Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Football Thread XVII

[windyhill]

Luckily our captain’s Lamborghini ride is probably in no way linked to one of our sponsors.

Pepper Money would’ve picked up the slack if he had ****ed off.

 

[Call Me Cake]

He sells t-shirts for $90. I'd be more surprised if he didn't have a lambo.

 

[Lore]

The clear loophole in AFL’s free agency compo — and how two clubs exploited it

The clear loophole in AFL’s free agency compo — and how two clubs exploited it

www.foxsports.com.au

I agree that the compo for free agents is out of control again. Surely it has to be reviewed again .
Either no compo or end of first round for band 1 and so on

I think it’s fine, for the most part. First round picks are overrated. Real superstars are worth 2-3 of them. The main thing it is missing is a “two first rounders with change going back” band for the actual stars.

Of course, you could just get rid of compensation picks altogether. It would mean fewer players move via free agency, and in theory clubs would then be more likely to match the bid and facilitate a trade if the player is actually worth a pick, or else let them go for nothing, which a late round pick is nothing anyway these days.

 

[ant555]

I think it’s fine, for the most part. First round picks are overrated. Real superstars are worth 2-3 of them. The main thing it is missing is a “two first rounders with change going back” band for the actual stars.

Of course, you could just get rid of compensation picks altogether. It would mean fewer players move via free agency, and in theory clubs would then be more likely to match the bid and facilitate a trade if the player is actually worth a pick, or else let them go for nothing, which a late round pick is nothing anyway these days.

The problem is the pick is linked with ladder position and in my opinion so it skews the compensation depending on how good or bad you are. Most free agents are not super stars. Most are the next level down that get paid overs to change clubs. The biggest free agent names have been Higgins / Lynch / Daniher in the last 10 years. The last two where the real stars.
End of first round for band 1 and so on is enough based on ladder position. At least then the compo is close to even.

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

 

[Lore]

The problem is the pick is linked with ladder position and in my opinion so it skews the compensation depending on how good or bad you are. Most free agents are not super stars. Most are the next level down that get paid overs to change clubs. The biggest free agent names have been Higgins / Lynch / Daniher in the last 10 years. The last two where the real stars.
End of first round for band 1 and so on is enough based on ladder position. At least then the compo is close to even.

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

It is based on ladder position, but that’s the point. Its a built in equalisation measure to compensate clubs who theoretically feel the loss more than a finalist or premier.

 

[Lore]

 

[ant555]

It is based on ladder position, but that’s the point. Its a built in equalisation measure to compensate clubs who theoretically feel the loss more than a finalist or premier.

And that is where it is wrong in my view as there can be too much variation.
North got priority picks. They did not Ned a pick for McKay that early.
On top of that it is a disadvantage to the other sides that are near the bottom.

 

[Call Me Cake]

It's tied to ladder position but also how much another club is offering.

If another club is willing to pay to trigger a band, then it means they're trying to pry him out of the club that he's at as well as trying to beat others that are competing for his signature.

Thus the onus is on the club that wants him, and if they want him that badly so as to offer a certain amount of money then it means the player is valuable in terms of supply and demand.

I agree that it hurts the other clubs that are doing it tough but unless something better comes along it's the only combination we have. It is what it is.

I personally think if you run an establishment that doesn't make people wanna stay or you don't run it successfully enough to have the money to pay them then you shouldn't be rewarded for that or other establishments shouldn't be punished for that.

The only other alternative I can think of off the top of my head is to cap it at picks after the clubs of the bottom 10, starting from pick #10 for example, or a lottery system for compo picks.

 

[Lore]

And that is where it is wrong in my view as there can be too much variation.
North got priority picks. They did not Ned a pick for McKay that early.
On top of that it is a disadvantage to the other sides that are near the bottom.

Those other sides didn't lose a 25 year old KPD worth 800k p.a. on a 6 year contract, I suppose.

