Brisbane gets priority pick

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

22 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

4 & 13 for Scully

3 for Frawley

The AFL has looked after us one way or another.

3 for Frawley was a result of our ladder position. That's how FA compo works. You are assigned a band based on the length and value of the contract the player is given, and based on their earnings in the final year at your club. Those bands are tiered, NOT GIVEN PICKS.

That's how Hawthorn got pick 17 or 18 or whatever for Franklin and we got 3 for Fawley. Ladder position determines the end compo. It actually makes sense, because a crappier team losing a good player hurts more than a good team losing a good player.

The Scully case is not comparable because it was a one-off obtained because of GWS's generous raiding program, and again the AFL determined that the compo is partially based on contract dollars. As we know, Scully got a massive deal.

Neither of these cases were AFL handouts.

 

Having said all of that, yes the AFL has looked after us, just not in the above cases. They looked after us in the form of financial aid, and of course, with Roos and Jackson.

If the AFL chose to offer that sort of support to the Lions, fine. But awarding them a PP is contradictory to what they told us and the public. I don't mind the Lions getting a PP. What I mind is the AFL applying different rules to different clubs.

[Redleg 41,451]

52 minutes ago, Flamingdees said:

 

Not sure how the AFL can justify Brisbanes request considering ours was rejected. 

They don't have to and won't.

[old55 23,700]

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

We got what was prescribed by the rules at the time. We were a crap club near the bottom and that was the prescribed compensation.

Trust me, I would rather have got 18 for Frawley and been happy with our flag.

Frawley was band 1 - very handy that the AFL decided that was where he sat and not band 2 for example - the rules are not in the public domain.

We got more for Scully than Geelong got for Ablett.

[Redleg 41,451]

1 minute ago, Fifty-5 said:

Frawley was band 1 - very handy that the AFL decided that was where he sat and not band 2 for example - the rules are not in the public domain.

We got more for Scully than Geelong got for Ablett.

Frawley was band 1 because of the contract he was offered and his age etc

The Cats got less for Ablett because they were higher on the ladder. That was the rule.

Buddy was pick 19 because they had just won the flag.

[old55 23,700]

14 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Frawley was band 1 because of the contract he was offered and his age etc

The Cats got less for Ablett because they were higher on the ladder. That was the rule.

Buddy was pick 19 because they had just won the flag.

Yes all very handy - the contracts and the contract-compensation band formulae are not in the public domain.

[Little Goffy 14,643]

The whole thing stinks.

Not because Brisbane don't need a priority pick or that we did, but because the whole way the AFL administration goes about it's business is just crap.

Every issue, always caught on the hop, always improvising, always trying to find the work-around of their own rules.

 

Wouldn't it be amazing to see an AFL decision made based on a consistent set of transparent rules that everyone knew in advance, could plan for, and had previously accepted as a fair balance?

Pipe dreams, eh?

[Sir Why You Little 37,133]

We got much better assistance than just a PP at the end of the first round...

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

13 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Wouldn't it be amazing to see an AFL decision made based on a consistent set of transparent rules that everyone knew in advance, could plan for, and had previously accepted as a fair balance?

Pipe dreams, eh?

Goffy, did you have some mushrooms like that guy in that other thread?

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,939]

I don't care if they get one. They're an absolute basket case and deserve pick 1 ahead of the drug cheats.

The AFL have looked after us over the years. Just remember the AFL awarded us pick 23ish for Sylvia which we then on-traded for Bernie Vince. In reality we should've been given a half eaten ham sandwich for him, given his output at Freo.

[jnrmac 20,188]

22 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I don't care if they get one. They're an absolute basket case and deserve pick 1 ahead of the drug cheats.

The AFL have looked after us over the years. Just remember the AFL awarded us pick 23ish for Sylvia which we then on-traded for Bernie Vince. In reality we should've been given a half eaten ham sandwich for him, given his output at Freo.

No they didn't they awarded us a 2nd round compensation pick which because of our finishing position on the ladder ended up being pick 23. There is a big difference as has been discussed on here many times ad nauseum.

[daisycutter 29,740]

6 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

No they didn't they awarded us a 2nd round compensation pick which because of our finishing position on the ladder ended up being pick 23. There is a big difference as has been discussed on here many times ad nauseum.

that's all true, but the reason we got a 2nd round pick was because the afl decreed it was a band-3 compensation based on the length and size of the contract freo offered sylvia.  so, the main reason was that the wanchors grossly overpaid for col (and good luck to col, and mfc)

[jnrmac 20,188]

15 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

that's all true, but the reason we got a 2nd round pick was because the afl decreed it was a band-3 compensation based on the length and size of the contract freo offered sylvia.  so, the main reason was that the wanchors grossly overpaid for col (and good luck to col, and mfc)

Agreed. Its formulaic.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

The compensation was inadequate. He is going to come good next year after a good pre-season.

[rjay 25,092]

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

Frawley was band 1 - very handy that the AFL decided that was where he sat and not band 2 for example - the rules are not in the public domain.

We got more for Scully than Geelong got for Ablett.

I don't think they're in any domain 'Fifty-5'...there aren't any.

[daisycutter 29,740]

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

I don't think they're in any domain 'Fifty-5'...there aren't any.

like essington's records, the dog ate them (but we are sure they were absolutely fair and legal)

[jnrmac 20,188]

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

Frawley was band 1 because of the contract he was offered and his age etc

The Cats got less for Ablett because they were higher on the ladder. That was the rule.

Buddy was pick 19 because they had just won the flag.

Bingo

I don't know why people struggle to understand this.

And the reason the 'formula' is secret is because players contracts are secret.

 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

1 hour ago, Little Goffy said:

The whole thing stinks.

Not because Brisbane don't need a priority pick or that we did, but because the whole way the AFL administration goes about it's business is just crap.

