Enough to make you feel sick...

[saintspremiers]

plugs clearly you are full on into S&M. You love the idea of getting beaten from pillar to post. In fact the more our club is harshly done by, the better you feel.

[saynta]

Carlton will end up with pick 2 and 3 if Kruezer leaves. Throw in Sydney and GWS getting a player each rated in the top five kids in the country before us.

Really you can't compete with this bulls***.

Well, I tried telling posters that with free agency etc, we were unlikely to get a pick lower than 8 or 9.

[bergholt]

Before you go on about thats not how it's determined, I understand the system, but the result doesn't fit the intention.

The intention is and always was equalisation. If you're a bottom team and you lose a good player then you get good compensation. Carlton are obviously terrible so that's what they get. Doesn't feel massively fair to me but it definitely matches the intention.

[Jacks Back]

Before you go on about thats not how it's determined, I understand the system, but the result doesn't fit the intention.

The intention is and always was equalisation. If you're a bottom team and you lose a good player then you get good compensation. Carlton are obviously terrible so that's what they get. Doesn't feel massively fair to me but it definitely matches the intention.

But how is it equalisation if a top team gets a good to great player while a bottom team gets compensation in the draft where it will take 2-3 years (if not more - maybe 4-5 years) for that player to match the output of the player that left?

[plugger66]

plugs clearly you are full on into S&M. You love the idea of getting beaten from pillar to post. In fact the more our club is harshly done by, the better you feel.

Look its quite simple SP. I could whinge and complain but it wont make a difference. I choose to just hope we pick a great player. I don't have any interest at all in what other clubs get or do, I will say this though. I have always said there should be no compensation for losing a player to FA but could you imagine the uproar on here if that was the case when we lost BJ. People would say the top clubs get all the advantage. The only reason we didn't get a high pick for BJ is we lost him a year to early otherwise we would have got a very good pick. People are also complaining about Kruezer being a much better pick than Franklin for example but again imagine the outrage on here if the Hawks got pick one for Franklin.

So no I don't love the club being beaten from pillar to post. I am realistic in what we would have complained about previously whatever system they had in place. And I also don't see the point on whinging. It happens every week on umpiring and has it helped? No. It happens every year on at this time with the draft order and has it helped. No. People then say if you don't complain nothing will change but has the complaining helped. No.

I will just worry about what our great club can control and that is picking the best player with whatever pick we end up with. You guys can whinge but surely that just makes you feel worse thinking we are being cheated all the time. It certainly wouldn't make me feel better if I complained about things that I know we cant change.

Now if anyone has a better system I'm happy to hear but remember I'm sure whatever system we have we will be stuffed about when players move clubs under FA.

[fugazi]

The first round of the draft should be left alone, all compensations should come in at the end of the first round onwards.

[bergholt]

Before you go on about thats not how it's determined, I understand the system, but the result doesn't fit the intention.

The intention is and always was equalisation. If you're a bottom team and you lose a good player then you get good compensation. Carlton are obviously terrible so that's what they get. Doesn't feel massively fair to me but it definitely matches the intention.

But how is it equalisation if a top team gets a good to great player while a bottom team gets compensation in the draft where it will take 2-3 years (if not more - maybe 4-5 years) for that player to match the output of the player that left?

Sure, fine, but how else could you possibly do compensation? Force a player just as good to go to the club losing the player?

[saintspremiers]

The first round of the draft should be left alone, all compensations should come in at the end of the first round onwards.

My god.

That is so simple, yet so clever.

Stops the whinging. It's fairer for everyone, and mirrors the change to the priority pick rule that has since been removed.

Why haven't the AFL considered this?

Finishing in the lower reaches of the ladder should guarantee natural order draft picks. The only way you should ever get an extra 1st round pick or a better 1st round pick is by trading.

Your brilliant idea would then make trade period more interesting!

[Saint wagga]

Keuzer wont leave. He's a leader at that club and they are short on leaders. He seems a really loyal bloke just going from everything i've heard/read about him. IMO of course.

[The Fireman]

Well here we are at that time of the year wishing we had better picks . Lol

[gringo]

Keuzer wont leave. He's a leader at that club and they are short on leaders. He seems a really loyal bloke just going from everything i've heard/read about him. IMO of course.

The FA system is a joke, it actually encourages teams not to hold on to stars if they are down. We were tempted into FA with BJ and Dal. It makes teams think they might get a high pick and lures them loose. Carlton would be idiots not to take a top 5 pick for Kruizer.

