Hawks complain about Buddy compo

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

how could anyone argue that compo is a joke

one of the biggest weapons in the game and THE poster boy.. for an early second rounder, he should be worth pick 1 FFS

[Little Goffy 14,579]

It annoys me that it's Hawthorn that have been dumped on here.

Only because it is quite true - they have been screwed around. Late first rounder for Franklin? Totally absurd. They got dudded last year too, if I recall correctly.

Free Agency was a near-sighted job that is still being handled terribly. A really gross case of incompetence on the part of the AFL.

[What 18,810]

how could anyone argue that compo is a joke

one of the biggest weapons in the game and THE poster boy.. for an early second rounder, he should be worth pick 1 FFS

In a trade with GWS he would have fetched picks 1 and 9

Hawks have been screwed badly, but I am sure they will just buy a superstar with the cap space

[Demon trucker 1,800]

The hawks stuffed up a few pp but they had three first round pick in three years we got one over three years, from only winning 11 games over three years.

[old55 23,613]

Hawthorn did get dudded. I think all the other compo was about right and fair. Having a scale based on finishing position is a very good idea and very fair. There probably needs to be a special category for marquee players at the AFL discretion, it's very hard to write rules for all situations. What do posters think would have been fair compo for Franklin? Ablett-style mid first round and pick after 1st round would be OK IMO. The other realistic alternative is a top 3 pick.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Fifty-5

[Slartibartfast 17,326]

"We believe it is inequitable that compensation is linked to ladder position," says Hawks chief executive Stuart Fox.

How on earth did this man's boss get involved with the AFL's equalisation junket?

First they complain loudly about Melbourne receiving draft assistance after achieving only five wins in two seasons and now they reckon they are getting dudded by getting pick 19 for a bloke they couldn't persuade to stay at home after giving eight years of service. And let's not forget, this is a player who might not have been a Hawk had they not received a priority pick for winning five games in the year he was drafted. And the AFL never bothered to investigate whether what they did that year was legit or not.

It's quite plain that Hawthorn cares only about Hawthorn and not the competition as a whole.

I don't know if any of the participants on that junket were subsided by the AFL but if was any integrity left at the place, it would demand a refund from these whinging hypocrites.

I don't believe there is any inconsistency in Hawthorn complaining about the compensation they received for Buddy nor in their opposition to the PP and their belief in competition equalization.

Whilst the majority of supporters will equate most things to draft picks and players others will focus on what differentiates clubs the most. It's not players but money. It's the ability to pay 100% of the salary cap, it's the ability to attract and afford top flight CEO's, Chairmen and coaches. It's the ability to develop the players on your list. In short it's the ability for the club to provided the appropriate infrastructure for its players to thrive.

The AFL have provided millions of dollars to this club to save us. Nobody seriously objected. The AFL played a primary role in Peter Jackson becoming CEO of this club which in turn led to Paul Roos and George Stone joining. For the first time in many years we now appear to have an elite off field team, a change the opening poster riled against a little more than 6 months ago. I reckon that the impact of this elite off field team will have so much more "equalization" impact on our on field performance than a priority pick or unfair Buddy equalization.

Further I've not heard Hawthorn or the other big clubs objecting to additional funding to weaker clubs to allow them to pay 100% of the salary cap which is probably the single biggest "equalization" issue facing us today particularly since the COL allowance will most likely be significantly amended or removed.

What many here seem to overlook is the AFL is not a socialist organization where they hand out a flag to you every 18 years but a highly competitive environment where the good will thrive and the poor struggle. The AFL provide an infrastructure to allow all clubs to succeed and it is not their problem that over the years we have managed to shoot ourselves in the foot with inept management and leadership. Thankfully the AFL is socialist enough to catch the inept few that fall through the cracks as they have with us but it's time now for us to start thinking like a good club and roll with the punches rather than look for every little thing to whine about.

Those that still complain about the PP really miss the point. We had as many high draft picks as any non development club in the last 6 years or so and we were a rabble notwithstanding.

The opening post misses the point entirely and just perpetuates the "woe is us" attitude that thankfully Jackson and Roos have rejected.

[Demon_JB 1,385]

Exactly why Roos wrote that article about clubs trading their stars early...

