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

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mego Red said:
Remember - he has to be in the top 5% of players aged 25 and over. Did you account for that in your math?

I'm also not sure where you get the 95 pts thing from - has that been stated somewhere? I might have missed that.
Click to expand...
In that case, would it be best for usbto keep DMac on the list and go and recruit a few other over 25s in min wage?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

baldandbroke said:
If anything this does show that the AFL are consistent in their inconsistency.

As you say 1970crow , those words feel like they are open to what the AFL said they would not do ... combine the loss to justify a lower pick.

Maybe it's the way they get out of this. They say we have the flexibility in the system to decide how the compensation is made up.

I mean, read that sentence again ...


They couldn't have worded it more ambiguously if they tried!!
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm not suggesting that they can, will or it's the intention of that sentence. I'm just saying unless someone has a definitive ruling from the AFL or an example where a club has lost more players than picks received it's hard to know what they'll do. Let alone state as fact what will happen. Even if Hartigan just missed out on band 5 and they did choose to apply his points elsewhere, who's to say whether they'd be added to Crouch or Rat. There's a lot of unknowns until the particular circumstance is experienced and the AFL provide us with the precedent.
 
Hodgy said:
This article talks about he system of ranking everyone between 0 and 100 then adding points for age. This would mean that Brads salary would need to be in the top 15% with 10 points added for his age taking to 95.
this is what I had used all year in assuming band 1 would be forthcoming, however there seems so many conflicting views that it’s impossible to be sure of the exact formula used.

www.theage.com.au

The AFL's secret formula for free agency compensation

Length of contract is largely irrelevant, but a one-year age gap can make a big difference.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au
Click to expand...
Yeah.

It's completely unprofessional that this is kept so shadowy.

The AFL stating that it is so clubs don't game the system is ridiculous. As it is, it's so the AFL can game the system instead.

Frankly, I trust the clubs more. At least it's obvious that they will work in their own self-interest.
 
BrissyCrow said:
Understand that logic and I pray it works but so far all the talk is that Crouch will only get a low offer. Anyway people are talking on here as if its a done deal and they are just getting their hopes up or dreaming.
Click to expand...
All the talk is a bit misleading.

Who's been talking? The club's that DIDN'T get Brad? Maybe their shitty offers were one of the reasons why?
 
Hodgy said:
This article talks about he system of ranking everyone between 0 and 100 then adding points for age. This would mean that Brads salary would need to be in the top 15% with 10 points added for his age taking to 95.
this is what I had used all year in assuming band 1 would be forthcoming, however there seems so many conflicting views that it’s impossible to be sure of the exact formula used.

www.theage.com.au

The AFL's secret formula for free agency compensation

Length of contract is largely irrelevant, but a one-year age gap can make a big difference.
www.theage.com.au www.theage.com.au
Click to expand...

That article is unsourced garbage.

It makes claims that it doesn't attempt to back up in any way.

It doesn't even attempt to claim it came from a hidden source.

It is terrible journalism, stating opinion as fact.

I've been arguing against trusting it for some time but so many are taking it as gospel
 
1970crow said:
That explains "nett". It doesn't explain "total points" in that sentence. All I've read is reiteration as to events that have occurred so far. I'm not saying it can work, what I'm saying is that I can't recall an example where it's been put to the test. If our only experience is a club, saybus, getting compo for each player individually, then the sentence hasn't been tested, so nobody here knows, they're just assuming.

With regards to the sending out a lot of spuds, that's not really how it works. Compo is provided because a club has lost these spuds to other clubs via the free agency system. The AFL's own words suggest they do look at the loss as a whole and award picks. We need an example to be certain. I can't think of one.
Click to expand...
Both Troy Chaplin and Danyle Pearce left Port Adelaide in the same year as free agents, and Port received two picks, not one.

There's probably another example, but I'm struggling to think of it. There's only been 42 free agents.

Edit - Buddy and Xavier Ellis left Hawthorn the same year, and they only got 1 pick. I THINK because Xavier wasn't enough to earn compo.
 
Last edited:
GROTTO said:
Its happening.....:drunk:


HOW SAINTS WILL GET BIG CROWS DEAL DONE

Adelaide will take on a pair of fringe Saints in order to get better compensation for Brad Crouch, according to Garry Lyon.

Crouch is keen to move to St Kilda in free agency, and the Crows appear happy to allow him to walk - as long as they get a good enough draft pick, which will be based on the size of the deal Crouch signs at his new home.

