Did the AFL make a huge mistake denying us a priority pick last year?

[jnrmac 19,908]

Look the draft is flawed we all know that. The AFL probably like it that way because they can manipuate/engineer results....

But its flawed for bigger reasons.

Look at it this way:

Carlton finishes last and gets pick 1

Freo finishes 1st and gets pick 18 (ignoring trading and compo picks etc etc)

Carlton pick 19

Freo pick 36

Carlton pick 37

etc

So after the first round pick the two team are essentially the same in terms of drafting order. The reality is that Carlton gets 1 decent pick over the top club.

Now if they stuff that pick up (as we did) or that pick is injured they will not improve against the top team. If the top team also happens to drag in free agents because they want to play 'in a premiership team' then the bottom team falls further behind.

This is what happened to Melbourne:

Our picks were poor.

Free agents left

Our off-field performance was terrible

we haven't improved over a long time.

We bottomed out at an appalling time because of the expansion clubs.

Coupled with bad draws, TV access etc we have been anchored to the bottom.

This is why there must be priority picks. Now you can argue what basis they are given out (average finish over a couple of seasons etc) but the bottom teams must get priority picks. Otherwise the rich get richer as hawthorn is doing and the bottom teams will be anchored to the bottom with no real chance to get off.

[KingDingAling 3,740]

I thought last year that GIl shot himself in the foot. To deny us a priority pick was short sighted at best. As a leader, Gil is reactive to the media, and he isn't a strong leader. He could've made his job so much easier by allocating us a PP last year, we qualified, we were ordinary, and a PP was a logical choice. But now if Gil wants to give clubs PP's, then he has to compromise himself A LOT, and he will be seen as playing favorites. The AFL want everything in their own discretion, but if you are a weak leader and won't make the tough calls, then maybe the AFL need to look at more concrete alternatives. Now the AFL are stuck trying to manipulate and justify a compo system. Carlton shouldn't get pick 2 for Kreuzer, he has been injury plagued, hasn't exactly achieved a lot in his career. At least Frawley was an AA and runner up B&F.

[rjay 24,616]

I thought last year that GIl shot himself in the foot. To deny us a priority pick was short sighted at best. As a leader, Gil is reactive to the media, and he isn't a strong leader. He could've made his job so much easier by allocating us a PP last year, we qualified, we were ordinary, and a PP was a logical choice. But now if Gil wants to give clubs PP's, then he has to compromise himself A LOT, and he will be seen as playing favorites. The AFL want everything in their own discretion, but if you are a weak leader and won't make the tough calls, then maybe the AFL need to look at more concrete alternatives. Now the AFL are stuck trying to manipulate and justify a compo system. Carlton shouldn't get pick 2 for Kreuzer, he has been injury plagued, hasn't exactly achieved a lot in his career. At least Frawley was an AA and runner up B&F.

Dill the likeable...

[Mondê 525]

The current system has to change. It's unfathomable that we could end up with pick 3 for Frawley, Carlton could get Pick 2 for Kreuzer, and Hawthorn get Pick 19 for Franklin.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Mondê

[KingDingAling 3,740]

The current system has to change. It's unfathomable that we could end up with pick 3 for Frawley, Carlton could get Pick 2 for Kreuzer, and Hawthorn get Pick 19 for Franklin.

That is not what is broken. If Frawley was worth pick 3, then Hawthorn really got pick 3 and 19 for Franklin, and still have cap space to chase another player. This could end up being Frawley, Bennell and pick 19 for Franklin. In the long term, that is a better deal. Plus they got O'Rourke for very little. We are moving towards unregulated FA, which will make cash the king, so I don't feel sorry for Hawthorn at all.

[DeeSpencer 24,796]

I love Brayshaw, love the pick 3 as well, but the highest pick available should for compo should be pick 11 so that all non finalists get a crack at a top 10 pick.

That's what we should've got last year for Frawley.

Carlton this year would either get pick 11 or pick 20 for Kreuzer depending on which category he fell in and we could all live with that.

The AFL should just come out today and say, we've changed the rules, Melbourne got lucky, top pick will now be 11, move on.

