Delisting Players After the ND

[Thommo 42]

yes, thankyou......

Let me spell it out

1. The sacked Lovett's salary was included in the 2010 cap

2. The sacked Gram and Winmar salaries will be included in the 2013 cap.

3. Two extra players will be added to the salary cap.

4. The sackings are not salary cap related

Not correct.

According to media reports, sacking Winmar now, allowed them to include his payout in their 2012 figures.

No big deal though.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/151778/default.aspx

It is also believed by sportnewsfirst.com.au the timing of the decision post draft means his contract payment is included in the 2012 salary cap and not next year's[/quote

 

[Slattery_20]

yes, thankyou......

Let me spell it out

1. The sacked Lovett's salary was included in the 2010 cap

2. The sacked Gram and Winmar salaries will be included in the 2012 cap.

3. Two extra players will be added to the salary cap.

4. The sackings are not salary cap related

5. You've included both Winmar and Gram's (2013) salaries, under the 2012 salary cap (with me so far?).

6. Which allows you to add two other players onto the 2013 cap (following?).

7. The only other real 'gain' from dumping Gram was being able to take pick 75, which was the 4th last live pick taken. Winmar gets you PSD pick 6 or 7. Hardly massive gains, in & of themselves.

8. So, yes, I believe that salary cap flexibility has a fair bit to do with both sackings.

9. Why do you keep talking about Lovett?

 

[Slattery_20]

I don't understand how more organised it could be?

Current admin wasn't responsible for the two year contract he was enjoying.

He turned up in poor nick and struggled in his time trial, subsequent meetings were held, and he got released with pay. It's harsh, but sacking someone is never going to leave them feeling charitable towards you....

They may of had every intention to keep him, we don't know the events that transpired, his attitude around the place after he thought he got through even with a sub par performance.

Would you not agree that it seems somewhat a last-minute decision?

I just think (if possible, might not have been, certainly agree that there is probably more that has gone on behind closed doors) that doing it quick & clean, before the draft, & letting him get on with whatever else he's going to do, would be the better outcome.
For eg, no issue with the Gram sacking. He's had ample time to talk to clubs before the drafts.

 

[Falchoon]

5. You've included both Winmar and Gram's (2013) salaries, under the 2012 salary cap (with me so far?).

Freudian slip, fixed it on the first re-read 20 minutes ago.

9. Why do you keep talking about Lovett?

precedent

 

[Falchoon]

Not correct.

According to media reports, sacking Winmar now, allowed them to include his payout in their 2012 figures.

No big deal though.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/151778/default.aspx

fair enough,

they fitted it into the tighter 2012 salary cap

 

[Slattery_20]

Freudian slip, fixed it on the first re-read 20 minutes ago.

Important one, though. And it still says you're fitting them into the 2013 cap, which I don't think is right (certainly not for Winmar, and I would guess Gram is in the same basket).

 

[Pevers-Legend]

He'll have the right to go in the ND next year if he likes, but ''HE'' screwed up that chance this year.

Next year. Which means he has but a few weeks to earn a chance at th elite level, else he plays at a secondary level with no/little chance for promotion.

Why is there a need for list changes post ND anyway (player or club)?

 

[Pevers-Legend]

precedent

That is nothing like the Winmar scenario. Winmar has not done anything to bring the club or competition into disrepute. He just showed up not fit enough.

 

[Falchoon]

Important one, though. And it still says you're fitting them into the 2013 cap, which I don't think is right (certainly not for Winmar, and I would guess Gram is in the same basket).

I doubt Gram is in the same basket, if we are able to fit his $400k into 2012 we don't have a salary cap problem.

 

[Slattery_20]

Doesn't necessarily have to be as black and white as 'problem' vs 'no problem', just means you have $400k less of a 'problem' on the '13 cap.

 

[Falchoon]

That is nothing like the Winmar scenario. Winmar has not done anything to bring the club or competition into disrepute. He just showed up not fit enough.

correct, the Lovett precedent is in relation to Gram, sorry if it wasn't clear.

Either way, neither sackings are salary cap related.

 

[Blues_Man]

lol it's funny how everyone is quick to sink the boots into someone "finishing last" in a time trial.

The reality is, someone from the playing list has to finish last. We can't have everyone finishing equal first.

Who knows, it may have been a PB for the kid on his last time trial.

There are Ruckmen on lists ....if a running player can't beat a Ruckmen then you know they are either lazy ..or just ain't gonna cut it as an AFL player.

 

[forwardflanker]

Seeing another instance of St kilda mistreating their players just reminds me of how lucky I am of supporting a club that actually looks of their own - past or present!

 

[Falchoon]

There are Ruckmen on lists ....if a running player can't beat a Ruckmen then you know they are either lazy ..or just ain't gonna cut it as an AFL player.

Don't ask where McEvoy finished.

 

[Blues_Man]

Don't ask where McEvoy finished.

Ok ...Can i ask where Kosi finished ?

