News Brad Crouch to Saints (STK make offer; Band 3, ADL to match?)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

ABAB

Premiership Player
Apr 3, 2018
4,983
2,711
AFL Club
Adelaide
IT. WAS. A. DIFFERENT. SYSTEM.
I didn't argue it wasn't, I was just saying even if he was traded this year, technically given his salary he received then he would have gotten a band 1 compensation which is pick 3 and the argument that they are saying is Frawley got pick 3 and isn't worth pick 3 (similar to the argument that B.Crouch isn't worth pick 2) but he was worth band 1 compensation which Melbourne received because they finished second last which we would receive if B.Crouch earns $750K+
 
Last edited:

ltdamn

Premiership Player
Nov 29, 2008
3,122
2,862
Sydney
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Glenelg, Seahawks, Mariners, Celtic
Player worth is subjective, that’s why the AFL have parameters set up for this. If the market values him at band 1 compensation then he’s clearly worth it. You can’t punish a team for finishing last by downgrading their compensation to a lower tier. Otherwise where do you draw the line? If we finished 4th are you suggesting we’d get band 1? What about 12th? That doesn’t make much sense.
I've posted it about 15 times - the AFL will interpret their own rules however they like, and absolutely no one has a 100% certain view on how these bands are allocated from year to year. If the AFL think it will cause undue angst, media scrutiny, open up a path for other clubs to use, or screw a Victorian club in the slightest they will change their interpretation of this without a thought and say 'FA was never meant to give the clubs losing a player an advantage, it's only meant to compensate them, pick 2 isn't a fair representation for a player who only played x games this year etc etc etc.....'

I don't understand why people are clinging to this notion of 'but, but, it's the rules, they have to apply them to us the same as everyone else' - they won't, they don't, they haven't been for about 15-20 years, and they are not going to start now because we had one bad season which has overwhelmed them with pity for our supporters and admiration for our plucky strategy of accepting a salary cap dump from St. Kilda to manipulate their highly opaque system and threaten the integrity of the salary cap by allowing clubs who finish near the bottom of the ladder to get an extra top 5 pick and clog up their list with injured plodders from other sides, instead of giving list spots to rookies for half the salary cap burden.

To be 100% clear, because people keep saying 'but, but, it's the rules' I am saying exactly that if we finished 4th the AFL would give us Band 1, precisely because it would be an easy, non-offensive path of least resistance for them to give us 19 or 20, but because we finished last, they won't, especially when we try to game the system by incentivizing St. Kilda to offer a non-elite player elite money while they are trying to get salary caps under control.

My point is that the AFL will decide to draw the line wherever they ******* like and provide whatever reason they like and that we will be on the wrong side of that line, still saying 'but, but, it's the rules, why aren't they the same for us?', and being uncomfortable with the suggestion that we could just take Hately in the PSD instead of being honourable and maintaining our close personal friendship with GWS by trading them a decent pick instead of using it for ourselves.
 

baldandbroke

AFKA-OOTC
Oct 17, 2020
178
537
Hobart
AFL Club
Adelaide
I've posted it about 15 times - the AFL will interpret their own rules however they like, and absolutely no one has a 100% certain view on how these bands are allocated from year to year. <snip>
I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the AFL aren't a strong probability of making up some new interpretation that means we don't get Band 1 BUT that doesn't mean that we should just sit back and cop it. Being pissed off about this type of thing is important ... if we just keep accepting whatever flavour sandwich they serve up - well then they truly have won. We have to reset the standard at some point ... why not start now?

Maybe don't read the Brad Crouch to Saints thread if people voicing their opinion on what we get when Brad leaves for the Saints really bothers you.
 

Vhaluus

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2016
13,192
14,537
AFL Club
Adelaide
I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the AFL aren't a strong probability of making up some new interpretation that means we don't get Band 1 BUT that doesn't mean that we should just sit back and cop it. Being pissed off about this type of thing is important ... if we just keep accepting whatever flavour sandwich they serve up - well then they truly have won. We have to reset the standard at some point ... why not start now?

Maybe don't read the Brad Crouch to Saints thread if people voicing their opinion on what we get when Brad leaves for the Saints really bothers you.
If you don't want to cop it then contact the club, they're the ones who need to start kicking up a fuss preemtively.
 

ABAB

Premiership Player
Apr 3, 2018
4,983
2,711
AFL Club
Adelaide
I've posted it about 15 times - the AFL will interpret their own rules however they like, and absolutely no one has a 100% certain view on how these bands are allocated from year to year. If the AFL think it will cause undue angst, media scrutiny, open up a path for other clubs to use, or screw a Victorian club in the slightest they will change their interpretation of this without a thought and say 'FA was never meant to give the clubs losing a player an advantage, it's only meant to compensate them, pick 2 isn't a fair representation for a player who only played x games this year etc etc etc.....'

