Serious question. Can anyone explain how the AFL calculates the compensation for restricted free agents?
I just cannot make any sense of it.
I just cannot make any sense of it.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Free Agent compensation
- Thread starter mexican_radio
- Start date
Did they changes the maximum available? I thought Melbourne received 2 x first round picks for Scully when he went to GWS ?
I actually think if you’re committed to the idea of FA compo, then the AFL executes it fairly well. I’m rarely surprised by the outcome.
But it’s main value is as a form of draft equalisation anyway (avoiding the previous problem of tanking), since it’s tied to ladder position.
But it’s main value is as a form of draft equalisation anyway (avoiding the previous problem of tanking), since it’s tied to ladder position.
Don’t think that’s right TBR. The first level of compensation is a pick immediately after your first rounder. The second level is an end of first round pick. The third level is a pick immediately after your second rounder and the fourth level is end of second round.
Hawthorn got a first level for Buddy but because they won the flag it was the same as a second level. We got a third level for Brando but it ended up being the same as a fourth level as we won the flag. Regardless we still got stitched on Brando compared to previous compensation given to other clubs eg what Geelong got for Motlop. We should have got a second level, end of first round. So what that we’d just won the flag. We shouldn’t be penalised for our success.
The whole system lacks equity and transparency. They should just scrap it if they can’t be fair. At least then it’s the same for everyone.
Like many things AFL, the problem is collusion. When you think about when a required player leaves a team and goes to another and a brand new selection is minted, there will be winners and losers. For a start, 16 teams lose, because their drafts picks are shuffled down the order. Obviously, the club gaining the player wins. On many occasions, they win big, Tom Lynch, Buddy Franklin, etc. The club losing the player can also win, providing compensation is enough. and that is where the collusion comes in. Richmond colluded with Hawthorn over Vickery, Brisbane and Essendon have just colluded.
Also like many things AFL, the outcome is not what was intended when it was introduced. The AFL saw it as another equalisation measure. A lowly team has salary cap space, a top team is paying to the limit and star is squeezed out as he chases money at the lowly club. That’s the theory. The reality is that a player from the lowly team is more likely to chase a Premiership, chasing the money isn’t a real motivator, given that the money is more or less the same everywhere. So it has failed as an equalisation measure. In fact, remove the compensation and the lowly teams will lose their players and get nothing back at all, so it has to stay.
Another problem is the expansion clubs. Players want to go home, they want the adoration of a playing at a big club, they want to play in big games at the MCG, or at Adelaide Oval or in Perth. They do not want to play in a backwater in front of a few thousand people who are only there because they had a free ticket and have little appreciation of what is happening. They take the opportunity to play at a big club if it comes along. This year, GWS is being plundered but at least they will get another shed load of early picks. Without them, they will collapse and more players will leave next year.
Regardless, who can blame them. Equalisation ad expansion are business decisions, designed to grow the game and keep all teams competitive. Players make emotional decisions, not business-like ones.
It‘s a bit of a dilemma for the AFL. They are desperate to avoid an English Premier league situation where only four or five clubs can ever win it. Problem is, most of us support those four or five clubs and would be more than happy with this.
Also like many things AFL, the outcome is not what was intended when it was introduced. The AFL saw it as another equalisation measure. A lowly team has salary cap space, a top team is paying to the limit and star is squeezed out as he chases money at the lowly club. That’s the theory. The reality is that a player from the lowly team is more likely to chase a Premiership, chasing the money isn’t a real motivator, given that the money is more or less the same everywhere. So it has failed as an equalisation measure. In fact, remove the compensation and the lowly teams will lose their players and get nothing back at all, so it has to stay.
Another problem is the expansion clubs. Players want to go home, they want the adoration of a playing at a big club, they want to play in big games at the MCG, or at Adelaide Oval or in Perth. They do not want to play in a backwater in front of a few thousand people who are only there because they had a free ticket and have little appreciation of what is happening. They take the opportunity to play at a big club if it comes along. This year, GWS is being plundered but at least they will get another shed load of early picks. Without them, they will collapse and more players will leave next year.
Regardless, who can blame them. Equalisation ad expansion are business decisions, designed to grow the game and keep all teams competitive. Players make emotional decisions, not business-like ones.
It‘s a bit of a dilemma for the AFL. They are desperate to avoid an English Premier league situation where only four or five clubs can ever win it. Problem is, most of us support those four or five clubs and would be more than happy with this.
That is correct.
Part of the farce too is that clubs sometimes want their players gone. Melbourne would have helped Frawley pack once they knew they were getting pick 3, Adelaide will be the same if they get pick 2. If compo is going happen it should never have more value than a trade would.
Also the compo affects other teams. North should have pick 2 and pick 20 this year. Instead there is a chance they will have pick 3 and pick 25 (and that is before the academy and F/S come into it- it could be 3 and 30), making their re-build harder.
In my opinion, there shouldn’t be any pick given until after the first round.
The Cats got 2 for Ablett. Scully (not sure they got 2 for him) and Ablett werent FAs tho, they were signing by the expansion clubs. Different rules.
Motlop was a classic example of the AFL making things up as they went along. Gary Ablett was going to leave Gold Coast on compassionate grounds and the AFL could not stop it. They protected their investment in GC by over compensating Geelong fir losing Motlop and ensuring that they traded the pick for Ablett. In the end, Gold Coast benefitted from the dubiously high compensation. Geelong were always going to trade whatever they received for Motlop.
There is obviously no formula despite their rhetoric, it is whatever the AFL want to give. They treat everyone (as usual) as fools - whereas they themselves are the biggest fools of all.
Daniher gets greater compensation for Essendon than Buddy did for Hawks. 
Hawks got seriously dudded and Essendon just robbed the bank - end of first round selection for Daniher (who can’t get on the ground) at best.
I think the cats were the other team to rob the bank with Ablett to Suns from memory?
Hawks got seriously dudded and Essendon just robbed the bank - end of first round selection for Daniher (who can’t get on the ground) at best.
I think the cats were the other team to rob the bank with Ablett to Suns from memory?
strongly disagree. the history of FA compo is a litany of opaque inconsitent *smile*. But as I've said elsewhere, I think this is spot on. Yes his fitness is a risk, but his talent is not at the rarest and most important of players, matchwinning big, gun, contested marking forwards. As a trade, you'd do it for nothng less, if he was fit, 2 first rounders, one on the top 10.
Crouch for 2? complete joke, Frawley-esque.
Supposedly
top 5% - first round
>5 to 15% - end of first round
>15 to 30% - second round
>30 to 50% - end of second round
>50 to 70% - third round
with the AFL to have final discretion...
top 5% - first round
>5 to 15% - end of first round
>15 to 30% - second round
>30 to 50% - end of second round
>50 to 70% - third round
with the AFL to have final discretion...
Gil goes down to the pub, has a few drinks then starts playing darts. He'll be out of practice with the pubs shut for so long so God knows what he'll hit
Willo. I agree. At the moment clubs like Adelaide are just hoping for pick 2. Joke.
