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

Was just about to say that!

Was just about to say that!

exactly - RFA, UFA and now SFA

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

I've thought this all along but haven't bothered commenting on it until now.

What's the point of FA in the AFL when all the players that aren't free agents demand where they want to go anyway? And usually get there.

If you can't keep a decent 7+ year player on your list, that's your problem, they've given you 7 years of service, if you can't keep them, bad luck.

Then you add the AFL's wacky wheel of fortune compo mixture to the equation and everyone is left scratching their heads.

Free the free agents I say. If they leave, so be it.

the AFL has no idea about the Free Agency compo. Its like the the MRC match review on the weekly basis. Arbitrary calculations based on subjectivity. In the MRC, your past record counts for the current situation, but not in FA compo.

Oh well, pick 49 to Kangas for Cam Pedersen ... thats the offer now.

Another thing the AFL has [censored] up.

What a shocker.

The compensation seems a little light on, but reflects the value mfc attributed to both Rivers and Moloney. We can say how good they used to be for us, finished x in the b&f last year etc etc, but going forward, the football club has decided that neither of them were worth above market price to stay at the club, and the compensation we got reflects that, you don't receive value for past performance, otherwise the swans could trade Goodes at the end of next season for pick one in the draft...

I would rather have seen rivers stay, but he hasn't, I can't make him come back, so we move on.

Another thing the AFL has [censored] up.

What a shocker.

Why? The big problem is that there is no transparency in the calculations for the average punter. The clubs may well have had a better idea.

Fact remains, compensation is largely based on the player's new contracts - $s and years. Rivers and Moloney went for short years and low $s; Byrne probably got a nice deal ($s) from us, but 2 yrs also.

There it is. We would have not got better than the cats rd3 pick (59) if Rivers had been traded (their rd2 went on MacIntosh - a bigger target than Rivers); Moloney in all reality would have been delisted.

What's the beef?

Ed: spelling

Just get rid of it. Player for player clubs trade.

Just get rid of it. Player for player clubs trade.

you're a bit slow today dee-luded. see GTG's post #10

I did, thats what pointed it out to me, old fella.

We will start to see teams trading off players when they get to 7 years if they sense that the player will leave on FA or they are hesitant in signing a long term contract.

The teams will get much more value for the players that way. Imagine if Saints traded of Goddard last year. I am pretty sure they would have received more then just pick #13

May even see trades like Trengove for D Martin occur after 7 years so neither of them can become free agents.

Why? The big problem is that there is no transparency in the calculations for the average punter. The clubs may well have had a better idea.

Fact remains, compensation is largely based on the player's new contracts - $s and years. Rivers and Moloney went for short years and low $s; Byrne probably got a nice deal ($s) from us, but 2 yrs also.

There it is. We would have not got better than the cats rd3 pick (59) if Rivers had been traded (their rd2 went on MacIntosh - a bigger target than Rivers); Moloney in all reality would have been delisted.

What's the beef?

Ed: spelling

Exactly. Why are people not seeing this?? The compensation was always going to be largely determined by the FA's new contract. This is not a surprise.

What it tells us is Rivers and Moloney must be on peanuts at their new clubs and Byrnes is on some pretty decent coin.

Exactly. Why are people not seeing this?? The compensation was always going to be largely determined by the FA's new contract. This is not a surprise.

What it tells us is Rivers and Moloney must be on peanuts at their new clubs and Byrnes is on some pretty decent coin.

This raises an interesting concern. Players leaving unsuccessful clubs to experience success (perhaps at lower wages) will give their old club (which probably needs all the help it can get) crappy picks, while players leaving successful clubs (usually lured by money) will give their old club (which already is ahead of the pack) even more of a head start.

Worrying.

This raises an interesting concern. Players leaving unsuccessful clubs to experience success (perhaps at lower wages) will give their old club (which probably needs all the help it can get) crappy picks, while players leaving successful clubs (usually lured by money) will give their old club (which already is ahead of the pack) even more of a head start.

Worrying.

Worrying, yes.

Surprising, given AFL's history in regards the poor vs the rich, no.

I think the clubs that sign free agents should be penalised a spot or two in the draft under some formula based on the level of the player; currently the club that loses a player gets little for the loss and all clubs lose a spot in the list according to where the compensation is awarded. For instance the Saints get 13 for arguably their best player and if we had retained pick 13 we would have been bumped to pick 14 and so would all clubs above us, including the club that picked him up.

But the predator club loses virtually nothing and in this case I would advocate that Essendon lose the next pick they have in the draft to compensate the clubs that have lost a spot for no reason. Maybe they should have some sort of Father Son bidding for free agents.

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.

Err - it wasn't brought in to benefit the clubs.

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

Scully compo pick 4 and 13 vs Ward compo pick 6 - tell it to the Dogs - next minute you'll be hammering on he AFL door to hand back that pick 4 I imagine. The same people whinging about FA compo were whinging about Scully compo.

Port seems to have done well - but Chaplin did get 4 years. Hawthorn seems to have done poorly when Young got 3 years. It's no real surprise that Byrnes contract would be similar to Rivers and Moloney. Two year modest deals.

The "handout" mentality here is amazing - Free Agency isn't the lazy man's trade bonanza.

Did port get a pick to replace john mc ?

The AFL hasn’t Fcuk this up, we have. The Dees have made a mess of this trade period. The AFL hand us some nice compo picks for Scully and essentially we have given one away/lost one. We took Byrnes way to early!!! Had we waited our compensation for Maloney and Rivers departure would be first round not third round. Cats, Bulldogs, Collingwood have all nailed it. These continued drafting mistakes at Melbourne need to stop.

..............

We took Byrnes way to early!!! Had we waited our compensation for Maloney and Rivers departure would be first round not third round

.................

Nope. The picks are not consolidated into one pick (see Ports 2 rd2 picks). We would have ended up with two rd3 picks.

Mono, We already have a round 3 pick.

49. Melbourne (FA compensation - net result for Brent Moloney and Jared Rivers)

What I am saying is; if we waited longer and not taken Byrnes so early, we might have got the two picks you are talking about and earlier than round 3.

Mono, We already have a round 3 pick.

49. Melbourne (FA compensation - net result for Brent Moloney and Jared Rivers)

What I am saying is; if we waited longer and not taken Byrnes so early, we might have got the two picks you are talking about and earlier than round 3.

You are over-rating all 3 players involved in our FA involvement.

Did port get a pick to replace john mc ?

That's an interesting and unfortunate question.

I don't know how the AFL compensate clubs following the death of a player.

You are over-rating all 3 players involved in our FA involvement.

I don't think so.

What I am saying is; if we waited longer and not taken Byrnes so early,

If we waited longer we might not have got Byrnes - we're not exactly an attractive destination - we need to actively pursue the players we want, let the players we don't want go and let the compensation take care of itself.

If we waited longer we might not have got Byrnes - we're not exactly an attractive destination - we need to actively pursue the players we want, let the players we don't want go and let the compensation take care of itself.

You are right we might not have got him. We on the other hand might have got compensated better had we waited and then taken him. IMO, I thought we should have waited before taking him.