Getting a pick three for Colin Sylvia would be like saying "Okay. I'd like a redo thanks." After ten years of nothing, I guess I'll take that offer.

Based on the above details about buddie and daisie getting pick 3 would be like getting Roos all over again.

The Hood and others - you either need to do proper research or simply look for my posts; the Bands for compensation are;

1 - the pick after the clubs first round pick.

2 - an end of first round pick

3 - the pick after the clubs second round pick

4 - an end of second round pick

5 - the pick after the clubs third round pick

Therefore, Franklin will net Hawthorn pick 17 for Band 1 and the MFC for Sylvia pick 21 for Band 3 (IMO). That's if both clubs don't do anything else in FA. Which is seperate to DFA, but don't get me started on that.

The Hood and others - you either need to do proper research or simply look for my posts; the Bands for compensation are;

1 - the pick after the clubs first round pick.

2 - an end of first round pick

3 - the pick after the clubs second round pick

4 - an end of second round pick

5 - the pick after the clubs third round pick

Therefore, Franklin will net Hawthorn pick 17 for Band 1 and the MFC for Sylvia pick 21 for Band 3 (IMO). That's if both clubs don't do anything else in FA. Which is seperate to DFA, but don't get me started on that.

Sorry I am lazy on research rpfc. What determines the bands? You have franklin at 1 and Sylvia at 3. I don't disagree but what is the criteria for the bands? Again if it is about how good the team is we have an issue.

Pick 3 for Col. Hahahaha:)

I stopped reading...

Pick 3 for Col. Hahahaha:)

I stopped reading...

Didn't stop posting though, I see...

Didn't stop posting though, I see...

i shared my laughter...

Sorry I am lazy on research rpfc. What determines the bands? You have franklin at 1 and Sylvia at 3. I don't disagree but what is the criteria for the bands? Again if it is about how good the team is we have an issue.

The formula is the AFLs and they don't just give it away. But weight is given to B+F results, the size of the new contract, and a couple of other less meaningful criteria.

I say Franklin is Band 1 because he is a star and on huge dollars, I say Sylvia is Band 3 because Chaplin and Pearce got that for Port, and neither of them is as good as Sylvia.

So the compensation is weighted to the worse teams as B1, B3, and B5 follow the clubs pick in the first three rounds.

Franklin for pick 17. Sylvia for Pick 21.

Watch it happen if they both leave.

Hey Rpfc

I get a bit confused by all this compensation FA stuff. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on it. Te general feeling I get is that it

hammers the smaller, weaker clubs. Is that right? The strong clubs get good players who want to see a premiership before they retire (Lake, Ball, Rivers etc) The smaller clubs get the cast-offs from the biggies (like we got Dawes)

Ie the whole thing is a blow against any sense of equality and yet another nail in our coffin

( I suppose the exception to the rule is the expansion clubs, who have squill ions to play with and can get money-hungry morons like Buddy and Scully?)

Hey Rpfc

I get a bit confused by all this compensation FA stuff. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on it. Te general feeling I get is that it

hammers the smaller, weaker clubs. Is that right? The strong clubs get good players who want to see a premiership before they retire (Lake, Ball, Rivers etc) The smaller clubs get the cast-offs from the biggies (like we got Dawes)

Ie the whole thing is a blow against any sense of equality and yet another nail in our coffin

( I suppose the exception to the rule is the expansion clubs, who have squill ions to play with and can get money-hungry morons like Buddy and Scully?)

You understand it perfectly.

Makes me even more mad that the b$@#% wouldn't give us a priority pick.

You get Swans who've won two recent premierships and can still afford Tippett and (looks like) Franklin cos of their extra mill, Hawks, who've also won two flags with their PPs, Pies with Pendles and Swan, etc etc - all squealing that we don't 'deserve' a PP, even though we've won 5 games in 2 years and haven't won a flag for fifty.

Sorry if I'm straying off topic here. Just starting to feel this anger and hopelessness growing inside me.

Equalization? HA! Pigs rectum.

Never seen my team win a flag. Kinda doubt whether I ever will.

