Mitch Clark

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

I don't believe that to be so. I think the only relevant provision is that you can then spend more the following season, under the 95-105 exemption.

Actually, thinking about it, there may be one way in which Cook and PO's comments could be reconciled (since, in my experience, PO is usually right on these things).

If, when Cook said we are paying 100% of the SC this season, he meant that we are actually paying out 100% of the SC, then because of the Old Age Pensioner discount, for salary cap calculation purposes, we may be below the SC.
 
We are not paying full cap - I have no doubt we have many non achieved bonus payments this season.

If Clark can get healthy next year then great. I don't think we really saw how he can help the team this year. But without him we are still ok.

Badly needs goal kickers though.
 
Badly needs goal kickers though.
Big time. If Caddy, Mr. G and Lang are going to be spending so much time there we need 25-30 goals a season each from them. Dangerfield and Duncan will kick 50 goals between them next year.
 
Another shoulder op for Simpson? Sounds like he's staying on

Big :thumbsu: for Clark. I'd have thought he's already had his holiday. Should buckle down and get his fitness levels spot on for 2016. Exercise is good for depression.

Clark's fitness level is good, too bad it's 10 weeks too late.

Can't believe we are keeping Simpson
 
Terrific news!!

I expressed some concern and doubt about his ability, or willingness, to have another crack, and am the first to put my hand up and say I hope this goes on to prove me utterly wrong.
I wasn't sure either, I was reliably informed that when he suffered a set back with his calf it was a trigger depression wise and he struggled for a bit there. He got through and was back on track late in the season but he had lost too much match fitness by that stage
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

#inb4jubjub
dog-chasing-own-tail.gif
 
Puff piece or not, Mitch is clearly a quality footballer who fits nicely into our top 22.....and its nothing but good news to hear he's traveling well.

We are a better 22 with him out there and fit. Great to hear he is over the physical issues.

Needs to get right and hit 2016 hard. His body has a had a taste of the rigors of the game again. Lets get him thru 14 games next year.


Go Catters
 
We are a better 22 with him out there and fit. Great to hear he is over the physical issues.

Needs to get right and hit 2016 hard. His body has a had a taste of the rigors of the game again. Lets get him thru 14 games next year.


Go Catters
After two preseasons back since quitting I'd expect 23 games if his mind is up to it, one thing for sure is his body should be. Should we make finals I think fit and firing he could be a match winner.
 
After two preseasons back since quitting I'd expect 23 games if his mind is up to it, one thing for sure is his body should be. Should we make finals I think fit and firing he could be a match winner.

Im just expecting him to get managed again…

GO Catters
 
After two preseasons back since quitting I'd expect 23 games if his mind is up to it, one thing for sure is his body should be. Should we make finals I think fit and firing he could be a match winner.

Even if he does come back, he won't play 23 games next year. He'll have weeks off here and there, it's just part of his situation now.
 
Actually, thinking about it, there may be one way in which Cook and PO's comments could be reconciled (since, in my experience, PO is usually right on these things).

If, when Cook said we are paying 100% of the SC this season, he meant that we are actually paying out 100% of the SC, then because of the Old Age Pensioner discount, for salary cap calculation purposes, we may be below the SC.
Anyone have any idea if insurance payments via work cover pay for the salaries of injured players? From what I am aware of, insurance covers 80% of the salaries of employees for up to 52 cumulative weeks. So guys like Bartel, Duncan and Clark would have had significant portions of their salaries paid by the insurer and the AFL's premiums would be higher.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top