Game of Sloane (THE OFFICIAL HE IS STAYING thread) Thread now closed

[Sanders]

Compensatory selections are in rounds 3-7

Exactly

 

[robboaustralia]

Isn't Matt Crouch up this year

Who would you rather lose Crouch or Sloane


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

*I would cry for weeks and punch walls like clarkson.

 

[marty36]

Good question, tough choice, but probably Sloane. I don't think Matt will get tagged out of games whereas Sloane hasn't beaten one yet after a number of attempts. If we had a coaching panel that didn't have 120% belief in our system overcoming adversity, then Sloane may not be as susceptible. But we don't. Plus Matt is much younger. I probably see Sloane's departure for $1.2m+ as a fait accomplis as well, so I'm resigned to it.

Given the choice I would take Crouch at his age he is a fair way infront of Sloane at the same age

Also the obvious reason of his age is why he is more important to sign

A lot of talk on Sloane but is Crouch a bigger risk North would have millions to through at a player like Crouch



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Bearded Clam]

Given the choice I would take Crouch at his age he is a fair way infront of Sloane at the same age

Also the obvious reason of his age is why he is more important to sign

A lot of talk on Sloane but is Crouch a bigger risk North would have millions to through at a player like Crouch



On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Anyone know where brad and Matt crouch’s girlfriends are from?... are the Adelaide girls, country vic girls or Melbourne girls?

If they are Melbourne girls we’ve got issues..

 

[Mismatched]

There shouldn't be any compo but let's wait til after sloane leaves before that happens

I think compo needs to stay, it’s too much of a hit otherwise to the club losing a player. They do need to alter the compo though and Noble hinted at pushing for this during an interview in trade week. Picks shouldn’t be linked to a players finishing position, they should be mid and end of round picks only, there’s too much of a difference between a bottom 4 team losing a band 1 player and a top 4 team losing the same.
I would have the following:
Band 1: Mid 1st round + end of 1st round(or could be mid 2nd round)
- this is for the absolute elites of the comp (top 10-15 player) eg Franklin, Danger, Martin, Sloane, Fyfe, Rance, Ablett(at his best)...
Band 2: Mid 1st round
- this is a genuine A-grader, top 50ish/Regular AA squad member type player eg Walker, Laird, Matt Crouch etc
Band 3: End of 1st round
- Quality best 22 player on a good wage, regular top 10 in B&F at club level. Lynch, Talia, Jacobs...
Band 4: Mid 2nd round
- Best 22 player in that 10-20 range at the clubs. Eg Luke Brown, Hartigan, Jenkins
Band 5: Mid 3rd round
- Fringe 22 player Eg Mackay, Seedsman

Trouble is with the way FA is designed, you’re essentially losing these players as they enter, or whilst they are in their prime. They talk about having “served 8 years” and that being good service yada yada, trouble is most of that’s development stuff, the big pay off for clubs is between 24-30. It’s a big loss, especially if you’ve spent 1st rounders on these guys and your squad is challenging.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I think compo needs to stay, it’s too much of a hit otherwise to the club losing a player. They do need to alter the compo though and Noble hinted at pushing for this during an interview in trade week. Picks shouldn’t be linked to a players finishing position, they should be mid and end of round picks only, there’s too much of a difference between a bottom 4 team losing a band 1 player and a top 4 team losing the same.
I would have the following:
Band 1: Mid 1st round + end of 1st round(or could be mid 2nd round)
- this is for the absolute elites of the comp (top 10-15 player) eg Franklin, Danger, Martin, Sloane, Fyfe, Rance, Ablett(at his best)...
Band 2: Mid 1st round
- this is a genuine A-grader, top 50ish/Regular AA squad member type player eg Walker, Laird, Matt Crouch etc
Band 3: End of 1st round
- Quality best 22 player on a good wage, regular top 10 in B&F at club level. Lynch, Talia, Jacobs...
Band 4: Mid 2nd round
- Best 22 player in that 10-20 range at the clubs. Eg Luke Brown, Hartigan, Jenkins
Band 5: Mid 3rd round
- Fringe 22 player Eg Mackay, Seedsman

Trouble is with the way FA is designed, you’re essentially losing these players as they enter, or whilst they are in their prime. They talk about having “served 8 years” and that being good service yada yada, trouble is most of that’s development stuff, the big pay off for clubs is between 24-30. It’s a big loss, especially if you’ve spent 1st rounders on these guys and your squad is challenging.

I agree the compensation needs to remain, because otherwise the lower clubs would end up even worse without compensation.

Also, agree that finishing position should be removed from the determination of the pick. Mid round & end of round is an easy solution for the different bands.

However, IMO the receiving club should lose points for receiving a free agent. Obviously it can't be full value, otherwise this would make it harder for FA to move. I think 50% is fair, which means draft picks are only diluted by half of FA compensation picks. You would lose points of your next pick after the FA compensation pick going to the other club.

