Recommitted Dylan Shiel [OOC 2024; reports he may move? Dodoro says he is a 'required player']

[freo_leo29]

The scenario is; Gresham isn't worth band 1. If we don't trigger band 1 or potentially even band 2, you get pick 21 odd (McKay pick and North compo pick), that's pick 28 odd by the time the bids come. We trade you our second and Shiel with contract paid or you likely get a similar value pick without Shiel.

We've said, hey do you want a better deal than band 2/3. So Essendon do very well out of it, yes. But you do far better than you would otherwise.

The scenario is never you keep pick 13 as it's not happening without the deal.

The Saints supporters can't seem to grasp this part of the deal


They seem to think that they just own 12 and 13, when truthfully its going to be more complicated than that IF the bombers are paying a s**t tonne to a player who doesn't deserve it.

 

[Lore]

AFL had articles suggesting there are 3 Cat B spots still on their site some time mid this year, there were a few pages of discussion in our list management thread (good luck finding them though lol, 500 pages to sift through)


We decided the AFL site was wrong and that there are currently only 2 Cat B rookie spots

Yeah, that was changed when the salary cap and list cuts were agreed in response to covid. Fully referenced info here: Resource - FAQs: Rules, Regulations and Resources for Player Movements in the AFL

 

[Lore]

The Saints supporters can't seem to grasp this part of the deal


They seem to think that they just own 12 and 13, when truthfully its going to be more complicated than that IF the bombers are paying a s**t tonne to a player who doesn't deserve it.

Technically it's two separate deals.

FA goes through for Gresham, which has to be fair at face value, independently of any other deals. They then own that pick and can do what they like with it.

Once trading starts, they can choose to use it in a deal for Shiel or Henry or whatever, and the AFL will approve that too as long as it is also fair at face value, independently of any other deals.


The thing that seems to be missing is that dealing in bad faith is not generally good practice in a small industry, because after that no one will trust you and it will come back to bite.

But this is BigFooty and assuming the least likely outcome and wasting everyone's time going over it ad nauseam is some sort of bizarre pastime that some people seem to enjoy.

 

[freo_leo29]

Yeah, that was changed when the salary cap and list cuts were agreed in response to covid. Fully referenced info here: Resource - FAQs: Rules, Regulations and Resources for Player Movements in the AFL

Yep, the AFL site had a page listed that still stated there were 3, we figured it was wrong and went with 2

 

[freo_leo29]

Technically it's two separate deals.

FA goes through for Gresham, which has to be fair at face value, independently of any other deals. They then own that pick and can do what they like with it.

Once trading starts, they can choose to use it in a deal for Shiel or Henry or whatever, and the AFL will approve that too as long as it is also fair at face value, independently of any other deals.


The thing that seems to be missing is that dealing in bad faith is not generally good practice in a small industry, because after that no one will trust you and it will come back to bite.

But this is BigFooty and assuming the least likely outcome and wasting everyone's time going over it ad nauseam is some sort of bizarre pastime that some people seem to enjoy.

Oh yeah, well ofc Saints could do it and then completely reneg on the deal but jeez that would not go down well with the rest of the clubs

 

[Lore]

Yep, the AFL site had a page listed that still stated there were 3, we figured it was wrong and went with 2

It'd be an old page. It used to be 3 Cat Bs. It also used to be 38-40 on the senior list and 4-6 category A rookies, but it all changed with covid and was widely broadcast at the time. The AFL rules were amended accordingly (the rules PDFs are all dated so you know which version is the most current).

 

[freo_leo29]

It'd be an old page. It used to be 3 Cat Bs. It also used to be 38-40 on the senior list and 4-6 category A rookies, but it all changed with covid and was widely broadcast at the time. The AFL rules were amended accordingly (the rules PDFs are all dated so you know which version is the most current).

Yeah old page but was still linked too on the AFL rules section of the site, its why I wouldn't trust the written rules by the AFL, they change too often and aren't updated online to match it all the time.


For example this Free agency info discussed above, we have new info from a seminar that the AFL held but their website has info from 2020

 

[Lore]

Yeah old page but was still linked too on the AFL rules section of the site, its why I wouldn't trust the written rules by the AFL, they change too often and aren't updated online to match it all the time.

I've never had any issues with finding reliable information if I go to the policy section of the AFL website and download the new PDF. Information that is straight up missing is more problematic, but if it's in the newest version of the rules, it's accurate 99 times out of 100.

