Speaking of loyalty, what do you think $cully will be offered next contract?

that little Piggy; a Toms Take-Away retirement package, his very own, to franchise.

Age, postion of the club, standing within the club are all considerations as far as I am aware, which is why we got overs for Sylvia last year imo

As far as I'm aware, it is only salary and length of contract.

Position of the club is only relevant in that the pick (if band 1, 3 or 5) comes immediately after your normally placed pick... which is a result of the position of the club.

Age, B&F results, etc were all supposedly factors for the hurriedly formed compensation rules in relation to GCS and GWS only, and even then they moved the goalposts somewhat.

FA compensation is a different kettle of fish.

And band 3 for Sylvia was not overs, save for our positioning in the draft.

If we'd have finished 3rd, our compo pick would have been closer to pick 38, i.e. not "overs" in my opinion.

As far as I'm aware, it is only salary and length of contract.

Position of the club is only relevant in that the pick (if band 1, 3 or 5) comes immediately after your normally placed pick... which is a result of the position of the club.

Age, B&F results, etc were all supposedly factors for the hurriedly formed compensation rules in relation to GCS and GWS only, and even then they moved the goalposts somewhat.

FA compensation is a different kettle of fish.

COMPENSATION

A club that has a net loss of players transferring to/from other clubs as free agents in one transfer period is entitled to compensation via National Draft picks allocated by the AFL.

The compensation formula produces a points rating for players based on:

1. The new contract of the free agent;

2. The age of the free agent.

Draft picks are allocated to clubs based on the net total points for free agents lost and gained during the transfer period.

Draft picks will be allocated to one of five places:

• 1st round

• end of 1st round

• 2nd round

• end of 2nd round

• 3rd round

In applying the formula, an expert committee reviews the formula outcomes. The committee has the power to recommend alternative outcomes to GM – Football Operations where the formula produces a materially anomalous result.

so at 25, he is going to get at least 4 years at around 600k I would think and that will be what fundamentally dictates the compensation, but I feel the bottom highlighted sentence will come into play if it looks like being anything less than band 1 because of our position, our poor form over recent seasons and the importance of Frawley to our team and prospects going forward.

COMPENSATION

A club that has a net loss of players transferring to/from other clubs as free agents in one transfer period is entitled to compensation via National Draft picks allocated by the AFL.

The compensation formula produces a points rating for players based on:

1. The new contract of the free agent;
2. The age of the free agent.

source...AFL.com.au

edit

losing my touch...as per Mike above

Well there you go.

Haven't read that for a while and my memory must be failing me.

I can't see any way we wouldn't get a 1st rounder, in that case.

Everytime I open this thread I am always searching for the "I was speaking to a friend who told me that Chip has decided to leave/stay as they were speaking to a relative who used to share a house with the sister of a close friend who went to uni with the cousin of the team physio's best mate".

Can anyone tell I am a little distracted and bored at work?

Well there you go.

Haven't read that for a while and my memory must be failing me.

I can't see any way we wouldn't get a 1st rounder, in that case.

I agree mate, I reckon the AFL will look after us if Chip decides his future is elsewhere

Just had a look on the club website at the training photos.

That photo of Chip - look at his eyes!

He's gone...

as opposed to

I'm the Coach....and I'll bloody lead !!!

Just had a look on the club website at the training photos.

That photo of Chip - look at his eyes!

He's gone...

only because of the photo above it - Roos pointing to the way out !

If Frawley was a 'stayer', he'd stop stuffing around and take a leaf out of Tommy Mac's book!

"There's the exit mate, we'll take the top 5 pick!"

If Frawley was a 'stayer', he'd stop stuffing around and take a leaf out of Tommy Mac's book!

I too think he is gone but you do realise that just because one player signs the circumstances for a second may not be the same ?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you talking about draft pick compensation as opposed to the band compensation?

Interesting...

Pardon?

The picks given will be in one of the Bands - if you want to disagree with that point by all means. But I think we will get Band 1 or Band 2 and that means Pick 4/5 or Pick 19/20.

I would love to know why the Bands are irrelevant.

If Frawley was a 'stayer', he'd stop stuffing around and take a leaf out of Tommy Mac's book!

its that word stayer thats the pivot huh!!! lol

still might proves us all wrong......aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhHHHHHHHH !!!!!!

only because of the photo above it - Roos pointing to the way out !

Now this club has two exits...there and over there

Those wanting to stay get on with training...get cracking

otherwise....

Hmmm I wonder if he knows ???

Pardon?

The picks given will be in one of the Bands - if you want to disagree with that point by all means. But I think we will get Band 1 or Band 2 and that means Pick 4/5 or Pick 19/20.

I would love to know why the Bands are irrelevant.

I would live to know who said bands are irrelevant. I certainly didn't. Poorly played, again.

You pulled me up for talking about specific picks for previous compensation, basically demanding I talk in bands rather than pick numbers, yet you too talk about specific pick numbers.