[FQF]

The compensation is stuffed. First round compensation should be reserved for the very best players. Free agency was NEVER meant to be a way for teams to get way overs in compensation by not signing up their older players.

[bigcarl]

.

We will effectively get #9

Pick 9 for coming 13th.

Which kind of makes a mockery of the "tank-to-get-good-picks" brigade's agenda.

The lesson is that the best you can do is get the best available player with each pick, be it 9 or 59.

In fact the club should, and probably does, have a list of the draft prospects ranked 1-100, and not deviate from it if they are still available.

And next season, try to win every game by picking our best team every week.

[plugger66]

Keuzer wont leave. He's a leader at that club and they are short on leaders. He seems a really loyal bloke just going from everything i've heard/read about him. IMO of course.

The FA system is a joke, it actually encourages teams not to hold on to stars if they are down. We were tempted into FA with BJ and Dal. It makes teams think they might get a high pick and lures them loose. Carlton would be idiots not to take a top 5 pick for Kruizer.

I'm unsure there was any other option but to have FA. What they should have done from the start is not have compensation but could you imagine the whinging when we lost BJ. I think its nearly time to get rid of compensation.

[dragit]

If there is actually a formula, then it should be transparent.

Average $ x contract length to form the bands.

If Frawley & Franklin warrant the same compensation then the scope of band one is far too wide, as Frawley would be on a quarter of what Franklin's total contract is worth surely?

The AFL clearly muddle along and make these picks up as they go.

Band 1 should only be absolute superstars like Ablett, Franklin & Dangerfield… guys who will get 1,000,000 a year.

Kreuzer is just an injury prone spud, worst #1 pick in a long time. There is no way the dogs are going to pay him anywhere near $1,000,000 a year… he'd be lucky to get 500.

[Bunk_Moreland]

If there is actually a formula, then it should be transparent.

Average $ x contract length to form the bands.

If Frawley & Franklin warrant the same compensation then the scope of band one is far too wide, as Frawley would be on a quarter of what Franklin's total contract is worth surely?

The AFL clearly muddle along and make these picks up as they go.

Band 1 should only be absolute superstars like Ablett, Franklin & Dangerfield… guys who will get 1,000,000 a year.

Kreuzer is just an injury prone spud, worst #1 pick in a long time. There is no way the dogs are going to pay him anywhere near $1,000,000 a year… he'd be lucky to get 500.

Dogs already paying a VFL player a mill a season. Got lots of kiddies overperforming looking for pay rises in the near future.

Keep Boyd on a mill and Kruezer on anything over $400k and the Bulldogs are looking at losing players like Stringer, Bont, McRea etc.

Hope they do it, wouldn't mind Bont running about in RW&B(lack)

[plugger66]

If there is actually a formula, then it should be transparent.

Average $ x contract length to form the bands.

If Frawley & Franklin warrant the same compensation then the scope of band one is far too wide, as Frawley would be on a quarter of what Franklin's total contract is worth surely?

The AFL clearly muddle along and make these picks up as they go.

Band 1 should only be absolute superstars like Ablett, Franklin & Dangerfield… guys who will get 1,000,000 a year.

Kreuzer is just an injury prone spud, worst #1 pick in a long time. There is no way the dogs are going to pay him anywhere near $1,000,000 a year… he'd be lucky to get 500.

I think 500 and a long term contract and his age would get band one. If its only million dollar players then I'm unsure we would be happy to lose Steven and get pick 28 if we were about 8th on the ladder. That's the problem. We would have been completely pissed off if we got a pick 30 for BJ. The best way is no compensation at all but then if we lose someone people will say that's no good. Lets face it if we had pick 16 this year before all this compensation no one would really care. We care now because we have a better pick. This board will go into meltdown if Luenberger gets band one pick which people in the media are saying is a real chance.

[dragit]

If there is actually a formula, then it should be transparent.

Average $ x contract length to form the bands.

If Frawley & Franklin warrant the same compensation then the scope of band one is far too wide, as Frawley would be on a quarter of what Franklin's total contract is worth surely?

The AFL clearly muddle along and make these picks up as they go.

Band 1 should only be absolute superstars like Ablett, Franklin & Dangerfield… guys who will get 1,000,000 a year.

Kreuzer is just an injury prone spud, worst #1 pick in a long time. There is no way the dogs are going to pay him anywhere near $1,000,000 a year… he'd be lucky to get 500.

