Free Agents v Early Retirements

[tbagrocks]

If a player like Buddy Franklin leaves Hawthorn via the Free Agent market, the Hawks get compo for this

If a required player like Mitch Clark for whatever reason has to retire early, his clubs in this case, Melbourne, get nothing

Some are disagreeing with my point on this but, honestly, how is it different for the Football Clubs losing required players?

Should clubs be compensated as the free agent clause is when they lose a player from their list due to early retirement?

If not, why not? Considering there is little difference at all to the Football club

[Mailman the 2nd]

As I already said, Mitch Clark won't be playing football anymore for the rest of his career. You can argue that every player should be Dustin Fletcher and are retiring "early". Why would you give compensation for a player who wouldn't be playing anyway?

Franklin on the other hand, willingly chose to leave his club to take up a better offer and will be continuing his career at the Swans for the foreseeable future. In turn the Hawks deserve compensation as he would've been playing for them w/o free agency

[tbagrocks]

So for whatever reason, he needs to retire. Say it happens to Jeremy Cameron, bad luck? Yes but, if JC sins for Collingwood, GWS still lose the player but gets compensated

Where is the difference to GWS/Melbourne losing a key player?

[tbagrocks]

It is the AFL who hand out Compo picks for poor seasons or Free agent losses so, why cannot they also determine if a player given special circumstances ala Clark, McCarthy ect, be provided with compensation?

[Mailman the 2nd]

How would you determine what compensation to give them? Just assume they'd be in their best form for another 5 years?

Way too tricky, with free agency its determined via length of contract, amount of money paid and the age of the player. They don't need to assume the player's worth to the club as that's already been determined somewhat.

[tbagrocks]

Clark was contracted and on good money, simply use the same system

[Toga]

It is the AFL who hand out Compo picks for poor seasons or Free agent losses so, why cannot they also determine if a player given special circumstances ala Clark, McCarthy ect, be provided with compensation?

Maybe they could but it would get a bit messy if clubs start expecting them to hand out comp picks willy nilly for "early retirements".... What age constitutes an early retirement? Lines are too blurred, whereas the system through which FA compo picks are awarded is a bit more easily defined.

[Mailman the 2nd]

Clark was contracted and on good money, simply use the same system

So Franklin goes down in 2014 and retires early.

Swans were paying him approx 9 mill more for another 8 years. That would mean that Swans are getting like 3 first round picks at the cost of paying Franklin for one year.

[tbagrocks]

Yeah you're missing the point. Melbourne went and signed a gun forward they expected to have for five plus years and payed him very well

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

Yet, Hawthorn similarly lost a key forward payed well they could have had for five years, yet they got compensated

so

[Nails]

Him retiring early is no different to him not retiring at all. He wouldn't have played any more games and just stayed injured anyway, your point is stupid.



Also under your idea if a player "retires" early then every single club in the AFL should get compensated for every player that retires early as Dustin Fletcher is what 37-38yo? Therefore everybody who retires before 38yo is retiring early and therefore deserve instant compensation!

[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)

[Noz]

I disagree but then agree at the same time.

Clubs shouldnt receive compensation picks for players who retire early because then where do they stop? Mitch Clarke sure he couldn't handle the pressure anymore and had some self issues outside of football do they give Melbourne a compensation pick based on that? Remember Tom Swift from West Coast who walked out of Football to pursue a career in medicine, Would West Coast receive a compensation pick for Swift?

I dont think clubs should receive compensation picks for early retirements however i do feel like in an event like what happened with Mitch Clarke i feel the AFL should jump in a help pay at least half of his remaining contract. Melbourne couldn't do anything about it depression can hit anyone at any time. Melbourne tried very hard but in the end Mitch felt he couldn't handle the pressure anymore and rightfully walked away from the club, Leaving Melbourne with a tremendous pay out.

Which begs another questions should the AFL help pay out his remaining contract

[Mailman the 2nd]

Melbourne won't be paying most of his contract unless they stated otherwise or front-loaded the entire contract (both unlikely)

[Toga]

I completely agree with you Noz, summed up my thoughts perfectly. It is pretty hard on Melbourne what has happened and has not helped improve their on & off-field problems so in that sense I wouldn't mind seeing the AFL help them out with some form of compensation. But where does the line get drawn if this does happen?

That begs another question though, do Melbourne have to pay out the remainder of his contract (seasons 2014 & 2015) anyways? I thought they would but others seem to think his pay is severed with his retirement unless there was a specific clause stating otherwise. I'm not so sure.

[tbagrocks]

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