F%^&ed up the a$$ by the AFL

[Dave McNamara]

I thought he played for the Swans. I cant find a single game Ted Whitten played for Western Bulldogs.

Hi Pluggs, that's a nice try, but I reckon you know what I mean.

The mightly Chimp played for the South Melbourne FC. That club no longer exists in the competition. Their unfortunate demise was an opportunity seized on by the then VFL to create a new artifical team in Sin City. Some former South Melbourne supporters delude themselves into believing the VFL/AFL's spin doctoring that they still have a club. Goodluck to 'em I say, but they are deluded.

The same applies for Fitzroy FC. The Teddy bears are not Fitzroy simply relocated over 2000kms away. Again, some cling to the AFL fed lie that Fitzroy still lives on. Again, that's their right, but if that's what they believe, they are refusing to face reality and I feel sorry for them.

It would be like if our beloved St Kilda FC was to be wound up and 'moved' across the ditch to 'reappear' as the Wellington Boots. Some may well be conned into buying that pup also. I wouldn't be one though.

As for Teddy Whitten and Footscray/Western Bulldogs...
That is still the same footy club, just with the temporary abhorration of that stupid and disrespectful (IHMO) name change.
That name change would never, ever have happened whilst Teddy could still draw a breath, and I've heard that moves are under way to correct the mistake. I certainly hope so...

[plugger66]

I thought he played for the Swans. I cant find a single game Ted Whitten played for Western Bulldogs.

Hi Pluggs, that's a nice try, but I reckon you know what I mean.

The mightly Chimp played for the South Melbourne FC. That club no longer exists in the competition. Their unfortunate demise was an opportunity seized on by the then VFL to create a new artifical team in Sin City. Some former South Melbourne supporters delude themselves into believing the VFL/AFL's spin doctoring that they still have a club. Goodluck to 'em I say, but they are deluded.

The same applies for Fitzroy FC. The Teddy bears are not Fitzroy simply relocated over 2000kms away. Again, some cling to the AFL fed lie that Fitzroy still lives on. Again, that's their right, but if that's what they believe, they are refusing to face reality and I feel sorry for them.

It would be like if our beloved St Kilda FC was to be wound up and 'moved' across the ditch to 'reappear' as the Wellington Boots. Some may well be conned into buying that pup also. I wouldn't be one though.

As for Teddy Whitten and Footscray/Western Bulldogs...
That is still the same footy club, just with the temporary abhorration of that stupid and disrespectful (IHMO) name change.
That name change would never, ever have happened whilst Teddy could still draw a breath, and I've heard that moves are under way to correct the mistake. I certainly hope so...

The Sydney football club is just the South Melbourne football club that has moved to Sydney. Fitzroy is totally different. They merged with another club. If i was a South supporter i would think Sydney is still the same club just with a name change and a different location. I would still follow that club for sure. My mate played the last year of South and the first of Sydney. He thought it was the same club. His Dad played for South. He still thinks its the same club. They didnt merge, they just changed a name. Maybe we should see how the yanks do it when clubs change states. I reckon the records carry on.

[BigMart]

Completely different yeah

So if we become the Wellington Saints.... Which one do we become...like Brisbane or Sydney???

Because as far as I can see..... South Melbourne and Fitzroy both no longer exist....

[plugger66]

Completely different yeah

So if we become the Wellington Saints.... Which one do we become...like Brisbane or Sydney???

Because as far as I can see..... South Melbourne and Fitzroy both no longer exist....

Neither do Footscray.

[8856brother]

Completely different yeah

So if we become the Wellington Saints.... Which one do we become...like Brisbane or Sydney???

Because as far as I can see..... South Melbourne and Fitzroy both no longer exist....

Neither do Footscray.

Southern Saints

[dsreg1]

Actually, what Bigmart has just pointed out, is a major flaw (and again an unintended consequence from the masters of them).

If a club recruit a free agaent, and lose no-one themselves, there is no penalty other than salary cap space paid by that club.

However if you are unfortunate enough to lose a free agent yourself, you also pay a second penalty of having your compensation diluted. Why should one team pay a penalty for recruiting a free agent and the other not?

