First round pick for Bock?

[TDRP]

I am angry about this as well but we have to consider that age is a factor as well. Bock is 27 and IIRC krak is 22 so this would have skewed the formula.

On that basis Bock is 14 months older than G Ablett... so he'd have to be a band 2.

In order to be a band 1 the AFL operations moron looks into a crystal ball OR goes on TAC cup form.

It's a dud call... and Anderson has just exposed himself as a complete ingoramus imbecile who's never watched Nathan Bock play the game.

 

[BACCS]

Crows respond to Bock compo

http://www.afc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4417/newsid/101828/default.aspx

Glad to see they are going to Appeal.

Good to see we won't bend over lightly to the ****wits running the AFL, again!

 

[TDRP]

Carlton paid pick 10 for this 24 year old clown last year!!!

 

[big78sam]

On that basis Bock is 14 months older than G Ablett... so he'd have to be a band 2.

In order to be a band 1 the AFL operations moron looks into a crystal ball OR goes on TAC cup form.

It's a dud call... and Anderson has just exposed himself as a complete ingoramus imbecile who's never watched Nathan Bock play the game.

I didn't say I agree I'm just trying to work out why the decision was made.

Ablett is a whole different story, brownlow winner plus polled highly other years, AA multiple times, AFLPA MVP multiple times, arguably the best player in the comp, the other criteria would far outweigh the age factor.

The aim of the formula is to avoid subjective decisions. It doesn't matter how many times Anderson has seen him play and whether he rates him as it's not subjective criteria.

I don't like the formula, I think it sucks but that's just how it is. I wish they'd just be transparent with the exact compensation formula.

Assuming Gary Ablett is worth of a band 1 compensation, and Bock is a band 3, who the hell is a band 2 compensation?

Maybe a player of Bock's ability a a 23 or 24 year old.
Or a Dustin Martin, top draft pick and a teenager with more than 10 years ahead of him. I don't know as the formula isn't public, I'm just guessing.

 

[Macca19]

The band that Krak is in is pretty generous.

The whole system is flawed really. Bock belongs in band 2.5.

 

[woopedazz]

Holding us ransom for the Adelaide Oval deal. Watch how fast the Bock issue is resolved if we go with the flow.

 

[Pariah]

Crows respond to Bock compo

http://www.afc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/4417/newsid/101828/default.aspx

Glad to see they are going to Appeal.

Same here. Hopefully we can be successful with the appeal.

 

[timmyd33]

Whilst i dont agree with the formula used to decide compensation, all clubs were involved with the AFL in deciding it. When Bock decided to leave Trigg stated that you were expecting a pick at the end of the first round and that is what has been given. Based on that there seems little point appealing the ruling.

 

[TDRP]

Whilst i dont agree with the formula used to decide compensation, all clubs were involved with the AFL in deciding it. When Bock decided to leave Trigg stated that you were expecting a pick at the end of the first round and that is what has been given. Based on that there seems little point appealing the ruling.

Except everyone expected him to be a band 2 player. Furthermore the AFL are abusing their power by not properly revealing rational used in this case.

The fact we were wildly out of the market for Bock despite making him one of our highest paid players is testament to this.

Using the rational behind a 24 year old Brock McLean going for a pick 10, a 27 year old Jolly going picks 14 and 46 is further evidence of a complete stuff up in this instance. An All Austrlian, Best and Fairest in his prime 27 year old key position player is not BAND 3 especially with the contract $$$ he was given.

He's had a bruised heel injury which he's fully recovered from and he'll be one of THE MOST IMPORTANT players in that Suns side next year. Pick 26 or pick 20 something in years to come is complete crap... unless your in charge of AFL operations. God help us.

 

[aneale]

Whilst i dont agree with the formula used to decide compensation, all clubs were involved with the AFL in deciding it. When Bock decided to leave Trigg stated that you were expecting a pick at the end of the first round and that is what has been given. Based on that there seems little point appealing the ruling.

no they thought first round, ie, directly after our first round 1 selection which would still be in reality a first rounder. Not like these pseudo first rounds that are really round 2 in any normal year.

 

[chenyan]

Given his age and the fact that he could potentially have walked for nothing anyway, see Luke Ball, I think that an end of first round selection is fair. Note, Adelaide will not 'cash' this is until the GWS and Gold Coast drafts are over, which will mean it is in esssence a 17 or potentially 18 pick.

I think that is fair.

The Krak' decision I think is slightly generous to Port Power.

 

[timmyd33]

no they thought first round, ie, directly after our first round 1 selection which would still be in reality a first rounder. Not like these pseudo first rounds that are really round 2 in any normal year.

