FA compensation

[rpfc 27,673]

Melbourne r3 pick for gaining Byrnes while losing Moloney/Rivers.

Seems a bit light on to me ...

That is the way TWR twitter account put it. Odd way of describing it...

That will be about Pick 50. With Pick 58 turning into about 63.

[wattsup 470]

hawks should be spewing pick 66 for clinton young massively ripped off

aswell as no compo for murphy

Edited October 19, 2012 by wattsup

[Tony Tea 2,792]

hawks should be spewing pick 66 for clinton young massively ripped off

Young's value tanked in the grand final the moment he tripped over in the goal square and gifted Sydney a crucial goal.

[Clark_Kent 315]

Teams will probably not worry about trying to hold off on signing players in future scared of losing a pick. The picks on offer suck. We did better than the hawks though I'm happy about that.

[bing181 8,355]

hawks should be spewing pick 66 for clinton young massively ripped off

You have to wonder why the AFL brought in so-called "free agency", when there's clearly so little benefit in it for the clubs. We would have been better just trading those players ... surely we could have done better than pick 49 (or whatever it is) for Rivers?

[Whispering_Jack 28,118]

In hindsight, we should have given Geelong a pick in the 60's or 70's for Byrnes. At least we then would have gotten a better pick for the other two.

[bing181 8,355]

... and FWIW:

"Jon Ralph ‏@RalphyHeraldSun

Melbourne's terrible 3rd round compo for Rivers/Moloney shows they must be on modest contracts at Cats/Lions. Cash/age determines compo pick"

[King Kunta 97]

We got shafted if Chaplin is worth a second rounder surely Rivers is as well

[whatwhat say what 20,306]

Absolutely in terms of the quality

[Hannibal 5,814]

Anyway, as others have mentioned, one of these 50ish picks will be used for Pedersen and he'll be a telling player for the MFC.

[whatwhat say what 20,306]

Absolutely in terms of the quality of player, but it comes down to contract length and monetary value.

Chaplin signed a four year deal on good coin; Riv a 2 year deal on lesser money per year.

So Chaplin is 'worth' more.

[Deeoldfart 7,841]

I expected a bit more but the AFL did warn clubs not to expect like for like compensation. I reckon Pedersen will now be ours.

[H_T 2,941]

... and FWIW:

"Jon Ralph ‏@RalphyHeraldSun

Melbourne's terrible 3rd round compo for Rivers/Moloney shows they must be on modest contracts at Cats/Lions. Cash/age determines compo pick"

That's it. Spewing.

[King Kunta 97]

In hindsight, we should have given Geelong a pick in the 60's or 70's for Byrnes. At least we then would have gotten a better pick for the other two.

It would have only netted us the lowest pick possible a 3rd rounder approx 50, due to picks not compounding

[Redleg 38,445]

Hawthorn and MFC have been absolutley screwed IMO by this result. There is no way in the world that if Young and Rivers were traded, that you would get anywhere as bad as the clubs received. I understand that it was not meant to be true value, but the Saints got that for Goddard and Port have been given a handout with 2 second round picks for 2 very average players.

In our case it seems that a B & F winner of one year ago, who still played most of the games this year is equal to a bloke who played 6 games in the same period . That is an unmitigated joke. Then Rivers is pick 49.

As a result we seem to have shot ourselves in the foot, by not trading for Byrnes with our final pick. That at least would have got us another pick about 49.

Anyway what is done is done and we need to learn from it. I wonder if it is a message from the AFL to clubs to not worry about losing picks and just pick up FA's.

[Deecisive 1,669]

Seems awfully low return for two of our better players in exchange for brynes...

[daisycutter 28,723]

So that's Band 5 isn't it? Worst possible outcome. FMD spewing is correct

[Demon Disciple 11,193]

I reckon the AFL, after receiving many a complaint for maximum compensation given to us for HWFUA (or whatever it is) defection, would have factored it in to our FA compensation. Sure they say that they are mutually exclusive, but that's a load of BS.

Maybe they figured to let off some steam at us, since they found nothing to pin against us for the "tanking" debacle. The heads of the AFL have their own agenda to run, and no process within the AFL will ever be completely independent, given the ego's and power-hungry whores that are in charge of our game.

[Tony Tea 2,792]

We would have been lucky to get a second rounder, so a third rounder borders the poor end of our compensation.

Would have liked more, will settle for less.

[jnrmac 19,484]

So we have swapped Byrnes for Rivers and received pick 49 for Beemer.

Something is out of whack there. But we were overcompensated for $$cully so I guess they are applying the 'swings and roundabouts' rule (retrospectively of course).

The fact we were a bottom side probably didn't help altho Port did well .....hmmmmm...

[Lucifers Hero 37,524]

I reckon the AFL, after receiving many a complaint for maximum compensation given to us for HWFUA (or whatever it is) defection, would have factored it in to our FA compensation. Sure they say that they are mutually exclusive, but that's a load of BS.

Maybe they figured to let off some steam at us, since they found nothing to pin against us for the "tanking" debacle. The heads of the AFL have their own agenda to run, and no process within the AFL will ever be completely independent, given the ego's and power-hungry whores that are in charge of our game.

AFL adminstered Karma, eh? Bit of tautology really...but that won't stop AFL powerbrokers! At the risk of being blasphemous maybe they think they are the new Almighty: he who giveth, taketh away!

[Bitter but optimistic 21,573]

oooops, even i make a blooper sometimes self flagellation to commence in 5 seconds

Please explain, in lurid detail, your self flagellation.

[1858 265]

Port did well .....hmmmmm...

They were very close to getting Russell under FA but held off for this exact reason. Watch them snare him as a delisted FA.

[rhaz 342]

Compo for free agents shouldnt even exist at all...

Edited October 19, 2012 by rhaz

[Guest José Mourinho]

... and FWIW:

"Jon Ralph ‏@RalphyHeraldSun

Melbourne's terrible 3rd round compo for Rivers/Moloney shows they must be on modest contracts at Cats/Lions. Cash/age determines compo pick"

I think the proposed formula based on contract sum leads to potential inequality of compensation.

Say a player like Lake went to Hawthorn as a FA for less money, but the chance to win a flag, the dogs could get minimal compo.

Whereas if Dawes was a FA & went there, but being a bottom 4 team, the doggies had to pay top dollar to entice a capable player from a contender, meaning Collingwood would get over-the-odds compo.

The way it is set up, it works to preserve the balance of power.