If we can get the 1st pick in 2012, the likely choice Lachlan Whitfield is something to behold.

I'm not sure who to compare him to.

Physically built like Judd, but a bit like Simon Black.

He's one of the reasons it's regarded as a "super" draft.

We can dream.............

  On 10/09/2011 at 08:23, Whispering_Jack said:

Is that the totality of the compensation rules?

I'm sure that someone wrote that clubs could apply for special compensation in anomalous situations where the rules didn't provide adequate compensation and that a panel of two appointed by the AFL would determine the issue. Was this something that was dreamed up by a journalist or just a figment of my imagination?

Also, I think the fact that first round GWS compensation picks can't be traded this year is a change from the Gold Coast rules because last year the Cats used their first compensatory pick to get Billie Smedts. I wonder why the rule was changed?

  On 12/09/2011 at 04:52, don cordner said:

http://www.smh.com.a...0616-1g61f.html

WJ this article talks about anomalous situations you were referring interestingly its says in the article

"The expert panel of AFL talent identification manager Kevin Sheehan and game analysis manager Andrew McKay has the power to override the formula and change the outcome if there is what the AFL called ''an anomalous result. "They will have the power to recommend a revised compensation outcome to AFL general manager football operations Adrian Anderson if the formula produces an anomalous result,'' the AFL said when announcing the revised compensation last year.

Many thanks to Don Cordner

  On 12/09/2011 at 08:35, Felix da Dee said:

WJ this article talks about anomalous situations you were referring interestingly its says in the article

"The expert panel of AFL talent identification manager Kevin Sheehan and game analysis manager Andrew McKay has the power to override the formula and change the outcome if there is what the AFL called ''an anomalous result. "They will have the power to recommend a revised compensation outcome to AFL general manager football operations Adrian Anderson if the formula produces an anomalous result,'' the AFL said when announcing the revised compensation last year.

Many thanks to Don Cordner

Thanks Felix and Don. It took me a while but I finally found the Jak Niall article from June and my comments from that time haven't changed one bit.

If we get what's being discussed in the media then we're being shafted.

That is - if what Jake Niall said in the article is correct i.e. "... In addition, the expert panel of AFL talent identification manager Kevin Sheehan and game analysis manager Andrew McKay has the power to override the formula and change the outcome if there is what the AFL called 'an anomalous result'" -DEES COULD GET ABLETTLIKE COMPO FOR SCULLY

On that basis, Melbourne would have a reasonable argument on commercial terms that, given Scully's age, his performances to date, his potential, his remuneration, the club's investment made over two years and the substantial goodwill (in the business and personal sense), an anomalous result would occur if the compensation consisted of anything less than a priority first selection (at any draft including 2011) plus another first round selection.

Anything less and, in my view, the compensation would be insufficient. This would be based on the fact that Scully was a priority selection in the first place and there has been substantial input into him over the two years since his selection. A commercial court or tribunal would, I believe, be receptive of such an argument. The AFL should do so as well.

Cameron Schwab is a smart operator. If the rule as expressed by Niall is correct then Schwab knows this and that he would be able to put a strong argument for compensation along the lines I set out above if it ever becomes necessary.

My other concern has been with the AFL's obvious conflict of interest. It is committed to ensuring that a strong GWS will emerge virtually from inception to ensure that blowout results don't mar its early seasons. It also has a responsibility to its existing clubs and must ensure that those that are raided are adequately compensated.

It's hardly appropriate therefore that the AFL should have any input in deciding whether an "anomalous" situation would exist on the question of any compensation for Scully.

Instead, I believe the AFL might have told the club already exactly what compensation it would get - notwithstanding that Scully was supposedly wavering at the time as to whether to go to GWS. If that is truly the case then its problematic because, how could the AFL make a determination on compensation when one of the major criteria was unknown i.e. the amount of $'s in the Scully contract?

The plot thickens.

I think we are going to be shafted, as per above it can be recommended to Adrian Anderson, doesn't mean he has to approve it. This could get very nasty.

The compensation that Geelong got for Ablett was inadequate at best. Particularly considering what West Coast got for Judd, a comparable pleayer, a few years earlier.

I just can't see the AFL comprimising themselves by offering much more than the Ablett compensation.

I agree with you Jack Jack. Didnt WCE get pick 3 + Josh Kennedy who was a pick 4 with experience?

  On 13/09/2011 at 02:07, Watt and Howe? said:

I agree with you Jack Jack. Didnt WCE get pick 3 + Josh Kennedy who was a pick 4 with experience?

