Autopsy Richmond salary cap disaster: 2018-2024

[Leeda]

As others have said, the cap is increasing. It may irk some players that their pay won't increase, but that will be the bottom rung. The top ones will be looked after.

Secondly, all teams have outside the cap scams they run (yes, even mine). You will find players like Martin will be "leasing" jeeps on next to nothing, with them taking ownership after x amount of years on minimal coin (Josh gibson got himself an Audi this way, and several Essendon and Geelong players found themselves owning fords and toyotas for free thanks to their clubs relationships

er crikey you aint telling truth that is actually true... ?

somebody told me that people at Hawthorn always bet under the card and no more.. that is why the table was always full of peanuts...

 

[Bokonon_]

I remember when people said the same things about the Western Bulldogs 3 years ago.

They'll be fine.

I'm not so sure the Western Bulldogs are "fine" though.

 

[The Richmond Report]

I would think it's all about a flag - if he helps deliver one within those 7 years to a club starved of success then it'll have been worth every penny. Plus he's one of the best players in the game so arguably it's just around market value, maybe even unders given the salary cap increase.

I know it's a different situation, but Boyd helped deliver a flag to a dogs supporter base that hadn't seen one in generations. If he doesn't progress much as a KPF and/or ruck and the club is overpaying him massively then he'll still have delivered that flag, and maybe even was BOG in the GF. If it hinders the dogs recruitment and retention over the next few years then maybe it ends up being an issue, but many people will still say it was worth it for the one flag. My guess is a chunk of tigers fans would feel the same if they broke their drought.

Good post, feel exactly the same way.

 

[99cents]

North melbourne are overall as a club going nowhere and lack direction, but the best thing they did this year was forcing the tigers to overpay Martin and really hold the Tigers accountable and at least prevent then from getting any better.

As a club theyre not good enough to be true contenders but if they had added another key piece, maybe they would be.

Now with the Martin saga, their hands are tied. Well done north.

It's an interesting concept- the idea of 'spoilers.' We have maybe seen it with the father son bidding, and of course clubs have tried to force sides to overpay, but we do assume North were willing to take Dusty.

I'm wondering whether there are AFL rules against collusion; ie clubs working together to damage a common enemy?

We have seen ostensible competitors in the corporate world making secret deals to fleece the consumer, some of them remaining undetected for many years.

Is it conceivable that AFL clubs might band together on the sly in terms of and trading with third parties? To take an obvious example, Geelong and North have links in personnel, and even trained together one pre season.
SOS/ Gubby Allen both worked at GWS prior to taking that inside info back to their home clubs. (Allen suspended though, as it turns out).

Clubs also 'talk up' players, giving them late season games to fatten them up for trade. To what extent do you believe that North was going the spoil in this one?

 

[Juddernaut08]

It's an interesting concept- the idea of 'spoilers.' We have maybe seen it with the father son bidding, and of course clubs have tried to force sides to overpay, but we do assume North were willing to take Dusty.

I'm wondering whether there are AFL rules against collusion; ie clubs working together to damage a common enemy?

We have seen ostensible competitors in the corporate world making secret deals to fleece the consumer, some of them remaining undetected for many years.

Is it conceivable that AFL clubs might band together on the sly in terms of and trading with third parties? To take an obvious example, Geelong and North have links in personnel, and even trained together one pre season.
SOS/ Gubby Allen both worked at GWS prior to taking that inside info back to their home clubs. (Allen suspended though, as it turns out).

Clubs also 'talk up' players, giving them late season games to fatten them up for trade. To what extent do you believe that North was going the spoil in this one?

The disincentive/ governance of clubs being held to account is that they need to be ready to go through with their threat.

E.g. if Richmond had looked at North and said - $9mil or $10.5 mil (whatever it was), fine - go for it...North were legitimately ready to stick to that offer.

If North had offered $20million (something absolutely absurd), Richmond may have let them have it and screw up their cap for a decade

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

If North had offered $20million (something absolutely absurd), Richmond may have let them have it and screw up their cap for a decade

Couldn't see the AFL signing off on that

 

[telsor]

The disincentive/ governance of clubs being held to account is that they need to be ready to go through with their threat.

E.g. if Richmond had looked at North and said - $9mil or $10.5 mil (whatever it was), fine - go for it...North were legitimately ready to stick to that offer.

If North had offered $20million (something absolutely absurd), Richmond may have let them have it and screw up their cap for a decade

In this case though, North didn't really force up Richmond by all that much, so if they were playing the spoiler, they didn't do that great a job.

When you take the supposed starting offer and add in the 20% increase in the CBA, the increase can largely be put down to Martin's form improvement from earlier in the year. Indeed, it's arguable that the benchmark set by the Fyfe deal had more impact (the contracts do seem to be quite similar after all).

The biggest difference North might have made is the duration. Richmond wanted 4 or 5 and got pushed up to 7, but Fyfe got 6, so again, that could have had a bigger impact.

 

[Tiger2709]

The disincentive/ governance of clubs being held to account is that they need to be ready to go through with their threat.

E.g. if Richmond had looked at North and said - $9mil or $10.5 mil (whatever it was), fine - go for it...North were legitimately ready to stick to that offer.