Makes me even more mad that the b$@#% wouldn't give us a priority pick.

You get Swans who've won two recent premierships and can still afford Tippett and (looks like) Franklin cos of their extra mill, Hawks, who've also won two flags with their PPs, Pies with Pendles and Swan, etc etc - all squealing that we don't 'deserve' a PP, even though we've won 5 games in 2 years and haven't won a flag for fifty.

Sorry if I'm straying off topic here. Just starting to feel this anger and hopelessness growing inside me.

Equalization? HA! Pigs rectum.

Never seen my team win a flag. Kinda doubt whether I ever will.

It's a farce lower teams will lose their better players just as they need them.

The formula is the AFLs and they don't just give it away. But weight is given to B+F results, the size of the new contract, and a couple of other less meaningful criteria.

The we are stuffed with Sylvia cos he's been useless in the Bluey.

It's a farce lower teams will lose their better players just as they need them.

Look you have to take a more unbiased look at this issue of equalisation. Equalisation in the AFL is more subtle and sophisticated than just handing out the odd priority pick here and there. It's about ummh, well look at MFC, Vlad reckons we have this young talent all lined up and gee that big kid who hasn't played a senior game yet is going to be good and..... Well I could go on.

The point is equalisation is not about priority picks, money hand outs or evening up the fixture. It is more about knowing your place as a second tier club and being grateful to the AFL for the previledge of playing second fiddle to the top clubs. Given that why would you want any of these high priced players like Buddy or worry where they go? Just accept you position in AFL life. Got the picture now and any attempt to buck the system will lead to another riot by the "other 17 teams who are not Melbourne" as Vlad is apt to say.

With all due respect, how did everyone not see the problems with FA coming when it was first brought up years ago? Im sorry but this was so obvious. It will only benefit the stronger clubs and will only get worse as the system is worked over more effectively by the big clubs. To my absolute bewilderment there seems to be a few people who are genuinely suprised as the penny is finely dropping that FA is not a good thing for the weaker clubs. No S%*t.

rpfc and others. Can anyone confirm that players existing contract as well as their new contract will be taken into account? Ie if he is on big coin at Melbourne but leaves for little coin but chance at a flag then surely the current contract will have to be taken into account with regards to player value.

And more my opinion on valuing players bad on contact number: all clubs must pay a minimum 95% of cap. So many players are over paid. Similarly at some clubs front loading, neck ending and "team pay cuts" to keep the group together dilute the usefulness of this number.

I don't think too much weighting is given to past contracts. Only the new one.

And Jara - FA is new, and it will hurt some teams that have talent. Nobody is immune and St Kilda, Hawthorn, and Collingwood are finding that out.

Dawes was a trade, he was not an FA. If a team does not want to come off second best in this environment then treat your players well, and try to make good decisions on players to bring in.

You have at least 8 years before they can just '[censored] off' and it will not just mean that the best teams pick the bones of the worst teams.

It won't.

It's not the end of the world.

Makes me even more mad that the b$@#% wouldn't give us a priority pick.

You get Swans who've won two recent premierships and can still afford Tippett and (looks like) Franklin cos of their extra mill, Hawks, who've also won two flags with their PPs, Pies with Pendles and Swan, etc etc - all squealing that we don't 'deserve' a PP, even though we've won 5 games in 2 years and haven't won a flag for fifty.

Sorry if I'm straying off topic here. Just starting to feel this anger and hopelessness growing inside me.

Equalization? HA! Pigs rectum.

Never seen my team win a flag. Kinda doubt whether I ever will.

You just woke up to this?

I don't think too much weighting is given to past contracts. Only the new one.

And Jara - FA is new, and it will hurt some teams that have talent. Nobody is immune and St Kilda, Hawthorn, and Collingwood are finding that out.

Dawes was a trade, he was not an FA. If a team does not want to come off second best in this environment then treat your players well, and try to make good decisions on players to bring in.

You have at least 8 years before they can just '[censored]' and it will not just mean that the best teams pick the bones of the worst teams.

It won't.

It's not the end of the world.

