2011 Drafting, Trading, List Management Thread

[dominguez]

Pav may not be an automatic Vets List inclusion. By not grabbing Clarke, we probibly have excess money to use to get up to the 92% TPP or what ever the compulsory figure is. Put him on the year after to clear an extra spot, and also clear up some salary cap to either steal a player or to negotiate with current players.

Would be better to put Pav on the Veterans List anyway and alter the contracts of a couple of other players to front end them.

Eg. - The $450,000 earmarked for Clark in 2012 could be evenly distributed between Mundy, Hill and Fyfe freeing up capspace 2-3 years from now.

 

[Patty_Moz]

Would be better to put Pav on the Veterans List anyway and alter the contracts of a couple of other players to front end them.

Eg. - The $450,000 earmarked for Clark in 2012 could be evenly distributed between Mundy, Hill and Fyfe freeing up capspace 2-3 years from now.

Are we able to do that now that all the contracts are already negociated?

 

[dominguez]

Are we able to do that now that all the contracts are already negociated?

Yes.

Lets say you're David Mundy on $500,000 a year for the next 3 years ($1.5M total). The club offers to pay you $650,000 next year then $450,000 in 2013 and $400,000 in 2014 ($1.5M total). You put that extra $150,000 you receive in 2012 into your mortgage or your investment portfolio or even in the bank at 4.5% interest and it ends up being a lot more at the end of the contract. Win/Win.

 

[Alfonz]

There is absolutely no sense whatsoever in paying anything less than 100% of the cap each year. We aren't one of those poor clubs like Melbourne who like to brag that they only have to pay 93% of the cap, even with Clark. That is beyond stupid.

 

[Patty_Moz]

Yes.

Lets say you're David Mundy on $500,000 a year for the next 3 years ($1.5M total). The club offers to pay you $650,000 next year then $450,000 in 2013 and $400,000 in 2014 ($1.5M total). You put that extra $150,000 you receive in 2012 into your mortgage or your investment portfolio or even in the bank at 4.5% interest and it ends up being a lot more at the end of the contract. Win/Win.

I understand how it works but that would mean a completely new negociation in contract terms with each player, you cant just change a contract like that willy-nilly.

It sounds like a great idea but I've never really heard of anything like this being negociated just so clubs can fit into their salary caps so I'm not convinced that it is allowed or such as easy process. One issue I can see is that if a club tried to do renegociate contracts I'd say managers would be chasing more money for their players (and themselves).

There is absolutely no sense whatsoever in paying anything less than 100% of the cap each year. We aren't one of those poor clubs like Melbourne who like to brag that they only have to pay 93% of the cap, even with Clark. That is beyond stupid.

Sorry to cut you down here mate but paying 100% of the salary cap every yr is a terrible idea. If you look at the next 2 yrs 26 players come out of contract if we are paying 100% of the salary cap then we dont have any money to offer any of these players so other teams will just be waiting and poaching players for nothing. Similar to what happened at the Saints this yr where they almost had to trade their star players just to fit in the salary cap. You need space in the salary cap so that if the team plays really well ie. makes the GF or win it, we can keep the side together without having to cut players who are performing.

 

[dominguez]

I understand how it works but that would mean a completely new negociation in contract terms with each player, you cant just change a contract like that willy-nilly.

It sounds like a great idea but I've never really heard of anything like this being negotiated just so clubs can fit into their salary caps so I'm not convinced that it is allowed or such as easy process. One issue I can see is that if a club tried to do renegociate contracts I'd say managers would be chasing more money for their players (and themselves).

If the player manager had an attitude then the club would say okay then that's fine, you can wait until 2014 for that money that we're offering you now.

 

[JunglistPosse]

Kersten got a mention in todays West as being a Freo target. Pretty sure the same thing happened last year with Conca?...hope he slips through to us.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

I understand how it works but that would mean a completely new negociation in contract terms with each player, you cant just change a contract like that willy-nilly.

It sounds like a great idea but I've never really heard of anything like this being negociated just so clubs can fit into their salary caps so I'm not convinced that it is allowed or such as easy process. One issue I can see is that if a club tried to do renegociate contracts I'd say managers would be chasing more money for their players (and themselves).




Sorry to cut you down here mate but paying 100% of the salary cap every yr is a terrible idea. If you look at the next 2 yrs 26 players come out of contract if we are paying 100% of the salary cap then we dont have any money to offer any of these players so other teams will just be waiting and poaching players for nothing. Similar to what happened at the Saints this yr where they almost had to trade their star players just to fit in the salary cap. You need space in the salary cap so that if the team plays really well ie. makes the GF or win it, we can keep the side together without having to cut players who are performing.

I'm sure he meant paying 100% of the cap for exactly the reason you say we shouldn't. By paying some of a players future pay today, it means you have to pay him less tomorrow, therefore increasing the room available in your salary cap for such things.

He's not saying pay spuds extra just because we can.

He's right, it is a waste to not use the remaining 5% or whatever it may be each season. Throw it into someone elses contract and that's 5% less you have to pay them next season, then repeat it next year etc etc. Eventually it'll add up to a nice chunk to throw at a free agent.

 

[Patty_Moz]

I'm sure he meant paying 100% of the cap for exactly the reason you say we shouldn't. By paying some of a players future pay today, it means you have to pay him less tomorrow, therefore increasing the room available in your salary cap for such things.

He's not saying pay spuds extra just because we can.

He's right, it is a waste to not use the remaining 5% or whatever it may be each season. Throw it into someone elses contract and that's 5% less you have to pay them next season, then repeat it next year etc etc. Eventually it'll add up to a nice chunk to throw at a free agent.

