stop. bringing. up. frawley. IT. WAS. THE. OLD. SYSTEM.
-
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
News Brad Crouch to Saints (STK make offer; Band 3, ADL to match?)
- Thread starter doodle48
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
stop. bringing. up. frawley. IT. WAS. THE. OLD. SYSTEM.
Yea 700K is borderline AFL can change the pick if they want too, However 750K and they have no Choice, its Band 1,
- Oct 6, 2012
- 12,864
- 25,189
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Isn’t AFC getting pick 2 if Brouch hits the band 1 criteria the exact concept the AFL were trying to achieve with their so called equalisation?
Please re-adjust your tinfoil hat.
- Sep 5, 2017
- 1,973
- 4,144
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I cant see the AFL letting us do this.
At least if it goes ahead we will be in the clear. Simon Lethlean at St Kilda giving it the tick of approval is basically the AFL saying its okay.
I think you are missing something. Brad leaving Richmond would get them pick 20. Brad leaving the Crows will get them pick 2. It's the ladder position, not Brad's ability that gets the Crows pick 2.
Question,
I do know they calculate the base wage average x length for new contacts to determine where a player sit,
However its the top 5% in wage earners that is used for Band 1, That I am not too sure on,
Is it based on the Current 2020 age which rules out a few of the front-loaded contracts,
Or based on Contact average,
To date, I base my 5% on reported top 100 from the media, but notice Grundy is rated as number 100 for 2020 as he is at the start of a large back end Contract. and Cameron moved to number 1 due to being at the end pf a heavily back end contract.
I do know they calculate the base wage average x length for new contacts to determine where a player sit,
However its the top 5% in wage earners that is used for Band 1, That I am not too sure on,
Is it based on the Current 2020 age which rules out a few of the front-loaded contracts,
Or based on Contact average,
To date, I base my 5% on reported top 100 from the media, but notice Grundy is rated as number 100 for 2020 as he is at the start of a large back end Contract. and Cameron moved to number 1 due to being at the end pf a heavily back end contract.
Fawley signed with the Hawks for $550K for 4 years, the AFL salary has increased by around 40% since then which mean this would have been around $770K now, hence he would have gotten a band 1 compensation.
Moving forward, make band 1 compo pick 11 - and for all bands, take away any link to finishing position.
On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
fwiw - Brad Crouch was pick 2 in his draft.
Therefore it's only fair we get what we spent on him
Ignores fact it was a mini-draft only 2 picks deep
Therefore it's only fair we get what we spent on him
Ignores fact it was a mini-draft only 2 picks deep
Do we get 5 million $ as well?
I wasn't aware that was the case, you would think averaging for the year of the contract would be more fairer to the compensation calculation which I think they would do when they calculate the FA band for 25+ years old players salaries.
- Oct 3, 2003
- 26,916
- 30,910
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Soft spot for Brisbane
Surely Pearce and Chaplin is relevant?
Two players who's points were band 3 separately and they WEREN'T combined to create a single band 1 compo pick.
Unless I'm still misunderstanding what it is you're looking to discuss?
- Oct 3, 2003
- 26,916
- 30,910
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Soft spot for Brisbane
Realistically, players in the AFL aren't getting paid enough to be traded without their consent.
I know people like to throw their skirts over their head about how much money AFL players are on - but I don't think it's realistic to expect someone on $150k to immediately move their family from Perth to Sydney on a club's say-so.
- Jul 8, 2016
- 3,671
- 4,542
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Who writes this crap.Hahahaha this campaigner
I think you are missing the point he made though, which is that the AFL reserves the right to change their system without warning should the output be anomalous, regardless of how it's structured. If we had made the GF and Crouch left then absolutely no issue we would be getting Band 1, somewhere around Pick 20. That would not annoy too many clubs or draw excess media attention to the ambiguity in the AFLs FA formula.
It is the fact that the AFL will not want us to have picks 1 and 2 that will mean we end up having this compensation 'adjusted' somehow, or 'just' miss out because of [insert bad luck reason here]. As Crouch is not worth pick 2 on his own, and giving it to us as Band 1 will likely deny North Melbourne their first choice player, that will be the impetus the league use to push this to end of round 1 or Band 2. How blatant they are about it is really the only question right now, but we're not getting Band 1 for Crouch. If we get a pick inside the first round for him that's a good result in this league.
If you want pick 2 as Band 1 compensation, you need to support a club like Richmond, Collingwood or Melbourne, or alternatively one of the expansion teams will also suffice.
- Jul 8, 2016
- 3,671
- 4,542
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Fagan is a roll over pussy and would never do it anyway.
Purple
It would be great, but it's precisely because they would have to change everything in the future that they will not allow us to do this. They don't want players being traded as salary cap dumps to engineer more favourable FA compo because it will put pressure on the salary cap at the lower end and increase the average wage of the top earners much faster than normal, in a time when they are trying to reduce pressure on the cap because of reduced income.
Think about it, all of a sudden you've got lists where god (but not elite) players like Crouch earn 750+ a year, and we're paying overs to 2 St. Kilda rejects instead of elevating rookies on 150k per year. It would destroy the weaker clubs and create financial havoc while list sizes and salary caps are decreasing.
Far easier to put a stop to this now and play the 'must be equitable for both parties in a trade' card than have to retool the entire system again next year and set the AFLPA off by accidentally making things harder for players to move via FA as a knock on effect.
- Jun 15, 2005
- 69,233
- 60,483
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- AUFC, Everton, Sturt
There's always a moment where rules change.
I for one would love us to be that club for a change, rather than waiting too long
I'd also love it, though I just can't see the AFL being dumb enough to allow it to happen given what it would mean long-term, much less to the advantage of an interstate club like us.
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.
All this talk of "he is not worth pick 2 AFL won't allow it" is just rubbish, the rules are if Saints pay the price we get pick 2. Saints will pay the price because they don't have what it takes to get the trade done, simple as that. AFL have set the rules, they can't persecute us and ban us from getting pick 2 if it is in the rules. And contrary to popular belief the AFL are the ones making the decision not Purple and Co. it doesn't matter how much the Vic media hate us it is in the best interest of the AFL too have a financially strong Crows, and that only happens if we are competitive. The AFL need this to be a blip in our history, they cannot afford a Carlton/Melbourne basket case to happen here. They fought long and hard to prevent Port from said basket case they don't want us to be a financial drain as well.
IT. WAS. A. DIFFERENT. SYSTEM.
- Status