What it means is that (if the opportunity presents), you should only be trying to recruit free agents in seasons where you will not lose any yourself in order to maximise your return on any that you lose.

The other thing that needs to happen quick smart is that all teams need to be on the same salary cap! Both the two newbies ASAP, and Sydney. The fact that Sydney have a "cost of living" extra 10% ($900k) is a joke. Melbourne's no cheaper these days, and they are bidding $900k for Tippet supposedly (what a coincidence). Funny how Sydney always seem to get their man........

There is no doubt there is an issue but there must be some logical reason why you are penalised if you recruit a FA after losing one. Cant think of a reason at the moment unless as you suggested they dont want to many players swapping clubs so they would rather you recruit one year and lose the next year. That may make some sense. As for the 10% for Sydney i dont mind that as it is dearer to live there but all players should just have 10% added to their contract and it shouldnt be used for recruiting. I dont buy that they had 900K spare on this years cap anyway. Like all succesful clubs I would think they are on 100%.

Picture this year's scenario. 2 big name players are free agents, (example Travis Cloke and Brendon Goddard). By some backhanded dealing, Brendon goes to Collingwood, Travis comes to St Kilda. Both clubs receive band 1 compensation, (an extra first round draft pick), and a gun player.

I believe this is the reason the AFL take into consideration the free agents recruited before determining compensation.

[plugger66]

Actually, what Bigmart has just pointed out, is a major flaw (and again an unintended consequence from the masters of them).

If a club recruit a free agaent, and lose no-one themselves, there is no penalty other than salary cap space paid by that club.

However if you are unfortunate enough to lose a free agent yourself, you also pay a second penalty of having your compensation diluted. Why should one team pay a penalty for recruiting a free agent and the other not?

What it means is that (if the opportunity presents), you should only be trying to recruit free agents in seasons where you will not lose any yourself in order to maximise your return on any that you lose.

The other thing that needs to happen quick smart is that all teams need to be on the same salary cap! Both the two newbies ASAP, and Sydney. The fact that Sydney have a "cost of living" extra 10% ($900k) is a joke. Melbourne's no cheaper these days, and they are bidding $900k for Tippet supposedly (what a coincidence). Funny how Sydney always seem to get their man........

There is no doubt there is an issue but there must be some logical reason why you are penalised if you recruit a FA after losing one. Cant think of a reason at the moment unless as you suggested they dont want to many players swapping clubs so they would rather you recruit one year and lose the next year. That may make some sense. As for the 10% for Sydney i dont mind that as it is dearer to live there but all players should just have 10% added to their contract and it shouldnt be used for recruiting. I dont buy that they had 900K spare on this years cap anyway. Like all succesful clubs I would think they are on 100%.

Picture this year's scenario. 2 big name players are free agents, (example Travis Cloke and Brendon Goddard). By some backhanded dealing, Brendon goes to Collingwood, Travis comes to St Kilda. Both clubs receive band 1 compensation, (an extra first round draft pick), and a gun player.

I believe this is the reason the AFL take into consideration the free agents recruited before determining compensation.

Well done. That certainly makes sense.

[Devilhead]

Completely different yeah

So if we become the Wellington Saints.... Which one do we become...like Brisbane or Sydney???

Because as far as I can see..... South Melbourne and Fitzroy both no longer exist....

Neither do Footscray.

Not according to this jumper

[8856brother]

Actually, what Bigmart has just pointed out, is a major flaw (and again an unintended consequence from the masters of them).

If a club recruit a free agaent, and lose no-one themselves, there is no penalty other than salary cap space paid by that club.

However if you are unfortunate enough to lose a free agent yourself, you also pay a second penalty of having your compensation diluted. Why should one team pay a penalty for recruiting a free agent and the other not?

What it means is that (if the opportunity presents), you should only be trying to recruit free agents in seasons where you will not lose any yourself in order to maximise your return on any that you lose.