Personally i think Gold Coast should have been made to negotiate with the clubs they have taken players from themselves with the many draft picks they have been given.
I just remember an article when Bock left that quoted Trigg as saying they were expecting a pick in the 26 to 30 range. Still it is low for a player of his talent considering what he would command any other year.

 

[Allefgib]

Appeal - if don't win use now.

**** I'm disgusted with this. Biggest issue I have is not providing the logic on how it was calculated.

The Gibbs debarkle was ridiculous as the intention was to provide us with a pool of Fathers - the original data used created a pool that included Ross. The data was later found faulty and instead of adjusting the 'formula' to ensure we kept the same pool of availble fathers we instead ended up with a reduced pool, no Ross, no Bryce.

Now they won't even show us how its calculated. AND announced our allocation before the rest of the comp. So they could get alot of heat, fiddle the books, then release the other picks and the calculations.

****ing disgrace.

I usually hate it when we bitch about the 'VFL' and umpires etc rather just focus on what we can control.. this situation is very differnet though and I'm very very shatted off.

 

[aneale]

Personally i think Gold Coast should have been made to negotiate with the clubs they have taken players from themselves with the many draft picks they have been given.
I just remember an article when Bock left that quoted Trigg as saying they were expecting a pick in the 26 to 30 range. Still it is low for a player of his talent considering what he would command any other year.

personally I think the GC should have got a pick of a Club in the 2010 draft (up too 16 picks) that they could have traded a young player already signed for or against future picks they get.

This idea of giving them a player that tehn gets compensated for is stupid

 

[Mismatched]

Given his age and the fact that he could potentially have walked for nothing anyway, see Luke Ball, I think that an end of first round selection is fair. Note, Adelaide will not 'cash' this is until the GWS and Gold Coast drafts are over, which will mean it is in esssence a 17 or potentially 18 pick.

I think that is fair.

The Krak' decision I think is slightly generous to Port Power.

How's your maths? 16+2=18, thus the earliest the pick could be, would be pick 19 and thats if no one else uses theirs. I'd suggest, if our appeal is unsuccessful, that we'll use it straight away, not too much difference between pick 19 and pick 26, might drop a player or two on Rendell's list at most, but we get the benefit of an extra couple of years development.

Plus, who know's how many other first rounders will be brought into play in that first year after the GC/GWS concessions are brought into play? Probably end up being in the early 20's anyway.

Personally i think Gold Coast should have been made to negotiate with the clubs they have taken players from themselves with the many draft picks they have been given.
I just remember an article when Bock left that quoted Trigg as saying they were expecting a pick in the 26 to 30 range. Still it is low for a player of his talent considering what he would command any other year.

I think you'll find he was expecting a band 2, which would have to be used at the end of the first for this year and next and just commenting on that. Either way, he never said he was happy with it at the time, in fact quite the opposite.

 

[turbo182]

Heres a thought. let say we end up with 'band 3' this year, and don't use it.

Bock runs aorund in a hopeless suns side, whose only game plan is kick it to Ablett(s), and comprehensively wins their B n' F, and is their only representative in the All Australian side after G ablett is put in hospital for the season after playing against Geelong.

Are we further compnesated due to his form in his first year? COuld there be rolling compensation>

 

[turbo182]

Also FTR i considered bock to be worth 9-15 IMO.

And prize to Gets! for the best outburst. So many @%#&@'s (characters)

 

[Ad76]

I think we need to hold the appeal off for a few weeks. The key to any appeal is going to be comparison to other players graded under the same system, and we know that there are going to be more of them over the coming weeks. Once there are a handful of Band 2 guys, and a few more Band 3's the club can compare Bock to them with its argument and hopefully mount a compelling case.

 

[AFC Official]

There is a huge difference between what we would receive for band two or band three down the track. If we use the pick in the next two drafts, there is no difference really because it still must be end of the first round anyway. But in 2012 the earliest it will now be is pick 19. If we finished, say 8th that season, band two would give us pick 9 and then 10 as the compensation pick. But the other key point is that it is also worth far less for on-trading, as may be clearer tomorrow.

 

[mark121]

The rating system is a joke band 2 is after your first pick so you may finish first and get pick 18 or 19 or you could finish last and get pick 2 as compensation for the same player.