 

[Falchoon]

Seeing another instance of St kilda mistreating their players just reminds me of how lucky I am

you spelt gullible wrong

 

[NUFC Tiger]

While it does make sense to have the final list lodgements after the ND, PS and rookie drafts (when clubs can finalise their lists after these), it's not fair for the player to get shafted like this.

After the ND, it doesn't give the play a great deal of time to find another club to train with in the hopes of impressing and earning a lifeline.

Not sure why the saints delisted him like this - saints fans, was the writing on the wall/was it expected? Is he likely/good enough to find a new home?

Agree with the OP saying it wasn't in Nick's best interests, the club saying that seems just like a cop out.

Perhaps to fix this, all delistings should happen prior to the ND so players have enough time to find training clubs. Then the final list lodging can be just to confirm the draftees and rookies picked up.

 

[Stylus]

At least he ran the time trial. Apparently Gysberts refused to run them if it was too hot.

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

So you wouldn't mind if your employer sacked you when you had 5% of the chance you had a month ago of finding new employment.

I will state it again - I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THEM SACKING HIM (THE REASONS). I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE TIMING.

Why should clubs have the right to choose how much opportunity an ex-employee has at finding a new employer?

The St Kilda Football doesnt exist to make me or Winmar happy, they exist to win premierships.

As for 'opportunity', if he's good enough he'll be snapped up! Let's see what happens..

 

[mysainters]

Would you not agree that it seems somewhat a last-minute decision?

I just think (if possible, might not have been, certainly agree that there is probably more that has gone on behind closed doors) that doing it quick & clean, before the draft, & letting him get on with whatever else he's going to do, would be the better outcome.
For eg, no issue with the Gram sacking. He's had ample time to talk to clubs before the drafts.

No...

I don't believe it's as simple as someone pushing the button on the stopwatch at the end of the time trial and he's out the door.

The article says meetings were held with all parties, he must of known something was up.

How on earth did he feel 'safe' after coming in last, and after probably hearing about it from the coaches...

That he can honestly feign surprise here is strange.

 

[Pevers-Legend]

The St Kilda Football doesnt exist to make me or Winmar happy, they exist to win premierships.

So employers have no responsibilty for the welfare of their employees. Interesting.

As for 'opportunity', if he's good enough he'll be snapped up! Let's see what happens..

So if half of the clubs don't take him, that means all wouldn't?

Nice logic.

 

[MarkT2]

Wrong, contracts have already been signed for the upcoming season, so anyone sacked after the ND is a contracted player and his wage must be included in the cap.

Ok thanks for that. As I understand it, if a club is over the cap they do still have to cut their salary which would mean they still have to drop someone off or renegotiate salries. They can't just run with the excess for the forthcoming year. lternatively if a player is picked up and paid by another club, contractually they don't have to pay the amount paid by the other club. Happy to be corrected on that.

 

[gbatman]

Was not up to it, moving on. It is very likely he was on the knife's edge of being de listed and that the club had decided to give him more time to prove himself and he didn't do that effectively. So perhaps clubs giving players extra time to prove themselves goes out the window if you make the time for delisting's earlier. I bet there have been a lot of players on the verge of delistings who have turned up to preseason in excellent condition and proved themselves and earnt another contract rather than being delisted.

I recon this is a case where a player has been given a chance to prove their dedication and improvement instead of an early delisting but instead has turned up and done the opposite, confirming the football departments decision on whether to keep or delist the player.

If down the track he wishes to be drafted then he has to go into a state league and perform strongly and prove to clubs that his game and professionalism is where it needs to be to make it in the AFL. Or go into the preseason/rookie draft. Clubs have a right to delist players who aren't up to it and this is how they see this, I can't see other clubs being interested in a player who hasn't made it after 3 seasons at a club like St. Kilda any way. Yes it would be better if they had done it before the ND but I can't see that it would have made any difference.

This is a high paying job, it's hard to succeed at, it isn't and shouldn't be easy. If you want this job, you have to earn it. If he's up to it and goes about it the right way he will be back in the AFL system in a year or so.

Yes initially looking at this it looks bad, but if you look at it from both angles you can understand why things may have happened this way. It's not as if there are no drafts left, the drafts where players like this (Preseason/rookie drafts) are more commonly picked up in are yet to be done.

 

[Viney]

Bruce was entitled to do what he wanted

Then surely St Kilda too are entitled?

 

[Slattery_20]

No...

I don't believe it's as simple as someone pushing the button on the stopwatch at the end of the time trial and he's out the door.

The article says meetings were held with all parties, he must of known something was up.

How on earth did he feel 'safe' after coming in last, and after probably hearing about it from the coaches...

That he can honestly feign surprise here is strange.

There's certainly genuine contention (not saying it's true, but it's what his corner are alleging) on whether St K had communicated his situation with him or not.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...-axe-nick-winmar/story-e6frf3e3-1226525630368
Connors said they had given no warning.
Prendergast (AFLPA guy) says no grounds to terminate.
Pelchen only said they only advised him "late last week" (presumably Friday/night).

I'm not saying it's a hanging offence on St Kilda's part, just that it appears harsh. Be interested in what the PA find out, with their challenge.