Imagine if Hawthorn had of traded Franklin a few years ago... the return they would have recieved in comparison to what they have now.

[Young Dee 1,303]

Why are we acting all indignant about Hawthorn only acting in the interests of Hawthorn? All clubs argue the point that serves themselves, that's the nature of any heavily regulated business. I'd expect nothing less from the MFC if we were in the same boat.

True I agree.........but then again you could say the same about fans - its just in our nature and part of the game to pay out/criticize the actions of every other club.

Same goes for umpires - we all hate and criticize the umpires but without them we would have no one to blame but our beloved team.

It's just the nature of footy and I love it.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Young Dee

[bush demon 2,041]

I don't believe there is any inconsistency in Hawthorn complaining about the compensation they received for Buddy nor in their opposition to the PP and their belief in competition equalization.

Whilst the majority of supporters will equate most things to draft picks and players others will focus on what differentiates clubs the most. It's not players but money. It's the ability to pay 100% of the salary cap, it's the ability to attract and afford top flight CEO's, Chairmen and coaches. It's the ability to develop the players on your list. In short it's the ability for the club to provided the appropriate infrastructure for its players to thrive.

The AFL have provided millions of dollars to this club to save us. Nobody seriously objected. The AFL played a primary role in Peter Jackson becoming CEO of this club which in turn led to Paul Roos and George Stone joining. For the first time in many years we now appear to have an elite off field team, a change the opening poster riled against a little more than 6 months ago. I reckon that the impact of this elite off field team will have so much more "equalization" impact on our on field performance than a priority pick or unfair Buddy equalization.

Further I've not heard Hawthorn or the other big clubs objecting to additional funding to weaker clubs to allow them to pay 100% of the salary cap which is probably the single biggest "equalization" issue facing us today particularly since the COL allowance will most likely be significantly amended or removed.

What many here seem to overlook is the AFL is not a socialist organization where they hand out a flag to you every 18 years but a highly competitive environment where the good will thrive and the poor struggle. The AFL provide an infrastructure to allow all clubs to succeed and it is not their problem that over the years we have managed to shoot ourselves in the foot with inept management and leadership. Thankfully the AFL is socialist enough to catch the inept few that fall through the cracks as they have with us but it's time now for us to start thinking like a good club and roll with the punches rather than look for every little thing to whine about.

Those that still complain about the PP really miss the point. We had as many high draft picks as any non development club in the last 6 years or so and we were a rabble notwithstanding.

The opening post misses the point entirely and just perpetuates the "woe is us" attitude that thankfully Jackson and Roos have rejected.

The real competition is between the codes. The home and aways, trading, pre-seasons, finals and drafting are the sideshows. Edited October 19, 2013 by bush demon

[Deecisive 1,709]

There is never going to be an equitable way of doing compensation that all will agree with. How do you value the players against each other to not only determine their ranking in draft tiers but against each other. How do you rate Buddy, Thomas, Del Santo, and other free agents against each other and come up with something that all fans are going to be happy with. What about the lousy compo some teams got last year. Just scrap the compo and be done with it, it will then be a level playing field for all, yes powerful clubs will still attract the best, but they cannot always afford to pay the best to every player. Players still have the option of not signing and throwing themselves into the draft if they cannot come to terms with their club so is free agency all that much different, i.e. if mitch decided he wanted the leave the dees at the end of his contract he could walk, no compo. Also poorer clubs usually have more room in their salary cap to attract, and lets face it money does attract.

[beelzebub 23,380]

Hey Fox....shlt happens.

Hows that shiny silverware of yours ya whinger !!!

[Whispering_Jack 30,220]

I don't believe there is any inconsistency in Hawthorn complaining about the compensation they received for Buddy nor in their opposition to the PP and their belief in competition equalization.

Whilst the majority of supporters will equate most things to draft picks and players others will focus on what differentiates clubs the most. It's not players but money. It's the ability to pay 100% of the salary cap, it's the ability to attract and afford top flight CEO's, Chairmen and coaches. It's the ability to develop the players on your list. In short it's the ability for the club to provided the appropriate infrastructure for its players to thrive.

