Free Agency Brandon Ellis [Signs for Gold Coast, Richmond receive #39 compensation]

[Opine]

I don't know way I just feel like taking a refund and return the goods.

I think he’ll be good for GCS.

 

[Opine]

I don't know way I just feel like taking a refund and return the goods. I still keeping the receipt, not yet open, he is still in Melbourne.

You can’t lose. He was a free hit, and seems a solid character.

 

[Marcel Proust]

I don't know way I just feel like taking a refund and return the goods. I still keeping the receipt, not yet open, he is still in Melbourne.

sorry mate we already selling the sydney stack '20 model

 

[Duckimus Prime]

The rules that we have in place (which I don't like fwiw) means it's irrelevant what my subjective opinion on Ellis' worth is.

The rules tell us to look at the objective factors.

Based on his age (26) and his contract length 600k 5 yrs) Ellis is undoubtedly Band 2 compo.

You have the rule book do you?

Both Lycett and Motlop were described as just scraping into the band 2 compensation. its perfectly reasonable that those rules are reviewed each year, and contracts like theirs have now slipped from band 2 to band 3.

I think the only reason these objective formulas were thrown out the window was because we won the premiership. It's not the first time this has happened to a premiership team and it won't be the last, and supporters who are more concerned with outcome than process are as equally apart of the problem.

Wow thats just plain stupid. Scott Lycett's free agency contract and compo is often quoted as evidence that Richmond were hard done by. Scott Lycett left the team that had just won the Premiership.

 

[Peel67skin]

I think he’ll be good for GWS.

Yah, but GWS maybe paid him 50,000 more than Richmond.

 

[THE_GUN]

but are you not worried about what Carlton and Saints supporters feel instead of the rules and system?

Dont really care what pick we have to be honest , Happy with pick #40 and just get the next Ross / Graham / Stack / Pickett

There are probably 4-5 kids i really think are good in that range , The kids between 10-40 is anybody's guess this year and happy to have 3 picks 35-40

 

[Opine]

Yah, but GWS maybe paid him 50,000 more than Richmond.

I just realised I wrote GWS instead of GCS.

 

[Filthy Sanchez]

I think I’m asking the pertinent question; whether the outcome was reasonably fair. I reckon you prefer to shift focus to procedure; because you believe it might have otherwise led to s**t hot, well above fair, compensation.

So you believe my arguments are invalid because of the team I support? If I had said the exact same thing but was a Port supporter would they be any more credible?

Look at the trade radio thread and you will see heaps of paragraphs from me outlining why the compo/FA system needs to change because clubs like Richmond and West Coast will always have an unfair advantage.

I really don’t think I’m a biased supporter.

I just think the only fair thing to do is follow the rules and if you don’t like the outcomes of those rules, change it after the fact.

Eg: In the 2008 Grand Final Hawthorn exploited the rushed behind rule. Was it within the rules of the game? Yes. Was it done in good spirit and did it produce a fair result? Who’s really to say? The fact is it was the rules at the time and the umpires had to adjudicate it that way. As a result, the rules were changed for the 2009 season, but if it were upto you, they would’ve been changed at three-quarter time.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Filthy Sanchez]

You have the rule book do you?

Both Lycett and Motlop were described as just scraping into the band 2 compensation. its perfectly reasonable that those rules are reviewed each year, and contracts like theirs have now slipped from band 2 to band 3.


Wow thats just plain stupid. Scott Lycett's free agency contract and compo is often quoted as evidence that Richmond were hard done by. Scott Lycett left the team that had just won the Premiership.

Rules are on the AFL website mate. Not sure what else to go on.

Free Agency - AFL.com.au

Australian Football League. All the latest AFL news, video, results and information

m.afl.com.au

Would’ve thought that had they made any revised gaps they’d explicitly outline that. Motlop was 4 years 500k 27 years of age, Ellis is 5 years 600k 26 years of age. There’s a pretty significant difference between those two in Ellis’ favour.

