New veterans list + Free Agency combo = huge moves

[Synth]

Old Rule:

The current veteran's allowance allows a club to pay a player up to half of his wage outside the salary cap, but the player must be 30 or older during the season and have completed 10 years of service.​

...​

if there are one or two veterans, but this reduces to a one-third discount if there are three veterans, 25 per cent if there are four, and so forth.​

New Rule:

[2013]

The new rule does not require a player to be 30 to qualify for veteran status. The only qualifier is that he has competed 10 years of service​

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...st-the-tonic-for-old-cats-20111012-1ll89.html

This effectively brings the required age down to 28 an conveniently combines with the 10 year unrestricted free agency rule to see players jump ship for huge dollars.


In the coming years I expect to see some huge deals being made, especially for clubs with none or one current veteran listed.

 

[Dirty Bird]

What UFA are available this coming season?
With Doughty retiring Adelaide have no one there right now.
Could make a move.

I think we have Johncock, Rutten and Reilly who can go on the list next year though with the new rules.

 

[radiojake]

Does the player have to have been with the club a certain amount of time to qualify as a veteran?

Or can one qualify for veteran salary (if played 10 seasons) as soon as the move to another club?

 

[liz]

Old Rule:



New Rule:



http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...st-the-tonic-for-old-cats-20111012-1ll89.html

This effectively brings the required age down to 28 an conveniently combines with the 10 year unrestricted free agency rule to see players jump ship for huge dollars.


In the coming years I expect to see some huge deals being made, especially for clubs with none or one current veteran listed.

How will this change encourage players to jump ship for huge dollars. They have to have played for 10 years with the one club. Their new club won't be able to claim veteran status for them.

The change also reduces the salary cap advantage per player to $100k, down from a maximum of 50% of a player's salary. The most likely impact of the change is to see long serving players given an extra season at the end of their careers if they still feel up to it, rather than getting squeezed out for a younger (and cheaper) player.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

How will this change encourage players to jump ship for huge dollars. They have to have played for 10 years with the one club. Their new club won't be able to claim veteran status for them.

The change also reduces the salary cap advantage per player to $100k, down from a maximum of 50% of a player's salary. The most likely impact of the change is to see long serving players given an extra season at the end of their careers if they still feel up to it, rather than getting squeezed out for a younger (and cheaper) player.

Correct.
The way I read it is that it actually helps clubs RETAIN their 10 year plus players.

 

[jd1991]

How will this change encourage players to jump ship for huge dollars. They have to have played for 10 years with the one club. Their new club won't be able to claim veteran status for them.

The change also reduces the salary cap advantage per player to $100k, down from a maximum of 50% of a player's salary. The most likely impact of the change is to see long serving players given an extra season at the end of their careers if they still feel up to it, rather than getting squeezed out for a younger (and cheaper) player.

If we take Geelong as an example - it can help them recruit players in, as they would have a higher proportion of players qualify under the new rule. For instance (without looking up the Geelong list) say they have 6 players that qualify under the new rule - that is an extra $600k next year they have to play with, versus say Collingwood who may only have 1 or 2 players (again I am just guessing numbers) - so could have a $400k advantage to retain mature players and recruit FA into the club to help sustain there ongoing success.

 

[Synth]

How will this change encourage players to jump ship for huge dollars. They have to have played for 10 years with the one club. Their new club won't be able to claim veteran status for them.

I don't read anywhere that it's with one club. it just says 10 years of service so I assume that's 10 years in the game.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

I don't read anywhere that it's with one club. it just says 10 years of service so I assume that's 10 years in the game.

It's ten years with the club.

As others have said, it's designed to help clubs keep their long serving players who are getting big FA dollars thrown at them

 

[Stamos]

I don't read anywhere that it's with one club. it just says 10 years of service so I assume that's 10 years in the game.

You know what they say about assumption. You are wrong.

10 years with one club, and now, only $100k of a vet's contract is outside the cap (unless the contract was signed prior to the new rules), instead of 50%.

 

[aussierulesrules]

The last I heard was that the clubs were able to choose between the old method, or the new one, based on whichever one suited them best. That is apparently why Freo have a huge amount of space in their cap to offer millions to the likes of Cloke and Goddard (because half of Pav and Sandi's huge contracts will be outside the cap from next season, freeing up almost $1mil).

 

[jd1991]

I don't read anywhere that it's with one club. it just says 10 years of service so I assume that's 10 years in the game.

It is 10 years at the one club. So a player like Chris Judd or Shuan Burgoyne who have played 10 years at 2 clubs do not qualify for this exemption. It was designed to assist in rentention of veterans who have been loyal.
It also stops clubs looking at getting rid of long term servants of the club earlier than they should.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Yep; and whoever doesn't get him wins.

Anyone paying that over rated, self serving douche 800,000+ is kidding themselves.

He is those things but collingwood wouldnt be paying 800,000+ plus under this rule...

 

[aussierulesrules]

Cloke acts only in self interest, and wants an unreasonable figure that would make him the highest paid forward in the league.