The webpages have to be double and triple checked to figure out when they were written, given that they are maintained by AFL Media rather than AFL House, and a lot of it is only meant to be viewed within a few weeks of being published.

For example this Free agency info discussed above, we have new info from a seminar that the AFL held but their website has info from 2020

Free agency is also pretty straight forward and hasn't changed

AFL have had a meeting with journos over the past few days and they say the system is not discretionary

Each player is given a points value based on their age at the start of the year

Then the $ per year of their contract will judge which band of compensation they get (length of years do not matter)

top 5% is Band 1 (rnd 1), next 15% is band 2 (End Rnd 1) next 15% band 3 (round 2) next 20% band 4 (end of round 2) next 20% band 5 (round 3) next 30% No compo

There are 3-4 posts in the stickied FAQ thread explaining FA, compensation bands and the formula, which is the most recent information we have and is constantly updated as we find out more. Plus Suma Magic did an analysis of the formula a few years ago as well which is also in there: Resource - FAQs: Rules, Regulations and Resources for Player Movements in the AFL

I listened to the Gettable segment from 5/10 (link). There's very little that is actually new to me in there, it's more or less exactly what was in this article in The Age from February 2018:

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

You've misquoted the bands – your numbers add up to 105% Cal confirmed what the Age reported back in 2018, and revealed the previously unknown cut-off point for the bottom edge of Band 5:

Band 1: Top 5%
Band 2: 5-15%
Band 3: 15-30%
Band 4: 30-50%
Band 5: 50%–70%
No compensation: 70%–100%

Contract length isn't quite completely irrelevant, it is a tie breaker, and FA offers have a minimum of at least 2 years. From what they were saying, it sounds like the AFL is considering tweaking it a little bit but hasn't yet.

With regard to discretion, well yes and no. While I don't believe the AFL has ever actually used discretionary power in relation to FA compensation, they do have it in case a situation arises that could bring the game into disrepute or whatever. When a club applies to the AFL for discretion on other rules we hear about it, so I'm reasonably certain we'd know if it had happened.

What the AFL seemed to be trying to do with that seminar thing is to clear up some of the ignorant reporting around compensation 'secret herbs and spices' and the opinion-making about how it's all bullshit because the formula thinks Frawley is worth more than Buddy. Objectively he isn't, but Melbourne trying to rebuild without assets is objectively worse for the competition as a whole than Hawthorn having to live without Buddy.

 

[freo_leo29]

I've never had any issues with finding reliable information if I go to the policy section of the AFL website and download the new PDF. Information that is straight up missing is more problematic, but if it's in the newest version of the rules, it's accurate 99 times out of 100.

The webpages have to be double and triple checked to figure out when they were written, given that they are maintained by AFL Media rather than AFL House, and a lot of it is only meant to be viewed within a few weeks of being published.

Free agency is also pretty straight forward and hasn't changed

There are 3-4 posts in the stickied FAQ thread explaining FA, compensation bands and the formula, which is the most recent information we have and is constantly updated as we find out more. Plus Suma Magic did an analysis of the formula a few years ago as well which is also in there: Resource - FAQs: Rules, Regulations and Resources for Player Movements in the AFL

I listened to the Gettable segment from 5/10 (link). There's very little that is actually new to me in there, it's more or less exactly what was in this article in The Age from February 2018:

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

You've misquoted the bands – your numbers add up to 105% Cal confirmed what the Age reported back in 2018, and revealed the previously unknown cut-off point for the bottom edge of Band 5:

Band 1: Top 5%
Band 2: 5-15%
Band 3: 15-30%
Band 4: 30-50%
Band 5: 50%–70%
No compensation: 70%–100%

Contract length isn't quite completely irrelevant, it is a tie breaker, and FA offers have a minimum of at least 2 years. From what they were saying, it sounds like the AFL is considering tweaking it a little bit but hasn't yet.

With regard to discretion, well yes and no. While I don't believe the AFL has ever actually used discretionary power in relation to FA compensation, they do have it in case a situation arises that could bring the game into disrepute or whatever. When a club applies to the AFL for discretion on other rules we hear about it, so I'm reasonably certain we'd know if it had happened.

What the AFL seemed to be trying to do with that seminar thing is to clear up some of the ignorant reporting around compensation 'secret herbs and spices' and the opinion-making about how it's all bullshit because the formula thinks Frawley is worth more than Buddy. Objectively he isn't, but Melbourne trying to rebuild without assets is objectively worse for the competition as a whole than Hawthorn having to live without Buddy.

