Originally Posted by
liz
My recollection (and this is reflected in the article you provided a link to) is that the angst amongst other clubs wasn't due to the initial three year term but the reduction from three to two years. The AFL doesn't publish a transparent formula for working out compensation picks, but it's generally perceived to be based (amongst other criteria) on the per annum payment, rather than the total contract value. The presumption was that the Hawks restructured their overall offer to Vickery to be a two year deal, rather than three year, but on essentially the same money over the contract, thus making the per annum amount higher and improving the compensation pick the Tigers received. I imagine there was then a verbal agreement with Vickery that if he was retained beyond the initial two years, it would be on a significantly lower amount.
This just highlights one of the issues in the way compensation pick are handed out. They should just abolish them all. Free agents are free agents. And where the player is a restricted free agent, their current club's decision on whether to match the deal or not won't be distorted by the lure of a compensation pick.
Bookmarks