I said historically, when a good player wants to leave and names a destination club there is rarely (if ever) true and fair compensation. And I believe this to be true. So in answer to your question yes there has been history of 'good players wanting to leave and naming destination clubs and the compensation being considered unfair'
But let's not go back and forth on such a boring point. I have explained why I don't think we will get full value for Beams in these circumstances and I've stated the level of compensation I expect the club will end up with. Why don't you just express your alternate view on what the likely outcome to be and I can consider that and hope you are proven correct.
My alternative is: I haven't (to my knowledge) witnessed a scenario where a contracted "gun" player got to stipulate where he wanted to go. I remember Judd and Ball and others who were un-contracted or had been shopped around by their clubs doing it, but never a guy that actually has a year to go on a contract with a club that's treated him very well since drafting him originally. I understand the rationale behind his wanting to leave and I feel for the boy and his family, but I don't think pies supporters are going too far overboard against some Brisbane gloats that want retribution for something that happened to them?
So my alternative is to remain open to whatever comes of Beamer's decision, to be positive and supportive of my club and to point out to people who claim some historic significance of such trades that it hasn't happened before so once again we pies supporters are sailing un-chartered waters.
Ps...we can never get "full value" for Beamer because he is who he is. We can I contend go one of two ways: Take the high draft picks and try and develop another gun midfielder (the long way) or we can do as Bucks and Hine have both stated and look to be traded a ready made replacement.