His output doesn't justify it, and like I said, whichever club foolishly decided to pay him some of the figures that are being thrown about deserves the inevitable decline of a list burdened with his bloated, unjustified salary.

Geez it was funny how quickly his output declines when Collingwood was getting savaged by opposition midfields.

I'd rather Hurley, his team first attitude and the additional $350-400k a year to tie up other players over some self important douche who will happily watch the team decline as long as he is paid well.

Say what? I thought he was happy to re-sign at Collingwood for around $800-$850K per year, as long as he got 5 years? That is less than say Pavlich and Buddy (pretty sure they play forward) are reportedly on per year (and maybe even less than you have offered Goddard, from what I've heard, who doesn't even play key position!) and is apparently around $300K per year less than he could have gotten/could still get at Freo, if he signs with them.

Over the 5 years that is at least $1.5million he is apparently willing to sacrifice in order to stay at Collingwood. $1.5million.

Since you're being so scathing of him (and by the way, he is better than you give him credit for, how many "key forwards" can produce big games in finals like he has the last few years? and Collingwood would be rooted without him), would you be so willing to sacrifice a huge amount of money just to stay in your job, if someone offered you a mountain more money to go and do the same job somewhere else?

 

[CTreleven]

Do the 10 yrs have to be consecutive? For example, would Trent Croad have qualified had he racked up 10 yrs during his second stint at Hawthorn?

 

[aussierulesrules]

Doesn't have to be consecutive I don't believe.

 

[streetspirit]

I think Chris Tarrant was an example of this in practice.

 

[Purple Suit]

Old Rule:



New Rule:



http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...st-the-tonic-for-old-cats-20111012-1ll89.html

This effectively brings the required age down to 28 an conveniently combines with the 10 year unrestricted free agency rule to see players jump ship for huge dollars.


In the coming years I expect to see some huge deals being made, especially for clubs with none or one current veteran listed.

This article is the only info on the supposed new rule. I've had this conversation in numerous threads and that poorly worded article is the only source that anybody can quote. I'm not 100% sure that the rules will end up as stated 12 months ago as surely there would be more info out now and if it was changing and given a huge advantage to Geelong, surely there would be more on it.

I'm very suspect on how all the changes has been made and whether there is a transition period if the rules are indeed changing.

 

[jd1991]

Do the 10 yrs have to be consecutive? For example, would Trent Croad have qualified had he racked up 10 yrs during his second stint at Hawthorn?

Both Tarrant and croad ended up qualifying as Veterans as they ended up doing 10 years over 2 terms at the one club.

 

[aussierulesrules]

This article is the only info on the supposed new rule. I've had this conversation in numerous threads and that poorly worded article is the only source that anybody can quote. I'm not 100% sure that the rules will end up as stated 12 months ago as surely there would be more info out now and if it was changing and given a huge advantage to Geelong, surely there would be more on it.

I'm very suspect on how all the changes has been made and whether there is a transition period if the rules are indeed changing.

I'm pretty sure there is another article (more recent than that 12 month old one that constantly gets quoted) stating that clubs have the choice between the two methods (old and new). It's proving very elusive at the moment though!

 

[Bender571]

I've noticed a fair bit of confusion about the new veterans list rule (due mainly to a poorly worded article)

I've bumped this thread hoping that this document from the AFLPA can help clear up the confusion.

The rule is cleared up on page 149.
Basic points are;
the old rule can still apply to players contracts signed before November 2011
the new rule classifies veterans as any player on one clubs list for 10 consecutive football years
a set amount of 1.229% of the TTP is excluded from the salary cap for each veteran
2013's TPP of $9.14mil would see about $112,000 excluded from the salary cap for each veteran
you can choose between the new and old rule but can't use both at the same time

 

[pazza]

Old Rule:



New Rule:



http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...st-the-tonic-for-old-cats-20111012-1ll89.html

This effectively brings the required age down to 28 an conveniently combines with the 10 year unrestricted free agency rule to see players jump ship for huge dollars.


In the coming years I expect to see some huge deals being made, especially for clubs with none or one current veteran listed.

That sounds far too similar to the old 10-year rule. In fact - it is the old 10 year rule.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Theoretically for Geelong depending on when contracts have been signed, that could mean :

Joel Corey, Corey Enright, Paul Chapman, Josh Hunt, Jimmy Bartel, Paul Kelly, Steve Johnson, Andrew Mackie and Tom Lonergan.

That'd be around an extra $1m to use in the salary cap.

 

[Furn2]

How will this change encourage players to jump ship for huge dollars. They have to have played for 10 years with the one club. Their new club won't be able to claim veteran status for them.

The change also reduces the salary cap advantage per player to $100k, down from a maximum of 50% of a player's salary. The most likely impact of the change is to see long serving players given an extra season at the end of their careers if they still feel up to it, rather than getting squeezed out for a younger (and cheaper) player.

It makes it harder for clubs to match huge offers than the old rule.

Eg. Hawks could offer Buddy 5 years for $7mil with $5mil in the last year that only counts 50% in the cap. So only $4.5 mil in the cap overall. Under the new system only 112k would be saved for the last 3 years. So $6.7mil would count in the cap.