List Mgmt. Daniher Contract - illegal?

[Gethelred]

Agree it should go this way, or the AFL generate a "points value" for the player and the gaining club loses those points from their picks.

That could be an interesting solution. Do you add your points to your first round pick, bumping you up a few places? Do you add your points to your second, and try to get two firsts? Do you split your point between your second and third, to try and get an early and a late second?

Still allow for gaming the system, though.

 

[Le Grille]

Could you base it on a yearly average of career earnings , surely that’d give a good idea of the players value to the club

 

[branedotorg]

Just another instance of the AFL making silly rules and applying a retrospective tape to wherever the leak appears... the whole league is run by buffoons.

The problem is and has always been 'compensation', it is completely flawed in theory and in practice, the whole idea of compensation in a free agency deal is perverse and should be scrapped entirely.

there's an easy fix though.

publish player salaries and publish the compensation index

 

[iameviljez]

Because it was clearly instigated by the bombers as they're the only ones to gain from it. Little doubt a gentlemen's agreement was arranged.

Every other club loses out of compo picks

 

[jim boy]

This seems to be becoming more common - AFL should make a rule that for the five years following a trade, the average yearly salary (as calculated as the average of the contract) cannot be lower than the average yearly contract of the initial contract. But they still have the right to trade/not renew said player within that five years

 

[dumb]

I would imagine the AFL bat the criticism away with mentioning age being one of the numbers input into the magic calculation for compensation.

 

[boncer34]

Should be stripped of their first rounder - which is what they would have had to give up for Daniher

Agreed. And it should go to Essendon because it's the pick they'd have received if the Lions hadn't been sneaky.

 

[Aramis]

there's an easy fix though.

publish player salaries and publish the compensation index

There is an even easier one which doesn't operate at the detriment of the other 16 teams; no compensation.

 

[DanA]

Teams rort where ever they see an advantage. Whether it's Compensatory picks, the FS process, academies, sponsorships, etc......the list goes on. Why would they not do it with Free Agency where they can.

 

[spotthedog1]

The "no compensation" argument is too simplistic. It negates the real problem. Free agency was brought in as an equalisation method, and repeatedly has the opposite effect. I ran the stats a few years back, and there was only 1 player worth a 1st round pick who had moved down the ladder.

There may have been another since, but I can't recall it off the top of my head. Free agency sends the best players to the clubs in contention.

The solution isn't "abolish compensation", which increases the gap between the haves and have-nots. The solution is "abolish free agency". Why should anyone be able to claim a top rung player without losing something? It's a ridiculous system.

 

[Shoei]

The "no compensation" argument is too simplistic. It negates the real problem. Free agency was brought in as an equalisation method, and repeatedly has the opposite effect. I ran the stats a few years back, and there was only 1 player worth a 1st round pick who had moved down the ladder.

There may have been another since, but I can't recall it off the top of my head. Free agency sends the best players to the clubs in contention.

The solution isn't "abolish compensation", which increases the gap between the haves and have-nots. The solution is "abolish free agency". Why should anyone be able to claim a top rung player without losing something? It's a ridiculous system.

The issue is the shitty version of "free agency" the AFL has, wanting to have it's cake and eat it too.

You want to decrease the gap between the haves and have-nots? here's how

1. Complete "Free Agency" - once a players contract expires they are free to negotiate with whatever club they want. No compensation, no going back in to the draft.
2. Abolish the ridiculous salary cap minimum spend of 95% - increase the minimum contract amount for AFL players (e.g no player can be paid below $x amount a year to protect players being exploited) then allow the clubs to pay whatever the amount of the salary cap they want.

These two changes will create a constant pool of players moving about with clubs having money to entice players to move to their club.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

The issue is the shitty version of "free agency" the AFL has, wanting to have it's cake and eat it too.

You want to decrease the gap between the haves and have-nots? here's how

1. Complete "Free Agency" - once a players contract expires they are free to negotiate with whatever club they want. No compensation, no going back in to the draft.
2. Abolish the ridiculous salary cap minimum spend of 95% - increase the minimum contract amount for AFL players (e.g no player can be paid below $x amount a year to protect players being exploited) then allow the clubs to pay whatever the amount of the salary cap they want.

