North Melbourne

[The Doctor]

North Melbourne assistance package is as follows. Clubs have been briefed.


- End of first round pick this year
- Two end of first round picks in 2024 (can be reviewed next year)
- Two extra rookie list spots for 2024.
- No extra access to Ryley Sanders beyond standard NGA rules.

where is the dislike or hate button?

[Topdog]

Cannot disagree more strongly G.

Giving them 3 players does absolutely nothing for next season but may gift them a premiership in 5 years time.

These gifts have long term impacts.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Cannot disagree more strongly G.

Giving them 3 players does absolutely nothing for next season but may gift them a premiership in 5 years time.

These gifts have long term impacts.

Getting access to kids most likely means they're still crap next year. Will they get even more picks again because they didn't progress? It's absolute stupidity.

[Mofra]

Cannot disagree more strongly G.

Giving them 3 players does absolutely nothing for next season but may gift them a premiership in 5 years time.

These gifts have long term impacts.

Well, they have to develop and keep them. Yes they've been given heaps but I still think they have challenges.
Hawthorn bottomed out and overtook them in two years. I think it's easy to throw draft picks at a problem and not consider a multitude of other factors.

North will become an incubator for talent, GWS lite. They're still chasing and overpaying for other teams' failed first round picks (Stephenson from Collingwood, now Dylan Stephens from the Swans). And if Comben can't stay on the paddock they have no decent 2nd KPF.

[MrMahatma]

I think if they're going to give concessions (which I don't agree with) it should be off field. Let them have the $/soft cap to get GOOD people there who make smart decisions for the longer term. Perhaps that's already happening with the new coaching crew. Don't know. But giving them draft assistance when they've had lots of high draft picks in recent years, really just hurts other clubs and puts at risk them becoming less competitive.

[jeemak]

I think if they're going to give concessions (which I don't agree with) it should be off field. Let them have the $/soft cap to get GOOD people there who make smart decisions for the longer term. Perhaps that's already happening with the new coaching crew. Don't know. But giving them draft assistance when they've had lots of high draft picks in recent years, really just hurts other clubs and puts at risk them becoming less competitive.

That just stitches up other clubs as well because they poach talent identified and developed elsewhere via an unfair advantage.

[jazzadogs]

They wasted the compo picks last year on Logue and Tucker who are average at best. Why should they be rewarded with more because they made bad decisions? Can we get a retrospective first rounder for the one we wasted on Christian Howard?

[SquirrelGrip]

They wasted the compo picks last year on Logue and Tucker who are average at best. Why should they be rewarded with more because they made bad decisions? Can we get a retrospective first rounder for the one we wasted on Christian Howard?

Could Sam Power request a retrospective first rounder for the one we used on Sam Power?

[Sedat]

Could Sam Power request a retrospective first rounder for the one we used on Sam Power?

As a former poster here once said, "if only the goalposts were located on the wings, Sam Power would have been the best player in the competition"

[jazzadogs]

Thoughts on these quotes from Clarkson:

"We spent seven years actually building Ben up to be the player that we thought he could be for the next seven and now he goes to the Bombers"

“I think that's accurate (that we would match the deal if it didn’t trigger first-round compensation),” Clarkson said.

“I mean, we just can't lose him for a back end of first-round or second-round pick.

“We'll see how that plays out, but hopefully the compensation will be somewhere at the top.”

[GVGjr]

North have added Xavier Clarke to their coaching ranks. I'd imagine Ratten will head to Richmond.

[Grantysghost]

Thoughts on these quotes from Clarkson:

"We spent seven years actually building Ben up to be the player that we thought he could be for the next seven and now he goes to the Bombers"

“I think that's accurate (that we would match the deal if it didn’t trigger first-round compensation),” Clarkson said.

“I mean, we just can't lose him for a back end of first-round or second-round pick.

“We'll see how that plays out, but hopefully the compensation will be somewhere at the top.”

He's smart, putting the pressure on and conditioning the public to the outcome.
Seven years of making him one of the biggest losers at the start of their career. Great work Roos.

Clarkson might threaten the new head of AFL ops if he doesn't get his way.

What is it again? You'll get yours?

[Topdog]

He's smart, putting the pressure on and conditioning the public to the outcome.
Seven years of making him one of the biggest losers at the start of their career. Great work Roos.

Clarkson might threaten the new head of AFL ops if he doesn't get his way.

What is it again? You'll get yours?

He isn't putting any pressure on at all, the outcome is already known. Similar to the Geelong farce many years ago

[mjp]

“I mean, we just can't lose him for a back end of first-round or second-round pick.

I think this is a fair perspective and talks to the complexities of the system. I actually have no issue with draft-based compensation for the lost of Free Agents/Restricted Free Agents - the NFL do that as well - but the difference with the NFL system is everyone seems to understand what the compensation is going to be (because salaries and contract terms are known). So you often read about a player being offered a deal that would trigger 3rd round compensation etc - and that compensation is always at the END of the round.

I think the general rule should be (simplified):
- Compensation is ALWAYS at the end of the round. So the earliest a first round compensation pick could be would be #19.
- The club receiving the compensation can do WHATEVER they want with it - trade it etc. No restrictions on picks - I keep reading suggestions about 'making them take the picks' etc and I don't get that.
- There simply MUST be clarity from the AFL about what offer constitutes what 'BAND' of compensation. The whole 'secret sauce' stuff is shameful.

Given Clarkson's comments, I think North should basically be saying 'We will 100% match the offer'. Whilst I don't disagree that structurally he is worth more than pick 19 to them, at a 'league' level he is not worth more than that in a trade...a late first round pick is about the BEST North would get for him on the open market - unless I'm reading things completely incorrectly. The compensation should be exactly that - a form of 'payment' that does not make up for the original asset but does recognise the loss of an asset. North should be watching this, understand the best that they can get is #19, and simply saying 'We will match'.

[hujsh]

Should there be any onus on the team getting the player to pay a draft price in the same way clubs pay draft points for FS/Academy kids? At least that way it's not entirely up to the rest of the league to cover their compensation for them