[Redleg 40,233]

If Garland left on a reasonable contract we would have received pick after our first. Neither he nor leuenberger nor kreuzer are worth that.

[rpfc 28,052]

If Garland left on a reasonable contract we would have received pick after our first. Neither he nor leuenberger nor kreuzer are worth that.

It would be more than 'reasonable' - Frawley's contract is reportedly $600k+.

That's not reasonable...

[old dee 23,506]

It would be more than 'reasonable' - Frawley's contract is reportedly $600k+.

That's not reasonable...

Can you let me know the ones that are it will be a much easier list to establish

[rpfc 28,052]

Can you let me know the ones that are it will be a much easier list to establish

I am just saying that Kreuzer and Leuenberger getting similar contracts would not be expected considering their injury history. But, hey, the market will decide that.

I just hope the AFL doesn't 'nudge' the comp bands to help these teams.

[McQueen 17,864]

The AFL made an almighty mistake last year.Pick 3 was obviously a priority pick in disguise because it was simply an unpalatable PR situation giving us one outright, but nudging up our compensation for Frawley allowed them to help us in stealth. So what's the problem? They've now cornered themselves into a situation where lowly clubs are better off pushing out their free agents and rorting the compensation because the threshold of band 1 now has a lowly precedent. $500k will be peanuts for clubs in a few years. All and sundry now discuss compensation for Brisbane and Carlton as if pick 2 and 4 are a fait accompli. Disastrously for the AFL, they desperately need Brisbane to get the kid who Carlton will now take with pick 2 compo if, as expected, they push out Kreuzer (Carlton withdrew their contract to Kreuzer upon hearing what money other clubs are offering him, realising the likelihood of getting pick 2).So once again, the AFL are caught with their pants down, and their inability to be transparent in their decision making has created yet another rort for clubs to legally exploit; if clubs sense a free agent is leaving, it now benefits teams to sink on the ladder for a year and secure two high draft picks before climbing up again. This is worse than the old priority pick rules (two seasons at the bottom) which no modern club would willingly do just to get one extra first rounder.The problem is, while pick 3 was overs for Frawley, their only alternative was a wholly inadequate end-of-first rounder for a club in dire need of help. But surely we're past the point of farce if Carlton can get pick 2 for Kreuzer and Brisbane can get pick 4 for Leuenberger. The most pathetic irony of the situation though? Carlton tanked to get Kreuzer and are now rorting the system once again to get compensation for his departure. Another absolute farce of a situation created by the geniuses at AFL House who should've been transparent in the first place about our compensation for Frawley.

Surely the most logical solution here is to limit band 1 compo to begin after pick 10, so the first pick after the year's non-finalists. With these 10 teams all striving to get up the ladder, and the negative ripple affect that compensation has inside the precious top 10 picks, it's simply too detrimental on the numerous struggling clubs in desperate need of high-end talent. The AFL were forced to change the PP rules because teams found out how to exploit it; well, it hasn't taken them long to discover how to exploit this. The rewards for losing are once again becoming far greater than the rewards for winning.

See that muppet Barrett has been stealing stories from forums again. The bloke is a world class stroker.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-10/scrap-the-compo-pick-says-barrett?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

See that muppet Barrett has been stealing stories from forums again. The bloke is a world class stroker.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2015-09-10/scrap-the-compo-pick-says-barrett?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=RSS+feed%3A+AFL+Latest+News

Yeah but at least he stole a good idea this time.

[Little Goffy 14,071]

The AFL made a huge mistake in two ways -

1. They kept the priority pick allocation to a secretive, mysterious, unaccountable and fundamentally 'at the whim of the executive' system.

2. They failed to develop a way for compensation (for Free Agents, priority picks, anything) to be made incremental, instead bungling it again such that a club might do a little bit of tweaking resulting in a big jump in value gained.

Let's be honest, last year we should've ended up with two extra picks at the end of the first round (PP and Frawley compo).

Now the whole thing has been knocked out of balance again because the AFL Executive just... can't... stop... meddling.

It's all about them, in their minds.

[Dockett 32 1,237]

Some people, I think, are trying, or will try to blur the compensation for losing a free agent and a priority pick. IMO they are unrelated with the precedent set/confirmed last year.