Every issue, always caught on the hop, always improvising, always trying to find the work-around of their own rules.

 

Wouldn't it be amazing to see an AFL decision made based on a consistent set of transparent rules that everyone knew in advance, could plan for, and had previously accepted as a fair balance?

Pipe dreams, eh?

They did, and a bunch of teams exploited it and tanked to get PPs.

The AFL's solution wasn't to improve this transparent and consistent system, but to remove the transparency and consistency.

Good job AFL, good job.

[old55 23,700]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Bingo

I don't know why people struggle to understand this.

And the reason the 'formula' is secret is because players contracts are secret.

 

I don't struggle to understand it.  The contracts and the formula are not public, they're secret.  So the process is not transparent and is open to manipulation.  But the AFL would never do that would they?

I'd bet my bottom dollar it goes something like this ...

MFC have asked for a PP but we don't want to give it to them because of with their history of "not" tanking it would send a bad message.  Look Frawley's contract is on the cusp of band 1 and band 2 - I reckon it's band 1.

If EFC had a similar FA this year it would be - there'll be a firestorm in Essendon get pick 2 after what has happened - we reckon that's a band 2 contract.

Like Little Goffy - I'm not saying it's right but it's certain that's what happens and we've been fortunately on the good side of the ledger with Scully, Frawley and Sylvia.

Less whinging about Lions PP is warranted.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Fifty-5

[daisycutter 29,740]

11 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

I don't struggle to understand it.  The contracts and the formula are not public, they're secret.  So the process is not transparent and is open to manipulation.  But the AFL would never do that would they?

I'd bet my bottom dollar it goes something like this ...

MFC have asked for a PP but we don't want to give it to them because of with their history of "not" tanking it would send a bad message.  Look Frawley's contract is on the cusp of band 1 and band 2 - I reckon it's band 1.

If EFC had a similar FA this year it would be - there'll be a firestorm in Essendon get pick 2 after what has happened - we reckon that's a band 2 contract.

Like Little Goffy - I'm not saying it's right but it's certain that's what happens and we've been fortunately on the good side of the ledger with Scully, Frawley and Sylvia.

Less whinging about Lions PP is warranted.

if you accept the formula is "elastic" then yes, it is quite easy to understand - LOL

[Dante 2,739]

The AFL dragged us through the gutter when we were accused of tanking, forgetting that there were other clubs that followed the formula as outlined by the AFL itself, it was ok to rest players, it was ok to send players off for surgery and it was ok to play players out of position. How would playing players out of position go nowadays, there are not any that have a set position anymore.

We were found not guilty, fined $500k for the privilege and subjected to public disgrace whilst other teams walked off with their PPs and pointed the finger at us as cheats. 

I reckon the AFL owed us and any money or assistance we got, only made up for the lack of sponsorship and loss of revenue from a shyte draw we were given.

We proved that you can get out of the mess you are in by astute recruiting and good personnel, Brisbane should be able to do the same, they've lost players due to their incompetence off field as well as poor results  on field, they have a better base than we did so they shouldn't get any assistance, we didn't despite what some on here think.  We only got what was due to us.

[Tony Tea 2,809]

If Melbourne 2012 to 2014 didn't warrant a PP, then no one else warrants one. 

I remember a couple of years back when Gillon was asked on radio something like "if Melbourne didnt get a PP, how bad do you have to be?" Gillon replied that someone would have to die.

The spineless AFL allowed other whinging clubs to determine whether we deserved one, thus out-sourcing its decision making process.

Brisbane probably deserve one on merit - or lack of merit - but so did we. As usual the AFL stuffed its own position with ad hoc and inconsistent decision making.

If the AFL give the Lions a pick at the end of round 1, watch them later on use that pick to give Brisbane a higher pick if the Lions continue to struggle.

[Redleg 41,451]

58 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

 

Less whinging about Lions PP is warranted.

But given it's going to a club with better results than us and who actively campaigned against us getting a PP, it is warranted.

Maybe we offer them Dunn, Garland and Dawes and our last pick for Rocky and we agree to say nothing to the AFL on PP's.

BTW whinging is an enjoyable pastime to many.

Seriously though, nothing the AFL does surprises me anymore.

[daisycutter 29,740]

39 minutes ago, Tony Tea said:

If Melbourne 2012 to 2014 didn't warrant a PP, then no one else warrants one. 

I remember a couple of years back when Gillon was asked on radio something like "if Melbourne didnt get a PP, how bad do you have to be?" Gillon replied that someone would have to die.

The spineless AFL allowed other whinging clubs to determine whether we deserved one, thus out-sourcing its decision making process.

Brisbane probably deserve one on merit - or lack of merit - but so did we. As usual the AFL stuffed its own position with ad hoc and inconsistent decision making.

If the AFL give the Lions a pick at the end of round 1, watch them later on use that pick to give Brisbane a higher pick if the Lions continue to struggle.

maybe someone in brisbane has died, tony? after all it's a rather big place

[Biffen 12,947]

Give them whatever and get Hanley in  Red and Blue.

Wouldnt mind their skipper too.

[Demonsterative 3,020]

Bottom clubs don't need a PP, they need to pay their list accordingly. Clubs being forced to lay 95 to 100% of the salary cap is bullshitte. Spuds get paid too much like Dawes and Clark a few years back. the lions are in the exact same position. Over paying players coz the rules say they pay 100% 

If the Lions had the money they could potentially land a big fish and keep Rockliff and Handley. Or off load these guys for their market value and get compensated well. 

Until the AFL allows clubs to pay players their worth instead of over paying them as they need to reach a financial target, PP are in play. Give me a 2 nd round PP. As MFC supporters we should sympathise their position. Footy ain't fun being that shitte.....