The AFL have provided millions of dollars to this club to save us. Nobody seriously objected. The AFL played a primary role in Peter Jackson becoming CEO of this club which in turn led to Paul Roos and George Stone joining. For the first time in many years we now appear to have an elite off field team, a change the opening poster riled against a little more than 6 months ago. I reckon that the impact of this elite off field team will have so much more "equalization" impact on our on field performance than a priority pick or unfair Buddy equalization.

Further I've not heard Hawthorn or the other big clubs objecting to additional funding to weaker clubs to allow them to pay 100% of the salary cap which is probably the single biggest "equalization" issue facing us today particularly since the COL allowance will most likely be significantly amended or removed.

What many here seem to overlook is the AFL is not a socialist organization where they hand out a flag to you every 18 years but a highly competitive environment where the good will thrive and the poor struggle. The AFL provide an infrastructure to allow all clubs to succeed and it is not their problem that over the years we have managed to shoot ourselves in the foot with inept management and leadership. Thankfully the AFL is socialist enough to catch the inept few that fall through the cracks as they have with us but it's time now for us to start thinking like a good club and roll with the punches rather than look for every little thing to whine about.

Those that still complain about the PP really miss the point. We had as many high draft picks as any non development club in the last 6 years or so and we were a rabble notwithstanding.

The opening post misses the point entirely and just perpetuates the "woe is us" attitude that thankfully Jackson and Roos have rejected.

As usual, you say a lot but fail to address the point. Whether we like it or not the AFL does have "socialist" and a raft of other laws in place but is selective in enforcing them. I would have thought that was a fundamental issue of governance that affected the haves as well as the have nots and has nothing to do with advocating a "woe is us" mentality which I do not agree with.

I do however, believe that as a club we should stand up for our rights which is something I am noting on my travels that the wealthy and the ruling classes always seek to suppress world wide by telling the poor and oppressed to STFU and stop whinging.

[Slartibartfast 17,326]

The point I was making is that their President went away on a junket supposedly to look at ways of equalising the competition and since he left, he and his club have done exactly the opposite. It's the hypocrisy of his club doing this that I abhor.

you say a lot but fail to address the point.

I was suggesting that Hawthorns statements were not hypocritical.

It's actually spot on point.

[Carlos Danger 380]

I agree they were hardly done by but they are a premiership team who now has over a million available in the salary cap.

They can cry and complain all they want but the decision won't be over-ruled and I for one certainly don't have any sympathy for their plight.

[T-34 409]

There is never going to be an equitable way of doing compensation that all will agree with. How do you value the players against each other to not only determine their ranking in draft tiers but against each other. How do you rate Buddy, Thomas, Del Santo, and other free agents against each other and come up with something that all fans are going to be happy with. What about the lousy compo some teams got last year. Just scrap the compo and be done with it, it will then be a level playing field for all, yes powerful clubs will still attract the best, but they cannot always afford to pay the best to every player. Players still have the option of not signing and throwing themselves into the draft if they cannot come to terms with their club so is free agency all that much different, i.e. if mitch decided he wanted the leave the dees at the end of his contract he could walk, no compo. Also poorer clubs usually have more room in their salary cap to attract, and lets face it money does attract.

Kind of agree with this however it has already been seen that players from weaker teams are happy to walk to stronger ones for less coin, so this does not necessarily depend on a stronger clubs ability to pay more.Unfortunately that burden will also fall onto the lesser clubs as that is what it will take to lure free agents who are chasing the dollar to a club who has little chance of winning a flag for the foreseeable future.

Free agency is here to stay however it will never assist any club to rise up the ladder, but it will aid some to stay at the top.

[CBDees 3,167]

They got a first round pick as compensation for Buddy so what are they complaining about? Whas it because they were Premiers which meant that was #19? I am quite happy is they swapped last years result with us making us Premiers and giving them compensation pick #2. Weren't they one of the seventeen clubs who voted against giving us a priority pick when we finished with two wins for the year? Tough-[censored] i say!

[felixdacat 459]

http://youtu.be/Rk16glWoMCk

hawks can kiss my astericks!

[deanox 9,933]

They seem to be complaining because compo is tied to ladder position. They only change would be to have the picks as "middle" of the round ie after pick 9, not after the clubs current pick. I don't mind the current system as it provides some equalisation between top and bottom clubs.