Blurring the rules doesn't cut it, but precedent surely must.

I also am enjoying recalling the words from the Lions last year in relation to their objection to our case for a PP which surely was stronger than their current position.

On reflection however ,maybe they were right last year in relation to PP's and no one should get one.

[Moonshadow 17,558]

Carlton have officially applied for a PP. Did so last night.

Good luck with that!

[dazzledavey36 52,915]

Knowing our luck they will get one..

Mike Fitzpatrick will no doubt put his hand out the [censored]

[sue 9,020]

Carlton have officially applied for a PP. Did so last night.

Good luck with that!

We should do the same just to make a point.

[SaberFang 7,151]

Personally I think Carlton are just shooting themselves in the foot here. They probably think they're so smart. "This is what Melbourne did! They just asked for a PP to ensure pick 3! We'll do the same!"

Unfortunately, in doing so, they're screwing the AFL's pet Brisbane and putting all parties in a thoroughly difficult position. The only viable solution to this mess now appears to be the sensible thing: no clubs get a priority pick (a fair outcome considering the precedent they set last year with us) and to ensure Schache gets to Brisbane Kreuzer's compo will be band 2. Their "secret formula" might just involve a sudden minimum salary increase to breach the band 1 compo threshold (at $625k x4 years, it's set far too low).

I doubt Kreuzer was ever going to get band 1 at $500k/year, but he's certainly not getting it now when the AFL need Brisbane to get pick 2.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Lamashtu

[rpfc 28,052]

Personally I think Carlton are just shooting themselves in the foot here. They probably think they're so smart. "This is what Melbourne did! They just asked for a PP to ensure pick 3! We'll do the same!"

Unfortunately, in doing so, they're screwing the AFL's pet Brisbane and putting all parties in a thoroughly difficult position. The only viable solution to this mess now appears to be the sensible thing: no clubs get a priority pick (a fair outcome considering the precedent they set last year with us) and to ensure Schache gets to Brisbane Kreuzer's compo will be band 2. Their "secret formula" might just involve a sudden minimum salary increase to breach the band 1 compo threshold (at $625k x4 years, it's set far too low).

I doubt Kreuzer was ever going to get band 1 at $500k/year, but he's certainly not getting it now when the AFL need Brisbane to get pick 2.

Can you show me the source of this?

I doubt that would be a specific dollar amount considering the cap goes up about $400k every year.

[Whispering_Jack 29,249]

The AFL has the luxury of being able to deal with requests for special assistance and compensation in any way it wants because the criteria it applies are deliberately vague and capable of being interpreted in different ways. Unfortunately, this opens the door up for abuse and corruption.

On its special assistance rule, Melbourne was denied in 2013 after several years of poor results and only two wins during that particular season for reasons that were so nonsensical that they beggared belief. In 2014, we were fed with another story about the denial of special assistance somehow making it possible for Melbourne to receive Band 1 free agency compensation even though the James Frawley situation warranted it anyway.

Carlton now claims the right to special assistance despite in recent times just missing out on making a preliminary final (when it lost to the Eagles in a semi final in Perth) and beating Richmond in an elimination final in 2013.

Brisbane has made the finals within the past five years and earlier this year was considered a finals prospect before injuries hit them hard. The Lions' last outing this season was a win against one of this year's finalists and two of the four players who shared in the Merrett-Murray Medal were recruited from other clubs this year while another, missed out by two votes to finish in the top five vote getters:-

1. Dayne Beams (130)

1. Stefan Martin (130)

1. Mitch Robinson (130)

1. Dayne Zorko (130)

5. Allen Christensen (128)

Most of their other top ten place getters are also relatively new to the club. Hence, on the basis of one of the reasons given by the League for excluding Melbourne in 2013, special assistance doesn't apply to them either.

