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.

You have come from a different angle but I think we end up in the same place. Daisy equals Col in terms of compensation taking into account our different situations. Tha AFl formula should be able to handle this. Again I say it is very difficult to shine consistently in a bottom side but it is eaier to shine in a dominant team.

You have come from a different angle but I think we end up in the same place. Daisy equals Col in terms of compensation taking into account our different situations. Tha AFl formula should be able to handle this. Again I say it is very difficult to shine consistently in a bottom side but it is eaier to shine in a dominant team.

Hoody I will agree to meet you there as 50/50, but I don't think Vlad and the boys will see it that way

Edited October 10, 201312 yr by Demon_spurs

I think compensation picks should be determined by a complete and comprehensive player ranking system; probably averaged over 2 seasons. The result would be that all clubs going into the trade/free agency period will know what a players ranking is, based on his industry value, and what the compensation for losing him will be.

Ranking players could easily be done by compiling results from the Brownlow Medal count, AFLPA MVP Award, Club B&F Awards etc. etc. and then (of course) debated by one of those 'old-has-been' committees the AFL likes to set up.....just kidding.

Seriously, this system does not need to 'split hairs' to provide and 'absolute' ranking but would probably determine that several players end up being ranked the same. (like several golfers finishing in equal position).

Ultimately whatever 'awards' are used I believe the result will end up pretty much the same.

The hard part is not working out a players ranking but what losing him is worth to a club in compensation.

Personally I think that compensation should be his ranking minus one pick. eg. Gary Ablett (ranked No.1) leaves GWS. GWS receive pick 2 as compensation. For Col this might be.....equally ranked 25 so MFC receive pick 26.

I think it is imperative that clubs know the 'market value' and therefore the 'Draft Value' of each player going into the Free Agency period.

Go Dees

Pick 23!

Edited October 18, 201312 yr by QueensBirthday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uURhimiGhCA

Pick 23!

Sylvia for pick 23, that's generous!

Sylvia for pick 23, that's generous!

exceedingly generous

Sylvia for pick 23, that's generous!

I don' understand if a 2ndRnd FA Compo pick follows your 2ndRnd Pick, how is it that the saints who finished above us on the ladder got P22 for DelS', & we get P23 for Sylv'?

Wasn't our 2ndRnd Pick before the Saints 2ndRnd Pick?

I don' understand if a 2ndRnd FA Compo pick follows your 2ndRnd Pick, how is it that the saints who finished above us on the ladder got P22 for DelS', & we get P23 for Sylv'?

Wasn't our 2ndRnd Pick before the Saints 2ndRnd Pick?

I think it is just bad maths.

I will investigate but Band 2 should be Pick 20 for Dal Santo.

I don' understand if a 2ndRnd FA Compo pick follows your 2ndRnd Pick, how is it that the saints who finished above us on the ladder got P22 for DelS', & we get P23 for Sylv'?

Wasn't our 2ndRnd Pick before the Saints 2ndRnd Pick?

I think it is just bad maths.

I will investigate but Band 2 should be Pick 20 for Dal Santo.

It's an error in the article.

They got the same as us - Band 3. Pick 25.