The mooted deal would see Adelaide trade for Jimmy Webster and Luke Dunstan, in exchange for “steak knife” late draft picks, to take on their salaries and free up space at St Kilda.

The Saints in turn would pay Crouch slightly more money, ensuring Adelaide receives a first-round pick in compensation - which would be Pick 2 - rather than Pick 20 or worse if the compo fell to the end of the first round.

“St Kilda and the Crows got together for a deal RE: Brad Crouch to ensure Adelaide gets compensation pick number two,” Lyon said on SEN Breakfast, reading news from ‘his insider’.

“The thought is the money was not high enough to give him the compensation.

“Initially the Crouch money fell under the compensation to make it happen, so the Saints bumped up his wage to get the average over $700,000, originally $550,000, which wasn’t enough.


“In turn, the Crows will take both Jimmy Webster and Luke Dunstan in exchange for a set of steak knife, late draft choices.”



www.foxsports.com.au

Trade Whispers: Jordan De Goey’s dad reveals plans, Lions coach sprung chatting with star

Trade Whispers: De Goey’s dad reveals plans as Lions coach is sprung chatting with star
www.foxsports.com.au www.foxsports.com.au
Click to expand...
Honest opinion
This is draft tampering

But within the rules. Will be great if we take advantage of it then the AFL changes everything in the future. ie. my suggestion (No compensation for RFA) - All the compensation does in RFA is create win/win situatinos and **** up the other 16 teams. St Kilda get their player for no loss. Adelaide get a draft pick. And 16 clubs have their picks move backwards for nothing. Get rid of compensation for RFA, clubs might actually match the bids (Like we did (or was it just a threat) with Dangerfield forcing a trade)
 
Mego Red said:
Both Troy Chaplin and Danyle Pearce left Port Adelaide in the same year as free agents, and Port received two picks, not one.

There's probably another example, but I'm struggling to think of it. There's only been 42 free agents.

Edit - Buddy and Xavier Ellis left Hawthorn the same year, and they only got 1 pick. I THINK because Xavier wasn't enough to earn compo.
Click to expand...

Neither of those examples are particularly useful in answering the question that I've posed.

Chaplin and Pearce both qualified for a compo band individually, so they got a pick for each.
Buddy and Xavier does meet the criteria, but given there's no band 0, even if the policy is to add Xavier's points to Buddy's points, you still end up at band 1.

The example that is required is where a club has lost more free agents than compo picks received where the pick received was not band 1 as there's no way to determine whether the AFL combined points or not as you can't move up a band from band 1.
 
Dirty Bird said:
Honest opinion
This is draft tampering

But within the rules. Will be great if we take advantage of it then the AFL changes everything in the future. ie. my suggestion (No compensation for RFA) - All the compensation does in RFA is create win/win situatinos and **** up the other 16 teams. St Kilda get their player for no loss. Adelaide get a draft pick. And 16 clubs have their picks move backwards for nothing. Get rid of compensation for RFA, clubs might actually match the bids (Like we did (or was it just a threat) with Dangerfield forcing a trade)
Click to expand...
If there's no compensation it will only weaken the smaller clubs even more and create a premier league scenario which will likely never change. The compensation burden needs to move from the league to the acquiring club. They should scrap free agency completely anyway imo. It was only brought in for wealthier players and the larger clubs to benefit from. They should increase the minimum time a drafted player needs to stay at his club from 2 years to 5 years The draft has become a farce with players leaving after 2years. I would also like to see the ability of clubs to move a contracted player anywhere they like. Lastly members should have visibility of player wages for every player on the clubs list. This will truly create equalisation and see all clubs have a fair chance to win a flag.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Murray2503 said:
If there's no compensation it will only weaken the smaller clubs even more and create a premier league scenario which will likely never change. They should scrap free agency completely. It was only brought in for wealthier players and the larger clubs to benefit from. They should increase the minimum time a drafted player needs to stay at his club from 2 years to 5 years The draft has become a farce with players leaving after 2years. I would also like to see the ability of clubs to move a contracted player anywhere they like. Lastly members should have visibility of player wages for every player on the clubs list.
Click to expand...
2 options.

1 - Keep the band system but give it much more clarity.

2 - Scrap the bands but leave the club's with the ability to trade players whenever they like, much like every other system in world sport.
 