 

[BrissyCrow]

I agree the compensation needs to remain, because otherwise the lower clubs would end up even worse without compensation.

Also, agree that finishing position should be removed from the determination of the pick. Mid round & end of round is an easy solution for the different bands.

However, IMO the receiving club should lose points for receiving a free agent. Obviously it can't be full value, otherwise this would make it harder for FA to move. I think 50% is fair, which means draft picks are only diluted by half of FA compensation picks. You would lose points of your next pick after the FA compensation pick going to the other club.

From the losing club's viewpoint I like the concept from James. It may not end up exactly as he suggests but I do believe it goes a way towards giving the losing club something in return for there input into developing a player. Then there is your point about the club that gains the player. Fundamentally I am so against the idea of the club that gains a FA does so without having to cough up some form of payment. It just goes against the whole idea of paying for receiving a benefit. Its like the winning club is a parasite. Personally I would like to see the winning club having to make the full payment. This would reduce the amount of inducement that clubs act on. Yes it would have a impact of the concept of FA but I believe it would also improve the "loyalty" ideals.

 

[dplggr47]

Anyone know where brad and Matt crouch’s girlfriends are from?... are the Adelaide girls, country vic girls or Melbourne girls?

If they are Melbourne girls we’ve got issues..

Matt's girlfriend is Victorian, while Brad met his girl in Adelaide.

 

[Bicks]

 

[dogs105]

Good for him. Can teach them how to break tags too.

 

[FR0GGY]

Good for him. Can teach them how to break tags too.

Ryder already has this down pat.

 

[Elite Crow]

You lost Bicks?

 

[Jarman3]

From the losing club's viewpoint I like the concept from James. It may not end up exactly as he suggests but I do believe it goes a way towards giving the losing club something in return for there input into developing a player. Then there is your point about the club that gains the player. Fundamentally I am so against the idea of the club that gains a FA does so without having to cough up some form of payment. It just goes against the whole idea of paying for receiving a benefit. Its like the winning club is a parasite. Personally I would like to see the winning club having to make the full payment. This would reduce the amount of inducement that clubs act on. Yes it would have a impact of the concept of FA but I believe it would also improve the "loyalty" ideals.

Anything that reduces the amount of player movement will be rejected out of hand by the AFL and the AFLPA. I'm not sure WHY player movement is something that they're so desperate to see more of, other than the fact that it fills newspaper columns, but that's just the way it is. So no, they won't do anything to make a club less likely to try and coax a free agent across.

What I'd like to see would be some kind of protection of lower clubs from getting raided by higher clubs. E.g. say top 4 clubs can't take free agents from bottom 4 clubs, as a bare minimum. Even better, clubs can't take free agents from lower ranked clubs, but that's even less likely to happen. The problem with these approaches is that they'd also have to ditch the compensation, because at the moment you see some lower-ranked clubs being quite happy to let a RFA walk if the reckon they'll get a good compensation pick (eg Rockliff, Frawley). And I'm vehemently opposed to any reduction in compensation picks until such time as there's a significant cull of Victorian teams. Saying the "compensation" you get is freed up cap space to attract a free agent of your own is fine in theory, but it just doesn't work that way in practice when you've got 90% of the players in the comp coming from Victoria and looking to run back home. Instead, any freed up cap space would just end up being used to pay overs to existing players to try and hold onto them rather than attracting free agents who just refuse to leave Victoria because there's no reason to - when there are 10 clubs over there, you can be pretty sure that one of them will be willing to pay you what you want.

 

[Squiba]

Which Free Agent move do you think would be refused if the club receiving the player had to cough up compo in some form? I think Points work best personally, but whatever it is.

There has to be some cost, or it just doesn't work as far as equalisation is concerned.

FA should be 6 years at one club (no RFA).

If there were only mid-round band compensation based on final contract before FA avg yearly $ ... like:

Top 25% earners at the club = 1469 points (Pick 9)
25-50% earners at the club = 703 points (Pick 27)
50-75% earners at the club = 347 points (Pick 45)
Bottom 25% = FREE

These points are taken from the highest (worst) pick the player-gaining club has in the matching round with the required points.

If the club can't get the points in the round required, they can't get the player.

The player-leaving club gets the pick, any other clubs with the same compo-pick is sorted in reverse ladder order.

Example - Sloane going to St Kilda - Say Sloane is on a 3 year $2.1 million contract now - that's $700k which puts him in the top 25% - we get pick 9, the Saints have picks 7 and 8 in the first round of the draft ... they give up 8 (1,551) and the remaining 82 points filter down to their next pick.

No forced trades, no bull dust AFL hidden rules - just FA player movement with some compensation / costs built in.

