deanox

I'm staying to think equalisation needs to be driven by the players. The AFL and AFLPA have an agreement that all players who get drafted should have theoretical equal chance of winning a premiership at any club they are drafted to. The players as a collective want equalisation because of the gap widens only 30% of players will ever have a chance at success. Our stakeholders are different than other sports where money is often the prime motivator. The clubs are member run so aren't out to make money, even though profit is important for improving and staying ahead. But the players, while restive by drafts and salary caps get paid roughly the sane no matter where they pay. Their big driver will be equalising the playing field for all players.

The minimum is there because the AFLPA argues that the salary cap is not only the maximum limit for clubs in terms of equalisation but it also represents the amount that its member players will be paid as part of the collective bargaining agreement. It used to be 92.5% but was increased to 95% in the last CBA. Many clubs were trying to cut costs and save money (read: not lose money) by paying players less than the cap. The AFLPs aid "that's not right, the players rant their share so should get paid that much. My problem with this restriction is that it assumes all clubs are equal. Also enforcing that restriction means that no club, not even the clubs with young inexperienced players and no true stars, actually has significant spare funds available to pay free agents. Add the practice of poor clubs paying less than 100% of the cap for money saving and there is no true free agency market.

That's a pretty good idea but the problem I see is a bottom ranked side buying 3-5 Free agents over two years at half price plus number 1 picks for those years. The top clubs would scream. I think the best thing the AFL could do is remove the incentive to not pay 100% of the cap. Forget the stadium deals, the poor clubs which are also some of the struggling clubs cannot afford to pay 100% of the cap and still operate everything else. These clubs are paying less than 100% to save money. Additionally the clubs that have poor lists still have to pay a minimum of ~95% of the cap to those players. Do Melbourne players deserve 95% of the money off the Geelong players this season? I doubt it. In theory we should be able to spend our money to buy free agents but because of existing contracts, signed to ensure we pay the minimum required amount, we probably only have a couple of percent available every year. On top of that we can't afford to pay more than 97 or so % so never have big coin to throw around. If we could pay our average quality list 85% of the cap, and also have enough money to pay 100% of we wanted/needed to, we would then have money free to buy a free agent when available. To do this, the AFL would need to guarantee the cap money as part off the dividend it pays the clubs. But it would withhold any amount not paid to players. I.e. Clubs can pay as little as the players deserve but cannot pay money as a saving measure. Players wages are artificially inflate by having to pay minimum cap levels to the stringent of the competition.

rpfc I agree the formula is to convoluted and low to mid tier players who happen to eek or a career for 8 years probably should be the players compensation is based on. But for a tan like the saints to lose Goddard for nothing would be really hard on the competition. And if Essendon manage to land sylvia the year after landing Goddard then that tells you the system isn't working. No struggling club landed a big name FA last year and probably won't this year. GWS and Franklin won't count, add it is AFL induced. The big names will go to the big clubs who can pay overs and offer finals opportunities. The middle tier players will be squeezed out due to cap space and will end up at bottom clubs. We have a system that allows teams to stay in the mix without truly being equal. With only a few minor tweaks this could be evened out without being detrimental to any team.

I didn't want to derail any of the trade threads (I.e. sylvia to Bombers) with a discussion about FA so thought I'd start a thread. There has been discussion about the worth of the compensation picks and whether they should be awarded. It seems people are on both sides of this and I'd like to understand some of the reasons. Personally I think compensation picks are a must. Clubs have a limited number of assets, players and draft picks, and when you lose a player with value it is hard to replace. To buy another established player you either trade players or picks, or replace then with FAs. Regarding bringing in FAs, this requires two things or at least one of them: the money/cap space to buy a player by paying over the odds and/or a desirable club ie facilities or on field performance. In theory, low ranked clubs should have just as much chance of bringing in FAs as high clubs; they should have more money to buy players as their playing list should be less expensive than the good clubs. In reality it seems that the poor clubs don't have this money. The AFL CBA means that all clubs must pay a minimum amount which is quite big (around 95% of the cap), so there is little cap space to work with to just buy a big fish. Additionally most of the poorer clubs don't pay 100% because they can't afford to. Even if a FA was available and interested they can't afford to throw the money at them. What I have seen so far is that the good quality free agents are interested in moving to finals bound clubs while mid tier players are more likely to chase a pay day. As a result those low ranked clubs can successfully overpay for average players but will struggle to bring in guns. A massive pay packet would be required to land this sort of fish. I think compensation is definitely required to make sure that free agency is fair to all clubs regardless of money or ladder position. Otherwise I think we will see the gap between the string and rich and the poor and poor get wider. Would love to hear some thoughts on these ideas. edit: cut a bit out that wasn't relevant

and we were rightly aggrieved. We got the lowest band compo. But the problem is that both Rivers and Moloney left for little money and Moloney in particular had had a dog of a year.

Sorry this article says player age and contact value and length to determine compensation. http://m.smh.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-free-agency-how-it-works-20121001-26ue3.html there are 5 bands, the lowest is a third round pick. We will get more than that of we don't bring another FA in. Looks to me like possible picks are 3, 17, 19, 35, or ~53. Subject to change based on other club's picks.

I agree pick three is ridiculous but the compensation bands aren't based on how good a player is. They are based on player payments and bnf finishes. If he is in our top couple of paid players he may automatically air in the same band as the top couple of players at every club. That is a pick immediately after your first round pick, which for is is 3. If he is in the second band that would be end of first round (pick 17?) And third band is after 2nd pick (pick 19?). As one of our only senior pays and therefore probably one of our highest paid players and with top 5 bnf finish this year, he would have to fall into one of those bands. Higher than he is worth but we don't make the rules.