Nice this is some handy info

Confirms my earlier talks on the no discretion/manipulation too


I reckon they could still update the free agency page though, on the website its talking about the 2020 year for whatever reason but you get that with the AFL site, some old pages that are a bit off

 

[fishardansin]

Also factual

You're hilarious.

 

[ben0]

The level of nuffie ness in essendone fans thinking they will get first round first for Shiel

 

[fishardansin]

The level of nuffie ness in essendone fans thinking they will get first round first for Shiel

There won't be one for you guys if we don't get it!! I don't understand how you don't understand that.

 

[PantyYoghurt]

The level of nuffie ness in essendone fans thinking they will get first round first for Shiel

More of a chance then a Saints flag in the next 100 years tbh

 

[freo_leo29]

There won't be one for you guys if we don't get it!! I don't understand how you don't understand that.

Missing the point here, its been stated before but I'll say it again


If the two clubs have struck a deal where Gresham gets paid more in order to produce a first round pick, then the bombers aren't doing that out of the goodness of their heart, they may be doing it to receive the first rounder while giving you their 2nd back, effectively producing a first for Shiel, a second and some cash, while the Saints receive Shiel and a second for Gresham (AKA Free Shiel and an upgraded second on what Gresh initially would have got)

Win/win


If the AFL block that deal then I can see Henry being woven into the deal, where Bombers don't directly get 13, they grab Freos 21 but don't lose a pick, Saints get Henry instead of a second, effectively turning Gresh into Shiel and Henry (Meaning they keep whatever they were having to pay for Henry) - I only see this happening if the AFL are going to block the Gresham trade without another team coming in and "diluting" it

 

[yodellinhank]

Missing the point here, its been stated before but I'll say it again


If the two clubs have struck a deal where Gresham gets paid more in order to produce a first round pick, then the bombers aren't doing that out of the goodness of their heart, they may be doing it to receive the first rounder while giving you their 2nd back, effectively producing a first for Shiel, a second and some cash, while the Saints receive Shiel and a second for Gresham (AKA Free Shiel and an upgraded second on what Gresh initially would have got)

Win/win


If the AFL block that deal then I can see Henry being woven into the deal, where Bombers don't directly get 13, they grab Freos 21 but don't lose a pick, Saints get Henry instead of a second, effectively turning Gresh into Shiel and Henry (Meaning they keep whatever they were having to pay for Henry) - I only see this happening if the AFL are going to block the Gresham trade without another team coming in and "diluting" it

Slow down, I'm still trying to get my head around whether the AFL follow the unwritten rules strictly without any room for discretion or the written rules loosely with liberal amounts of discretion

 

[fishardansin]

Missing the point here, its been stated before but I'll say it again


If the two clubs have struck a deal where Gresham gets paid more in order to produce a first round pick, then the bombers aren't doing that out of the goodness of their heart, they may be doing it to receive the first rounder while giving you their 2nd back, effectively producing a first for Shiel, a second and some cash, while the Saints receive Shiel and a second for Gresham (AKA Free Shiel and an upgraded second on what Gresh initially would have got)

Win/win


If the AFL block that deal then I can see Henry being woven into the deal, where Bombers don't directly get 13, they grab Freos 21 but don't lose a pick, Saints get Henry instead of a second, effectively turning Gresh into Shiel and Henry (Meaning they keep whatever they were having to pay for Henry) - I only see this happening if the AFL are going to block the Gresham trade without another team coming in and "diluting" it

Agreed. As far as St Kilda go:

Option 1: Pick 33

Option 2: Pick 28 plus Shiel

It is a no-brainer.

 

[Keystone agony]

Agreed. As far as St Kilda go:

Option 1: Pick 33

Option 2: Pick 28 plus Shiel

It is a no-brainer.

Alot Depends on if its 22 or 33

I do feel Dons could have leverage in that not alot of VIC MCG teams on the likely rise are interested or have the cap room

Would need to be in the 7s to get Band 2

I wonder if hes happy with 650 base with heavily incentivised contract, trigger for extra years based on games played/ BnF finishes

 

[Lore]

Slow down, I'm still trying to get my head around whether the AFL follow the unwritten rules strictly without any room for discretion or the written rules loosely with liberal amounts of discretion

Just be glad we don’t have to watch footage of them playing frame by frame to classify impact and contact in order to figure out compensation.