It's very simple really. Ask yourself if you would trade Scully for picks 14 and 20. They are the picks we are likely to get under the formula. The answer is an obvious no. We were offered picks 8 & 10 by Port for pick 2 so they could get JT and we said no. How is a 2 year more experienced Scully worth less than what was offered and rejected for JT?

  On 13/09/2011 at 02:34, Redleg said:

It's very simple really. Ask yourself if you would trade Scully for picks 14 and 20. They are the picks we are likely to get under the formula. The answer is an obvious no. We were offered picks 8 & 10 by Port for pick 2 so they could get JT and we said no. How is a 2 year more experienced Scully worth less than what was offered and rejected for JT?

The issue we have is we are not controlling the trade, the deal is done and we get what we are given by the AFL. As mentioned I don't hold as high hopes for our compensation as other people, this site will go into melt down if we don't get two first round picks, I think the AFL is going to shaft us.

  On 13/09/2011 at 01:18, Whispering_Jack said:

an anomalous result would occur if the compensation consisted of anything less than a priority first selection (at any draft including 2011) plus another first round selection.

.. and just as Jennifer Hawkins was getting down to business, Megan Gale burst in the door and said "is there room for me too?"

  Quote

My other concern has been with the AFL's obvious conflict of interest. It is committed to ensuring that a strong GWS will emerge virtually from inception to ensure that blowout results don't mar its early seasons. It also has a responsibility to its existing clubs and must ensure that those that are raided are adequately compensated.

I don't see a conflict there. the AFL can have both. For example if we traded our Scully compo to GWS for the Jaeger O'Maera pick - we'd end up with like for like (albeit minus some development) and GWS would have Scully and the Scully compo.

Why haven't I visited this thread before :/

  On 13/09/2011 at 01:18, Whispering_Jack said:

Thanks Felix and Don. It took me a while but I finally found the Jak Niall article from June and my comments from that time haven't changed one bit.

If we get what's being discussed in the media then we're being shafted.

That is - if what Jake Niall said in the article is correct i.e. "... In addition, the expert panel of AFL talent identification manager Kevin Sheehan and game analysis manager Andrew McKay has the power to override the formula and change the outcome if there is what the AFL called 'an anomalous result'" -DEES COULD GET ABLETTLIKE COMPO FOR SCULLY

On that basis, Melbourne would have a reasonable argument on commercial terms that, given Scully's age, his performances to date, his potential, his remuneration, the club's investment made over two years and the substantial goodwill (in the business and personal sense), an anomalous result would occur if the compensation consisted of anything less than a priority first selection (at any draft including 2011) plus another first round selection.

Anything less and, in my view, the compensation would be insufficient. This would be based on the fact that Scully was a priority selection in the first place and there has been substantial input into him over the two years since his selection. A commercial court or tribunal would, I believe, be receptive of such an argument. The AFL should do so as well.

Agree regarding the insufficient compensation. The sheer size of the contract and first year component of $2 million is unprecedented. Being much younger than that of Ablett and potentially elite should be enough to call in the expert panel to override the formula. Regardless of this year's form, struggles and knee complaint aside.

  On 13/09/2011 at 02:34, Redleg said:

It's very simple really. Ask yourself if you would trade Scully for picks 14 and 20. They are the picks we are likely to get under the formula. The answer is an obvious no. We were offered picks 8 & 10 by Port for pick 2 so they could get JT and we said no. How is a 2 year more experienced Scully worth less than what was offered and rejected for JT?

We said no to the offer of picks 8,9 for pick 2 from memory.

As I have said elsewhere, pick 1 and a first round pick should be reasonable compensation IMO. Given Scully was a priority pick and 2 years of investment, resources.

  On 13/09/2011 at 04:58, High Tower said:

As I have said elsewhere, pick 1 and a first round pick should be reasonable compensation IMO. Given Scully was a priority pick and 2 years of investment, resources.

I like your pluck HT but you are dreaming. Will be lucky to get one pick in top 10

We'll find out soon enough but don't build up your hopes too much

  On 13/09/2011 at 05:39, daisycutter said:

I like your pluck HT but you are dreaming. Will be lucky to get one pick in top 10

We'll find out soon enough but don't build up your hopes too much

I won't, and yes I'm probably dreaming.

But I like the "unprecedented" angle they're taking. Let's see if it gets the two man committtee into action.

  On 13/09/2011 at 05:44, High Tower said:

I won't, and yes I'm probably dreaming.

But I like the "unprecedented" angle they're taking. Let's see if it gets the two man committtee into action.

I think you have to appeal to them if you are unhappy with the AFL decision. By the way who are they employed by? What is the aim of their employer in all this?

  On 13/09/2011 at 06:27, Redleg said:

I think you have to appeal to them if you are unhappy with the AFL decision. By the way who are they employed by? What is the aim of their employer in all this?