The other thing that needs to happen quick smart is that all teams need to be on the same salary cap! Both the two newbies ASAP, and Sydney. The fact that Sydney have a "cost of living" extra 10% ($900k) is a joke. Melbourne's no cheaper these days, and they are bidding $900k for Tippet supposedly (what a coincidence). Funny how Sydney always seem to get their man........

There is no doubt there is an issue but there must be some logical reason why you are penalised if you recruit a FA after losing one. Cant think of a reason at the moment unless as you suggested they dont want to many players swapping clubs so they would rather you recruit one year and lose the next year. That may make some sense. As for the 10% for Sydney i dont mind that as it is dearer to live there but all players should just have 10% added to their contract and it shouldnt be used for recruiting. I dont buy that they had 900K spare on this years cap anyway. Like all succesful clubs I would think they are on 100%.

Picture this year's scenario. 2 big name players are free agents, (example Travis Cloke and Brendon Goddard). By some backhanded dealing, Brendon goes to Collingwood, Travis comes to St Kilda. Both clubs receive band 1 compensation, (an extra first round draft pick), and a gun player.

I believe this is the reason the AFL take into consideration the free agents recruited before determining compensation.

Incorrect. This is why we don't want to pick up any free agents as we will compromise our extra first round pick.

[BigMart]

What price do Essendon pay to pick up BJ.??

If we pick up any free agents now we pay a price..... Still flawed

Are you taking the piss about footscray
They still play at the western oval, still wear the same jumper, sing the same song, their B&F is the Charlie Sutton Medal... Their honour boards say Footscray, their history is only Footscray.

What a ridiculous comment

[SaintPav]

I thought he played for the Swans. I cant find a single game Ted Whitten played for Western Bulldogs.

Hi Pluggs, that's a nice try, but I reckon you know what I mean.

The mightly Chimp played for the South Melbourne FC. That club no longer exists in the competition. Their unfortunate demise was an opportunity seized on by the then VFL to create a new artifical team in Sin City. Some former South Melbourne supporters delude themselves into believing the VFL/AFL's spin doctoring that they still have a club. Goodluck to 'em I say, but they are deluded.

The same applies for Fitzroy FC. The Teddy bears are not Fitzroy simply relocated over 2000kms away. Again, some cling to the AFL fed lie that Fitzroy still lives on. Again, that's their right, but if that's what they believe, they are refusing to face reality and I feel sorry for them.

It would be like if our beloved St Kilda FC was to be wound up and 'moved' across the ditch to 'reappear' as the Wellington Boots. Some may well be conned into buying that pup also. I wouldn't be one though.

As for Teddy Whitten and Footscray/Western Bulldogs...
That is still the same footy club, just with the temporary abhorration of that stupid and disrespectful (IHMO) name change.
That name change would never, ever have happened whilst Teddy could still draw a breath, and I've heard that moves are under way to correct the mistake. I certainly hope so...

The Sydney football club is just the South Melbourne football club that has moved to Sydney. Fitzroy is totally different. They merged with another club. If i was a South supporter i would think Sydney is still the same club just with a name change and a different location. I would still follow that club for sure. My mate played the last year of South and the first of Sydney. He thought it was the same club. His Dad played for South. He still thinks its the same club. They didnt merge, they just changed a name. Maybe we should see how the yanks do it when clubs change states. I reckon the records carry on.

Do you really believe that the Fitzroy "merged" with Brisbane? They were taken over and it was not a merger at all.

[plugger66]

Pluggs, that's a nice try, but I reckon you know what I mean.

The mightly Chimp played for the South Melbourne FC. That club no longer exists in the competition. Their unfortunate demise was an opportunity seized on by the then VFL to create a new artifical team in Sin City. Some former South Melbourne supporters delude themselves into believing the VFL/AFL's spin doctoring that they still have a club. Goodluck to 'em I say, but they are deluded.

The same applies for Fitzroy FC. The Teddy bears are not Fitzroy simply relocated over 2000kms away. Again, some cling to the AFL fed lie that Fitzroy still lives on. Again, that's their right, but if that's what they believe, they are refusing to face reality and I feel sorry for them.