Murray2503 said:
If there's no compensation it will only weaken the smaller clubs even more and create a premier league scenario which will likely never change. They should scrap free agency completely. It was only brought in for wealthier players and the larger clubs to benefit from. They should increase the minimum time a drafted player needs to stay at his club from 2 years to 5 years The draft has become a farce with players leaving after 2years. I would also like to see the ability of clubs to move a contracted player anywhere they like. Lastly members should have visibility of player wages for every player on the clubs list.
Click to expand...
2 options.

1 - Keep the band system but give it much more clarity.

2 - Scrap the bands but leave the club's with the ability to trade players whenever they like, much like every other system in world sport.
 
Stan16 said:
I'm not sure why everyone thinks the AFL is going to jeopardize the deal.. if we hit the contract numbers we are entitled to a pick after our first, which just happens to be 2.

End of story, if they don't give it to us, I'm very confident our management won't be happy and will probably mess up the draft by bidding on a tonne of father sons/academy players.
Click to expand...
There is a process in the compo picks procedure that allows the AFL to change compo if the result is anomalous, come on guys, it's been stated on here many times. Brad is not worth pick 2, everyone knows that including the AFL. If KFC throws it up, the AFL will change it, my bet is to pick 11 after the non finalists. The sense of entitlement on here is nauseating at times. Yes we'd all like pick 2 but don't forget we are pushing Brad out, make your bed, lie in it.
 
hey shorty said:
2 options.

1 - Keep the band system but give it much more clarity.

2 - Scrap the bands but leave the club's with the ability to trade players whenever they like, much like every other system in world sport.
Click to expand...
So clubs can make a really good fist of rorting it! That's why it's opaque with an AFL over ride clause
 
Dangerousfield said:
There is a process in the compo picks procedure that allows the AFL to change compo if the result is anomalous, come on guys, it's been stated on here many times. Brad is not worth pick 2, everyone knows that including the AFL. If KFC throws it up, the AFL will change it, my bet is to pick 11 after the non finalists. The sense of entitlement on here is nauseating at times. Yes we'd all like pick 2 but don't forget we are pushing Brad out, make your bed, lie in it.
Click to expand...
I think pick 19 is anomalous for Brad Crouch.

You say pick 11 ... but that is not an option. There is no band 1.5. It's pick 2 or 19.

In your mind, pick 2 is 9 spots too low AND pick 19 is 8 spots to high.

Nothing is fair in this comp. The fixture, the father-son rules, the academies, priority picks, MRP, the finals series, MCG GF contract, out-of-contract $$$ ... It is all unfair.

We finished bottom - and during the season were referred to as THE WORST TEAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE AFL. How can the thing that captures your attention, to the point of it making you nauseous, be the fact the we get a pick that is a little bit too good in less than super draft for our 26 year old best midfielder and club champion 12 months ago?
 
GROTTO said:
Its happening.....:drunk:


HOW SAINTS WILL GET BIG CROWS DEAL DONE

Adelaide will take on a pair of fringe Saints in order to get better compensation for Brad Crouch, according to Garry Lyon.

Crouch is keen to move to St Kilda in free agency, and the Crows appear happy to allow him to walk - as long as they get a good enough draft pick, which will be based on the size of the deal Crouch signs at his new home.

The mooted deal would see Adelaide trade for Jimmy Webster and Luke Dunstan, in exchange for “steak knife” late draft picks, to take on their salaries and free up space at St Kilda.

The Saints in turn would pay Crouch slightly more money, ensuring Adelaide receives a first-round pick in compensation - which would be Pick 2 - rather than Pick 20 or worse if the compo fell to the end of the first round.

“St Kilda and the Crows got together for a deal RE: Brad Crouch to ensure Adelaide gets compensation pick number two,” Lyon said on SEN Breakfast, reading news from ‘his insider’.

“The thought is the money was not high enough to give him the compensation.

“Initially the Crouch money fell under the compensation to make it happen, so the Saints bumped up his wage to get the average over $700,000, originally $550,000, which wasn’t enough.


“In turn, the Crows will take both Jimmy Webster and Luke Dunstan in exchange for a set of steak knife, late draft choices.”



www.foxsports.com.au

Trade Whispers: Jordan De Goey’s dad reveals plans, Lions coach sprung chatting with star

Trade Whispers: De Goey’s dad reveals plans as Lions coach is sprung chatting with star
www.foxsports.com.au www.foxsports.com.au
Click to expand...
Lol if the wage was only 550k Crouch should sack his manager. Right there tells me this is all a load of rubbish.
 
baldandbroke said:
I think pick 19 is anomalous for Brad Crouch.

