Said it once but I’ll say it again Joe’s 2021 was the most inconsequential 40 goal season you will ever see. Utterly average in almost every respect of the game. Seldom took any games apart or dominated. Its like Joe on Lexapro. No highs, no lows, just mundane middle ground sludge
4 Likes
2021 was never going to be a dominant season from Joe, he’d missed way too much footy in preceding seasons.
2022 and beyond is where his time at Brisbane should be judged.
1 Like
You’re probably right. But the way the media went on about him you’d have thought he was AA and kicked 70 odd goals.
1 Like
He also stated that the contract to 2025 means
““That’ll take me to a point in my career that will pretty much the end, if not close to it,” he said.”
So he has 3 years
How the fark do these people get paid? Ol’ Snake kicked a goal for 39 games in a row when with us… and that was when our midfield sucked/was full of top-ups.
8 Likes
Hell be 30. Should still be at his peak.
His body has missed 3 years from doing absolutely no rehab anyway.
Probably.
We Blitzers have lots of shortcomings but our complete lack of interest in anything Joe Dan is quite admirable.
We’ve moved on.
Don’t let the truth get in the way of some good outrage.
It’s all about drumming up a ‘rivalry’.
BARRETT: The herbs, spices and bad smell about Joe’s FA deal
Damian Barrett delves into Joe Daniher’s contract extension and the ‘manipulable’ free agency system
Joe Daniher after Brisbane’s semi-final loss to the Western Bulldogs at the Gabba on September 4, 2021. Picture: AFL Photos
WHEN Brisbane, Essendon and the AFL pondered the Joe Daniher recipe after the 2020 season, there were, as usual with free agency compensation ingredients, many herbs and spices thrown into the mix.
A long period of marinating followed by a slow cook left the plate looking like this: Daniher as the main course with a three-year deal to play for the Lions, national draft pick No.7 for the Bombers as the main side dish.
One season into that three-season deal, Daniher and the Lions have signed a new contract, one contracting him to the club until the end of 2025, in an arrangement which wafted across as a bad smell in the noses of some other clubs.
Those clubs were wondering if the Daniher deal to leave Essendon and join the Lions had been a five-year deal from the outset, at say, less money per season compared with the speculated about-$750,000 per year attached to the three-year deal, would have been sufficient enough for such a lucrative draft pick.
The Bombers, despite threatening all along to match Brisbane’s deal, ultimately opted not to, more than comforted with the draft pick, which slid to No.9 and was used on young gun Archie Perkins after the Bulldogs and Swans had respectively accessed Academy players Jamarra Ugle-Hagan and Braeden Campbell at picks one and five.
Joe Daniher celebrating a goal for the Bombers in a clash against the Hawks at Adelaide Oval in 2020. Picture: AFL Photos
It was smart business for the Lions to get Daniher for nothing, and for the Bombers to get access to a prized high pick for losing him, a pick which ultimately was nestled in between two other first-round picks at eight (Nik Cox), nine (Perkins) and 10 (Zach Reid), and for the AFL to sign off on it all under its Free Agency compensation formula.
But even before last week’s announcement of Daniher’s contractextension, there were many who felt the exchange of late 2020 was another example of a manipulable system which has revealed great contrasts in compensation afforded to clubs since free agency inception in 2012.
Joe Daniher during Brisbane’s official team photo shoot at the Gabba on February 15, 2022. Picture: AFL Photos
It has been my view from day one of AFL free agency that compensation should not be given to the club losing the player. And while that would obviously pose a distinct set of new issues for certain clubs and the game’s controlling body, in my eyes, it would ultimately prove to be a far cleaner system.
With the AFL itself distributing the compensation, natural draft order is regularly changed, adversely affecting clubs which have no bearing on the free agency negotiations by way of lower draft picks.
’I WENT AROUND HIS BACK’ Daniher’s new deal surprises his coach
Besides, clubs losing an in-demand free agent have already received “compensation” via the years of service performed by that player, and more “compensation” is to come immediately in the form of that player’s salary requirements being a thing of the past and of potential use in the pursuit of a gun free agent or rival club player in a separate transaction.
Joe Daniher celebrates a goal against the Western Bulldogs in the 2021 semi-final. Picture: AFL Photos
Rules state that clubs get no compensation for loss of a free agent if they bring in a free agent in the same transaction period. That rule is easily bypassed, though, evidenced as recently as last year in Richmond adding free agent Robbie Tarrant via a trade with North Melbourne, and still receiving draft compensation for loss of Mabior Chol to Gold Coast.
There were as many eyebrows raised in 2016 as there were over the Daniher saga during Tyrone Vickery’s free agency exchange and compensation between Richmond and Hawthorn, particularly after the Hawks deleted a media release announcing the deal, and amending it very quickly with a change of tenure attached to the deal.