I don't understand why people are clinging to this notion of 'but, but, it's the rules, they have to apply them to us the same as everyone else' - they won't, they don't, they haven't been for about 15-20 years, and they are not going to start now because we had one bad season which has overwhelmed them with pity for our supporters and admiration for our plucky strategy of accepting a salary cap dump from St. Kilda to manipulate their highly opaque system and threaten the integrity of the salary cap by allowing clubs who finish near the bottom of the ladder to get an extra top 5 pick and clog up their list with injured plodders from other sides, instead of giving list spots to rookies for half the salary cap burden.

To be 100% clear, because people keep saying 'but, but, it's the rules' I am saying exactly that if we finished 4th the AFL would give us Band 1, precisely because it would be an easy, non-offensive path of least resistance for them to give us 19 or 20, but because we finished last, they won't, especially when we try to game the system by incentivizing St. Kilda to offer a non-elite player elite money while they are trying to get salary caps under control.

My point is that the AFL will decide to draw the line wherever they ******* like and provide whatever reason they like and that we will be on the wrong side of that line, still saying 'but, but, it's the rules, why aren't they the same for us?', and being uncomfortable with the suggestion that we could just take Hately in the PSD instead of being honourable and maintaining our close personal friendship with GWS by trading them a decent pick instead of using it for ourselves.
That was the argument around Frawley as clubs said he wasn't worth pick 3 but he was worth band 1, hence the AFL changed their FA compensation system to reflect this providing metric evidence that Frawley was actually worth band 1 and somewhat made this system "transparent", but some journalist like MaClure and Wilson thought he had to have an offer that would make him the top 5% of players hence stated that no one will offer B.Crouch $800K, however, they forgot it's only taking into account this system is only apply for 25+ years old players in the AFL which is why the figure $700-750K has been mentioned. So no, for the final time, the AFL can't just interpret their rule, that's why a club can request a review into the compensation which both Brisbane and Richmond did and both time it reflect this formula that they used.
 

Scorpus

Sack Them All
Apr 16, 2014
39,759
93,807
AFL Club
Adelaide
I've posted it about 15 times - the AFL will interpret their own rules however they like, and absolutely no one has a 100% certain view on how these bands are allocated from year to year. If the AFL think it will cause undue angst, media scrutiny, open up a path for other clubs to use, or screw a Victorian club in the slightest they will change their interpretation of this without a thought and say 'FA was never meant to give the clubs losing a player an advantage, it's only meant to compensate them, pick 2 isn't a fair representation for a player who only played x games this year etc etc etc.....'

I don't understand why people are clinging to this notion of 'but, but, it's the rules, they have to apply them to us the same as everyone else' - they won't, they don't, they haven't been for about 15-20 years, and they are not going to start now because we had one bad season which has overwhelmed them with pity for our supporters and admiration for our plucky strategy of accepting a salary cap dump from St. Kilda to manipulate their highly opaque system and threaten the integrity of the salary cap by allowing clubs who finish near the bottom of the ladder to get an extra top 5 pick and clog up their list with injured plodders from other sides, instead of giving list spots to rookies for half the salary cap burden.

To be 100% clear, because people keep saying 'but, but, it's the rules' I am saying exactly that if we finished 4th the AFL would give us Band 1, precisely because it would be an easy, non-offensive path of least resistance for them to give us 19 or 20, but because we finished last, they won't, especially when we try to game the system by incentivizing St. Kilda to offer a non-elite player elite money while they are trying to get salary caps under control.

My point is that the AFL will decide to draw the line wherever they ******* like and provide whatever reason they like and that we will be on the wrong side of that line, still saying 'but, but, it's the rules, why aren't they the same for us?', and being uncomfortable with the suggestion that we could just take Hately in the PSD instead of being honourable and maintaining our close personal friendship with GWS by trading them a decent pick instead of using it for ourselves.
The compensation formula is a secret for a reason. It gives the AFL total control over the outcome and the explanation
 

Vhaluus

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2016
13,192
14,537
AFL Club
Adelaide
That was the argument around Frawley as clubs said he wasn't worth pick 3 but he was worth band 1, hence the AFL changed their FA compensation system to reflect this providing metric evidence that Frawley was actually worth band 1 and somewhat made this system "transparent", but some journalist like MaClure and Wilson thought he had to have an offer that would make him the top 5% of players hence stated that no one will offer B.Crouch $800K, however, they forgot it's only taking into account this system is only apply for 25+ years old players in the AFL which is why the figure $700-750K has been mentioned. So no, for the final time, the AFL can't just interpret their rule, that's why a club can request a review into the compensation which both Brisbane and Richmond did and both time it reflect this formula that they used.
Brisbane and Richmond both requested a review and both times it changed nothing.

The AFL reviewing itself is about as effective as police being responsible for investigating police misconduct and corruption.
 