It sure looks like the beginning of the end to me. If the size of the new contract is a metric, the good players from top clubs will only move for big bucks while conversely good players at bottom clubs will go to top clubs for less money, chasing a cup.

Everything that has been going on the past 5 or 6 years is conspiring to extend the dominance of the existing 4 or 5 clubs. I'm talking about the new franchise clubs, compromised drafts, the same talent pool spread thinner and free agency, and good players just refusing to re-sign and walking to the club of their choice, usually a top club again, think Luke Ball. We are certainly working at a significant disadvantage as I see it.

The we are stuffed with Sylvia cos he's been useless in the Bluey.

Rivers and Moloney faired pretty well in previous B&Fs and we got stuff all for them.

Rivers and Moloney faired pretty well in previous B&Fs and we got stuff all for them.

bodes well huh

I've given up the dreams of him becoming an elite player, it's not going to happen.

The fact is we are very short on players of Sylvia's age group, more so on ones that can earn a game each week.

His footy this season wasn't bad at all and although he won't become the gun we all wanted, he is a solid contributer and we have too few of these as it is. He is required going forward.

This early post summed it up well

Sylvia is exactly the type of player we need ( experience, body size, mid-fielder, goal kicker) Given the weaknesses in our list we are considering offering pick 2 for an experienced midfielder - perhaps even a running defender ( like Heath Shaw) - with a similar mix of upside and downside to Colin. At best we'd get pick 21 for him ........... which means an untested kid for a proven senior player

Just wish he'd sign asap ........ so we can move on. The longer the delay - the more likely he is to be serenaded by someone else. The clubs chasing Daisy Thomas may have Colin as Plan B

If Col wants to walk away from being coached by Paul Roos he is a fool.

If we replace him with Heath Shaw that is a win in terms of what we put on the park.

I hope Col stays btw, but i don't think he will at this stage.

I wouldn't be so eager to replace Sylvia with a HB. Maybe one more year to see what he can offer under Roos but i'd rather consider replacing him with a better outside ball user as well as targeting another 2 to 3 solid insiders to assist Jones and Viney. But they would want to be prolific ball winners in and under if replacing Sylvia as he does a pretty good job for us here.

Alternatively, if he's on the move anyway, replace with someone who uses the ball very effectively with limited opportunites. That's the key in todays highly congested stoppage/rolling scrum style of game. I believe our defense is looking pretty solid at this point. No need for another running HB with limited lifespan who wont be around during a potential premiership window in Shaw.

We need elite ball users by hand and foot thwough the middle and i'd be looking at someone like Tayte Pears* who's out of contract. Only 23, had the best 'average' disposal efficiency percentage in the AFL this year at 86% (for players who've played more than a handfull of games), ranked 14th overall. Is more of an outside uncontested ball winner but that's exactly what we need as well as an additional 2 to 3 insiders IMO.

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2013-07-04/pears-hopeful-on-new-deal

We have Jones boy, Viney (to grow into another inside mid role) and to a lessor extent possibly Trengove (can't see it though) for the next 5 years or so at least. Toumpas, Pears, Clisby, Kent and Pickles would be very handy outside runners drifting forward and back to help out.

The option for Sylvia, doesn't have to be Tayte, but we need much better ball users (efficiency wise) than Col (ranked 568th in the leauge). I note that Jetta (18th), Strauss (19th), Pedo (77th) and Clisby (87th) were the only boys to rank in the top 100 in the league in this stat. Obviously Jetta and Strauss having such limited game time may not be a true reflection of their ability here so they fall into the 'handfull of games' area where the jury is out.

Col does get a fair amount of it. Ranked 7th to round 15 in contested and uncontested (within the club). He was also ranked 3rd in the tackle count to that point of the season. So his big body and work ethic is there in and around the stoppages. His biggest difficiency at this point i believe is his disposal efficiency % where he's ranked 30th (club) and (568 league) at around 63.5% (team's average to round 15 was 70.9%). I believe the league average is approx 73%. Can Roos and co improve Col's percentage by about 10% to get it to the team's average at this late stage? The entire team needs a 4.2% improvement overall to get to AFL average. Not that insurmountable. However, to get to AFL average Col would need to see an improvement in his disposal efficiency by a massive 15%! That's more than 3 times what's required from a team point of view.