These two changes will create a constant pool of players moving about with clubs having money to entice players to move to their club.

The salary cap floor isn’t the problem it’s clubs inability to manage it

 

[spotthedog1]

The issue is the shitty version of "free agency" the AFL has, wanting to have it's cake and eat it too.

You want to decrease the gap between the haves and have-nots? here's how

1. Complete "Free Agency" - once a players contract expires they are free to negotiate with whatever club they want. No compensation, no going back in to the draft.
2. Abolish the ridiculous salary cap minimum spend of 95% - increase the minimum contract amount for AFL players (e.g no player can be paid below $x amount a year to protect players being exploited) then allow the clubs to pay whatever the amount of the salary cap they want.

These two changes will create a constant pool of players moving about with clubs having money to entice players to move to their club.

US sports tell us that this doesn't make a level competition where a particular team will win on average every 18 years.

 

[Shooter#17]

The "no compensation" argument is too simplistic. It negates the real problem. Free agency was brought in as an equalisation method, and repeatedly has the opposite effect. I ran the stats a few years back, and there was only 1 player worth a 1st round pick who had moved down the ladder.

There may have been another since, but I can't recall it off the top of my head. Free agency sends the best players to the clubs in contention.

The solution isn't "abolish compensation", which increases the gap between the haves and have-nots. The solution is "abolish free agency". Why should anyone be able to claim a top rung player without losing something? It's a ridiculous system.

Agreed this has been my thoughts on it since the beginning. Id like to the the club receiving the player lose their equivalent round pick to the FA compo, this will stop any underhand deals manipulating the draft like has occured here.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

The salary cap floor isn’t the problem it’s clubs inability to manage it

Salary cap this year is $13,540,000
The floor is $12,863,000
The gap (wriggle room to sign free agents) is $677,000
The average wage this year is $389,000

That's barely enough wriggle room to sign one and a half players at the average. Most players worth signing, that could potentially make a difference to your side, wouldn't come over on that kind of coin. Some people will say that you also have retirements and delistings that add to the pool available, but you also have new draftees and player negotiating new contracts every year to balance that out.
Of course the ability to manage your cap well plays a huge part, but the gap between the floor and the ceiling is too narrow. Rather than giving teams the ability to underspend for a few years, then overspend for a few, take that away and just adjust the cap extremities accordingly.
In a cap of $13.5m, clubs should have around a mill to play with. Gives much more scope to attract a big fish.

 

[Sentinel]

The "no compensation" argument is too simplistic. It negates the real problem. Free agency was brought in as an equalisation method, and repeatedly has the opposite effect. I ran the stats a few years back, and there was only 1 player worth a 1st round pick who had moved down the ladder.

There may have been another since, but I can't recall it off the top of my head. Free agency sends the best players to the clubs in contention.

The solution isn't "abolish compensation", which increases the gap between the haves and have-nots. The solution is "abolish free agency". Why should anyone be able to claim a top rung player without losing something? It's a ridiculous system.

This isn't true and your conclusion that "free agency sends the best players to the clubs in contention" is flawed.

It's a small sample size but there's been 7 players who have attracted first round compensation and of those, 4 went to clubs finishing higher on the ladder at the end of the previously concluded season (Daniher, Tom Lynch, Frawley, Dale Thomas) and 3 went to clubs finishing lower (Zac Williams, Buddy, Goddard).

If you also include players attracting end of round 1 compo, it's a 5-5 split (add in Lycett & Motlop going to clubs finishing lower, Rockliff to a club finishing higher).