 

[pebblesofsand]

I've never had any issues with finding reliable information if I go to the policy section of the AFL website and download the new PDF. Information that is straight up missing is more problematic, but if it's in the newest version of the rules, it's accurate 99 times out of 100.

The webpages have to be double and triple checked to figure out when they were written, given that they are maintained by AFL Media rather than AFL House, and a lot of it is only meant to be viewed within a few weeks of being published.

Free agency is also pretty straight forward and hasn't changed

There are 3-4 posts in the stickied FAQ thread explaining FA, compensation bands and the formula, which is the most recent information we have and is constantly updated as we find out more. Plus Suma Magic did an analysis of the formula a few years ago as well which is also in there: Resource - FAQs: Rules, Regulations and Resources for Player Movements in the AFL

I listened to the Gettable segment from 5/10 (link). There's very little that is actually new to me in there, it's more or less exactly what was in this article in The Age from February 2018:

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

You've misquoted the bands – your numbers add up to 105% Cal confirmed what the Age reported back in 2018, and revealed the previously unknown cut-off point for the bottom edge of Band 5:

Band 1: Top 5%
Band 2: 5-15%
Band 3: 15-30%
Band 4: 30-50%
Band 5: 50%–70%
No compensation: 70%–100%

Contract length isn't quite completely irrelevant, it is a tie breaker, and FA offers have a minimum of at least 2 years. From what they were saying, it sounds like the AFL is considering tweaking it a little bit but hasn't yet.

With regard to discretion, well yes and no. While I don't believe the AFL has ever actually used discretionary power in relation to FA compensation, they do have it in case a situation arises that could bring the game into disrepute or whatever. When a club applies to the AFL for discretion on other rules we hear about it, so I'm reasonably certain we'd know if it had happened.

What the AFL seemed to be trying to do with that seminar thing is to clear up some of the ignorant reporting around compensation 'secret herbs and spices' and the opinion-making about how it's all bullshit because the formula thinks Frawley is worth more than Buddy. Objectively he isn't, but Melbourne trying to rebuild without assets is objectively worse for the competition as a whole than Hawthorn having to live without Buddy.

Good info but you've missed possibly the most important bit - how many players earn what.

The league doesn't release individual salary figures but they do report on averages. So in 2022 there was a total of 51 players who were paid at least $800,000, while 193 of the competition's 659 players received at least $500,000.

So $800K and above is 51 out of 659 = 7.7% So generally speaking a multi year contract on $800K and above gets Band 1

$500K and above is 193 out 659 = 29%. So a multi year $500k and above contract guarantee's band 3 as a minimum.

 

[Duckworth]

Alot Depends on if its 22 or 33

I do feel Dons could have leverage in that not alot of VIC MCG teams on the likely rise are interested or have the cap room

Would need to be in the 7s to get Band 2

I wonder if hes happy with 650 base with heavily incentivised contract, trigger for extra years based on games played/ BnF finishes

From the HS

The Bombers are keen on Gresham and could land him on a deal upwards of $600,000 a season

That would be Band 3 would it not?

 

[Lore]

Good info but you've missed possibly the most important bit - how many players earn what.

The league doesn't release individual salary figures but they do report on averages. So in 2022 there was a total of 51 players who were paid at least $800,000, while 193 of the competition's 659 players received at least $500,000.

So $800K and above is 51 out of 659 = 7.7% So generally speaking a multi year contract on $800K and above gets Band 1

$500K and above is 193 out 659 = 29%. So a multi year $500k and above contract guarantee's band 3 as a minimum.

Here's one I prepared earlier:

Here's an interesting chart, it says that in 2022 83 players made more than 700k – about double the 44 who earned in that range in 2021 (likely covid cuts and later getting it paid back in through the AFL's 9% deferral scheme for players with multiple years on their contracts in 2020). 51 players made more than 800k.