I have brought this up because of the amount of posters who think we will automatically get a pick after out first one (aka band 1). I think it'll be borderline with an end-of-first-round (aka band 2).

You argue for the sake of it, and often with no actual reason. You're arrogance and self proclaimed importance is tiresome. I think you need to stop reading Caro articles-she's running off on you.

I would live to know who said bands are irrelevant. I certainly didn't. Poorly played, again.

You pulled me up for talking about specific picks for previous compensation, basically demanding I talk in bands rather than pick numbers, yet you too talk about specific pick numbers.

I have brought this up because of the amount of posters who think we will automatically get a pick after out first one (aka band 1). I think it'll be borderline with an end-of-first-round (aka band 2).

You argue for the sake of it, and often with no actual reason. You're arrogance and self proclaimed importance is tiresome. I think you need to stop reading Caro articles-she's running off on you.

Billy, just ignore me if you think I have wronged you so.

For the post in question - I was using 'you' in the abstract - as in 'when we are talking about compensation, I think you should stick to talking about the Bands.'

That's not a demand - you can think what you like Billy - you have my permission if you need it.

I don't really know what I have done for you to just fall apart all over the internet every time I post on something but it might be best if you just ignore me.

Only just joined this post now and cbf reading through 33 pages of comments to see whether my issue has been raised.

Issue is, are we being screwed by the AFL in Frawley being an unrestricted free agent or is this just another example of how bad our club administration was? This is his 8th year at the club, which would make him a restricted free agent, however as he is not in the top 25% (top 9-10 players) for highest guaranteed salaries at the club he is an unrestricted free agent.

My issue is that Frawley signed a 4 year deal that was heavily front-loaded prior to the implementation of free agency. Specifically, the free agency rules were implemented at the start of 2012, Frawley re-signed for 4 more years in 2010. His contract was heavily front loaded at that point because we had massive salary cap space to fill.

The AFL site states that the rules for free agency were agreed on by the clubs in February 2010, prior to Frawley signing the contract. In essence my question is, did the previous club administration make a massive oversight in front loading Frawley's contract or did the AFL change the rules regarding FA after Frawley signed?

Only just joined this post now and cbf reading through 33 pages of comments to see whether my issue has been raised.

Issue is, are we being screwed by the AFL in Frawley being an unrestricted free agent or is this just another example of how bad our club administration was? This is his 8th year at the club, which would make him a restricted free agent, however as he is not in the top 25% (top 9-10 players) for highest guaranteed salaries at the club he is an unrestricted free agent.

My issue is that Frawley signed a 4 year deal that was heavily front-loaded prior to the implementation of free agency. Specifically, the free agency rules were implemented at the start of 2012, Frawley re-signed for 4 more years in 2010. His contract was heavily front loaded at that point because we had massive salary cap space to fill.

The AFL site states that the rules for free agency were agreed on by the clubs in February 2010, prior to Frawley signing the contract. In essence my question is, did the previous club administration make a massive oversight in front loading Frawley's contract or did the AFL change the rules regarding FA after Frawley signed?

we've been through this before

yes, he is UFA not RFA for the reasons you gave. not sure if club knew when contract raised about FA effect of front-loading (it was before FA introduced)

anyway, we all disagree about how they interpret it.....should be based on average contract salary

finally, bottom line is that most posters here agreed that (in reality) there is no practical difference between UFA and RFA if a player really wants to go

Does anyone think roos moving chip back to defence over the last 2-3 weeks and has stated he'll say there means he could be staying ? It seems odd his played forward all year and all of a sudden they've moved him back. Seems like maybe roos has left him forward and thought il let the back 6 develope without chip and now maybe behind the scenes his agreed to terms his moved back to defence where roos sees him playing a role in the years to come ? I just find it odd why his moved back all of a sudden

Does anyone think roos moving chip back to defence over the last 2-3 weeks and has stated he'll say there means he could be staying ? It seems odd his played forward all year and all of a sudden they've moved him back. Seems like maybe roos has left him forward and thought il let the back 6 develope without chip and now maybe behind the scenes his agreed to terms his moved back to defence where roos sees him playing a role in the years to come ? I just find it odd why his moved back all of a sudden

No. I think he played him forward because we needed him there and he's moved back because we need him there more than forward now.. As crazy as this sounds, I don't think there was a hidden msg and Roos just plays him where the team needs him.

No. I think he played him forward because we needed him there and he's moved back because we need him there more than forward now.. As crazy as this sounds, I don't think there was a hidden msg and Roos just plays him where the team needs him.

I reckon its 75% this and......

I say this as Roos is on record of disliking turncoats...as do I...and I imagine most.

Im sure we all read more into things than are there but at the same time we probably miss whats staring us in the face also

Wait till he goes at the end of the yr and all the journos will jump all over us about not being able to keep our talented players.

Geez I cant wait!!!!