No Oppo Supporters Re-signing Tex, Danger and Sloane *** Crows Only ***

[Kane McGoodwin]

My gut feel is we might be encouraging the AFL to make it appealing enough compensation wise to NOT match

Interesting - so you are suggesting the AFL will change the FA compensation rules prior to the trade period.

I wonder how the Hawks will feel getting pick #19 for Buddy.

BTW, the compo rules should be changed as no reason why they should be after another pick for that side, meaning bottom teams are better off than top teams, for losing similar valued players.

 

[Crouch#44]

How the hell do you come up with that?

They just freed up about a million bucks for an FA offer.

True but they are also closing the window on success. Without the vets I don't see their list being as good as ours!

I can't see them being a contender next season, mind you Johnson stated a few weeks ago he would take a dramatic pay cut if it help get danger over.

Finance ain't the issue

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Well, given Ablett was two first rounders... I'm not sure we could expect any better than that???

& the 2 x 1st rounders compo no longer exists - so the AFL would need to change the rules.

 

[Wood_Duck]

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. - See more at: http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/free-agency#sthash.RbcdlFUO.dpuf

Kane McGoodwin No rule change required

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

& the 2 x 1st rounders compo no longer exists - so the AFL would need to change the rules.

No they don't. There is a rule in there that says the AFL can adjust the compensation as they see fit or something exceptionally broad and non-specific like that. A Geelong poster pointed this out.

 

[Wood_Duck]

No they don't. There is a rule in there that says the AFL can adjust the compensation as they see fit or something exceptionally broad and non-specific like that. A Geelong poster pointed this out.

I resent that.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Kane McGoodwin No rule change required

No they don't. There is a rule in there that says the AFL can adjust the compensation as they see fit or something exceptionally broad and non-specific like that. A Geelong poster pointed this out.

OK, then this is a real possible solution.

Hawks will be pissed off, as surely Buddy worth similar value.

Main issue is we get reasonable compensation if he leaves - 1 x 1st rounder doesn't cut it.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

Anyways I am starting to get pretty confident now.[/QUOTE]

Can't see it happening, otherwise they would have done it for Buddy.

Nope don't agree.

They thought Buddy was going to GWS and this was the time for them to show FA works as it was intended.

 

[Allefgib]

Can't see it happening, otherwise they would have done it for Buddy.

depends how badly they don't want us to match

 

[Wood_Duck]

OK, then this is a real possible solution.

Hawks will be pissed off, as surely Buddy worth similar value.

Main issue is we get reasonable compensation if he leaves - 1 x 1st rounder doesn't cut it.

I think the AFL know that was a mistake. I get the feeling they may have decided to be more sensible. There may even be a reason they ticked off on the Frawley deal so seamlessly even though pick 3 was ridiculous.

 

[Allefgib]

Interesting - so you are suggesting the AFL will change the FA compensation rules prior to the trade period.

I wonder how the Hawks will feel getting pick #19 for Buddy.

BTW, the compo rules should be changed as no reason why they should be after another pick for that side, meaning bottom teams are better off than top teams, for losing similar valued players.

No - there is plenty of flex in the rules. The pick 19 for Buddy thing is a huge problem no doubt. Pick 3 or 4 for Frawley though...?

 

[Allefgib]

I resent that.

hahaha. Imagine how the cats feel...

 

[Wood_Duck]

No - there is plenty of flex in the rules. The pick 19 for Buddy thing is a huge problem no doubt. Pick 3 or 4 for Frawley though...?

Killed 2 birds with one stone. Priority pick for Demons and an apology to Hawthorn.

 

[Allefgib]

OK, then this is a real possible solution.

Hawks will be pissed off, as surely Buddy worth similar value.

Main issue is we get reasonable compensation if he leaves - 1 x 1st rounder doesn't cut it.

Correct.

May come down to how much the AFL don't want us to match...

 

[Wood_Duck]

hahaha. Imagine how the cats feel...

Exactly

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I think the AFL know that was a mistake. I get the feeling they may have decided to be more sensible. There may even be a reason they ticked off on the Frawley deal so seamlessly even though pick 3 was ridiculous.

Mark Evans appears far more sensible, so hopefully they overhaul the whole FA compensation to alleviate the current inequity.

Frawley = #3 pick v Buddy = #19 pick is ridiculous both ways.

They could easily come up with a valuation system similar to what has been proposed for Father/Son.

At worst, have the ability to provide picks beginning/end of round &/or mid-round, based on tier valuation.

A teams ladder finishing order should be irrelevant to FA compensation - that is what the normal picks are for!

 

[adelaidecrows]

How the hell do you come up with that?

They just freed up about a million bucks for an FA offer.

Because if they were going to make a play for a top 4 they would want proven players. By all there players over 30 virtually going it appears they are jumping into a full rebuild. I dont think this would excite danger at all.

 

[knobby]

No - there is plenty of flex in the rules. The pick 19 for Buddy thing is a huge problem no doubt. Pick 3 or 4 for Frawley though...?

imagine if Carlton get pick 3 for Kruezer !!

 

[Wood_Duck]

Mark Evans appears far more sensible, so hopefully they overhaul the whole FA compensation to alleviate the current inequity.

Frawley = #3 pick v Buddy = #19 pick is ridiculous both ways.

They could easily come up with a valuation system similar to what has been proposed for Father/Son.

At worst, have the ability to provide picks beginning/end of round &/or mid-round, based on tier valuation.

A teams ladder finishing order should be irrelevant to FA compensation - that is what the normal picks are for!

We live in hope.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Hawthorn were never going to be able to match Buddy's contract offer whereas we supposedly can

 

[Wood_Duck]

Hawthorn were never going to be able to match Buddy's contract offer whereas we supposedly can

The AFL are concerned about widespread backlash if we exploit a major flaw in the FA rules, not the least of which will be the AFLPA.

 

[sgPanther]

The AFL are concerned about widespread backlash if we exploit a major flaw in the FA rules, not the least of which will be the AFLPA.

North and Fremantle are exploiting the rules this week. We should too.

 

[Cap]

how is it a major flaw if everyone knows about it and have so for ages.

 

[baldandbroke]

So another little theory ...

Assume Danger is leaving for the purposes of this example.

We only get a compo pick or two if we don't bring in another Free-Agent right? Otherwise they work out what the nett result is and adjust it accordingly.

What if the AFL said - you can bring in someone like:

Matthew Leuenberger - Restricted (9 years)
Jed Adcock - Unrestricted (12 years)
Matthew Kreuzer - Restricted (8 years)
Matthew Suckling - Unrestricted (9 years)​

And we will still let you have a first round compo pick?

 

[Allefgib]

So another little theory ...

Assume Danger is leaving for the purposes of this example.

We only get a compo pick or two if we don't bring in another Free-Agent right? Otherwise they work out what the nett result is and adjust it accordingly.

What if the AFL said - you can bring in someone like:

Matthew Leuenberger - Restricted (9 years)
Jed Adcock - Unrestricted (12 years)
Matthew Kreuzer - Restricted (8 years)
Matthew Suckling - Unrestricted (9 years)​

And we will still let you have a first round compo pick?

Not sure any of those are what we want are they?