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Salary cap this year is $13,540,000
The floor is $12,863,000
The gap (wriggle room to sign free agents) is $677,000
The average wage this year is $389,000

That's barely enough wriggle room to sign one and a half players at the average. Most players worth signing, that could potentially make a difference to your side, wouldn't come over on that kind of coin. Some people will say that you also have retirements and delistings that add to the pool available, but you also have new draftees and player negotiating new contracts every year to balance that out.
Of course the ability to manage your cap well plays a huge part, but the gap between the floor and the ceiling is too narrow. Rather than giving teams the ability to underspend for a few years, then overspend for a few, take that away and just adjust the cap extremities accordingly.
In a cap of $13.5m, clubs should have around a mill to play with. Gives much more scope to attract a big fish.

But they do have as much as they want to play with as long as they front load contracts. Think of any side you want that shouldn’t be spending to 95% and they will still have half a dozen players that front loading their contracts would be worth it. Carlton is a perfect example of this.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

But they do have as much as they want to play with as long as they front load contracts. Think of any side you want that shouldn’t be spending to 95% and they will still have half a dozen players that front loading their contracts would be worth it. Carlton is a perfect example of this.

Can't argue with that, but I still think the floor is too high.

 

[JasRulz63]

This seems to be becoming more common - AFL should make a rule that for the five years following a trade, the average yearly salary (as calculated as the average of the contract) cannot be lower than the average yearly contract of the initial contract. But they still have the right to trade/not renew said player within that five years

I reckon the simpler way (as someone suggested earlier) would be to take weight the contract length greater when dictating compensation. Say in this situation, weight it so that Essendon would only be entitled to a first round pick if Brisbane offered five years of his average yearly salary instead of just three.

Given that the cap hit for the length of a contract cannot be changed once accepted, that should provide a decent deterrent.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I reckon the simpler way (as someone suggested earlier) would be to take weight the contract length greater when dictating compensation. Say in this situation, weight it so that Essendon would only be entitled to a first round pick if Brisbane offered five years of his average yearly salary instead of just three.

Given that the cap hit for the length of a contract cannot be changed once accepted, that should provide a decent deterrent.

So are you saying that a 3yr deal on say $800k would trigger band 1 and also a 5yr deal on say $600k would also be band 1?
If so, that could work. If not, can you provide some examples of what you mean using some made up figures?

I think a sliding scale could work where it's a combination of years and dollars. A player's age shouldn't come into it.
Band 1:
1yr deal at $850k+
2yr deal at $750k+
3yr deal at $700k+
4yr deal at $650k+
5yr deal at $600k+

Band 2:
1yr deal at $750k-849k
2yr deal at $700k-749k
3yr deal at $650k-699k
4yr deal at $600k-649k
5yr deal at $550k-599k

Or something like that. If you rate a player enough to give them a 5yr deal off the bat, then they must be pretty valuable and $600k over 5 years is decent coin.

 

[Ati Tude]

This is all irrelevant isnt it unless or until we know the terms of the contract extension? Joe played every game or close to it last year and did well. If he is on less than 750k for the extension, then it all looks pretty rotten. If it is 750k or better, then nothing to see here.

 

[maroon and blue]

During the Victorian era in Britain there was a saying 'If we can't eat it we will wear it." This carry on about Daniher the Younger is a storm in a tea cup.

 

[shintemaster]

stinks and probably draft/compensation tampering but the AFL keeps the rules deliberately opaque.

AFL shouldn't be blaming clubs for gaming a shady system

Bingo. There are simple rules that can prevent this kind of thing - but the AFL has made a bad habit of leaving enough room to drive expansion club sized trucks through when it suits them.

 

[Shoei]

US sports tell us that this doesn't make a level competition where a particular team will win on average every 18 years.

You're going to struggle to find any sporting competition in the world that's going to be 100% level for a myriad of reasons.

My suggestions are just two that would immediately see benefits to all teams in the league.

The salary cap floor isn’t the problem it’s clubs inability to manage it

As explained above by Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods, the floor doesn't allow any clubs to actively entice players away from the others.

More player movement is good for the competition as a whole.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

This is all irrelevant isnt it unless or until we know the terms of the contract extension? Joe played every game or close to it last year and did well. If he is on less than 750k for the extension, then it all looks pretty rotten. If it is 750k or better, then nothing to see here.

Of course, but chances are we never will know.
No chance of stopping speculation on big footy.