00Stinger
100 - 7
Keep the compensation picks for free agency, but abolish the concession draft picks for being shit
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Should the AFL abolish Compensation Picks?
- Thread starter GrandBlue
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #27
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #28
So in 2-3 years time, if Dangerfield was out of contract and GWS offered him 1.2 million a year & Adelaide can't match it, you'll happily take pick 37 as compensation?
So you're suggesting that some clubs need compensation because they're shit and can't attract players? Not sure that's something the AFL should be compensating. Can't use the additional cap space this year? Then front load a few contracts and go after someone else next year.
Under the current system, free agents must have had a minimum 8 years of service. That's more than enough compensation for the club that he leaves.
Because someone doesn't share your opinion?
Please, tell me more about how a player you recruited for very little and have got a minimum of 8 years service from warrants compensation if he goes somewhere else.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #32
No, it's cause it's really dumb.
Teams like Collingwood and Essendon have an advantage when it comes to signing free agents because they can pay a years worth of wages right away and have superior facilities & coaching staff. With that in mind, you seriously think it's fair on clubs like St.Kilda and the Bulldogs?
If Fremantle lost Pavlich circa 2009 for nothing and could do nothing about it, I take it you'd say it's perfectly fair? After all, you got all those years out of him, that's more than a good enough reward, even if you couldn't attract a good replacement as Fremantle had a losing culture around that time.
Rubbish. Everyone has the same salary cap, and if your facilities and coaches are shithouse, then get better facilities and coaches. That's completely fair. Well run clubs attract better players - I can't see any unfairness there. It's actually perfectly fair.
What would be unfair is every other club having to pay 'compensation' for said player in the form of their existing draft picks instantly becoming 1 spot worse because a draft pick was created.
I would have been devastated, but i've been devastated plenty of times about the footy. That doesn't mean it's unfair. If our losing culture contributed to him leaving, then that's our own bloody fault. Nothing unfair about that.
I think it should be abolished the salary cap space is enough of an incentive. At worst it needs to be improved, say Hawks lose franklin this year and receive 1st round pick as compo that will be pick 17-19 most likely, Melbourne get a 2nd round compo for Sylvia which most likely be a puck between 21-24. Seems insane that close to the best player in the comp vs a talented but temperamental player are worth similar because of where the teams finished on the ladder.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #35
Another stupid post.
Do you even know what it means to pay a years worth of salary straight away? It's what Essendon did with Goddard and probably one of the reasons he went to the Bombers for a lower-than-expected 750k per year. It gives him the opportunity to pay all his bills among other things straight away, the poorer clubs can't afford that luxury. It's not a massive advantage, but an advantage nonetheless.
As for telling us to get better facilities and coaches, do you have any idea how idiotic that is? You can only get state of the art facilities among other things if you have a lot of money, something the Saints/Dogs don't have, which is hardly their fault. Do you even realize why Collingwood are so rich? It's because they were owned by a rich crook well before you were sucking on your mother's tit.
and what's this rubbish about clubs having to 'pay' compensation? Do you not understand the rule? Clubs signing free agents don't pay anything, the clubs losing players are awarded a compensation pick by the AFL.
The reason the 8 years thing is a poor argument is because the player wasn't necessarily delivering quality service for 8 years. There are plenty of ruckmen who take 5-6 years to come good. So a team puts 6 years into a player, that player returns 2 years of decent play and then p!sses off and the club gets nothing?
I absolutely detest free agency. It's short-sighted and will hurt the game in the long run. But if we are to have it then I think conservative compensation is the best of all evils.
So now the compensation is for having a small supporter base? Sorry, you already get that. Around $3 million this year for your club.
It's up to the club itself to ensure that it is a desirable place to work for players and coaches. To suggest bigger clubs are always going to be more attractive for players is just ridiculous as saying big companies are always better to work for than small ones. You're just making excuses for shit administration.
Clearly you have no understanding of it. What happens to every other clubs' draft picks after the compensation pick? They drop a place. All those clubs, which is almost certainly all clubs, are paying for it. The compensation pick isn't even paid by the acquiring club, it's paid by all clubs.
and we were right. the compo was of no value just making a mockery of the process.Wayne Swan?