It would be like if our beloved St Kilda FC was to be wound up and 'moved' across the ditch to 'reappear' as the Wellington Boots. Some may well be conned into buying that pup also. I wouldn't be one though.

As for Teddy Whitten and Footscray/Western Bulldogs...
That is still the same footy club, just with the temporary abhorration of that stupid and disrespectful (IHMO) name change.
That name change would never, ever have happened whilst Teddy could still draw a breath, and I've heard that moves are under way to correct the mistake. I certainly hope so...

The Sydney football club is just the South Melbourne football club that has moved to Sydney. Fitzroy is totally different. They merged with another club. If i was a South supporter i would think Sydney is still the same club just with a name change and a different location. I would still follow that club for sure. My mate played the last year of South and the first of Sydney. He thought it was the same club. His Dad played for South. He still thinks its the same club. They didnt merge, they just changed a name. Maybe we should see how the yanks do it when clubs change states. I reckon the records carry on.

Do you really believe that the Fitzroy "merged" with Brisbane? They were taken over and it was not a merger at all.

Well even more reason why they are different.

[Devilhead]

What price do Essendon pay to pick up BJ.??

If we pick up any free agents now we pay a price..... Still flawed

The price Essendon pay is "Salary Cap pressure" and either way it doesnt matter as it is the same price that every team pays (ie: everyone is in the same boat)

and if Essendon giving away Monfires thru FA meaning that they will receive less than they would normal receive because they picked up Goddard then they will be in the same boat as St Kilda if we picked up a player thru FA.

Bottom line is it is FA is not flawed because as stated previously every team is in the same boat - no one team is treated any differently when it comes to Free Agency

The problem being discussed here is that the AFL are not disclosing what the compensation is when a player leaves or how the compensation is affected if a player leaves and then you receive a player

It seems the AFL havent thought it thru as not knowing what compensation you receive can have a huge affect on future planning therefore in effect you are flying blind when it comes to future trading.

IMO it should be depedent on what the club receiving the player is willing to pay - NOT what money he was on at his previous club and NOT where he finishes in a clubs B&F because that can be manipulated if a club knows that there is a huge chance the player might leave via FA at the end of the current playing year.

In this way the compensation laid out can be clear cut - for example

If player moving clubs has signed a contract receiving "on average" over 700,000 a year - then Teir 1 compensation - 1st Round draft pick (one after your 1st pick)
Between 500,000 and 699,999 - then Teir 2 compensation - end of 1st Round draft pick
Between 300,000 and 499,999 - then Teir 3 draft pick - 2nd Round draft pick
Between 150,000 and 299,999 - then Teir 4 draft pick - 3rd Round draft pick
Between 50,000 and 149,000 - then Teir 5 draft pick - 4th Round draft pick

[|Andy|]

What price do Essendon pay to pick up BJ.??

If we pick up any free agents now we pay a price..... Still flawed

The price Essendon pay is "Salary Cap pressure" and either way it doesnt matter as it is the same price that every team pays (ie: everyone is in the same boat)

and if Essendon giving away Monfires thru FA meaning that they will receive less than they would normal receive because they picked up Goddard then they will be in the same boat as St Kilda if we picked up a player thru FA.

Bottom line is it is FA is not flawed because as stated previously every team is in the same boat - no one team is treated any differently when it comes to Free Agency

The problem being discussed here is that the AFL are not disclosing what the compensation is when a player leaves or how the compensation is affected if a player leaves and then you receive a player

It seems the AFL havent thought it thru as not knowing what compensation you receive can have a huge affect on future planning therefore in effect you are flying blind when it comes to future trading.

IMO it should be depedent on what the club receiving the player is willing to pay - NOT what money he was on at his previous club and NOT where he finishes in a clubs B&F because that can be manipulated if a club knows that there is a huge chance the player might leave via FA at the end of the current playing year.

