2016 Non-Crows AFL Discussion - Cont. in Part 2 (link in OP)

[MRB37]

Do you seriously believe that?

I know it's a different sport, but you may wanna look at what LeBron James is doing.... if you are good enough, the best thing to do is do continuous small contracts, knowing full well you'll get the money, as you won't turn to s**t. It'll quite likely become a new trend over there, why not here too...

In 2 years the salary cap will look different, why not get a piece of it? (like LeBron is doing...).

Everyone will be different with that though, some guys like the extra years. LeBron does two year deals with a player option (so essentially a one year contract), others like Melo went for the full 5 years.

I'd actually advocate a more NBA style setup where initial draftees have 3 year contracts and a team option for the 4th, in return they get restricted free agency at the end of their first contract and unrestricted a year after. At least that way you don't get the "two years and I'm done" type draftees and a team gets a bit more value from their picks and maybe even has a bit of extra time to convince them to stay. Of course the downside to that is your Cam McCarthy types who has essentially done that and is now sitting out cause he doesn't want to be in Sydney. Though I wouldn't expect every draftee to be like that.

 

[FAITH]

Not worth it

highest earner in soccer last season was messi around 40m AUD, highest earner in AFL was about 1.5m?

 

[Geoffa32]

Wines has 3 years at Port at a minimum. Anyone trying to spin this as a concerning thing for Port needs to take off their Crows bias. If it was us we would be pumped.

If Brodie Smith signs for two years those saying this is bad for Port will look pretty dumb. Those people just look bitter now. Good luck to Port.

I would prefer to see Wines at Port than the Dees/Carlton etc. Purely because he has the potential to be a great footballer and I want to see that happen for him.

 

[johnnypanther]

This is wrong from what I have heard. They only need to claim amount paid to them under the cap, if they don't pay it, then it doesn't count. They will save around $1mil this year by not paying Ryder and Monfries, $1mil they can spend on someone else this year, or roll into next year. Player's contracts are essentially voided if they are banned for drugs and it wasn't under the advice of the current club doctors. "current" being the key word as it means Essendon get no relief but the other clubs do.

I could be wrong though, I haven't heard anything official from the AFL.

I still think that (barring any AFL decision to the contrary being made on the run), that salary not paid should nevertheless still be included in the salary cap otherwise the clubs are gaining a benefit from salary cap relief and one wouldn't think that rival clubs would be impressed with such unintended benefits (and especially if the players are still going to receive their money from whatever sources).
Also, if "the players' contracts are essentially voided", then surely the players should become delisted free agents?

 

[Wright Away]

highest earner in soccer last season was messi around 40m AUD, highest earner in AFL was about 1.5m?

Yeah but not one really needs 40m.

 

[MRB37]

If Brodie Smith signs for two years those saying this is bad for Port will look pretty dumb.

I would prefer to see Wines at Port than the Dees/Carlton etc. Purely because he has the potential to be a great footballer and I want to see that happen for him.

I hope he stays at Port for the rest of his career. I know that's not the "Crow" thing to say, but I still have the romantic notion of one club players being a good thing. I wish Danger would have been in that group, but hopefully guys like Sloane, Talia, Crouches etc all are that for us.

 

[PAFC_1870]

Everyone will be different with that though, some guys like the extra years. LeBron does two year deals with a player option (so essentially a one year contract), others like Melo went for the full 5 years.

I'd actually advocate a more NBA style setup where initial draftees have 3 year contracts and a team option for the 4th, in return they get restricted free agency at the end of their first contract and unrestricted a year after. At least that way you don't get the "two years and I'm done" type draftees and a team gets a bit more value from their picks and maybe even has a bit of extra time to convince them to stay. Of course the downside to that is your Cam McCarthy types who has essentially done that and is now sitting out cause he doesn't want to be in Sydney. Though I wouldn't expect every draftee to be like that.

Probably cause Melo would wanna guarantee the money, James knows full well he can demand what he wants for as long as he wants....

But yeah I do agree.

 

[johnnypanther]

What his contract tells me is that his management team are worried about Ports already maximised salary cap and the refusal by Port to trade out for salary cap relief.

I wish our young players such as Talia, Brad Couch & Smith would sign for another 2 years.

 

[jenny61_99]

if he can 'make it' playing soccer his earning capacity is way above what afl players earn.

I'd rather him not be a "professional" athlete thanks. Treated like "gods", behave like children. And if he played soccer - I'd have to ******* watch.

 

[jenny61_99]

So they want their names cleared because of a technicality, not because they think/can prove they're innocent?

The appeal could not be for any other reason than a procedural one. The case won't be reheard. No new evidence can be offered. It will be a review of documents pretty much. They've got two chances of winning. Buckley's and none. I'd be surprised if it gets past the first leg (review).

 

[jenny61_99]

highest earner in soccer last season was messi around 40m AUD, highest earner in AFL was about 1.5m?

Who needs 40m a year? It's obscene.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

The appeal could not be for any other reason than a procedural one. The case won't be reheard. No new evidence can be offered. It will be a review of documents pretty much. They've got two chances of winning. Buckley's and none. I'd be surprised if it gets past the first leg (review).

Players are not paying....so why not waste everyone's time ?

Surprised Insurance company doesn't have some out clause, if the money spent on a court case has no chance of success?

 

[jenny61_99]

Players are not paying....so why not waste everyone's time ?

Surprised Insurance company doesn't have some out clause, if the money spent on a court case has no chance of success?