Ty Vickery during Hawthorn’s official team photo day in 2017. Picture: AFL Photos
There were actually more eyebrows raised when Melbourne received pick three (which it used to take 2021 premiership gun Angus Brayshaw) for losing James Frawley to Hawthorn in 2014, one year after the Hawks received pick 19 for losing Lance Franklin to Sydney.
Yes, both picks were picks immediately after each club’s natural draft order, and yes, the AFL has never said its compensation formula is designed to “fully compensate” a club for loss of a free agent. An AFL email sent to all clubs in September last year stated that compensation was “not designed to make concession for the ladder position of a club losing a player”.
But many had wondered in 2014 if Melbourne’s plight at that stage (having just completed an eight consecutive season of double-figure ladder finishes, and two 17th-placed results in a row, might have influenced a favourable compo package.
The AFL has always vigorously defended its free agency compensation formula. Its general counsel Andrew Dillon issued all clubs a reminder of its clauses in late September last year when he distributed an email on the eve of the free agency period.
’THE ATHLETE WHISPERER’ Fagan on Brisbane’s new breathing coach
That correspondence referenced “key determinants” as the age of the player and average guaranteed payments. It said “compensation” was applied to a “ranking list stratified into compensation bands – top five per cent - first round; next 10 per cent - end of first round; next 15 per cent - second round; next 20 per cent - end of second round”.
“Other considerations” included: “if compensation considered materially anomalous an expert committee reviews and recommends changes to General Counsel”.
Brisbane’s Joe Daniher celebrates a goal against West Coast in R23, 2021. Picture: AFL Photos
Of the change to Daniher’s contract, the AFL said: " The AFL does not provide comment on individual player contracts and it is important to note all contracts and settlements lodged by all clubs for all players must be, and have been, approved by the AFL and are only approved if they are in accordance with AFL Rules."
It was current North Melbourne coach David Noble who first labelled the AFL’s compensation formula as “secret herbs and spices”. That was in 2017 when Noble, then the head of football at Brisbane, was furious at compensation attached to losing Tom Rockliff (pick 18), while Geelong received pick 19 for loss of Steven Motlop to Port Adelaide.
Noble was still at the Lions for the Daniher acquisition and thanked Essendon for its “professionalism regarding the process of Joe’s move to our club”.
Wait, isn’t that a good thing?
If I read that right, Joe agreed to an initial contract which netted Essendon a higher compensation pick, then got the actual contract terms he wanted through a subsequent dealing with Brisbane.
2 Likes
Barrett pushing a pile of ■■■■ uphill if he’s trying to get people to believe that Daniher wasn’t worth at least 1 first round pick.
2 Likes
I think the broader point he’s trying to make is the FA compensation setup needs amending. Which I don’t entirely disagree with.
5 Likes
Not to mention Barrett’s myopic view of “compensation”.
Given that players invariably shift for the chance at a flag, not the money, the notion that a cellar dwelling club gets no draft picks, but has “extra salary cap” money to pay for players who don’t want to go there is stupidly naive.
Reminiscent of the early Brisbane Bears situation.
It’d just entrench inequalities. And have overpaid hacks clogging the lists of bottom sides.
I’m not saying the system doesn’t need adjustments. But a simpler fix would be for the destination club to lose it’s Draft Pick or Picks in the corresponding Round.
7 Likes
Yep Brisbane still do that deal if they land Joey and lose a second rounder.
And means less swings and roundabouts for everyone else.
Brisbane didnt actually have a second rounder in 2021 though, so would they lose equivelant points? or a future 2022 second rounder in that scenario?
Or need to trade back into the second round?
Good for us and Brisbane. Blatant manipulation by Brisbane (us?) though. No way should a FA deal be able to be amended after the fact.
Yep. The issue isn’t compensation. It is critical to keep compensation if we don’t want to have clubs that become feeders.
The issue is the compensation for nothing, and the free cost to the receiving club. Who should be paying for the draft points given up.
2 Likes
JOE DANIHER IS A LION.
2 Likes
So Barrett is upset with the system now, after the Daniher deal and Essendon getting fair compo for him, but had no problem in previous years when the same dodgy deals were getting done?
Never change from your Essendon hating ways flog.
8 Likes
If the agreed compensation for Daniher was a first round pick then I’m suggesting Brisbane lose a first Round Pick.
If necessary the following year.
With the rider that the rules regarding having to take a first round pick (not trading them away repeatedly) also apply to prevent a club continually poaching players. That’d stuff Clarkson’s draft strategy but hey.
An interesting case study to apply this to is the Lynch transfer to Richmond. Given Lynch took a salary hit, and Richmond gave away nothing to get him, the least that should happen is Richmond lost a first round pick. Or was unable to make an offer if they didn’t have a first Round Pick available.
Basically if you want a player from another club badly enough then pay for them. Properly.
1 Like