Free Agents v Early Retirements

[Mailman the 2nd]

This player retires early, Dee's still payed him well and lost what they gave for him, plus a key player in their building going forward

No they paid him up to when he retired. Just like every other job when you retire its over, neither the club owes money nor player owes services (unless contracted or whatnot)

Demons are getting a unfair advantage otherwise (as stated by the Franklin situation i presented before but you ignored)

Demons are losing out here on a key player they would have expected to have for years, not sure how you think compensation is an advantage to them when they are massively disadvantaged by losing such a key player. Not ignoring anything but some are choosing to ignore this fact

Also, that comment is just stupid Nails

By that logic, every player that leaves the club should give the club compensation and there's no way of balancing it fairly.

Free Agency was so that players can voluntarily leave their club. Retirement in the case of Clark etc. is almost entirely involuntary and hence no compensation.

Its just life players get injured, whether they're out for a week, a year or forever. You don't just give out free handouts for that 

[Toga]

Tbag, do you think that if Beau Waters has to retire (his latest surgery has been described as "career-threatening" then should West Coast receive compensation for his retirement?

[Ringo]

Just remember there have precedents set with retired players playing again for new clubs.  In recent times we have seen this occur with GWS.

The thing that concerns me with "retirements" will clubs entice a player to announce their retirement at the end of current contract only to pick them up later with no compensation.

[BB67th]

The players that went to another club after retiring were mostly to the expansion clubs like Luke Power and Dean Brogan, and moved into a coaching role after their careers were done. They were effectively playing coaches, same as Ben Hudson is now, though he is a bit of a different case.

I doubt there will be much more of players coming out of retirement now that the expansion clubs are well established.

[Mailman the 2nd]

Yeah guys like Power, Brogan etc. wouldn't have been compensated if they did go through free agency so there's no reason why it should go otherwise

[Noz]

If you give Melbourne a compensation pick for Mitch Clarke then what about  Geelong for when premiership hero Matthew Egan had to retire in his early 20s due to a serious foot injury or Fremantle when just last year when Jayden Pitt couldn't play AFL anymore due to a heart issue.

These things happen in AFL and when they do as unfortunate as it may sound its just the way of life.

[tbagrocks]

Still failing to see my point, too bad

[Nails]

End of the day if Melbourne weren't spending seasons tanking and developing a losing culture they might not be in the position where losing one such player would be such a big deal.

[BB67th]

I see your point tbag, but I would look at it this way instead.

When Buddy leaves from free agency, he goes on to play football at another club.

When Clark retires from depression, he doesn't play football anywhere else.

Because another club is getting Buddy's services, Hawthorn receives compensation as an equalisation measure. But Clark instead is no longer playing football, therefore there is no advantage to any other club and no compensation to Melbourne.

Personally I'd like to see compensation for free agency scrapped. I think the club should just lose out if they can't keep their players. It would promote more trading throughout the AFL as well. I do think the unrestricted/restricted rules need to change a bit though, to stop players from just walking to wherever they want to go. I don't really know how the system could be fixed, but I definitely think it needs changing from what it is now.

[Toga]

Because another club is getting Buddy's services, Hawthorn receives compensation as an equalisation measure. But Clark instead is no longer playing football, therefore there is no advantage to any other club and no compensation to Melbourne.

This is exactly what I said in one of the other threads but I got ignored :P

[Master Q]

(Read the first page)

You do realise that retirements is part of the game right? Managing your list in terms of age is a big part of coaching and running a football club. Every team receives draft picks after each year, and most teams have retirements.

Handing out picks for "early" (what is early?) retirements would just flood the draft with "compo" picks, giving older teams - who I'd say usually perform better than younger ones, more draft picks which gives them better youth.