I have faith that Roos can achieve the team average improvement to approx league average in a season or 2. Not sure he can work that kind of miracle, or even close to it, with Col given the late stage he's at career wise, however i think Sylvia's done enough to at least have a season under Roos. Who knows, he might surprise everyone with this area of his game but his heart/head would need to be in the right place.

Roos and co are more than capable of sorting all this anyway so i'll defer to their learned judgement.

* Provided he receives WADA / ASADA clearance

Edited October 2, 201311 yr by Rusty Nails

The formula is the AFLs and they don't just give it away. But weight is given to B+F results, the size of the new contract, and a couple of other less meaningful criteria.

I say Franklin is Band 1 because he is a star and on huge dollars, I say Sylvia is Band 3 because Chaplin and Pearce got that for Port, and neither of them is as good as Sylvia.

So the compensation is weighted to the worse teams as B1, B3, and B5 follow the clubs pick in the first three rounds.

Franklin for pick 17. Sylvia for Pick 21.

Watch it happen if they both leave.

Well Sylvia came 5th in the Melbourne best and fairest so that's skewed in our favour.

Also if Sylvia does go I am hoping that GWS has to out bid other suitors like Essendon (they do have a spare 1.2m now). GWS desperately need some seniors like us and I can see them having to pay overs in order to convince him to go to another building club.

I would be happy with an end of round one pick but of course that won't happen (we will probably pick up cross and then the AFL will give us pick 100).

Edited October 2, 201311 yr by Young Dee

Makes me even more mad that the b$@#% wouldn't give us a priority pick.

You get Swans who've won two recent premierships and can still afford Tippett and (looks like) Franklin cos of their extra mill, Hawks, who've also won two flags with their PPs, Pies with Pendles and Swan, etc etc - all squealing that we don't 'deserve' a PP, even though we've won 5 games in 2 years and haven't won a flag for fifty.

Sorry if I'm straying off topic here. Just starting to feel this anger and hopelessness growing inside me.

Equalization? HA! Pigs rectum.

Never seen my team win a flag. Kinda doubt whether I ever will.

This isn't a new scenario. We've been snuffed by the likes of the Pies, Bombers and Blues (and to a lessor extent the Cats) for years. That's how they became strong winning culture clubs while we wallowed and scrounged our way as bottom feeders, looking for the scraps for decades. Nothing's changed. The big boys don't wish to give up the power they acheived from back then. Who would. We've been part of the dumbass mediocrity clubs within the VFL (now AFL) that accepted this carp and we (with the other small fry) continued to roll over on it for decades. I would also include the Hawks in here. They secured the Morning Peninsula zone in the late 60's which produced a prolific breeding ground for them and many a great footballer. Some insignificant ones as well. You know, minor name players the likes of Knights, Mathews and Dermy, just to name a few

Extract courtesy of wikipedia....

From the mid-1960s, Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon (and to a lesser extent Geelong) perennially dominated the competition because their greater wealth allowed them to monopolise top country players and build up greater playing strength than was previously possible, while Footscray, St Kilda and Fitrroy were in grave danger of folding.

The VFL's response was to zone rural Victoria and the Riverina of New South Wales in a similar manner to metropolitan Melbourne. Because of the sparseness of Australia's rural population, the country zones related not to the player's address, but rather to the league in which he played. This difference made zone boundaries impossible to adjust and was a critical component of the failure of country zoning.

Because the VFL was aware that discrepancies existed in the strength of each zone, it was originally planned that the zones would be rotated every year so that each club would obtain a chance of receiving the best young country players. However, Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon had productive zones and were naturally unwilling to give them up for less productive ones, so the zones remained the same from the inception of country zoning until it was abolished in 1986. There was also no provision for demographic changes which occurred in the various country zones, which exacerbated the problems mentioned above.

Edited October 2, 201311 yr by Rusty Nails

Good find.

Never knew that.