However, bear in mind that the summary of player earnings below is based on total player payments and ASAs, which means it includes a few things that aren't part of the base salary used for free agency calculations:

• Match payments are a minimum of 5k per game, which is in the CBA. Some may be on a lot more than that just to cross the white line on a weekend. For someone who plays every game, that's over 100k in additional earnings over and above their base salary. This is not part of the base salary and is not included in FA calculations.
  • Players who are injured through the course of training for or playing in the AFL, and whose last sanctioned game was at AFL level, are paid their match fee for every week that they miss through injury. So Buddy Franklin probably got all his match fees this year despite missing a few.
• Incentive payments include payments made for playing at least 10 games, at least 15 games, finishing in the top 10 of the BnF, winning the BnF, playing finals, winning the granny, and whatever other accolades and incentives that clubs devise from time to time. This is not part of the base salary and is not included in FA calculations.
  
  
• ASAs include money paid for marketing and other purposes, such as players modelling club merchandise. Clubs can spend up to $1.2m on ASAs in 2022, per the previous CBA. This is not even part of the salary cap, let alone the base salary or included in FA calculations.

View attachment 1813508

Also of note;

• I chose a random number to demonstrate how the mechanism works. All I know in terms of what is being offered is that there's reports of an 800k and 6-7 year offer and that Hawthorn offered more than Essendon. So if Essendon was offering 800k, Hawthorn offered more. If the 800k over 7 quoted is Hawthorn's offer, Essendon must've offered less than that (e.g., 800k over 6).
  
  
• Free agents have their base salary averaged over the base years of the FA contract when compensation is calculated. They are then compared against the points system for the rest of the comp, but the rest of the comp are based on their base salary in the year in question and their age in the year in question, not averaged over their entire contract.
  
  Scheduled salary increases therefore don't have any impact on either the FA or the other players they're being judged against in 2023 – they're all treated as if they got 750k in 2023 – but in 2-3 years the others may all have had a 20% increase in wages while he's still sitting there with 750 or whatever. If you have brought your earnings forward into the first half of your contract and you're now in Year 4 and getting paid peanuts, then you count as peanuts.
  
  
• McKay is 25, so compared to other players on exactly the same money, he has 2 extra points in the ranking system that can apparently be the difference of several places.

 

[Lore]

Here's a few more for your reference pebblesofsand

Free Agency

Who is a free agent?

A player who is out of contract and has served eight years on the primary and/or rookie list will be a free agent (either restricted or unrestricted, see below).

Source: Annexure D, CBA 2017-2022

Delisted Free Agent
A player who is delisted by the club that year will be a free agent, this applies for primary listed and rookie listed players not offered contracts for the following year.

Source: Annexure D, CBA 2017-2022

Rookie listed players who have served two years and choose not to accept the offer of a third season will be free agents

Source: Annexure D, CBA 2017-2022

Restricted and Unrestricted Free Agents

If a players guaranteed payments places them within the top 25% of players on the primary list (top 10 for clubs with 40 players, top 9 for clubs with less than 40 players on their primary list) AND the player has not come out of contract previously as a free agent AND the player has served eight years then the player will be a Restricted Free Agent.

If the player is not in the top 25% of players paid that year OR the player has served ten years or more OR the player has previously come out of contract as a free agent then the player will be considered an Unrestricted Free Agent.


Source: Annexure D, CBA 2017-2022

Handy infographic by the AFLPA:
View attachment 1207891
Source: https://www.aflplayers.com.au/app/uploads/2019/10/FreeAgency_Explained_2019-002.pdf

Movement of Free Agents
In all cases a player may sign a power of attorney allowing a representative to enter into an agreement with a club on behalf of the player.

Unrestricted/Delisted Free Agents
Delisted Free Agents and Unrestricted Free Agents are able to be signed to the primary list of a new club by filling Form 42 with the AFL within the free agency and delisted free agency periods that open at the end of the year.

Source: Annexure D 1.4, CBA 2017-2022

Restricted Free Agents
Restricted free agent movement are a minimum of two year deals.

Where a player wishes to move as a Restricted Free Agent, the new club submits a Form 41 to the AFL within the Free Agency Period. The AFL then provides a copy of the offer to the current club.

The current club then has 3 days to match the offer. If the current club does not match the offer within the three day window the player and the new club must enter a new Contract of Service with the offer terms.

Matching the offer entails matching the contract length, base payments, total match payment rates, total additional service agreement payments (this is third party deals) and total individual performance bonuses based on AFL awards/honours, club B&F placement, matches played but excluding team performance. The AFL then provides a copy of the matched offer to the player.

If the player wishes to participate in the AFL the following season they may either; sign a Contract of Service with the current club with the terms of the matched offer, nominate for the draft, or request a trade.