I don't think they were screwed over this time but that they were the victims of the system they and all other clubs agreed to. I.e. band 1 is the highest level of compo. Last year I thought they were treated unfairly when they lost Clint Young to Collingwood and got nothing. He was worth at least band 5.

I don't have a problem with the compo, I think it's a good thing and needed. Clubs losing players for nothing will hurt. One player may be absorbed but 2 or more over a few years will hurt. Losing a journeyman player like Dunn might not hurt either, but any club losing a front line player hurts. And for the love of the game and the clubs we don't want a situation where clubs sell players off regularly just to avoid losing them for nothing "in case" they leave in the next few years.

The main problem with the compo is that there isn't a "marquee" band, but unless we have dedicated "marquee" player status within the lists it can't apply. Who is a marquee player? Sylvia probably would have been one of ours despite not deserving the same status as Franklin.

[deanox 9,933]

Note:

I'd like to see FA compo picks have a 5 year expiry like the expansion club compo picks.

Would be fantastic for trading and staying. More assets to shuffle hands therefore more trade opportunities

[ickey_11 145]

It is their ladder position that has allowed them to pick up:

Jack Gunston

Brian Lake

Shaun Burgoyne

Josh Gibson

David Hale

All these players chose to join Hawthorn because of their ladder position in recent seasons.

And although they lost Buddy (this will be an isolated incident), clubs at the bottom will continue to lose players to top sides in many years to come because of the chase of a premiership. Although a few will go after money, but that is the point of the salary cap.

[Clark_Kent 315]

I think you have to have at least ten years of free agency compo before it can be assessed. Though this one incident does seem unfair, they won't be saying that if one day someone leaves and they get an earlier pick for a lesser player. I think ladder position is the only fair way to do it as it helps the lower clubs who will be hurt more from losing their best player, which is the way it should be. As everything it swings in roundabouts and it should all end up pretty even in the scheme of things.

That was also a very good point about Hawthorn poaching a lot of players because of their ladder position. If they want to complain about this one incident I'd be more than happy to trade positions with them.

[Slartibartfast 17,326]

That was also a very good point about Hawthorn poaching a lot of players because of their ladder position.

Well they didn't really poach anyone did they.

Gunston ND 24

Lake ND 41

Gibson ND 25

Burgoyne ND 9

Hale End first round comp pick.

There is no question that their ladder position helped but they have also been prepared to put up good picks for players which not many clubs are prepared to do. They have managed their list superbly drafting good talent and then filling holes with trades where players in the main were either undervalued by many or they payed full tote odds. What's made it better is the value picks they've got along the way - Bruest ®, Guerra (psd), Puopolo (nd66), Savage (nd 77), Stratton (nd 46), Young (rd).

The only free agent they got was Simpkin and he was available to everyone as he was a delisted FA. We could have had him with pick 88!

Everyone with half a brain knows that Buddy was worth more than they got but FA compensation wasn't designed to be full compensation. I don't like Hawthorn much but I admire the way they've managed their list.

[Clark_Kent 315]

The only reason they got them at those picks was because the players said specifically 'I want to play for Hawthorn'. We went after Hale but he didn't want to play for us. I'm sure other clubs would have loved to have Gunston and Gibson but it was the same thing. Burgoyne was the only player they had to give up a high pick for. It's good for them as it helped them win a flag and I hope when we have our chance we trade like that to fill needs. But they can't complain about their run because to be honest it has been pretty sweet for them. So I say stiff sh*t

[Slartibartfast 17,326]

The only reason they got them at those picks was because the players said specifically 'I want to play for Hawthorn'. We went after Hale but he didn't want to play for us. I'm sure other clubs would have loved to have Gunston and Gibson but it was the same thing. Burgoyne was the only player they had to give up a high pick for. It's good for them as it helped them win a flag and I hope when we have our chance we trade like that to fill needs. But they can't complain about their run because to be honest it has been pretty sweet for them. So I say stiff sh*t

I agree they were an attractive club but they didn't "poach" them which is the word you used.

With Hale we had pick 12 and 33 whilst Hawthorn trumped our 33 with 27. Hale was playing for the VFL for most of the year he was traded, there weren't too many others interested and we wouldn't use pick 12 on him.

The benefits Hawks had is good list management. Poach they didn't.