Butler, Paddy Ryder, Dougal Howard, Brad Crouch, Jack Higgins, Liam Henry, Paddy Dow
Apart from Karl Amon, most of the guys Hawthorn have signed were rejects who have come good: Scrimshaw, Frost, Meek, Chol, Ginnivan, d'Ambrosio. Literally none of these guys were wanted by their former clubs.
Taps I think that's more than enough off topic posts.
Stay on topic please.
HawksWhere do you think Battle will end up? It’s strange swans are not looking at him to replace McCartin.
Looks like this is the player that moves as a free agent this year
What $$$$ would be his value
St Kilda would need band 1 compo so likely a 900k+ p/a deal.
He’s a better player than McKay and probably FrawleyBand 1 is crazy.
I'd be pissed if I was teams like the crows
why would what saints want affect what hawthorn giving battle to move over?St Kilda would need band 1 compo so likely a 900k+ p/a deal.
If St.kilda get band 1 it will end up pushing both of their picks back, because Zurhaar will also get Band 1 for North.
Their stats are literally the same, and the contracts being offered will be very similar too.
North every chance to end up with Picks 1 and 2 if Battle lands St.Kilda Band 1 compo.
Pissed? we're fuming if we finish above Saints and a hack like Battle reaps the Saints Band 1.Band 1 is crazy.
I'd be pissed if I was teams like the crows
two differnt players playing differnt postions going to two differnt clubs with diffrernt needs and having different salary cap in terms of committed payments.
Getting the same offers....
Zurhaar isn't getting 800k plus.Getting the same offers....
McKay got band1 and was on a similar money, you could argue battle is a better player as wellGotcha. Can’t see that being band 1 unless the change to factor in contract length makes a big difference
McKay got band1 and was on a similar money, you could argue battle is a better player as well
A $600k player in 2022 is an $850k player in 2025.Similar money? Mckay is the highest paid player in the comp this year.
His money averages out over 900k.
Battle is a 600k a year player.
Think the issue is simply really.Zurhaar isn't getting 800k plus.
didnt they try similar stunt with to stkilda last year but that got rejected? word around here anyway.Think the issue is simply really.
North trade Pick 21 + future 2nd to Essendon for Dylan Shiel and Nick Bryan. Essendon then pick up Cam Zurhaar on 6 year 6 mill deal which they can slightly frontload on the back of losing Shiel and Nick Bryans contract
This can push Zurhaars contract down to more or less a 6/4.8 mill deal
North then get pick 2 as compensation meaning the deal is
Pick 2 out of thin air + Shiel + Bryan for Pick 21, Future 2nd + Zurhaar
It makes no difference it goes buy what his paid over the term of his contract , Essendon just heavily front loaded McKays contract in his last couple years he isn’t getting paid much at all it averaged out to 850-875 a season which are the amounts that are getting mentioned for battle , he currently has a offer of 650 a season at stkilda players generally don’t leave there current clubs for similar moneySimilar money? Mckay is the highest paid player in the comp this year.
His money averages out over 900k.
Battle is a 600k a year player.