In this way the compensation laid out can be clear cut - for example

If player moving clubs has signed a contract receiving "on average" over 700,000 a year - then Teir 1 compensation - 1st Round draft pick (one after your 1st pick)
Between 500,000 and 699,999 - then Teir 2 compensation - end of 1st Round draft pick
Between 300,000 and 499,999 - then Teir 3 draft pick - 2nd Round draft pick
Between 150,000 and 299,999 - then Teir 4 draft pick - 3rd Round draft pick
Between 50,000 and 149,000 - then Teir 5 draft pick - 4th Round draft pick

So if Essendon pick up Goddard and lose Monfries, will they get a negative draft pick seeing as Goddard is worth way more than Monfries?

[Devilhead]

So if Essendon pick up Goddard and lose Monfries, will they get a negative draft pick seeing as Goddard is worth way more than Monfries?

If that's the way it pans out then (ie: you gain more than you give away - let's call it a negative balance) then you should get no compensation at all (ie: in this case for monfries ) - given Essendon have picked up Goddard who would be on a lot more coin than Monfries would at Port

As for a positive balance - ie: St Kilda lose Goddard to Essendon (who pay him 750,000 a year) and we gain a player thru FA who we decide to pay 400,000 a year then our compensation would be the difference (750,000 minus 400,000) which is 350,000 and worthy of a Teir 3 2nd Round Draft pick - so we lose Goddard but gain a player and a 2nd round draft pick rather than just losing Goddard for a Teir 1 first round draft pick.

We might find we are Essendon's position in a few years time - when we have salary cap space to manoeuvre and pick up a big name.

In the end all teams are subject to the same rules (as long as they dont change them) - so no one can complain that one team is receiving more than another team or gaining less or not gaining at all - positive or negative balance all teams will experience these scenarios at one time or another (over the next 100 years given FA is most likely here to stay)

Again the point of this thread is the AFL having a clear cut transparent system so teams know in advance what they will be gaining if they do lose a player so they have more time to position themselves come the trade period.

For all we know at the moment Demetriou and his team of clowns could be working on a lucky dip system (unlikely of course) but their set up at the moment can really effect teams setting up for the trade period given teams dont know what picks they have to play with until the very last moment before the trade period starts.

[SuperDuper]

f player moving clubs has signed a contract receiving "on average" over 700,000 a year - then Teir 1 compensation - 1st Round draft pick (one after your 1st pick)
Between 500,000 and 699,999 - then Teir 2 compensation - end of 1st Round draft pick
Between 300,000 and 499,999 - then Teir 3 draft pick - 2nd Round draft pick
Between 150,000 and 299,999 - then Teir 4 draft pick - 3rd Round draft pick
Between 50,000 and 149,000 - then Teir 5 draft pick - 4th Round draft pick

Exactly, just lay out what the compensation is... even if it is a lille more complicated than this.
And as you say, it can be done on NET salaries adding gains and losses with no compensation if you go negative

The AFL is not Kentucky Fried F-ing Chicken or Coca F-ing Cola!!
Why does it need to be a secret recipe???
I dont see any advantage for the lack of transparency

[Gershwin]

Are there any mods on here?
Isn't the subject heading obscene ? It doesn't matter how many %'s and $'s this peanut uses the message is clear. Do something.

[AccidentallyTim]

Again it looks like the most vulnerable clubs will be hit hard by free agency

I refuse to accept we are "vulnerable". I don't like the fact the AFL makes it up as they go along, but we're nobody's victim.

Many had us dead and buried when Lyon left, we'd made a loss, nobody wanted to be at Seaford, etc, etc. There's no point in lauding mobs like Sydney if you learn jack shyte from what they do.

The loss we made last year was due to the Moorabbin write offs (we made a cash profit). Yet, most, including so called accountants, couldn't even read our financial statements. There's been bugger all acknowledgement about the CEO influencing the AFL to the point where we are now a "growth corridor" club, with the accompanying development payments.

We're going OK. We need to revamp the list, sure, but managed to be very hard to beat in just about every game we played this year. We had a % better than about all bar 4 clubs. Our worst defeat was about 6 goals (Hawthorn, when Big Mac was late withdrawal and Fish was gone by half time). Other than that, we lost a fistful by under 2 goals.

F*** victimhood, I'm bullish. We're in a good spot, we're well managed and we've got good future.

I like this post.