A player can sign a contract with the current club different to the terms of the offer, even if the AFL has received the offer from the new club during the 3 day offer period.


Source: Annexure D, CBA 2017-2022

Free Agent Compensation Bands
Compensation for Restricted and Unrestricted Free Agents is determined according to the mechanism quoted below.

Clubs are not entitled to compensation for the loss of a Delisted Free Agent.


Source: Annexure D, CBA 2017-2022

The Age also has also published a comprehensive piece regarding how compensation is determined, which you can view here:

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

Suma Magic has also done a breakdown of the formula here.

Historical examples for each compensation band with reported contract values are in the post below.

If this needs to be moved then all good.

I have taken the compo formula as outlined in an article by Jake Niall a couple of years ago.

It says:

• all players 25+ are ranked by salary
• they then get a score of 0-100
• they then add points for age: 25 (12), 26 (10), 27 (8), 28 (6), 29 (4), 30 (2), 31+ (0)
• this gives all players a score between 0-112
• these scores are then used to work out the players with the x% highest scores to see who fits into bands
• the bands are Band 1 (0-5%), band 2 (5-15%), band 3 (15-30%), band 4 (30-50%) and band 5 (50-?%). They didnt specify when band 5 cuts off and no compo is paid.

For the output below I assumed that there is an even number of players aged 25-31+. This probably isn't right, and could always re-do it with better data.

It means you can look at a player, knowing his age, and you can see what sort of salary they need to qualify for each compo band. This still means you have to guess their salary compared to other players aged 25+, but I suppose it is a step forward from the current guessing approach.

Interested in any feedback e.g. if I've made mistakes or just generally.

View attachment 977966

Historical Examples of Free Agent Compensation

Per The Age's article above, compensation is calculated by:

1. Ranking all players over 25 on their base salary that year. The highest paid is allocated 100 points, and the lowest is allocated 0 points. Contract length is a tie breaker.
2. 2 additional points are added for every year of age under 31, to a maximum of 112 points for a very well-paid 25 year old. Players are re-ranked based on total points.
3. Players are then placed into bands (e.g. top 5%, 6-10%), with compensation awarded accordingly for those who change clubs.

As a result of this system, the exact value of the highest paid player's wages will differ from year to year, and CBA to CBA, as will the lowest and highest paid players in each band.

Top 5% = Band 1 Compensation, a 1st round pick (directly after the club's original pick in the first round).

• Zachary Williams RFA to Carlton (2020) – Contract reported to be worth $700,000–$900,000 per year (the latter including incentives) at the age of 26.
• Joe Daniher RFA to Brisbane (2020) – Contract reported to be worth ~$833,000 per year at the age of 27.
• Tom Lynch
  19

  Tom Lynch

  Age

  31

  Ht

  199cm

  Wt

  100kg

  Pos.

  Fwd

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  13.5

  3star

  K

  8.8

  3star

  HB

  4.8

  3star

  M

  5.6

  5star

  T

  1.7

  4star

  G

  2.0

  5star

  D

  8.5

  2star

  K

  6.1

  3star

  HB

  2.4

  2star

  M

  3.0

  3star

  T

  0.8

  1star

  G

  1.4

  5star

  D

  12.6

  4star

  K

  5.8

  3star

  HB

  6.8

  5star

  M

  4.2

  4star

  T

  1.6

  4star

  G

  1.4

  5star

  RFA to Richmond (2018) – Contract reported to be worth over $900,000 per year at the age of 25.
• James Frawley to Hawthorn (2014) – Contract reported to be worth $550,000 per year at the age of 26.
• Dale Thomas RFA to Carlton (2013) – Contract reported to be worth $700,000 per year at the age of 26.
• Lance Franklin RFA to Sydney Swans (2013) – Contract reported to be worth $1.1m per year at the age of 26.
• Brendon Goddard RFA to Essendon (2012) – Contract reported to be worth $675,000–$725,000 per year at the age of 27.

5-15% = Band 2 Compensation, end of 1st round pick (directly after the completion of the first round of the draft, in reverse ladder order among those with end of 1st round picks).

• Scott Lycett to Port Adelaide (2018) – Contract reported to be worth about $600,000 per year at the age of 26.
• Tom Rockliff RFA to Port Adelaide (2017) – Considered to be the top edge of band 2 in 2017, based on a contract of $650,000–$700,000 per year at the age of 27.
• Steven Motlop to Port Adelaide (2017) – Considered to be the bottom edge of band 2 in 2017, based on a contract of $550,000–$600,000 per year at the age of 26.