The AFL will have to exercise more mental gymnastics if it is to help Brisbane out of the situation whereby Carlton will claim Band 1 compensation in the event of Kreuzer leaving. The circumstances are extraordinary with claims of the Blues making him a lowball offer to invite approached from other clubs and the AFL has already put it out there that it might not look at Band 1 in the same light as it did with Frawley because inflation, salary cap increases and spending are greater this year. You could also add that the vagueness of the guidelines mean that the AFL will consider the differences in a player's history, the position he plays, past records of injury etc. Frawley was a former All Australian in a reasonable state of good health - you can't say that about Kreuzer or Leuenberger for that matter.

In addition, I still think there's a very good case to argue for special assistance to be given to Melbourne on the basis of its lengthy run of lowly finishes which runs into 2015 but to do so would be to flog the proverbial dead horse.

Except of course that the AFL revived that horse by letting out the connection between knocking back special assistance and then awarding Band 1 compensation for the loss of a player to free agency.

That suggestion is to my mind not only outrageous but, close to an abuse of power. The two should never be connected and to do so raises questions of whether those charged with dealing with these issues are properly carrying out their duty of good governance.

And by the way that the AFL and its stronger clubs have gone about matters such as special assistance to struggling clubs, be it in terms of the draft, the draw and financial assistance in lieu of getting the plum fixtures, I'm convinced that it no longer takes the equalisation of the competition seriously.

[monoccular 17,340]

the current system just means the best clubs kept attracting the best talent and the lower clubs end up paying overs for b graders.

and the lower clubs will just act as development factories.......take some high draft picks, work out which ones turn out ok and which don't.......the top teams skim the cream.....further draft picks offered and the cycle goes on and on and on and on.......

Pick 3 wasn't overs for Frawley, though. That's based upon an entirely subjective interpretation of his value, which is only determined by his salary.

Salary + finishing position = compensation

If those same players were leaving top teams the pick would be higher.

So many on here cry about equalisation and this system actually adequately compensates poor teams that lose players with high market value.

The only way to determine a player's value is salary. Any other interpretation is merely subjective.

and as I said above the cycle goes on and on and on and on.....

The lower clubs will have to have a shitload of luck to ever get out of the mire whilst the chosen clubs will continue successfully skimming the cream (OK, Hawks seem to have got the Frawley one wrong this time around).

But, back to the thread title - yes and no.

Yes as we should have under the guidelines have received a PP.

No because the AFL are well known for making off the cuff decisions and will help Carlton and Brisbane in any way they choose, and justify it to their own satisfaction.

Edited September 13, 2015 by monoccular

[Tony Tea 2,806]

Apropos the so-called "secret formula" here is something I wrote on Facebook last week:

"It’s a complex formula says AFL footy manager Mark Evans." Yeah, right, complex formula. It's not a complex formula! It's not even a formula. It's a bunch of AFL decision makers sitting behind closed doors making ad hoc and arbitrary decisions on the run to suit any given situation. Formula? Rubbish.

The AFL would never lock themselves into a hard and fast formula. They want wriggle room to manufacture outcomes to any given contingency. What's more, most every contingency is a media-fuelled beat-up which requires an AFL knee-jerk solution.

[KingDingAling 3,740]

The AFL has the luxury of being able to deal with requests for special assistance and compensation in any way it wants because the criteria it applies are deliberately vague and capable of being interpreted in different ways. Unfortunately, this opens the door up for abuse and corruption.

That is what really annoys me. These decisions are to AFL discretion, and nothing should be left to the discretion of that mob. They are incompetent. We actually needed a PP last year, and we qualified under the old system. But now the AFL done away with that system, they now decide their own method, and they do so on the run. It is a joke. Carlton traded Jacob, Grigg, Betts, Garlett. Three of those players would be in their top 5 players if they were still on the list. They bungled the Lucas pick - in which they got for Fevola. If Carlton are malingering at the bottom, that is largely their own doing - mismanagement. Why reward that? Same as Brisbane. Brisbane have actually had QUALITY talent, Polec, Yeo, Longer, Crisp, yet the Lions didn't create an environment required to keep these players, so rewarding them with a PP is just a waste, they need to fix their environmnent, only then should they be rewarded with a PP. MFC should get a PP before those teams even now, because we have improved, we've improved our culture under Roos and the AFL should reward that if anything. Not that I think any team really needs a PP, but the AFL shouldn't reward mismanagement.