I’d even be happy for the AFL to come out and say the formulae produced are unfair result so we altered it, just be transparent and work within the rules you created.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Funk]

Why does a conscionable outcome have to come into it? This is a competition. The competition has rules, all clubs need to work within those rules to give themselves the best chance at winning the premiership every year. If the AFL wants to bring in rules that promote different winners ie: the draft then that’s fine.

But you can’t set up the rules for all teams but then without warning change the outcome purely because the rule in this instance was going to favour a strong club.

Oh yes you can..........

 

[Funk]

We're asking for the rules to be followed by the letter of the law

1. A home team shall be awarded a final in their home state
2. Free Agency compo will be based on a player's age and contract offer.

One of these rules was followed by the letter of the law, the other was not. That's what fans of all teams are so annoyed by.

Seriously??

The AFL let Tigers take the best young forward in the game out of the worst team in the competition - for nothing.

You wouldn’t have won prelim without him.

And you are sooking because a borderline best 22 Tiger player didn’t get you a top 20 Pick in compo?? (When if traded would be lucky to get a top 40 pick).

Do you really think the AFL would let that happen.

I reckon pick 39 is “overs”.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[Filthy Sanchez]

Seriously??

The AFL let Tigers take the best young forward in the game out of the worst team in the competition - for nothing.

You wouldn’t have won prelim without him.

And you are sooking because a borderline best 22 Tiger player didn’t get you a top 20 Pick in compo?? (When if traded would be lucky to get a top 40 pick).

Do you really think the AFL would let that happen.

I reckon pick 39 is “overs”.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

None of those things you’ve mentioned should be used when considering a compensation pick.

I’m arguing for the rules to be followed as they’re written, you’re arguing for the AFL just to make it up as they go. I know whose position I find to be indefensible...

 

[Funk]

None of those things you’ve mentioned should be used when considering a compensation pick.

I’m arguing for the rules to be followed as they’re written, you’re arguing for the AFL just to make it up as they go. I know whose position I find to be indefensible...

Good luck with that........

 

[juss]

Dont really care what pick we have to be honest , Happy with pick #40 and just get the next Ross / Graham / Stack / Pickett

There are probably 4-5 kids i really think are good in that range , The kids between 10-40 is anybody's guess this year and happy to have 3 picks 35-40

Always great to attack the strong end of the draft and keep the talent coming through over the years.

Its been mentioned that Butler, Menadue and possibly KMac could be looking for more opportunity and seek a trade. If that were the case, Butler would be the first I'd move on and I wonder if we could package 39 + Butler for a semi-decent pick.

 

[Opine]

None of those things you’ve mentioned should be used when considering a compensation pick.

I’m arguing for the rules to be followed as they’re written, you’re arguing for the AFL just to make it up as they go. I know whose position I find to be indefensible...

I’m not sure there is such an expansively written rule; nor whether there should be. Maybe, a better solution is to appoint an independent valuation panel made up of representatives from each of the clubs. Regardless, the Herbs and Spices formula appears to have go it right on this occasion. It actually appears to have erred on the side of caution insofar as Richmond is concerned. I’m ok with, what appears to be, slightly overs in Tigers favour.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Rules are on the AFL website mate. Not sure what else to go on.

Free Agency - AFL.com.au

Australian Football League. All the latest AFL news, video, results and information

m.afl.com.au

Yet the page says absolutely nothing about what level of money, length or player age results in what band of compensation. Just that there are bands, and a formula for calculating what band something falls into.

So your statements about the rules are completely unfounded.

Would’ve thought that had they made any revised gaps they’d explicitly outline that.

I'll repeat what I said, both Lycett and Motlop were both described as being right at the bottom level for band 2 compensation. Yet they're on different pay levels. Which makes it pretty obvious that the levels for each band are revised each year.