Yeah ok I see what you're saying but I'm still very sceptical that this is how it works or else every team would be doing whenever the future looks like they could win a flag.

There are a few points why I dont see this working

1) The only time that you would have a very firm idea with how much the team has left in its salary cap is when you are signing the last few players and who were the last players we signed- spuds (Crowley, JVB and Walters)

2) I sort of said this in one of my earlier posts but if you wanted to do it with stars already in contract then it would mean a complete renegociation of contract terms through a manager and thats not an easy thing to do. Managers dont give away their time for free so this would end up costing the player so no doubt the player and his manager would chase more money.

3) Although it sounds good for the players (as dominguez said get the money and put it in the bank and the player is making even more) I'd say most players arent willing to get paid less in the future for doing the same job, maybe even doing it better in the future. The truth is a lot of the footy players probly arent that good with managing money so this wouldnt be beneficial for them and I'd think they want consistency with their income not having it depreciate over time.

Look in the end I'm no expert and for all I know this happens all the time and I'm interested if you know of any players that this happens to and the details to the contracts. But IMO there are reasons why every club isnt paying 100% of their TPP every yr, there may also be rules from the AFL preventing it but to me it sounds to good to be true and the fact that you dont hear about it happening means it doesnt happen very much if at all.

 

[theGav56]

I assume that a contract could easily be for an average payment over 3 years depending on cap requirements. Or allowing the club to pre-pay salary. I would also be stunned if the club and managers do not provide good financial advice and investment opportunities and programs.

 

[Clay Davis]

If you paid 100% every year you might find yourself in the situation St Kilda finds itself in at the moment, and with free agency might make it easier to lose players if you don't have space to meet demands after good seasons.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

2) I sort of said this in one of my earlier posts but if you wanted to do it with stars already in contract then it would mean a complete renegociation of contract terms through a manager and thats not an easy thing to do. Managers dont give away their time for free so this would end up costing the player so no doubt the player and his manager would chase more money.

I can't see what would take so long about it. If we're offering to front load a players contract, they'd say yes every day of the week, for the reasons dom outlined. It'd be a matter of signing on the dotted line.

3) Although it sounds good for the players (as dominguez said get the money and put it in the bank and the player is making even more) I'd say most players arent willing to get paid less in the future for doing the same job, maybe even doing it better in the future. The truth is a lot of the footy players probly arent that good with managing money so this wouldnt be beneficial for them and I'd think they want consistency with their income not having it depreciate over time.

Have you got anything to support your statement that footy players can't manage their money?

Not sure how getting paid a year in advance equates to playing for less the year after? Same thing with decpreciating income, 300k a season is still 300k a season, some of it's just being paid early?

Look in the end I'm no expert and for all I know this happens all the time and I'm interested if you know of any players that this happens to and the details to the contracts. But IMO there are reasons why every club isnt paying 100% of their TPP every yr, there may also be rules from the AFL preventing it but to me it sounds to good to be true and the fact that you dont hear about it happening means it doesnt happen very much if at all.

It probably does happen, who knows, but if it did, you wouldn't expect clubs to come out with a press release would you.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

If you paid 100% every year you might find yourself in the situation St Kilda finds itself in at the moment, and with free agency might make it easier to lose players if you don't have space to meet demands after good seasons.

The concept is, instead of paying say 95% for two seasons, you pay 100% one season, and only have 90% the next season, where you can then use the room in the salary cap (the remaining 10%) to bring in a player with free agency, or negotiate contracts for players who are kicking up a stink about more money, or front load again for the next year etc.

It's very different than paying 100% of your cap because that's how much their contracts are worth.

 

[Patty_Moz]

It probably does happen, who knows, but if it did, you wouldn't expect clubs to come out with a press release would you.

I dont think a club would come out with a statement but it would be a well utilised tactic that every team would use and be common knowledge in the media much like Saints salary cap issues.

Theres obviously reasons why it doesnt get done and why we dont use 100% of the TPP so whether you agree with me or not despite how great an idea you think it is the simple fact is it doesnt get done.

 

[Proud Bogan]

Have you got anything to support your statement that footy players can't manage their money?

Hi, my names Brendan and I have blown the f***ing lot.

I also have many mates who have done the same.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Hi, my names Brendan and I have blown the f***ing lot.

I also have many mates who have done the same.

Right, one pisshead/gambler. Nice sample size.

And a couple of your mates. All 200 game AFL players?

No different than any other walk of life.

 

[Proud Bogan]

Right, one pisshead/gambler. Nice sample size.

And a couple of your mates. All 200 game AFL players?

No different than any other walk of life.

Just pointing out that there are plenty of players who have lost the lot. Fev just being one of the more high profile examples.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Fair enough.

 

[Clay Davis]

Just pointing out that there are plenty of players who have lost the lot. Fev just being one of the more high profile examples.

Who was that bloke for Melbourne who had a story about him? Blew all his money gambling. Brad Hardie too, and Cresswell. It's pretty common.

 

[Proud Bogan]

Who was that bloke for Melbourne who had a story about him? Blew all his money gambling.

The Ox is slow, but the earth is patient.

 

[Clay Davis]

The Ox is slow, but the earth is patient.

Aah yeah, him too. There was another one, Mark Robinson did a story on him this year.

 

[estibador]

The Ox is slow, but the earth is patient.

Pity his bookies weren't.

 

[Scham]

Aah yeah, him too. There was another one, Mark Robinson did a story on him this year.

Sylvia had some problems at one point, it wasn't him was it?

 

[JunglistPosse]

Aah yeah, him too. There was another one, Mark Robinson did a story on him this year.

DAniel Ward?

 

[freocuz]

Still no confirmation on Crowley? Isn't the first list lodgement today?