Juzzk1d
Senior List
- May 1, 2015
- 172
- 330
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
If he's a restricted free agent, and Melbourne match the offer and Viney chooses to leave still, then the club must perform a trade. That's why it's called a restricted free agent?
Recommitted Jack Viney [re-signed until 2025]
- Thread starter Elmer_Judd
- Start date
- Tagged users None
If he's a restricted free agent, and Melbourne match the offer and Viney chooses to leave still, then the club must perform a trade. That's why it's called a restricted free agent?
- Banned
- #253
Has the bull Viney had enough of Melbourne?
- Banned
- #254
He is.
- Banned
- #255
Tim Kelly wasn't a free agent. Your best bet would be Band 1 compensation.
- Banned
- #256
Dangerfield was traded rather than declaring himself a free agent. Adelaide still got massive unders but it was better than the Band 1 compo they would otherwise have received.
That happened once, and everyone now clings to it like it will happen again, as opposed to all the times a free agent has changed clubs via the more standard route.
All of this is correct, it just depends on what someone is going to offer. Maybe North will open the war chest. I mean you wouldn't match a Polec-type salary would you? Especially with the compo coming back your way.
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
Danger was miles better than viney no one in their right mind is trading for Viney.
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
You have almost zero chance of that happening.
- Banned
- #260
More to the point, how much more do Melbourne think they'd get beyond Band 1 compo?
Pure_Ownage
TheBrownDog
True.
Why? compensation for a FA ..is not meant to deliver parity.
trade without V consent ... clubs can not trade anyone without the player agreeing to it.. .he is OOC and will most likely stay if he is happy at Melb.
- Banned
- #263
It's almost like some Melbourne supporters have only started following player movement this season.
It's like they don't remember getting pick 3 compensation for Frawley the year after Hawthorn got pick 19 for Franklin. Because that's how FA compensation works.
It's interesting how they seem to not understand it just as there's talk of them losing a player for slight unders. I wonder if there's any connection there.
It's like they don't remember getting pick 3 compensation for Frawley the year after Hawthorn got pick 19 for Franklin. Because that's how FA compensation works.
It's interesting how they seem to not understand it just as there's talk of them losing a player for slight unders. I wonder if there's any connection there.
Its only a matter of time before every club loses a blood and soul type. If a player wants out what can it do. A UFA can walk ..but a OOC player that wants out ..what choice does a club have? Very very few would walk out at Rich atm.. not after Deludio but every club will lose someone eventually... no matter how much the clubs wants to keep them.
The AFL should remove all R1 comp , band1 should be end of R1
- Banned
- #266
It would mean that a club like GC matches Richmond's offer for a guy like Tom Lynch and forces a trade. And that's not what the AFL (or the AFLPA) wants.
I don't mind reducing the additional compensation but I think the poaching club should have to cough up something in return. Like in the Lynch deal, Richmond's first-rounder automatically goes to the GC and then maybe GC get another pick at the end of the first round as well. It still works out OK for the GC, even though it's not pick 3. But Richmond have to put some skin in the game while still getting their player for clear unders. I think that would balance it out more without interfering with free movement for players who've earned FA status, although I'm not sure how you would scale that out in a way that is operable for all scenarios.
Id remove RFA as well ... 8 years is enough for all players
- Banned
- #268
It doesn't seem to make much difference given no offer has ever been matched.
but as you said.. It would mean that a club like GC matches Richmond's offer for a guy like Tom Lynch ...
- Banned
- #270
In theory, it would sense for them to match if the compensation was reduced. Still waiting for that to happen, though.
Compo pick would be a fair outcome for this one if he decides to leave.
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
I think Melbourne supporters follow it a little closer than you do. Hawthorn couldn’t match Sydney’s huge contract for Buddy so hey no other choice but to accept pick 19.
Melbourne wouldn’t of got a better pick than pick 3 for Frawley, he was also un-restricted and we couldn’t match regardless.
Viney is restricted, Melbourne has the right to match if they want and force a trade. They want to keep Viney so they’ll have problem keeping him, if they can get better Compo via trade then they should get it.
- Banned
- #273
And yet they seem determined to talk themselves into not getting it now there is the prospect of losing a player for less than they'd like. Either through wishful thinking or misunderstanding.
If he wants to leave, you'll get the compo. Surely that is the sensible presumption until we actually see a club match a FA bid and force a trade. That has never happened. And in this case you wouldn't even be getting shafted that bad. Assuming Band 1, which is likely given Viney's age, you'd get a pick in the middle of the first round. What are you hoping for beyond that?
None of this makes any assumption about whether he stays or goes. It's merely an account of what would likely happen if he sought to leave.
Compo has had the perverse outcome of clubs actively not re-signing players because they'd prefer the compo. Frawley is probably the most obvious one, pick #3 was ridiculous. Geelong gamed it to get a first rounder for Motlop and turn him into Gary Ablett. The Vickery deal stunk too.
Free Agency should allow the free movement and fair bidding on a player, not having a club basically making no effort to re-sign a player because they know the compo and would rather the draft pick. Not sure of the ins and outs of Brad Crouch leaving but if he turns into pick #2 or whatever that I've read somewhere, it should be the reason for an overhaul of this system.
Free Agency should allow the free movement and fair bidding on a player, not having a club basically making no effort to re-sign a player because they know the compo and would rather the draft pick. Not sure of the ins and outs of Brad Crouch leaving but if he turns into pick #2 or whatever that I've read somewhere, it should be the reason for an overhaul of this system.
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
Clubs can match though.
Adelaide would of matched Dangerfield‘a accepted contract at Geelong, so Geelong and Adelaide worked out a trade before free agency. I’d say that is an example of a club matching a RFA, it just happened behind closed doors before an official free agency bid and match took place.
As for Viney, band 1/pick 10-12ish Melbourne would accept, band 2 end of first round I’d say Melbourne would match. If he goes to Geelong as rumoured, they have 3 picks in this current draft ahead of band 2.
regardless, I doubt Viney will be leaving. He’s always been passionate about the club and wants to lead by example, I highly doubt he’s the sort of guy to run off because he lost the captaincy. He’s got a new house in Brighton, a baby born this year, I doubt he’s moving his wife down to Geelong away from hers and his families.