Shaz2012

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 15, 2012
7,590
8,008
AFL Club
Adelaide
The compensation formula is a secret for a reason. It gives the AFL total control over the outcome and the explanation
The Formula is also based on private data. As in a persons take home pay. I would imagine despite media speculation, and dickheads like Roo talking about what is probably confidential information publicly, that a players salary is still legally protected.

If the formula is fixed and then challenged. I can think of a number of legitimate reasons why it’s better to have the formula secret.

But at the end of the day, I would like to see the AFL at least held accountable to Australian law. If it’s true that they are treating different clubs differently, then I find it hard to believe they aren’t breaking some kind of laws that protect you and me as consumers.

The formula can be secret, but if it goes to court and found that it is applied differently to different clubs then I am sure that has to be illegal. Unfortunately all governments and their agents are gutless when it comes to sport.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

ABAB

Premiership Player
Apr 3, 2018
4,983
2,711
AFL Club
Adelaide
Brisbane and Richmond both requested a review and both times it changed nothing.

The AFL reviewing itself is about as effective as police being responsible for investigating police misconduct and corruption.
But going by the what those players got offered as reported it did make sense why the band compensation was a step lower than expected.
 

ltdamn

Premiership Player
Nov 29, 2008
3,122
2,862
Sydney
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Glenelg, Seahawks, Mariners, Celtic
I don't think anyone is under the illusion that the AFL aren't a strong probability of making up some new interpretation that means we don't get Band 1 BUT that doesn't mean that we should just sit back and cop it. Being pissed off about this type of thing is important ... if we just keep accepting whatever flavour sandwich they serve up - well then they truly have won. We have to reset the standard at some point ... why not start now?

Maybe don't read the Brad Crouch to Saints thread if people voicing their opinion on what we get when Brad leaves for the Saints really bothers you.
This is the Brad Crouch to Saints thread, not the AFC rolls over to the AFL again thread.

I think you are the one who is in the wrong place and you should send your post to the club in the form of an email instead of quoting my post.
 

ltdamn

Premiership Player
Nov 29, 2008
3,122
2,862
Sydney
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Glenelg, Seahawks, Mariners, Celtic
That was the argument around Frawley as clubs said he wasn't worth pick 3 but he was worth band 1, hence the AFL changed their FA compensation system to reflect this providing metric evidence that Frawley was actually worth band 1 and somewhat made this system "transparent", but some journalist like MaClure and Wilson thought he had to have an offer that would make him the top 5% of players hence stated that no one will offer B.Crouch $800K, however, they forgot it's only taking into account this system is only apply for 25+ years old players in the AFL which is why the figure $700-750K has been mentioned. So no, for the final time, the AFL can't just interpret their rule, that's why a club can request a review into the compensation which both Brisbane and Richmond did and both time it reflect this formula that they used.
How many times do people need to tell you that the Frawley pick was done under a different system?

Why are you clinging to this like a drowning man on a life raft?
 

ltdamn

Premiership Player
Nov 29, 2008
3,122
2,862
Sydney
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Glenelg, Seahawks, Mariners, Celtic
The compensation formula is a secret for a reason. It gives the AFL total control over the outcome and the explanation
Which is shocking, because the AFL has such a track record of prioritising transparency and equitability with it's decisions.

You only have to look at the fixture and it's position on jumper clashes to see how fair and equitable they are.
 

ABAB

Premiership Player
Apr 3, 2018
4,983
2,711
AFL Club
Adelaide
How many times do people need to tell you that the Frawley pick was done under a different system?

Why are you clinging to this like a drowning man on a life raft?
What are you talking about? I said that's why they introduced this "new" system after clubs complained about the Frawley pick 3 compensation and made this "new" system somewhat "transparent", the AFL probably even based this around the Frawely compensation formula given he would have received a band 1 compensation based on the salary increase from 6 years ago anyway, so some could even argue there wasn't actually any change to this new system from the one used to calculate Frawley's compensation.
 
Last edited:

Kezza86

All Australian
Sep 28, 2014
943
639
AFL Club
Adelaide
I can see crows getting mid first round compo. They’ll change the rules given pick 2 is too much compo and end 1st round is not enough. Hutchy said it today he does not believe he’s worth pick 2. That the mentality of vic media atm.
 

Crow till I die

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 6, 2017
10,868
10,757
AFL Club
Adelaide
I can see crows getting mid first round compo. They’ll change the rules given pick 2 is too much compo and end 1st round is not enough. Hutchy said it today he does not believe he’s worth pick 2. That the mentality of vic media atm.
That fat fcuk hutchy should have also said he is worth more than pick 19 or he is just a fat biased vic media fcuk
 

Big Crow

Club Legend
Aug 28, 2016
1,128
2,507
AFL Club
Adelaide
Those in the media should really stop focusing on whether Crouch is worth pick 2. It’s about the fact that we finished bottom and need pick 2 based on how sh*t we are.
Sure, but as you know the narrative changes depending on the club.

Like it or not this also feeds back into influencing the AFL’s decisions, and around we go again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad