Free Agency Compensation

[Wolfmother 182]

I always thought this.. Daisy and Sylvia have played the same amount of games... 18 months difference in age... Contract is 700k for four years for daisy and 600k for Sylvia for 3 years. Highest in the b&f is third for daisy and fifth for Sylvia...

Daisy had his AA season in 2011 but beside that in stats they are similar (19 v 16 pos per game)

The last two seasons he has been injured and we know maloney's value decreased after a crap season when the one before he was fourth in the brownlow club champion and most clearances in the afl

Daisy is a better player but in reality statistically they are closer than they first appear and I can't see why daisy is guaranteed 1st rd whilst Sylvia is maybe a second round

[TheoX 1,218]

600K for Sylvia for 3 years? It was reported as 1.05million for 3 years. We'll be lucky to get a second round pick.

[jnrmac 19,326]

Yeah but Col will have a breakout year this year, Mark my words - he's gonna be a gun one day.......

[Young Dee 1,303]

600K for Sylvia for 3 years? It was reported as 1.05million for 3 years. We'll be lucky to get a second round pick.

Yer I read he was getting about 1 million for 3 years so like 350,000 a year. That's half what Thomas is getting.

Mahoney also said that we fielded a very similar offer (probably more).

Edited October 9, 2013 by Young Dee

[Dr. Gonzo 22,630]

I don't think the issue should be who is a better player, I would argue that Colin Sylvia was more important to Melbourne than Daisy was to Collingwood. I think this should taken on it's own merit, if Colin had chosen to stay, it would have sent a message of solidarity to all future players that the place was worth hanging around, however I can't see that Daisy has that same effect on the playing group as a whole at Colliwobbles. Therefore I think that Colin is worth more than Daisy.

That won't factor into it. If he was more important he would have had better B&F results.

Edited October 9, 2013 by Dr. Gonzo

[Clark_Kent 315]

The AFL should bring out their formula for working it all out and then everyone knows what their player will be worth. Where the sides pick falls should have absolutely nothing to do with it. There will be the 5 bands or whatever it is and then you can work out ok Sylvia is band 3 therefore we will have a pick after our 2nd rounder or whatever it is. That way sides can work out how they want to approach the remainder of the free agency. If for example he is only band 4 I'd say we would then chase another free agent because it would be like picking them up with a late pick anyway. I don't understand why this needs to be hidden.

[QueensBirthday 186]

So, the AFL keep their compensation formula secret. But, I would anticipate that these things come into consideration:

Old contract $

Old contract length (yrs)

New contract $

New contract length (yrs)

Team ranking

B&F count, probably over the past 3 years.

Age,

AFL Draft spot

Breaking that down, Col's not that far behind Daisy. Old contract, Col was on good coin, both on 3 years. Col's on lower coin now, Daisy higher. Both are around 5th best in their respective clubs. 2003 Draft vs 2004 draft. Daisy wasn't high in his B&F, Col was 5th.

The big disparity is $330K vs $700K.

[wretched.sylph 164]

i think it worth mentioning, particularly with reference to the above post (#17), that players are often happy to take a pay cut if it means achieving premiership success. i recall the talking head King saying this explicitly with regards to Carey — "we didn't mind, because we knew we needed him!". as such, it is often easier for successful clubs to find the extra cash needed to lure a top-class player.

as far as compensation specifically is concerned, i doubt we are likely to see it changed, but if it were i would prefer compensation awarded as a draft-pick one round after the departing player was initially drafted, and based on current ladder position.

and i would like to see zero compensation for free agents who were chosen with priority picks.

2c

Edited October 9, 2013 by wretched.sylph

[rpfc 27,646]

The AFL should bring out their formula for working it all out and then everyone knows what their player will be worth. Where the sides pick falls should have absolutely nothing to do with it. There will be the 5 bands or whatever it is and then you can work out ok Sylvia is band 3 therefore we will have a pick after our 2nd rounder or whatever it is. That way sides can work out how they want to approach the remainder of the free agency. If for example he is only band 4 I'd say we would then chase another free agent because it would be like picking them up with a late pick anyway. I don't understand why this needs to be hidden.

They feel as though teams will attempt to 'game' the system if they have a definitive guide of the compensation parameters.

And the compensation is tied to where a team finishes because bad teams losing player X is worse than good teams losing player X.

To have three of the bands tied to where teams finish is a good idea and helps to bring some equalization as bad teams require more help when it's best players leave than good teams.

[deanox 8,786]

So, the AFL keep their compensation formula secret. But, I would anticipate that these things come into consideration:

Old contract $

Old contract length (yrs)

New contract $

New contract length (yrs)

Team ranking

B&F count, probably over the past 3 years.

Age,

AFL Draft spot

Breaking that down, Col's not that far behind Daisy. Old contract, Col was on good coin, both on 3 years. Col's on lower coin now, Daisy higher. Both are around 5th best in their respective clubs. 2003 Draft vs 2004 draft. Daisy wasn't high in his B&F, Col was 5th.

The big disparity is $330K vs $700K.

I cannot understand how at Melbourne with a dearth of any player on the list worth big coin (Dawes, Clarke Frawley then who?) That we could only have offered Sylvia 330 per year when Carlton with Judd, Murphy, Gibbs, Scotland, Walker, Waite, Carrazo and Warnock) can pay Daisy 700k.

We must have not been particularly keen on keeping him if we couldn't find an extra 200k to lock him in.

[Redleg 38,047]

So, the AFL keep their compensation formula secret. But, I would anticipate that these things come into consideration:

Old contract $

Old contract length (yrs)

New contract $

New contract length (yrs)

Team ranking

B&F count, probably over the past 3 years.

Age,

AFL Draft spot

Breaking that down, Col's not that far behind Daisy. Old contract, Col was on good coin, both on 3 years. Col's on lower coin now, Daisy higher. Both are around 5th best in their respective clubs. 2003 Draft vs 2004 draft. Daisy wasn't high in his B&F, Col was 5th.

The big disparity is $330K vs $700K.

Don't forget we got royally screwed on our compo last year and treated poorly in respect to the PP this year. If Daisy is band 1 and Sylvia band 3 that means we get the pick after our 2nd pick. Anything less would be completely unacceptable and I would expect us to take it further. The reasons given for us not getting the PP were rubbish and totally against the spirit of the help for poorly performing teams. One ground given for the refusal was that our welfare programs were very good, PLEASE.

I don' t care that we got some money from the AFL as Sydney gets it every year and they have a 2 flags recently and now Tippett and Buddy, not to mention a great commercial draw.

I think this may be a line in the sand issue. We get what we deserve or we fight for it.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

We must have not been particularly keen on keeping him if we couldn't find an extra 200k to lock him in.

[Clark_Kent 315]

They feel as though teams will attempt to 'game' the system if they have a definitive guide of the compensation parameters.

And the compensation is tied to where a team finishes because bad teams losing player X is worse than good teams losing player X.

To have three of the bands tied to where teams finish is a good idea and helps to bring some equalization as bad teams require more help when it's best players leave than good teams.

What I meant was in regards to something mentioned on Trade Radio about not getting a certain band because we finished lower which should be crap. If you finish 1st and win the GF and your best player decides to leave for more coin then stiff s***, you get a pick after your first round and the same could be said if you finish last and your best player leaves for more money and qualifies for band 1 then you should get that pick after your first round.

I don't see how a side could 'game' the system. The other side offers the contract and the number of years an so on, if they qualify for a first round pick then so be it but it should all be out in the open and free for everyone to know. All the secrecy reeks of the AFL making decisions as they go and changing bands for teams depending on where they finish.

[Sir Why You Little 34,941]

Therefore I think that Colin is worth more than Daisy.

This is just funny. I laughed out loud at work.

In a quiet room.

Still funny as. Col Better than Daisy.

[ThreeOneSix 953]

This is just funny. I laughed out loud at work.

In a quiet room.

Still funny as. Col Better than Daisy.

Both underachievers, it's a coin toss.

Daisy at 700k a year is just comedy, he isn't worth half that.

Has barely got on the park the past 2 years.

If 350k a year for Sylvia is right, we can kiss band 3 good bye.

[Sir Why You Little 34,941]

Both underachievers, it's a coin toss.

Daisy at 700k a year is just comedy, he isn't worth half that.

Has barely got on the park the past 2 years.

If 350k a year for Sylvia is right, we can kiss band 3 good bye.

Daisy has been a game changer. Premiership Player.

Col is yet to have that Breakout Game...It's very easy to see where they both sit.

[PJ_12345 1,098]

Both underachievers, it's a coin toss.

Daisy at 700k a year is just comedy, he isn't worth half that.

Has barely got on the park the past 2 years.

If 350k a year for Sylvia is right, we can kiss band 3 good bye.

Hasn't the AFL given Collingwood a better compo (P12) than Hawthorn for Franklin (P19)?

[QueensBirthday 186]

The worst thing about 350K is if the rest is off the books. Being able to get a generous endorsement thrown at you means that Melbourne get shafted.

Please bare in mind, this is not a statement of fact, it's an observation of how manipulation ruins the AFL's secret calculation.

Edited October 10, 2013 by QueensBirthday

[Clark_Kent 315]

Hasn't the AFL given Collingwood a better compo (P12) than Hawthorn for Franklin (P19)?

Yeah if they are both band 1. I actually don't mind this as it assists the lower clubs when they lose free agents. The Hawks just won the flag so part of being a successful club now means that you do miss out on draft benefits in the future. But to be honest they get helped by players wanting to play for them that it won't affect them anyway.

[Demon_spurs 1,708]

This is just funny. I laughed out loud at work.

In a quiet room.

Still funny as. Col Better than Daisy.

I didn't say he was better than Daisy, I said he was worth more! Read posts pass the first line

Edited October 10, 2013 by Demon_spurs

[Sir Why You Little 34,941]

I didn't say he was better than Daisy, I said he was worth more! Read posts pass the first line

But he isn't worth more...

[Wolfmother 182]

If franklin wasnt a free agent you would see daisy and Sylvia closer but sadly the [censored] would go down if Melbourne got pick three and hawthorn got pick 19

[daisycutter 28,691]

But he isn't worth more...

i resemble those comments!

[Earl Hood 5,822]

Daisy has been a game cha

nger. Premiership Player.

Col is yet to have that Breakout Game...It's very easy to see where they both sit.

Not sure what you mean here. Col could never have been a premiership player, that was his lot in life. Yes he did not have a massive breakout year but I am noticing in modern football that if you are in a Shyte team you will find it very difficult to be a star. It is not impossible but it is less likely that you will be able to meet the metrics set out in the AFLs statics to get in the all stars. Daisy's been injured for some time and it is a few years since he played good football but yet he gets a rating based on what? His last good game or his last great game? It is looking all very subjective. And that is where the AFL tends to like to live.

[Demon_spurs 1,708]

The point that a few seem unable to grasp, is that a small fish in a smaller pond, seems proportionally more important than a medium size fish in a whirlpool. This is where Colin has been living. Let me put it in plainer terms, the damage done to Melbourne by Colin leaving is greater than the damage done to Colliewobbles for Daisy leaving, they will be able to cover the loss, Melb less likely so, therefore (ipso facto) CS is a more important player (not better) than Daisy.