But yes, I'm starting to fall more into the category of no compensation at all. If the player is good enough that you'd actually miss them, and you have enough cap space to pay them what they're worth, then match the bid. And if they still want to go, the destination club better cough up some appropriate picks.

if you don't have the cap space, then either you screwed up your cap management really badly or you're actually already a pretty decent side and don't need them as much as you think you do.

 

[Phone]

we shouldn't have compo, but we also shouldn't have barely any free agents moving from year to year and it shouldn't be the case where the flow of free agents is, for the most part, from teams that have had "bad" or disappointing seasons to teams that have had "good" or promising seasons, with this season only GWS being the exception (which is itself very problematic). As long as the later two exist, the compo probably needs to remain.

the actual problem is because of the way contracts are in the AFL, teams have so much salary cap flexibility from year to year and so much scope to create that flexibility & that means teams aren't losing "free agents" because they can't afford to keep them. They're either losing free agents because of geographical reasons, success/failure reasons and, in the odd case such as probably Gresham last year, because they just don't want to offer that same contract to the player. perhaps that third one shouldn't attract compo, but that type of move is basically the exception to the rule anyway (and if the Saints had a successful season in 2023, Gresham probably doesn't move)

the ironic thing is, the rules around RFA contracts are what the rules for all contracts should be: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/te...t/news-story/7f68306285abf2094dfe495e0e39aff5

Under watertight guidelines for restricted free agents, the yearly salary of Franklin must remain the same for the term of his current arrangement.

It means even if the gun forward extends his contract into 2023, the AFL will not allow his 2022 arrangement to be ‘smoothed’ as clubs do for non-restricted free agents.

If reports were correct when Sydney lured Franklin north, he is being paid $1.5 million this year and will rake in $900,000 the following season to complete a heavily back-ended deal.

The Swans would like to shift this money but are not permitted to do so,foxfooty.com.au confirmed on Tuesday with the AFL.

This is the same for all restricted free agents so that bidders don‘t outprice clubs and then immediately restructure contracts once they have won the signature of players.

It‘s why Jack Martin

21

Jack Martin

Age

29

Ht

186cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.2

4star

K

10.0

4star

HB

6.3

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.7

5star

G

0.9

4star

D

14.9

4star

K

7.9

3star

HB

7.0

4star

M

4.3

4star

T

3.6

4star

G

1.1

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

4.6

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.6

3star

at Carlton and Brandon Ellis

4

Brandon Ellis

Age

31

Ht

181cm

Wt

81kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

21.7

5star

K

12.6

5star

HB

9.0

5star

M

5.3

5star

T

2.4

4star

CL

1.4

4star

D

18.4

4star

K

12.9

5star

HB

5.6

3star

M

4.7

4star

T

2.3

3star

CL

1.4

4star

D

15.0

4star

K

7.8

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

3.4

4star

T

2.2

4star

CL

1.0

3star

at Gold Coast cannot re-adjust their contracts. It’s also why Hawthorn was made to absorb almost $500,000 of Tyrone Vickery’s deal in 2018, even though he’d retired.

If all AFL contracts had those same rules, the salary cap flexibity that teams have would vanish, we'd probably see a lot more players entering free agency and the need for compo would probably disappear. but the current system works very nicely for the clubs, players and fans. so it's not gonna change


with all that said, there's appears to be some basic formula settings wrong with this season's compo handouts

 

[Call Me Cake]

I personally think the triggers that trigger band 1, band 2, etc should be stats/games played based.

If the player leaving has featured in a certain number of the top "#" of stats and has played a certain level of games in the last year or two then that should be the trigger for band 1 + ladder. Too many players that aren't stars moving around giving picks in the the top 10.

Top 5 in the Brownlow, Coleman, etc = automatic band 1.

To make it even more fair, split band 1 into two categories. Top 5 in medals + one or more elite stats = from the start of first round, others = from the end of first round.