Motlop was 4 years 500k 27 years of age, Ellis is 5 years 600k 26 years of age. There’s a pretty significant difference between those two in Ellis’ favour.

Motlop turned 28 this year, he's been at Port for 2 seasons now. He was 26 when he was traded. There was about 5 months difference in age between the two at the time they were traded. And actually Ellis's contract has been reported down to 550k now.

That reported $3 million might also be his total contract, including incentives and not just his base pay. And free agency compensation only works on base pay levels, not total value of the contract.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Don't know why Richmond are crying when they can enjoy 2 flags in 3 years.

 

[Opine]

So you believe my arguments are invalid because of the team I support? If I had said the exact same thing but was a Port supporter would they be any more credible?

Look at the trade radio thread and you will see heaps of paragraphs from me outlining why the compo/FA system needs to change because clubs like Richmond and West Coast will always have an unfair advantage.

I really don’t think I’m a biased supporter.

I just think the only fair thing to do is follow the rules and if you don’t like the outcomes of those rules, change it after the fact.

Eg: In the 2008 Grand Final Hawthorn exploited the rushed behind rule. Was it within the rules of the game? Yes. Was it done in good spirit and did it produce a fair result? Who’s really to say? The fact is it was the rules at the time and the umpires had to adjudicate it that way. As a result, the rules were changed for the 2009 season, but if it were upto you, they would’ve been changed at three-quarter time.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn’t intending to imply that you’re overly bias. Furthermore I share your sentiment, and desire, for AFL to better communicate how certain decisions are made. But it’s important to remember that it’s essentially a private entity; as such, it can reasonably do, and does, what it deems necessary.

Provided the AFL’s overall direction is in the interests of the game as a whole, it’s procedural anomalies seem somewhat more acceptable. In this case, it’s compo to the premier, for the loss of one of its mid range player’s, feels right.

But in saying all that I have, I consider it's recent decision to award GCS a 1st round priority, after inducing clubs to engage in future trading, was unfair; particularly to the Crows.

 

[Tbone McGraw]

Wait until you see what you get for Elliot ............... I'll wait for karma then

And what if Elliott stays. What will you say then?

 

[TigersMP4]

Tbh. The Compo in isolation is fair, Ellis is just in our best 22 and is always one of the first out. We’re happy to let him go and put up no fight. BUT, compared to other compensation examples like Motlop it’s a joke. AFLs clearly making an example.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gem in i]

Tbh. The Compo in isolation is fair, Ellis is just in our best 22 and is always one of the first out. We’re happy to let him go and put up no fight. BUT, compared to other compensation examples like Motlop it’s a joke. AFLs clearly making an example.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Isn't the system in place to award fair compensation? You say its fair yet complain what another team got a couple years ago.

 

[THE_GUN]

And what if Elliott stays. What will you say then?

Karma again as that would mean he has got a better offer from Collingwood which would be around the 3 years at $500k range and with Moore De Goey and Grundy all coming out of contract next year the Cap is going to be stretched so far its not funny
Grundy/Moore/De Goey are all going to be looking at $1 mi each

 

[Scotland]

AFL are taking the piss with band 3 compo. Motlop was a joke at the time and still is (a gift to GC via Geel) but you cannot keep a straight face and say Lycett should be band 2 and Ellis band 3. Near identical deals for players the same age at the time, a year apart. Can only assume the AFL wanted us to have an extra pick in case we traded for Kelly or Gaff left and band 1 maxed out at equivalent to band 2.

 

[zhoung]

na i hear it sits next in an envelope in gills sock draw

Nope, envelope in sock draw is the one with the ‘Columbian marching powder’

 

[TigersMP4]

Isn't the system in place to award fair compensation? You say its fair yet complain what another team got a couple years ago.

Like I said in isolation I believe it’s fair. But virtually identical deals in the last 2 years have gotten much better compo. AFL isn’t consistent, looking at the previous deals we should’ve gotten better compo.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app