Tom lynch has apparently chosen richmond as his destination. 

Gold coast lose a key forward and get worse

Tigers get one and get better

 

Seems fair

Another way to look at this is to question why Tom Lynch is going to a club more likely than not to fall from here. Of course, his chances of being in a Premiership team aren't zero, but he'll be joining Richmond after they've peaked rather than beforehand. If he genuinely wants to play in a Premiership he'd be better choosing a team that's still on the way up.

Richmond lose nothing but salary cap.  Equalisation should involve the team they go to losing something in the process.  Otherwise the top teams lose nothing and gain everything, low teams lose experience and gain a risky selection that may or may not work out.

the current system has no equalisation built into it.

Richmond are built more around small forwards, crumbing and pressure. Saying that them getting Tom Lynch will make them better is questionable. It will make Richmond more predictable

No point complaining when the Demons will no doubt land a very big free agent in the next year or two.

Anyway, Jack Riewoldt turns 30 next month so it makes sense they would get Lynch.   Can you blame him for choosing an established club when he had to spend the first half of his career at the Suns?

Gold Coast is the AFL's problem.  It has nothing to do with equalisation.  They've been a problem since day one and have been absolute poo ever since.  You can't really blame these players for wanting out.  No culture, no facilities, no fans.

Imho i think they need to get rid of the minimum salary cap.

Carlton are paying (minimum) 93% of what richmond/wce/hawks are spending.

They should be able to pay their players next to  nothing and use the rest of the money to make huge offers to free agents.

Who is to say lynch wouldnt have gone to carlton if they could pay him 2mill instead of 800k at rich?

I don’t mind a rule where the top 4 clubs cannot sign a restricted free agent from a equalisation perspective. Then again if Gold Coast were not so porridge he may have stayed on.

37 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

No point complaining when the Demons will no doubt land a very big free agent in the next year or two.

Anyway, Jack Riewoldt turns 30 next month so it makes sense they would get Lynch.   Can you blame him for choosing an established club when he had to spend the first half of his career at the Suns?

Really? Really.....

Cause we have landed so many big free agents over the journey so far?

Nothing like getting a big head based upon falling into the finals for the first time in 12 years. 

Let's achieve something before we assume to being remotely close to a destination club.

The problem with free agency is the receiver pays nothing and the compo isn't close to what the losing club should get. Even if GCS get pick 3, that's not better than what Lynch offers. That needs to change.

26 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

I don’t mind a rule where the top 4 clubs cannot sign a restricted free agent from a equalisation perspective. Then again if Gold Coast were not so porridge he may have stayed on.

I like this rule too. Free Agency was introduced as an equalisation method so that lower placed clubs could attain players without the ned to trade. In reality, the lower placed clubs have just become feeders for the top clubs. Who would want to go to a team like Carlton and play in a team getting belted by 100 points every week when you can just go the Richmond/Hawthorn and get a premiership with minimal struggle. The best way to fix it is to put a rule in place where top 4 or top 8 teams are not allowed to sign free agents, but can lose them. This would stop the endless cycle of top teams being propped up, and mean if players want to leave their club then they'll have to move to a club where they earn the big bucks they're (usually) demanding.

Hopefully the senior players who took a pay cut to keep the premiership group together get their noses out of joints and they drop out of the finals in straight sets.

25 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Really? Really.....

Cause we have landed so many big free agents over the journey so far?

Nothing like getting a big head based upon falling into the finals for the first time in 12 years. 

Let's achieve something before we assume to being remotely close to a destination club.

The problem with free agency is the receiver pays nothing and the compo isn't close to what the losing club should get. Even if GCS get pick 3, that's not better than what Lynch offers. That needs to change.

Your categorisation is clearly wrong. We didn't fall in.

But back on topic, what struggling clubs need is not raw talent but senior bodies. Maybe the compo is a draft pick and the ability to draft say, a Luke Hodge, outside the salary cap...

yes free agency favours the top clubs, it also penalises everyone else, as the suns will get another early draft pick as compensation which pushes our first pick even higher, then add in all of the other free agent compensations we continue to get pushed higher in the draft pecking order. The bottom clubs get a junior when then need more seasoned players, like the ones they are losing. So not a fan of the current solution. players are finding it too easy to break contracts, and even ordinary players can get offered ridiculous sums of money to play with north, saints, etc.. I hope lynch going to Richmond starts a few of their players thinking about how much they are getting paid and want to move to equal out the competition.