I think 500 and a long term contract and his age would get band one. If its only million dollar players then I'm unsure we would be happy to lose Steven and get pick 28 if we were about 8th on the ladder. That's the problem. We would have been completely pissed off if we got a pick 30 for BJ. The best way is no compensation at all but then if we lose someone people will say that's no good. Lets face it if we had pick 16 this year before all this compensation no one would really care. We care now because we have a better pick. This board will go into meltdown if Luenberger gets band one pick which people in the media are saying is a real chance.

I'm not sure what the exact money for each band should be but if the system ranks Franklin & Kreuzer as the same loss then something is wrong.

Higgins was a 2nd round compensation, so I wouldn't expect Kreuzer & Luenberger to be similar.

It shouldn't actually be that hard to define some guidelines, something like

band 1
700+ 5 years
band 2
500-700 4+ years
band 3
400-500 3+ years
band 4
300-400 2+ years
band 5
250-300 1 year

Instead we have a panel who individually assess (and fix) each case

If Jack Steven wanted to leave and we were only going to get pick 28, then I imagine we would do everything we could to keep him.

We would have most likely kept BJ too IMO if we thought that we would only get band 2.

If the cut-off for band one is only 500K then it's far too low and way too tempting to usher players out of the club for a free 1st rounder.

[plugger66]

If there is actually a formula, then it should be transparent.

Average $ x contract length to form the bands.

If Frawley & Franklin warrant the same compensation then the scope of band one is far too wide, as Frawley would be on a quarter of what Franklin's total contract is worth surely?

The AFL clearly muddle along and make these picks up as they go.

Band 1 should only be absolute superstars like Ablett, Franklin & Dangerfield… guys who will get 1,000,000 a year.

Kreuzer is just an injury prone spud, worst #1 pick in a long time. There is no way the dogs are going to pay him anywhere near $1,000,000 a year… he'd be lucky to get 500.

I think 500 and a long term contract and his age would get band one. If its only million dollar players then I'm unsure we would be happy to lose Steven and get pick 28 if we were about 8th on the ladder. That's the problem. We would have been completely pissed off if we got a pick 30 for BJ. The best way is no compensation at all but then if we lose someone people will say that's no good. Lets face it if we had pick 16 this year before all this compensation no one would really care. We care now because we have a better pick. This board will go into meltdown if Luenberger gets band one pick which people in the media are saying is a real chance.

I'm not sure what the exact money for each band should be but if the system ranks Franklin & Kreuzer as the same loss then something is wrong.

Higgins was a 2nd round compensation, so I wouldn't expect Kreuzer & Luenberger to be similar.

It should actually be that hard to define some guidelines, something like

band 1
700+ 5 years
band 2
500-700 4+ years
band 3
400-500 3+ years
band 4
300-400 2+ years
band 5
250-300 1 year

Instead we have a panel who individually assess (and fix) each case

If Jack Steven wanted to leave and we were only going to get pick 28, then I imagine we would do everything we could to keep him.

We would have most likely kept BJ too IMO if we thought that we would only get band 2.

If the cut-off for band one is only 500K then it's far too low and way too tempting to usher players out of the club for a free 1st rounder.

We can do everything to keep any player but if they want to go then they will go. I'm sure Adelaide are trying to keep Dangerfield but it looks like they wont. If Kruezer gets the same money or close to as Higgins then Carlton will get the same compensation. I have no idea what the figure is but its is above 500K I would think. If clubs want to give Kruezer 700K I'm unsure how the AFL could do anything but give them band one. And age comes into as well. We would have got more for Dal if he was younger.

By the way there maybe a set formula but we wouldn't know if they were following it anyway because we have no idea what players get paid. Only the AFL know that.

[saintsRrising]

Kruezer is a dud. Any club would be mad to pick him up.

[borderbarry]

The only fair system to my mind, is for the club receiving the player to pay the compensation to the team he has left, which normally means the higher club would have to pay the lower club the compensation. The compensation to be paid on a points per player system as is now been used for Academy players and father sons. I am sure the Hawthorns and Geelongs would not be in such a hurry to take players from the lower clubs if it meant they had to pay the lower clubs in draft picks.

[plugger66]

The only fair system to my mind, is for the club receiving the player to pay the compensation to the team he has left, which normally means the higher club would have to pay the lower club the compensation. The compensation to be paid on a points per player system as is now been used for Academy players and father sons. I am sure the Hawthorns and Geelongs would not be in such a hurry to take players from the lower clubs if it meant they had to pay the lower clubs in draft picks.

Barry that is called a normal trade. The players want FA and were given FA. That is not FA.