Can we compare apples with apples?

Danyeel Pearce v J Rivers

Both Rising Star winners

Both not over the hill

Both in crap teams and I wont mention the fact that Pearce is soft

Pearce finished equal 8th in 2012 B & F with a heap of other players (slight exaggeration)

Pearce finished equal 5th in last years B & F with a heap of other players (slight exaggeration)

Rivvo finished 5th in 2012 and 2nd in 2011

One moves interstate, one doesn't (but may as well)

Bit hard to fathom the 20 odd places in the draft

Once again we bend over and get hammered by the afl with no lube.

As far as Port goes it looks like the priority pick or a version of it is still alive.

It would be best to scrap this compo idea, it's too reliant on the integrity of an organisation whose integrity may be a little shaky.

10 years of service x 2. Pick 49. It is an insult really. Just don't have compo i say.

We trade hard ball each year.

  On 19/10/2012 at 04:09, Fifty-5 said:

whinging ho!

  On 19/10/2012 at 08:39, Demanding Success said:

Once again we bend over and get hammered by the afl with no lube.

This sentence screams unresolved sexual confusion

  On 19/10/2012 at 08:33, rpfc said:

Ok, I would like the club to have a chat to Andersen about this - if Knights is worth nothing, then so is Byrnes. Which means that surely Moloney should get us a third rounder on his own.

You've nailed it on the head there!

  On 19/10/2012 at 08:56, The Lobster Effect said:

You've nailed it on the head there!

He has actually.

  On 19/10/2012 at 08:37, Roger Mellie said:

Can we compare apples with apples?

Danyeel Pearce v J Rivers

Both Rising Star winners

Both not over the hill

Both in crap teams and I wont mention the fact that Pearce is soft

Pearce finished equal 8th in 2012 B & F with a heap of other players (slight exaggeration)

Pearce finished equal 5th in last years B & F with a heap of other players (slight exaggeration)

Rivvo finished 5th in 2012 and 2nd in 2011

One moves interstate, one doesn't (but may as well)

Bit hard to fathom the 20 odd places in the draft

But mate Pearce is 2 years younger than rivers and got a 4 year contract at freo as opposed to rivers' 2 at Geelong.

It's based on age and contract so seems to make sense.

  On 19/10/2012 at 07:48, rhaz said:

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

My guess is that FA compensation wont exist in 3-4 years time. This is just an attempt to soften the blow of free agency being introduced into our game. The AFL change the game constantly but do it in such a subtle way the we all just go with it.

Eventually there will be zero compensation and the power clubs will dominate the league.

Just ditch compensation. It is truly insulting.

Surely this compensation rubbish was to ensure that GWS didn't take some uncontracted guns without the losing clubs getting something back. Sure didn't work out that way.

Compensation should be scrapped. If you can't fit these players into your salary cap or you don't want them, why should you get something in return?

Ridiculous

Pretty certain Jon Ralph has it right.

Compensation is more about the contract that is signed than the previous achievements. Moloney and Rivers didn't move for cash, they moved for opportunity. Same with the Scully compo, 1mil a year got us a great bit of compo.

I think Chaplin and Pearce were offered a bigger contract, and therefore got better compo,

Melbournes compo really is C#@!*P! pick 49 for 10 year servants in moloney and rivers??? come on, get real AFL! At the very least it should've been between 35.

Don't even get me started on the Hawks compo!

Swings & Roundabouts.

We got Viney @ 26!!!

Move on

Should be no compo for free agents at all, simple as that!

  On 19/10/2012 at 09:25, Jack7 said:

Swings & Roundabouts.

We got Viney @ 26!!!

Move on

Yes that was a big win, but you have to agree the compo picks are rubbish?!?

Trading Rivers and/or Moloney would have not got a better result. The best we would have got from the cats is a rd 3 (pick 59); similarly rd 3 from the lions (pick 53) but more likely a rd 4 (pick 73) or higher, and I'm not sure either would have moved or could be moved anyway. And what would we have given for Byrnes? Not a rd 3 I'd wager. So in all likely hood, if each player had been traded, we would only have prospered with pick 59 from the cats at best. Pick 49 looks ok.

it seems that a big part of why we only got 49 is because Rivers and/or Moloney are on small contracts at their new clubs.

This annoys me. We're being compensated. That word implies being restored to a position similar to where we were before we lost them. That requires an assessment of what we've lost, not what the other club has gained. What they're being paid at Geelong/Brisbane does not speak to what they were worth to us. It speaks to what they are worth to the other club, and the two aren't always the same.

Rivers, IMO, was a key player in our defence. I'm sure we can live without him, but to equate him to a fourth round pick does not adequately reflect what we lost (and this is assuming Byrnes = Moloney).

Anyway, I think it's all moot in the end, as 49 will probs be sent to NM for Pederson. We'll pick up another pick somewhere when we let Martin go too.

  On 19/10/2012 at 07:26, Tony Tea said:

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.

And is Chaplin or Pearce worth more than Rivers and Moloney less Byrnes? Give me a break. Port received a handout from the AFL. The system is a joke and as with most things from the AFL totally open to manipulation.

Bottom line is the compensation is based on their upcoming contract not their ability or B&F finish etc. It's a similar system that delivered us the same compensation picks for $cully as the Cats got for Ablett.

I'm not happy about it (at all), but we've had some wins recently with picks and the $cully stuff so we'll just have to accept it. Just hope that 49 will be enough to get Pederson across the line.

This question may have been asked but if Byrnes is not considered worth any compo then how can he be considered a gain and therefore effect our losses.

Clubs will learn to manipulate the system based on what we have seen this FA period. It is designed to give single-club players greater freedom, but in time, the clubs will work it out and own it. What will become commonplace is the weaker clubs will want to trade for FAs rather than just take them, like Port did. They will then maximise their compo when they lose FAs to the power clubs. FA players seek money and/or success. Alternatively, weaker clubs will trade players who have been with them for 6-7 years before they become FAs, eg. players from interstate. Clubs like Coll and the Cats will want to take as many FAs as they can, because they're more likely gain than lose FA players - they have $ and are successful.

Or...... All clubs could just collude and agree quietly not to take FAs and simply trade players instead.... a safety net that gives them greater control over what they get for losing a player. Currently, compo is decided by the AFL based on factors that, in our case, we had little control over. Riv take a pay cut for success and we get a crappy compo pick in return. Byrnes gets a pay rise coming to us and compromises our net FA gain.

Just some musings on how this may pan out in the next 12-24 mths....

I now understand what tha FA in front of the word compensation means.

  On 19/10/2012 at 10:18, Redleg said:

And is Chaplin or Pearce worth more than Rivers and Moloney less Byrnes? Give me a break. Port received a handout from the AFL. The system is a joke and as with most things from the AFL totally open to manipulation.

Technically no, but Port didn't match the price.... so Chaplin was obviously snagged for a good contract, Pearce was 4 years wasn't it? our two were 2 yr contracts. Moloney would have got stuff all from Brisbane.