What would we get for him a FA compo? I would have thought 1st or 2nd tier- he may not be a competition great but he would be amongst our highest paid players, is one of our senior players and is more important to us than he would be at a similar club. If we got pick 3 as compo I'd be ecstatic. If we got pick 18 of be pretty happy if we could trade it for a Taylor Adams. .. I'd like him to stay but we need to consider the potions. We didn't get a PP but maybe we can be awarded a high compo pick with less fuss.

I tend to agree, I think that Dunn is a much more complete and capable player than many on our list however his flaws are major and cause him to be considered an average interim only. With marginal improvement it may be possible that Dunn can start taking the first option and eradicate the lazy short kick across goals which causes so much grief. If Roos can inspire this marginal improvement, Dunn is suddenly a much better player and may last a bit longer yet. Also re playing up forward, I don't think he is a strong enough mark to do this permanently but short stints rotating on a flank with Watts or Howe maybe. I can't see him fitting in up forward with our last despite kicking for goal being arguably his greatest strength.

One of the players I am most looking forward to under Roos. Had natural flair and instincts to run and take the game on but needs to learn to do it both ways. Struggled to adapt under Neeld but the nurturing nature of Roos may allow him to thrive. Has the x factor not many others have, just needs to get the basics right first

Wad one of our most consistent all year, and played his role. Had two obvious flaws: takes to long to make decisions and stuffs up the occassional short pass either through skill error or flat or brain fade but otherwise can be a lovely kick. Hopefully with a bit of Roos induced confidence in both Dunn and the team these two mistakes can be addressed because he defended well. He does a lot of things right and ironing out the crap may allow him to hold down a spot and allow us to focus recruiting on other areas.

Perhaps if we are on the front foot off the field the players will feel like the jumper is worth playing for.

Don't worry about the ageing list, I'll be back next match! ps bump!

WJ you may be correct. I know it is sold over the counter at department stores as a cream and therefore I assumed it must have the approval by a therapeutic goods authority as a cream which may move it out of S2. This article gives more info but does not confirm my above statement exactly: http://sportsbusinessinsider.com.au/news/category/media-and-technology/aod9604-allegations-opinions-and-doping-so-what/

I understood the cream was an approved product so unlikely any problems. I hope he can get his pace back over summer, that is the thing missing from his game and will result in 5+ extra possies each week being first to the contest. Also I think the defence focus over the last two years will be a good learning experience, and that he can keep that up bit add back the attacking side of his game. Roos said in his article he thinks he can be a star. Will be great to see what type of effect the new coach has on him.

I really wish the AFL would allocate each club the exact amount of the salary cap to be used as cap or, if not used, handed back into AFL consolidated revenue. If players aren't worth money and only 80% is used that's great but the club doesn't see any money saving. Players don't get paid overs and of all clubs have guaranteed access to that amount of funds free agency will work better as the poor teams will be able to afford to buy players. That way clubs can pay players what they are worth and there is no way that they can try to save money through player payments. The AFL funds the clubs substantially anyway. Tie it to player payments to give a level playing field. This is the most effective equalisation measure the AFL could implement. And is more important than ever with free agency.

I'd like to see us now throw stupid money at a player for the psd that no one would dare match. Upset the system. Would prefer it to be a player from one of the big clubs.

If he plays 16 games for 30 goals next year I'll be happy. If we get 20+ goals out of Dawes, Clark and Hogan we will be well on our way to improving.

No priority pick for Demons I would love to have been a fly on the wall, and would also love to know what happens if we are just as bad next year. Is on field potential enough to prevent us getting one then?

just a note, my post was more about valuing a player based on his salary compared to bad on what we traded to get him on the list. But judging by your post Chris Dawes should be a great pick up for the club. I think he will bring effort, endeavour, leadership and that next day die attitude you seem to be taking about much more than he will bring a bag of goals or the ability to win games of his own boot.

BigFrog, I understand we a business we need to consider return on investments but I'm not sure "salary cap money paid" is actually an investment. That money has to be paid to someone Regardless. If it isn't paid we pay or to the AFL. The only cost/investment is what we traded for him. If we had a team of stars we were trying to hold together this equation is more important. But right now the annual salary is meaningless. As an side from that, if he was only picked for 12 games and played at casey the treat of the time due to form then it is a horrible investment. If it was ongoing/recurring injuries we knew about before we paid for him, then that's a poor investment too. As it stands, it is bad luck on a potentially good investment.

This doesn't add much to the convo but I didn't realise he played 12 games. Was probably underdone for 4 to 8 of those as well. I hope he has a big preseason and a good 2014 because I think he us one player who really wants to drag is up to the top.

The effects of the high altitude training are only felt for a weeks weeks or months which is why the training isn't done on the eve of the season. It is done in the preseason where it gives the players a temporary boost in performance and recovery for the next part of preseason training. As a result they cab train harder and recover faster thus train more in the preseason, setting themselves up as fitter for the main season. The benfits of high altitude Training isn't what they are age, it is what they can do with those benefits. At least that is the theory.

Clearly WJ the only thing we can rely on is what worked for us last time around. I implore the club to uncover the secret training methods used in 1964 and reimplement them in our quest for glory!