The pick you get should compensate you for the loss of the player and reflect their value but these are very uneven results based on ladder position and not a fair way of compensation. also if you trade these picks it would have far more value to teams expected to be near the bottom of the ladder so the team who has the most to gain would be once again the team at the bottom of the ladder not the team who lost the player

A fairer way would be to decide the value of all the players being lost to the gold coast and select a pick or picks (exact no. not after your first or second pick) to reflect a players value. (of course this is easier said than done as all teams will believe that they are getting the short straw).

If similar players are all worth pick 8 then it can be based on ladder position eg. if two or more teams have pick 8 compensation and use it on the same year then the lower ranked team gets pick 8 and the other team gets pick 9.

 

[Narcissus]

the appeal will invariably prove to be a fruitless exercise.

i think our energies should shift towards placing vlad's head on a pike which will be permanently located in the middle of victoria square.

 

[Waspy79]

LOL but remember people Andy D says its only Footy Park that is driving SA people away from the AFL. Not the fact that the competition is one of the most compromised rigged national comps in the world these days.

Quoted for truth, even though the competition is far more 'fair' these days than 10 years ago!

 

[King Elvis]

Given his age and the fact that he could potentially have walked for nothing anyway, see Luke Ball, I think that an end of first round selection is fair. Note, Adelaide will not 'cash' this is until the GWS and Gold Coast drafts are over, which will mean it is in esssence a 17 or potentially 18 pick.

I think that is fair.

The Krak' decision I think is slightly generous to Port Power.

I'm surprised you can type and breathe at the same time.

Jolly.
Burgoyne.
Gibson.
McLean.

They are your reference points; and based on them, we are getting completely and utterly ****ed over.

The Crows really, really need to blow their stack over this - we cop a lot without much fuss, but this is a joke.

 

[afc1991]

Given his age and the fact that he could potentially have walked for nothing anyway, see Luke Ball, I think that an end of first round selection is fair. Note, Adelaide will not 'cash' this is until the GWS and Gold Coast drafts are over, which will mean it is in esssence a 17 or potentially 18 pick.

I think that is fair.

The Krak' decision I think is slightly generous to Port Power.

Im inclined to agree however think the fact we need to wait two years to use it properly is the downfall. We lose experience immediately, a 100 game player, which will be rare on our list in 2011, and have to wait abot 4-7yrs before we will see much benefit from the pick. Leaves a gap to cover in the short-medium term.

 

[Vader]

Whilst i dont agree with the formula used to decide compensation, all clubs were involved with the AFL in deciding it. When Bock decided to leave Trigg stated that you were expecting a pick at the end of the first round and that is what has been given. Based on that there seems little point appealing the ruling.

No.. the clubs were NOT involved in determining the formula. They were specifically EXCLUDED from determining it. Even today the formula remains a complete secret, known only to Dimwit and his failed lawyer off-sider. They have chosen to keep it secret in order to prevent the clubs from rorting the system by artificially manipulating the variables used to determine the player's value.

The clubs were involved in deciding that GC would be able to take 1 uncontracted player from each club and handing them all those 1st round draft picks. They (foolishly) let Dimwit and co decide on the compensation formula without any oversight. The end result is the disaster we now face.

Given his age and the fact that he could potentially have walked for nothing anyway, see Luke Ball, I think that an end of first round selection is fair. Note, Adelaide will not 'cash' this is until the GWS and Gold Coast drafts are over, which will mean it is in esssence a 17 or potentially 18 pick.

I think that is fair.

The Krak' decision I think is slightly generous to Port Power.

Bock would never have walked away from the club were it not for the fact that GC offered him a bucketload of cash. Comparisons with Luke Ball are completely ridiculous - Adelaide were more than happy to offer him a good contract on excellent coin, they just couldn't compete with GC's ability to throw ridiculous amounts of money at a select group of players. If the GC situation didn't exist, Bock would be a Crow in 2011 - 100%, no doubt at all.

I find your suggestion that we should just lie back and think of England, whilst being r*ped by the AFL, to be completely insulting.

For what it's worth, your maths skills leave a lot to be desired as well. The best case scenario for the selection we've been handed is pick #19. From 2012 there will be 18 clubs in the draft. In order to even get #19 the following conditions need to be met:

• No club awarded a pre-1st round draft selection.
• No club uses a 1st or 2nd band draft selection.
• No club finishing below us on the ladder uses a 3rd band draft selection.

The odds are that we're probably going to be looking at a selection in the low 20s, for a player who is (when fit) indisputably the best CHB in the competition - a player who was selected in the AA team and won our B&F in 2008.

Given all the precedents from recent history, we would normally be looking at a mid-1st round selection plus a 2nd or 3rd round selection as well for a player of this calibre. To suggest that we should accept a pick in the low 20s is just plain insulting.