According to Patrick Keane on Twitter:-

Melbourne will receive First Band Compensation - a First Round selection and a Mid-First Round selection for Tom Scully.

Melbourne will receive First Band Compensation - a First Round selection and a Mid-First Round selection for Tom Scully.

— Patrick Keane (@AFL_PKeane)

September 13, 2011

Grounds for appeal?

  On 13/09/2011 at 06:27, Redleg said:

I think you have to appeal to them if you are unhappy with the AFL decision. By the way who are they employed by? What is the aim of their employer in all this?

And if we appeal and lose, do we risk losing one of the compo picks for the sling tackle questionning the matter ?

Is it worth a shot ? Are they independant enough to not listen to their employer ?

  On 13/09/2011 at 13:53, High Tower said:

And if we appeal and lose, do we risk losing one of the compo picks for the sling tackle questionning the matter ?

Is it worth a shot ? Are they independant enough to not listen to their employer ?

I don't think there is any penalty for appealing as it is a submission to them and then we get told appeal denied.

Can someone clear up a query I have. If we trade our compo pick that is behind our first pick in a draft, does it remain in that position or become the pick after the club that receieves it. In other words if we trade that pick to GWS and they come last next year, is the pick then 2nd pick in the draft or still where we finish? If it is the former we should be in first place to get O'Meara with the 2nd pick in a strong draft.

  On 13/09/2011 at 21:38, Redleg said:

I don't think there is any penalty for appealing as it is a submission to them and then we get told appeal denied.

Can someone clear up a query I have. If we trade our compo pick that is behind our first pick in a draft, does it remain in that position or become the pick after the club that receieves it. In other words if we trade that pick to GWS and they come last next year, is the pick then 2nd pick in the draft or still where we finish? If it is the former we should be in first place to get O'Meara with the 2nd pick in a strong draft.

My understanding is that the pick will be tied to where MFC finish, not the club we trade it to.

I posted this on the Compensation thread on the main board but it should have gone here sorry.

This will be very interesting to see how the clubs handle the compensation picks.

Scenario 1 - We keep all the picks and use them, most likely next season. I think we're in for one more year of 'pain' ie no finals, so next year is the obvious choice. Let's say we finish 12th, our picks would be:

7 (normal pick),

8 (comp pick after our normal pick)

11 (Comp pick, mid round)

For us to have to use pick 7 on Viney one of the clubs finishing below us will have to bid for him. There is a chance that this may not happen, next year is going to be a very strong draft, if those clubs think they can't get a better talent then they won't bid. It is possible that he will only cost us a 2nd rounder and the lower we finish the more likely that will happen (please note that I am not saying we should tank...) That is a seriously strong position to be in with a talented list.

Scenario 2 - We trade 1 or both comp picks this season to inject experience into the team and go all out for finals next year.

I'm learning to option 1, we still need to get a lot of games into our kids ie Watts, Blease, Gysberts, Tapscott, McDonald, Fitzpatrick, Gawn, Cook, Trengove, Nicholson etc. One more season of development is required, as much as I hate it I think in the long term we'll be better for it.

The problem is I'm just sick of losing...

I'm confused about the FS rule.

The rule says if another club chooses to nominate Viney with their first selection it forces Melbourne to use its "next available" selection. Knowing that we have already committed ourselves to Viney what is stopping a club with a pick ahead of us nominating him, forcing us to take him with our first pick?

Also, do our compo picks count as 'next available', and what if we choose to trade all our top picks away? Can we then force our 'next available' to be very late?

AFL FS RULE

  On 13/09/2011 at 23:37, JACKATTACK said:

I'm confused about the FS rule.

The rule says if another club chooses to nominate Viney with their first selection it forces Melbourne to use its "next available" selection. Knowing that we have already committed ourselves to Viney what is stopping a club with a pick ahead of us nominating him, forcing us to take him with our first pick?

Also, do our compo picks count as 'next available', and what if we choose to trade all our top picks away? Can we then force our 'next available' to be very late?

AFL FS RULE

You commit a pick before trade week. So you cannot trade out of that 'committed' pick.

And that pick will be our first round pick as clubs will make us pay the premium for Viney as we have already stated we will take him. It is just the propoer thing to do from their perspective to make us pay the highest price for him.

Interesting little thread I just found on BigFooty:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=870323

It details the likely staging of compo picks in the 2012 draft (because it is supposedly so strong, most teams are expected to exercise their picks).

  Quote

Something that I hear a lot is 'Oh we have the end of round 1 compo pick that will be top 20 in the uncompromised superdraft next year!' That's not quite the case, I'm afraid.