Of course there should be no compensation. Take my mob the Eagles & the Q Stick - we could have matched the offer from the Pies, we chose not to, why did we get compensation?
I'll be watching Q in Fri night footy
the real issue is that some cubs are not sustainable because nobody follows or wants them of give them support. the solution is equally obvious.
The ability to pay is due to good management of the salary cap - if a club cant pay (as distinct from wont), yet another club has room their salary cap, how is that stupid.
Gross mismanagement occurs yet rarely gets called for what it is.
The Eagles could have given Lynch another year but its list management drew the line at one year, the Pies gave 2 years - why should the Eagles get any comp?
Maybe they're just stupid GrandBlue.
Because it's not all about money. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. If Free Agency truly takes hold then players will just go from unsuccessful clubs to successful ones. And this isn't just about the Dogs either. It's not clear which clubs are going to get nailed by this. But some will. There will be a spiral somewhere some time, and it will be very difficult for that club to get out of it.
The only way around this that I can see is to tie the salary cap to the ladder, so that clubs on the bottom of the ladder for a sustained period of time get large salary cap concessions for a certain number of years. That way they can counter the non-financial reasons to leave with a financial reason to stay. But I hate that idea to be honest. Which is why I say compo is the best of all evils.
The best option of course would be to get rid of free agency and priority picks and keep an even playing field. But it seems that horse has bolted.
- May 25, 2013
- 29
- 0
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
fair is fair
I agree its not about money as the Lynch example clearly shows - West Coasts list management meant no more than a one year contract, not the money, the term.
Poor management will always be a problem, not just the money.
As for losing a Brian Lake as a unrestricted free agent, if the Eagles lost Dean Cox in the same circumstances, well & good, no compensation, we've got a fair return from Cox, just as Lake gave the Bullies heaps.
The other problem with free agency, is it will make the bad teams even worse, because they will lose talented, experienced players, leaving them with more kids. Given how boring blowouts are, i can't really see that as a positive for footy.
To be honest, it's not a Brian Lake or an Adam Cooney that bothers me so much. You're right - we've gotten plenty from them. It's Will Minson or Ayce Cordy. Will Minson would have come up as a restricted free agent in 2011. Would we have extracted decent value out of him by then? How about if Ayce Cordy opts for free agency in 3 seasons?
8 years does not always equal loads of service. It takes some players almost 8 years of patient nurturing by a club to even get started.
Stan_Darsh72
Hall of Famer
- Jun 18, 2011
- 39,258
- 66,193
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Didn't the clubs only accept free agency if there was compensation picks?
Or am i not remembering things.
Or am i not remembering things.
Two great examples of the Bullies need for great list management going forward.
i'm no expert but I've noticed clubs fix future problems well before the due date with a few exceptions, e.g Judd & Buddy. The way the Harry Taylor issue is being played out suggests both parties are looking for a mutual agreement.
Digressing to big fellas, I regret the current trend of some clubs developing ruckmen & others cherry picking them at the right time, e.g Jacobs goes home, Richmond gets Maric. Its not always a win/win like this.
- Banned
- #47
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
That's just bullshit. If Bock and Davis didn't leave Adelaide for expansion teams. Talia wouldn't be getting an opportunity and would most likely have gone to another team if he could via free agency.
Fringe players like Koby Stevens in his West Coast days would look at getting to a worse team so he can solidify a spot in a team.
Greedy bastards like Judd might use it as an opportunity to get to Melbourne and rort them for $2,000,000 a year.
Sure, players who are content with average AFL wages might go from a bad team to a good team to win a premiership. But it will go other ways as players want a chance or money.
- Apr 26, 2011
- 10,927
- 13,358
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Wimbledon AFC
Write a letter to demitriou, he is the masochist that thinks he can manipulate the fabric of our game every 5 minutes.
That was a bad deal?
Did you even read the post? I was comparing GC/GWS compensation to free agency compensation. That Campbell Brown was worth a first round pick, while Tom Murphy was worth nothing says something. They both went to expansion clubs within a couple of years of each other, and both were probably worth about the same, yet because Brown went under some stupid freeby rule, he was worth way more? Should ahve been the same compensation for both GC/GWS players and free agency.
