Author Topic: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]  (Read 8593 times)

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 97315
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #60 on: October 18, 2013, 06:28:12 PM »
Get a grip- Matt White couldn't even get a regular game in our starting 18 this year. And we still have some very average players doing so.
Age has nothing to do with it, he simply isn't much chop.
But the AFL said the reason was due White's age  :huh.

Offline Smokey

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9279
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #61 on: October 18, 2013, 06:28:36 PM »
Smokey, Port offered White 3-years on $300k p.a.

So age must have a much bigger impact than we think or else it just doesn't make sense.  What do you think Sylvia and Del Santo would be on at their new clubs?  Both signed 3 year deals and my guess would be Sylvia ~$450k per year and Del Santo maybe $550k.  Sylvia is 27 and Del Santo is 29 yet both are R2 compo picks so you would think they can't be too far apart in $$'s.  The more I think about it the more it just doesn't gel with the criteria the AFL use.

Offline Muscles

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 843
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #62 on: October 18, 2013, 06:31:23 PM »
So which pick did we end up paying for The Hampster?  It started out as Pick 28 ..... did it end up as 34-ish?

Still nothing to write home about ......

Offline Smokey

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9279
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #63 on: October 18, 2013, 06:32:11 PM »
You can't realistically be any younger than 26 to be a restricted free agent because you can't get drafted until you are almost 18.  It must work against you being younger but I would have thought it should work for you - the younger the player you lose, the more valuable he was because of potential years of service left.  He must have gone to Port for peanuts is all I can think because that doesn't fit with other compo picks in the past.
Smoke, you have been on fire in this thread!  :thumbsup
I wish you were doing the compo  for us for the White loss, we would have Boyd for sure.  :cheers

Yeah, I got the pick wrong big time but I'm having a hard time reconciling it with what the AFL state as their criteria against all the picks handed out.  If it is as the say, based purely on value of the new contract and players age then they must put a much higher premium on the older age and I honestly thought it would be the other way around.  And it makes even less sense if that is the case when I can't see Sylvia being on the same money as Dal Santo plus Del Santo is 2 year older.

Offline big tone

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 4404
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #64 on: October 18, 2013, 06:39:44 PM »
You can't realistically be any younger than 26 to be a restricted free agent because you can't get drafted until you are almost 18.  It must work against you being younger but I would have thought it should work for you - the younger the player you lose, the more valuable he was because of potential years of service left.  He must have gone to Port for peanuts is all I can think because that doesn't fit with other compo picks in the past.
Smoke, you have been on fire in this thread!  :thumbsup
I wish you were doing the compo  for us for the White loss, we would have Boyd for sure.  :cheers

Yeah, I got the pick wrong big time but I'm having a hard time reconciling it with what the AFL state as their criteria against all the picks handed out.  If it is as the say, based purely on value of the new contract and players age then they must put a much higher premium on the older age and I honestly thought it would be the other way around.  And it makes even less sense if that is the case when I can't see Sylvia being on the same money as Dal Santo plus Del Santo is 2 year older.
Agreed, not much logic.

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 97315
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #65 on: October 18, 2013, 06:55:59 PM »
So which pick did we end up paying for The Hampster?  It started out as Pick 28 ..... did it end up as 34-ish?

Still nothing to write home about ......
It moved down 4 spots to pick 32.

Rampstar

  • Guest
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #66 on: October 18, 2013, 07:01:07 PM »
just makes us giving away our pick for hampster even worse. In reality White and McGuane werent worth anything. Deep down we all knew that anyway.

Offline one-eyed

  • Administrator
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 97315
    • One-Eyed Richmond
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #67 on: October 18, 2013, 07:03:28 PM »
Smokey, Port offered White 3-years on $300k p.a.

So age must have a much bigger impact than we think or else it just doesn't make sense.  What do you think Sylvia and Del Santo would be on at their new clubs?  Both signed 3 year deals and my guess would be Sylvia ~$450k per year and Del Santo maybe $550k.  Sylvia is 27 and Del Santo is 29 yet both are R2 compo picks so you would think they can't be too far apart in $$'s.  The more I think about it the more it just doesn't gel with the criteria the AFL use.
My only guess Smokey is they really judged it on the criteria of games played and stats over their respective careers. The age argument used by the AFL makes no sense as White is the youngest.


White -      16 games in 2013 at 12.6 disposals. Career: 105 games at 12.3 disp. ( 8 years)

Sylvia -      19 games in 2013 at 19.4 disposals. Career: 157 games at 17.2 disp. (10 years)

Dal Santo - 22 games in 2013 at 24.8 disposals. Career: 260 games at 22.5 disp. (12 years)

Rampstar

  • Guest
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #68 on: October 18, 2013, 07:08:52 PM »
Richmond needs to guarantee itself a decent pick in the first round. This year could be a disaster draft and trade wise. Club needs to try and upgrade its pick in the first round next week and get itself into the top 10. We could very well end up getting no good players in this years trade and draft effort.

Offline wayne

  • Fame of Hall
  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 8452
  • In Absentia
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #69 on: October 18, 2013, 07:22:52 PM »
Haha age? Why not just tell the truth, he is a fringe player and not worth compo. How can he be too old when it is his 1st year eligible for FA?
And you may not think I care for you
When you know down inside that I really do

Offline Hard Roar Tiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 7929
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #70 on: October 18, 2013, 08:32:20 PM »
just makes us giving away our pick for hampster even worse. In reality White and McGuane werent worth anything. Deep down we all knew that anyway.

Can't argue with that
“I find it nearly impossible to make those judgments, but he is certainly up there with the really important ones, he is certainly up there with the Francis Bourkes and the Royce Harts and the Kevin Bartlett and the Kevin Sheedys, there is no doubt about that,” Balme said.

Rampstar

  • Guest
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #71 on: October 18, 2013, 09:00:01 PM »
just makes us giving away our pick for hampster even worse. In reality White and McGuane werent worth anything. Deep down we all knew that anyway.

Can't argue with that

you never agree with me on anything you been on the pee tonight or something HRT?

Offline Hard Roar Tiger

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 7929
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #72 on: October 18, 2013, 09:26:11 PM »
If we are honest, White and McGuane are team mascots. White was the best in comp at running to the interchange bench but that won't help with an compo pick.
“I find it nearly impossible to make those judgments, but he is certainly up there with the really important ones, he is certainly up there with the Francis Bourkes and the Royce Harts and the Kevin Bartlett and the Kevin Sheedys, there is no doubt about that,” Balme said.

Rampstar

  • Guest
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #73 on: October 18, 2013, 09:32:59 PM »
If we are honest, White and McGuane are team mascots. White was the best in comp at running to the interchange bench but that won't help with an compo pick.

thats actually pretty right but on our forums the supporters are going ape droppings because the AFL didnt give us a pick. to be honest I think the club also expected a pick and thats why they gave our 2nd rounder to carlton.

Online Francois Jackson

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13929
Re: Richmond receives no compo for losing Matthew White [updated]
« Reply #74 on: October 18, 2013, 09:36:57 PM »
If we are honest, White and McGuane are team mascots. White was the best in comp at running to the interchange bench but that won't help with an compo pick.

thats actually pretty right but on our forums the supporters are going ape droppings because the AFL didnt give us a pick. to be honest I think the club also expected a pick and thats why they gave our 2nd rounder to carlton.

posted this exact thing elsewhere Ramps.

I think we scored an own goal too and completely shot ourselves in the foot.



Currently a member of the Roupies, and employed by the great man Roup.