Assuming every club is thinking the same thing and they all decide to cash in their compo picks next year, we will be looking at a longer first round in 2012 than we'll get this year. It could look roughly like this:

1 - Port priority pick (sorry Port fans, I do hope you start winning)

2 - 18th

3 - 17th

4 - 16th

5 - 15th

6 - 14th

7 - 13th

8 - 12th

9 - 11th

10 - 10th

11 - 9th

12 - Scully compo #1 (Melb)

13 - Scully compo #2 (Melb)

14 - Ward compo (Dogs)

15 - Davis compo (Adel)

16 - Ablett compo #1 (GC)

17 - Ablett compo #2 (Geel)

18 - 8th

19 - 7th

20 - 6th

21 - 5th

22 - 4th

23 - 3rd

24 - 2nd

25 - 1st

26 - GWS priority pick

27 - Bock compo (Rich)

28 - Brennan compo (GC)

29 - Harbrow compo (Bris)

30 - Palmer compo (Freo)

- I assumed Port and GWS won't win 5 games. Even if it's not those two, you can be pretty certain that there will be some priority picks next year. It might even be more than 3.

- I didn't bother predicting where Adelaide, the Dogs, Geelong or Melb will finish next year. Obviously those picks won't all be in the middle (at least 2 will be).

- I obviously guessed the Scully/Ward/Davis/Palmer compo.

- This only includes confirmed GC/GWS signings. At a guess, there might be 4 more first round compo picks in play by the time the draft arrives. So the first round could end at about pick 34.

Nice work "Daz".

  On 13/09/2011 at 23:37, JACKATTACK said:

I'm confused about the FS rule.

The rule says if another club chooses to nominate Viney with their first selection it forces Melbourne to use its "next available" selection. Knowing that we have already committed ourselves to Viney what is stopping a club with a pick ahead of us nominating him, forcing us to take him with our first pick?

Nothing.

We'll take him with our first pick.

  On 13/09/2011 at 23:37, JACKATTACK said:

I'm confused about the FS rule.

The rule says if another club chooses to nominate Viney with their first selection it forces Melbourne to use its "next available" selection. Knowing that we have already committed ourselves to Viney what is stopping a club with a pick ahead of us nominating him, forcing us to take him with our first pick?

Also, do our compo picks count as 'next available', and what if we choose to trade all our top picks away? Can we then force our 'next available' to be very late?

AFL FS RULE

I'm not sure whether MFC ever publicly committed to using its first pick on Viney. If we move away from the Viney situation for a moment, in theory, a club could decide it wanted a particular FS selection but that it didn't believe he was worth more than, say, a third round pick. So, if another club decided to offer a first round pick, the club with the potential FS pick could decline to exercise it leaving the club that was prepared to take him with their first round pick obliged to pick him. In that way, FS picks are more likely to go at "market rate" rather than as a bargain - as occurred for Geelong with Ablett and Scarlett.

Except for clear, stand out, first round standard picks, I think FS selections are fraught with difficulty for clubs. If they exercise the option and the player doesn't make it, it may seem like a waste (no disrespect intended, but Brayden Shaw, son of Tony fits in this category as, in time, may Ayce Cordy); if they don't exercise the option, and the player turns into a star, the club looks foolish (to a lesser degree, Marcus Picken, son of Bill fits in here). I guess that's why you pay for full time recruiting staff.

Thanks for that, Jack D. I'm not sure it's quite right, because the two mid-first round compo picks (Scully and Ablett) will be next to each other, while the Davis and Ward picks will be after the Bulldogs and Adelaide first picks.

So, assuming that they all finish in the same position next year, it would be:

1- GWS

2- GC

3- Port

4- Bris

5- Adel

6- Adel (Davis Rnd 1 Compo Pick)

7- Melb

8- Melb (Scully Rnd 1 Compo Pick)

9- Rich

10- Freo

11- Bull

12- Bull (Ward Rnd 1 Compo Pick)

13- Kang

14- Melb (Scully mid-first round Compo Pick)

15- GC (Ablett mid-first round Compo Pick)

Then the other picks will be from pick 25ish onwards.

It's certainly interesting when you look at the value of each of the picks next if we're trading them to GWS for under 17s.

  On 13/09/2011 at 02:07, Watt and Howe? said:

I agree with you Jack Jack. Didnt WCE get pick 3 + Josh Kennedy who was a pick 4 with experience?

Different scenario that was a deal done in trade week, this was rules brough in for the new Franchise.

Judd didn't walk as Richmond signalled their intentions to pick him up in pre season draft with the pick before Carlton. Had Scully decided to walk without signing a new contract GWS would have picked him up with 1st pick in Pre season draft and we would have got SFA