15-30% = Band 3 Compensation, 2nd round pick (directly after the club's original pick in the second round).

• Brad Crouch RFA to St Kilda (2020) – Contract reported to be worth around $600,000–$650,000 per year at the age of 26.
• Aidan Corr RFA to North Melbourne (2020) – Contract reported to be worth around $550,000 per year, at the age of 26.
• Brandon Ellis to Gold Coast (2019) – Considered to be the top edge of band 3 in 2019, the contract reported to be worth $600,000 per year at the age of 26.
• Luke Dahlhaus to Geelong (2018) – Contract reported to be worth around $500,000 per year, at the age of 26.
• Jackson Trengove RFA to Western Bulldogs (2017) – Contract reported to be worth $500,000–$550,000, at the age of 26.
• Tyrone Vickery to Hawthorn (2016)
• Daniel Wells to Collingwood (2016) - Contract reported to be worth $500,000 per year at the age of 31.
• Christopher Mayne to Collingwood (2016)
• Scott Selwood to Geelong (2015) – 4 years at Geelong without re-signing but contract details unclear. Age of 25.
• Shaun Higgins to North Melbourne (2014) - Reportedly a 2 year deal at the age of 25.
• Nick Malceski to Gold Coast (2014) - Reportedly a 3 year deal at the age of 30.
• Colin Sylvia to Fremantle (2013) - Reportedly a 3 year deal at the age of 27.
• Nick Dal Santo to North Melbourne (2013) - Reportedly a 3 year deal at the age of 29.
• Danyle Pearce to Fremantle (2012) - Reportedly a 2 year deal at the age of 26.
• Troy Chaplin to Richmond (2012) - Reportedly a 4 year deal at the age of 26.

30-50% Band 4 Compensation = end of 2nd round pick (directly after the completion of the second round of the draft).

• George Hewett (2021) – Reportedly a four year deal at the age of 25.
• Mabior Chol to Gold Coast (2021) – Reportedly a four year deal at the age of 24.
• Rory Atkins UFA to Gold Coast (2020) - Reportedly a five year deal worth $400,000 per year at the age of 26.
• Adam Tomlinson to Melbourne (2019) - Reportedly a four year deal at the age of 26.
• Reece Conca to Fremantle (2018) - Reportedly a three year deal at the age of 26.
• Matthew Leuenberger RFA to Essendon (2015) - Reportedly a three year deal at the age of 27.
• Matthew Suckling to Western Bulldogs (2015)

50-??% = Band 5 Compensation, 3rd round pick (directly after the club's original pick in the third round).

• Jake Kelly to Essendon (2021) – Reportedly a three year deal at the age of 26.
• Isaac Smith UFA to Geelong (2020)
• Cameron Ellis-Yolmen to Brisbane (2019)
• Alex Fasolo to Carlton (2018)
• Quinten Lynch to Collingwood (2012)
• Brent Moloney to Brisbane (2012)
• Jared Rivers to Geelong (2012)
• Clinton Young to Collingwood (2012)

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Shiel must have dropped so far out of favour if Essendon would prefer Gresham on a huge salary + compo pick on their list.

 

[EconomicDecline]

Why is the assumption, primarily from Essendon supporters, that St Kilda wants Shiel with Essendon picking up his salary, rather than St Kilda taking Shiel’s salary on in order to facilitate a pick buy/upgrade? Where has it been stated the St Kilda is under salary cap pressure or is cleaning space for a free agent?

 

[cAsEy_18]

Why is the assumption, primarily from Essendon supporters, that St Kilda wants Shiel with Essendon picking up his salary, rather than St Kilda taking Shiel’s salary on in order to facilitate a pick buy/upgrade? Where has it been stated the St Kilda is under salary cap pressure or is cleaning space for a free agent?

Mainly I would say because it doesn’t really make sense the other way.

No one really has any idea of St Kildas cap situation, be it good, bad or indifferent. But the well known aspect is that Essendon has plenty of space.
So the idea of grabbing shiel’s contract for a pick upgrade doesn’t make sense because
1) We don’t need to clear the space, and
2) We’re happy to keep Shiel

It’s not that St Kilda aren’t in a position potentially to take on a bad contract for a pick/pick upgrade. It’s just that Essendon/Shiel wouldn’t make sense as a target for that.