I would rather be hated by the masses than get pitty from them week in week out.

Sometimes, maybe, you need to be cocky to get the job done? Not arrogant but sure of yourself and your ability.

Is that what it came down to in '09 and '10? It couldn't be that simple though.

[matrix]

so to 699,999 is tier 2
OVER 700,000 is tier 1

what happens if they sign for 700,000 on the dot?
tier 1.5????

[St Ick]

so to 699,999 is tier 2
OVER 700,000 is tier 1

what happens if they sign for 700,000 on the dot?
tier 1.5????

So if Melbourne loses three players, each is an avg player who is on $250k, the net result is $750k and a pick after their first pick, meaning they've been given pick 5? Either the arguement is flawed or the system is...

[SuperDuper]

So if Melbourne loses three players, each is an avg player who is on $250k, the net result is $750k and a pick after their first pick, meaning they've been given pick 5? Either the arguement is flawed or the system is...

No it may mean 3 teir 3 players, so three 3rd round picks

But anyway, that suggested recipe was clearly simplistic... there are ways that the scenario you suggest could be avoided...
the point is, whatever the guidelines are, make them known!!

[bozza1980]

... How can you possibly not know what compensation you're getting for a player you are bargaining for??? It could be the defining factor in your decision to match an offer??...

The only reason I can think of, and this is far-fetched, but still possible...

Tragic Joke decides to move to Somalia to perform aid work in repartation for the 'sins of his family'. (Good on him too.)
The Skunks, being desperate, offer free agent Jon Brown $1.5mil to takeover from Traj. (Yes, I know Brown is getting on, but the Skunks are confident that their mysterious blood 'infusing' and other techniques can keep him on the park.)
Brown accepts.
AFL declares Brown worth Band 1 compensation. They would, coz the Teddys are one of the AFL's artifically inseminated love children.
Everyone with a pick after the Teddys has that/those picks move back one notch.
Teddys finished lower than us on the ladder.
Our picks 12 & 13 suddenly become 13 & 14...

Yep, unlikely, but stranger things have happened... BBBB's infamous Preliminary Final indiscretion being ruled as low impact and within play, anyone...?

The other thing that needs to happen quick smart is that all teams need to be on the same salary cap! Both the two newbies ASAP, and Sydney. The fact that Sydney have a "cost of living" extra 10% ($900k) is a joke. Melbourne's no cheaper these days, and they are bidding $900k for Tippet supposedly (what a coincidence). Funny how Sydney always seem to get their man........

Totally agree TB!!!!!!!!!

This Bloods spirit stuff is total bull!

Give us an extra $900K to pay for the cost of living at the Seaford cafe strip,
we too could have boosted our 'bottom six',
and without the need for any AFL-Tribunal-Barry Hall type rigging the system,
we would have won at leat two flags also, quite possibly more.

I have no respect for the plastic Sydney Swines and their AFL manipulated hollow victories.

And to rub it in a bit more, Swines have just been 'handed' (I use that term on purpose) another cup, have yet to offload any players, yet the 'premiership' (I use that term loosely) club can suddenly turn around and 'find' close to $1mil to make Tippet realise that (like Clarke from the Teddys last year)... oh well, maybe I'm not so homesick after all...




PS: Re former 'Sydney champion and triple Brownlow medalist' Bobby Skilton handing over those ill-gotten medalions the other week... well I've checked the records, and I still can't find where the chimp ever played a single game for 'Sydney'...

I thought he played for the Swans. I cant find a single game Ted Whitten played for Western Bulldogs.

And North Melbourne left the competition for a couple of years replaced by a team called the Kangaroos only to rejoin the competition after the Kangaroos departed.

Spare me.

[SuperDuper]

If the AFL had have settled FA BEFORE trading began, or at least told the saints what they would get, could have got Lee+24+43 for 13 instead of 12??
We will never know...

just a flawed system

[dragit]

If the AFL had have settled FA BEFORE trading began, or at least told the saints what they would get, could have got Lee+24+43 for 13 instead of 12??
We will never know...

just a flawed system

Was thinking the same, hard going into trade talks without knowing your picks