You say pick 11 ... but that is not an option. There is no band 1.5. It's pick 2 or 19.

In your mind, pick 2 is 9 spots too low AND pick 19 is 8 spots to high.

Nothing is fair in this comp. The fixture, the father-son rules, the academies, priority picks, MRP, the finals series, MCG GF contract, out-of-contract $$$ ... It is all unfair.

We finished bottom - and during the season were referred to as THE WORST TEAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE AFL. How can the thing that captures your attention, to the point of it making you nauseous, be the fact the we get a pick that is a little bit too good in less than super draft for our 26 year old best midfielder and club champion 12 months ago?
Click to expand...
agree wholeheartedly with your comments. If the AFL don't like the system, then spend next year refining it but don't make snap changes this year on whims
 
Crow till I die said:
agree wholeheartedly with your comments. If the AFL don't like the system, then spend next year refining it but don't make snap changes this year on whims
Click to expand...
+1

FFS this is what shits me off the most.

The question is not if Brouch is worth Pick 2.

The question is does he meet the criteria for Band 1 compensation. Anything else is superfluous.

If the player was Dangerfield we were losing say on a $600k/3 years, I bet we would end up with Band 1, Pick 2 compensation.
 
Dirty Bird said:
Honest opinion
This is draft tampering

But within the rules. Will be great if we take advantage of it then the AFL changes everything in the future. ie. my suggestion (No compensation for RFA) - All the compensation does in RFA is create win/win situatinos and **** up the other 16 teams. St Kilda get their player for no loss. Adelaide get a draft pick. And 16 clubs have their picks move backwards for nothing. Get rid of compensation for RFA, clubs might actually match the bids (Like we did (or was it just a threat) with Dangerfield forcing a trade)
Click to expand...
Just like Sydney took advantage of the live trade "rule" a few years ago.
 
Crow till I die said:
agree wholeheartedly with your comments. If the AFL don't like the system, then spend next year refining it but don't make snap changes this year on whims
Click to expand...

It's the bloody AFL - happy to give Pick 3 for Frawley to Melbourne and gift the GC a priority pick yet suddenly Band 1 is too much for a recent B&F winner in a team that lost 15 straight.

They're honestly going to look pretty stupid if compo for Brad and Atkins ends up being around the same pick.

If the situation was such that Brad played for North and was leaving, I doubt there'd be any outcry that they'd be getting Pick 3 as Band 1/FA compo.
 
LiquidCrow said:
It's the bloody AFL - happy to give Pick 3 for Frawley to Melbourne and gift the GC a priority pick yet suddenly Band 1 is too much for a recent B&F winner in a team that lost 15 straight.

They're honestly going to look pretty stupid if compo for Brad and Atkins ends up being around the same pick.

If the situation was such that Brad played for North and was leaving, I doubt there'd be any outcry that they'd be getting Pick 3 as Band 1/FA compo.
Click to expand...
I would like them to make the exception this year..and say the optics of band 1 for brad is not great but we will allow it by adding his deal and atkins deal together for the single pick 2 - so we don't get separate compo picks. That could be an out for them this year..then evolve and refine the rules next year to make it a better system
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I_Was_There
Commit To 24 in 23 Membership Offer
Replies
0
Views
214
I_Was_There
I_Was_There
Macjoe
  • Poll
Game Day Crows vs Crows trial match in Port Lincoln
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
430
Views
22K
Sanders
Sanders
feenix67
Opinion Make the SANFL great again
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
5K
Pugsley
Pugsley
Go the Guts
Analysis Adelaide 2023 - #1 Scoring team - doesn't make finals - an AFL first?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
3K
MsTopG
MsTopG
ams4crows
Rumour 2023 Rumours and Speculation (Rumours total 37!, 1 (busted) BIG FISH ALERT last October 9th) (9 confirmed! 17 Busted!)
258 259 260 261 262
Replies
7K
Views
295K
MRB37
MRB37
Southerntakeover
Is there any reason to attend home games?
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
2K
Afcprophet
A
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Game Day Crows vs Saints, Rnd 9, Happy Mother's Day mothers
29 30 31 32 33
Replies
822
Views
13K
Drummond
Drummond

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top