54 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

I like this rule too. Free Agency was introduced as an equalisation method so that lower placed clubs could attain players without the ned to trade. In reality, the lower placed clubs have just become feeders for the top clubs. Who would want to go to a team like Carlton and play in a team getting belted by 100 points every week when you can just go the Richmond/Hawthorn and get a premiership with minimal struggle. The best way to fix it is to put a rule in place where top 4 or top 8 teams are not allowed to sign free agents, but can lose them. This would stop the endless cycle of top teams being propped up, and mean if players want to leave their club then they'll have to move to a club where they earn the big bucks they're (usually) demanding.

Is that the reason? I thought it was introduced to stop legal action on restraint of trade (if that's the correct term for stopping players from exercising their right to free movement). Perhaps someone with a legal background might know. I guess it could be both.

Just now, jnrmac said:

Your categorisation is clearly wrong. We didn't fall in.

But back on topic, what struggling clubs need is not raw talent but senior bodies. Maybe the compo is a draft pick and the ability to draft say, a Luke Hodge, outside the salary cap...

Clearly we disagree.

2 games ago we were looking at missing out on finals. Needed to beat top 8 team/s where we hadn't in the previous 21 weeks.

After 12 years, that's called falling in.

12 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is that the reason? I thought it was introduced to stop legal action on restraint of trade (if that's the correct term for stopping players from exercising their right to free movement). Perhaps someone with a legal background might know. I guess it could be both.

Quite correct. The rules as they were wouldn't have withstood a legal challenge. 

PS. I am a lawyer.

2 hours ago, buck_nekkid said:

Richmond lose nothing but salary cap.  Equalisation should involve the team they go to losing something in the process.  Otherwise the top teams lose nothing and gain everything, low teams lose experience and gain a risky selection that may or may not work out.

the current system has no equalisation built into it.

Equalisation is just another lie dreamed up by AFL HQ in a cynical attempt to appease the masses.

2 hours ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

Richmond are built more around small forwards, crumbing and pressure. Saying that them getting Tom Lynch will make them better is questionable. It will make Richmond more predictable

Footscray as I recall felt that grabbing Travis Choke would be THE difference, but they seemed to do better when he was out.  He seemed to unbalance the structure.

13 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is that the reason? I thought it was introduced to stop legal action on restraint of trade (if that's the correct term for stopping players from exercising their right to free movement). Perhaps someone with a legal background might know. I guess it could be both.

Im pretty sure you're correct. But it was also sold as "can help equalise the comp"

 

Paul Marsh was on SEN about a month ago talking about free agency. According to him it wasn’t brought in as an equalisation measure.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2018/07/24/free-agency-disaster-talk-an-overreaction-says-aflpa

35 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is that the reason? I thought it was introduced to stop legal action on restraint of trade (if that's the correct term for stopping players from exercising their right to free movement). Perhaps someone with a legal background might know. I guess it could be both.

Correct, that was a key reason for it's creation. It was also intended to aid lower clubs to lure players without costing picks etc. 

All reasons aside, Free Agency has been the worst thing to happen to the game in my lifetime, and changes need to be made to stop players being able to go to top clubs. The reigning premiers (who are favourites to go back to back) have just had a club captain and All Australian standard key forward nominate them. They get stronger. The competition, and therefore the game, is worse off. It needs to change.

I don’t like that the club gaining the player loses nothing other than salary cap space. If the AFL categorises the player as a first round compensation than the club gaining them should have to give up their lowest available pick. It’s not a direct trade as the club losing the player gets their compensation straight after their first draft choice location and it forces the team gaining the player to give up development of another youngster in their squad. 

Doesnt have to work exactly like that but Richmond shouldn’t be getting him for nothing. It was what annoyed me so much about the hawks getting chip from us. 

1 hour ago, bingers said:

 

PS. I am a lawyer.

Apology accepted.

2 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Really? Really.....

Cause we have landed so many big free agents over the journey so far?

Nothing like getting a big head based upon falling into the finals for the first time in 12 years. 

 

Yes really.  And we didnt fall into the finals.

I can only think of one player that has left via free agency that has then gone on to win a flag: James Frawley. Invariably, it goes the other way (Deledio). 

Besides, Riewoldt AND Lynch may well change their game style. I doubt Lynch would want to play in a team that merely bombs the ball long and expects him to bring the ball to ground. I know that's an oversimplification, but I think Lynch's arrival may well upset the fine balance they have in their forward half.

Edited September 5, 20186 yr by A F

I think the last decade or so has shown us that it's not top draft picks that make a club successful.  Melbourne tried that trick and fell flat on their face.  Carlton has had more no. 1 picks than any other side including the two expansions, and look at the good it's done them.  Our own example shows that the back-end needs to be properly run before things come together on-field.  Rather than worrying about the loss of talented but unfulfilled players, GCS need to get their act together off-field.  That is where the AFL can really help them out, just as they did with us.  None of this Priority Pick rubbish that both GC and Carlton are asking for.