The premise is good, but I can imagine clubs trading out picks left right and centre (ala Essendon this year) only to say "you need pick 9?, um, we only have 48 and 70..."

Is there a way to get around that?

 

[radiojake]

It would almost be better if there was no draft but just a solid salary cap ceiling

Just sign the kids up as they become old enough - Fit them into your cap? Good enough for me

 

[baldandbroke]

The premise is good, but I can imagine clubs trading out picks left right and centre (ala Essendon this year) only to say "you need pick 9?, um, we only have 48 and 70..."

Is there a way to get around that?

Yep - I covered that.

You don't have the pick / points in the correct round - you don't get the player.

 

[Squiba]

Yep - I covered that.

You don't have the pick / points in the correct round - you don't get the player.

So do the picks need to be in a certain round? Or just amount to a certain points value...?

 

[baldandbroke]

So do the picks need to be in a certain round? Or just amount to a certain points value...?

Both.

If it's a level 1, ie pick 9 or 1469 points - then the club that wants the player has to be able to pay the points from first round picks. Finish top 8 - and pick up a level 1 Free Agent - would mean you had to trade back into the first round to afford it.

 

[BrissyCrow]

Anything that reduces the amount of player movement will be rejected out of hand by the AFL and the AFLPA. I'm not sure WHY player movement is something that they're so desperate to see more of, other than the fact that it fills newspaper columns, but that's just the way it is. So no, they won't do anything to make a club less likely to try and coax a free agent across.

What I'd like to see would be some kind of protection of lower clubs from getting raided by higher clubs. E.g. say top 4 clubs can't take free agents from bottom 4 clubs, as a bare minimum. Even better, clubs can't take free agents from lower ranked clubs, but that's even less likely to happen. The problem with these approaches is that they'd also have to ditch the compensation, because at the moment you see some lower-ranked clubs being quite happy to let a RFA walk if the reckon they'll get a good compensation pick (eg Rockliff, Frawley). And I'm vehemently opposed to any reduction in compensation picks until such time as there's a significant cull of Victorian teams. Saying the "compensation" you get is freed up cap space to attract a free agent of your own is fine in theory, but it just doesn't work that way in practice when you've got 90% of the players in the comp coming from Victoria and looking to run back home. Instead, any freed up cap space would just end up being used to pay overs to existing players to try and hold onto them rather than attracting free agents who just refuse to leave Victoria because there's no reason to - when there are 10 clubs over there, you can be pretty sure that one of them will be willing to pay you what you want.

Yep, I know the AFL wouldn't support anything that restricts player movement but I cant understand why the AFL wont support the concept of "loyalty" People will say it all revolves around the AFL being afraid of "restriction of trade" laws. Yet this has not been tested in Australia and I vaguely remember some comment being made ages ago that the sporting bodies might have some legal rights to restrict movement if the process would seriously cause damage the sporting body.

Would be interesting to see how the courts would rule.

 

[Sanders]

Who benefits from this “loyalty”?

to what end world it be, and are those interests the most important

 

[BrissyCrow]

Who benefits from this “loyalty”?

to what end world it be, and are those interests the most important

Clearly you and I have different views about certain things and thats fine. For me as a supporter barracking for my team was just as much about as barracking for the players. Knowing they would be there next year helped me build my loyalty towards the team. So who benefits ......I believe the supporters benefit.

Again we have a different view of what matters to us.

 

[MRB37]

Who benefits from this “loyalty”?

to what end world it be, and are those interests the most important

Well, if Sloane got his original proposal agreed to, he'd be the one benefiting.

 

[Sanders]

Clearly you and I have different views about certain things and thats fine. For me as a supporter barracking for my team was just as much about as barracking for the players. Knowing they would be there next year helped me build my loyalty towards the team. So who benefits ......I believe the supporters benefit.

Again we have a different view of what matters to us.

No we don’t have different views on what matters to us

I agree that loyalty benefits supporters.

I don’t however think supporters parochial interests are the most important considerations

 

[Tex Danger]

Not sure a loyalty bonus would help us.

On the surface it would appear it would but really, Vic teams would still be less likely to have players leave than us, effectively increasing their salary caps compared to us and allowing them to offer overs to poach which then offsets the loyalty bonus tgeyvrecieve by staying

Maybe more players would leave after 1st contract so they still ended up getting the bonus late in career, just 2 years later at a different club

 

[1970crow]

Not sure a loyalty bonus would help us.

On the surface it would appear it would but really, Vic teams would still be less likely to have players leave than us, effectively increasing their salary caps compared to us and allowing them to offer overs to poach which then offsets the loyalty bonus tgeyvrecieve by staying

Maybe more players would leave after 1st contract so they still ended up getting the bonus late in career, just 2 years later at a different club

Perhaps the loyalty bonus could only apply to players who get drafted to play more than a couple of hundred clicks from their home.