Insurance company is hedging bets. If they pay this, and it wins, all sweet. If they pay this, and it loses, players are then going to go after Essendon. Insurance company is hoping that by supporting them all the way to highest appeal, they will minimise payout. Players are too stupid to see it for what it's worth. They've been advised poorly all the way, IMO.

 

[1970crow]

highest earner in soccer last season was messi around 40m AUD, highest earner in AFL was about 1.5m?

Yes, but that's at the peak of a global sport with international participation rates off the charts.

 

[Scorpus]

Wines has 3 years at Port at a minimum. Anyone trying to spin this as a concerning thing for Port needs to take off their Crows bias. If it was us we would be pumped.

3 years might be all they need for a premiership tilt considering their current list profile

 

[pmar]

I still think that (barring any AFL decision to the contrary being made on the run), that salary not paid should nevertheless still be included in the salary cap otherwise the clubs are gaining a benefit from salary cap relief and one wouldn't think that rival clubs would be impressed with such unintended benefits (and especially if the players are still going to receive their money from whatever sources).
Also, if "the players' contracts are essentially voided", then surely the players should become delisted free agents?

That's a bit tough on clubs where they aren't at fault. Mostly in cases like Saad at St Kilda and Collingwood with Keeffe and Thomas. If a club has no knowledge of a player taking substances then losing the player is enough punishment, salary cap relief just softens the blow.

I've got no problem with Ryders and Monfires 2016 salaries not being included in Ports TPP if they aren't being paid. I'm sure they'd much rather have Ryder playing than the little salary cap relief they get.

And I'm pretty sure that the Essendon players do qualify as delisted free agents at the end of the year due to breach of contract. Its just that they cant be signed by another club until the free agent period

 

[FR0GGY]

highest earner in soccer last season was messi around 40m AUD, highest earner in AFL was about 1.5m?

still not worth it

 

[Pdub]

I still think that (barring any AFL decision to the contrary being made on the run), that salary not paid should nevertheless still be included in the salary cap otherwise the clubs are gaining a benefit from salary cap relief and one wouldn't think that rival clubs would be impressed with such unintended benefits (and especially if the players are still going to receive their money from whatever sources).
Also, if "the players' contracts are essentially voided", then surely the players should become delisted free agents?

They aren't really gaining any benefit, they can't play the players for 12 months. If we lost Tex for 12 months but had his salary put back into our cap, it wouldn't be a benefit to us, it would still be a loss, just a smaller loss. The clubs aren't at fault for the players suspensions, there is no reason to make sure they are fully punished by losing both player and salary cap money. Losing the players is punishment enough.

 

[1970crow]

I still think that (barring any AFL decision to the contrary being made on the run), that salary not paid should nevertheless still be included in the salary cap otherwise the clubs are gaining a benefit from salary cap relief and one wouldn't think that rival clubs would be impressed with such unintended benefits (and especially if the players are still going to receive their money from whatever sources).
Also, if "the players' contracts are essentially voided", then surely the players should become delisted free agents?

It's not a benefit because the players aren't playing for them.

 

[GROTTO]

It's not a benefit because the players aren't playing for them.

What if those players were VB and Mackay?

 

[Pdub]

No. A contract extension doesn't automatically mean that at all.

They might choose to do that with bringing forward cash, but that is not the default outcome of an extension

A new contract, means the old contract is thrown away and the new contract takes over from that point. Obviously a player could sign a new contract for the exact amount of the previous contract, but for a player like Ollie Wines at that point of his career it's unlikely. There is usually a reason a player signs a new contract with a year to go on their old and that is usually because it gives them an immediate pay rise, if the payrise doesn't come for another 12 months, you might as well wait 12 months and sign a new contract with an extra 12 month of improved form.

 

[GROTTO]

A new contract, means the old contract is thrown away and the new contract takes over from that point. Obviously a player could sign a new contract for the exact amount of the previous contract, but for a player like Ollie Wines at that point of his career it's unlikely. There is usually a reason a player signs a new contract with a year to go on their old and that is usually because it gives them an immediate pay rise, if the payrise doesn't come for another 12 months, you might as well wait 12 months and sign a new contract with an extra 12 month of improved form.

I think guaranteed extended security of being paid beyond the current contract is another variable. Mind you this wouldnt have been a concern so much for a player like Wines.

 

[1970crow]

A new contract, means the old contract is thrown away and the new contract takes over from that point. Obviously a player could sign a new contract for the exact amount of the previous contract, but for a player like Ollie Wines at that point of his career it's unlikely. There is usually a reason a player signs a new contract with a year to go on their old and that is usually because it gives them an immediate pay rise, if the payrise doesn't come for another 12 months, you might as well wait 12 months and sign a new contract with an extra 12 month of improved form.

I think the point is that an extension doesn't automatically involve a reconfiguration of the existing terms. In fact, you would expect it to be the exception rather than the rule for in-season extensions. This is a rare case because Port may have a significant change to their lodged contracts, but in most extensions this wouldn't be the case.

 

[Pdub]

I think guaranteed extended security of being paid beyond the current contract is another variable. Mind you this wouldnt have been a concern so much for a player like Wines.

Exactly, if he was worried about guaranteed security, it would be more than a 2-year extension, he could probably get a 10 year contract if he wanted one.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The Essendon players and their lawyers are officially stupid:

http://www.aflplayers.com.au/article/all-34-players-file-appeal/

The grounds?

"The appeal has been made on the ground that the CAS erred in determining that the WADA appeal should be conducted as a de novo hearing. That is, WADA should only have been allowed to appeal the unanimous decision of the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal on grounds of either legal error or that it was grossly unreasonable."

Give them full 2 years, with no backdating to teach them a lesson!