If North had offered $20million (something absolutely absurd), Richmond may have let them have it and screw up their cap for a decade

As it was we didn't match their offer, in fact we were quite a way off it, so it would have been a massive risk for North to have fake bid to bump the price they were relying on Martin's choice between loyalty and money.

A club like north will nearly always have to pay overs as the bigger clubs can always offer more from their supporter bases at careers end, the fact Richmond had a good year while North were bottom four would not have hurt either.

 

[99cents]

A club like north will nearly always have to pay overs as the bigger clubs can always offer more from their supporter bases at careers end.

I think this is a very important factor in many contracts- the unspoken or slightly spoken idea that a club will set up a player post career, whether in a football related industry or not. Sponsors, board members, connections etc etc.

But I suspect it didn't make much diff in the Dusty case, as I don't think he's going to pursue a 'career' post footy.

I'm actually fairly surprised he didn't take the cash- good luck to him.

 

[Bald]

I'm not so sure the Western Bulldogs are "fine" though.

Please quote where I said they were?

 

[Wesley2]

I would think it's all about a flag - if he helps deliver one within those 7 years to a club starved of success then it'll have been worth every penny. Plus he's one of the best players in the game so arguably it's just around market value, maybe even unders given the salary cap increase.

I know it's a different situation, but Boyd helped deliver a flag to a dogs supporter base that hadn't seen one in generations. If he doesn't progress much as a KPF and/or ruck and the club is overpaying him massively then he'll still have delivered that flag, and maybe even was BOG in the GF. If it hinders the dogs recruitment and retention over the next few years then maybe it ends up being an issue, but many people will still say it was worth it for the one flag. My guess is a chunk of tigers fans would feel the same if they broke their drought.

Fair post.

If the Hawks didn't win the next two flags after Franklin there would be significant media noise over a "massive Hawks bungle", especially 2014 GF, that game was about so much more than a flag in retrospect. Results absolutely impact the perspective of past decisions.

If the Tigers have "overpaid" for Martin they've only slightly overdone it (not by much though, I think it's a fair price), which means with good list management they'll avoid any catastrophes. I could never see Dusty leaving the Tigers and it's a good effort to retain him.

 

[Sttew]

Disaster? Surely taking the piss.

In effect the 300k odd above our initial offer may mean one B grade player may or may not be squeezed out. .

Until a Rance, Cotchin, Rioli, Nankervis or whoever says, "I want a decent pay rise". It is common knowledge that if Ablett had stayed at Geelong we'd have ended up losing some quality players. Look at the Swans - Mumford, Mitchell gone.

 

[telsor]

Disaster? Surely taking the piss.

In effect the 300k odd above our initial offer may mean one B grade player may or may not be squeezed out. We'll barely notice the difference.

On the other hand if Dusty left, we'd definitely notice the difference.

And around 200k of that is due to the cap increase....

 

[Bokonon_]

Please quote where I said they were?

Nuh

 

[Dr Tigris]

"Disaster"

Dusty is the games (=) best player atm. Without him the RFC won't win a premiership. To my mind you are either going for the cup or building to try for the cup. Retaining Dusty is necessary to win the title. Plus he signed on for a very large discount on the best offer. So we know his worth, and it's very high.

It'll be interesting to see what Kelly gets, and Lynch next year. I reckon these Buddy style deals for the best players are likely to become annual events.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

The sooner it goes to zero compensation the better. Teams are deliberately not re-signing players and "losing" them because they know the compo they're getting.

Or the receiving team needs to furnish a realistic trade. After all, if they're not prepared to cough up anything for a player they are poaching, then does that player really want that club? If North's 1st round pick was part of an offer for Dusty it would've sat a lot better with the spirit of the current socialistic system. Pick 15-16 was a pitiful joke.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

In this case though, North didn't really force up Richmond by all that much, so if they were playing the spoiler, they didn't do that great a job.

When you take the supposed starting offer and add in the 20% increase in the CBA, the increase can largely be put down to Martin's form improvement from earlier in the year. Indeed, it's arguable that the benchmark set by the Fyfe deal had more impact (the contracts do seem to be quite similar after all).

The biggest difference North might have made is the duration. Richmond wanted 4 or 5 and got pushed up to 7, but Fyfe got 6, so again, that could have had a bigger impact.

Great post mate

 

[Freomaniac]

Again, I'm more concerned about the NOW than what MIGHT happen in the FUTURE. As someone pointed out, an asteroid might hit the earth too. How do Sydney fit both Buddy AND Tippett in their cap without COLA?

1st off.... Lets talk about Kurt tippet. When the swans won the 2012 flag, tippet joined the swans, how was it possible? People forgot one person, Daniel Bradshaw. Dan Bradshaw played 11 years at Brisbane then Joined the swans at the PSD. He was signed on a 3 year deal on $600,000 a ear from 2010-2012.

Bradshaw retired in mid 2011 due to injury. Swans still had to pay the final year of his contract for 2012. Essentially, Swans had a spare $600,000 in the salary cap after Bradshaw retired. the Bradshaw money was used on Kurt tippet. When he 2012 season ended, like all other teams, swans had to delist 4-8 players off the main squad to bring in some new kids in. Oh and People forget the Salary cap increased by 5-6% or $5-600,000

As for buddy franklin, Similar with the Kurt tippet trade, Mumford was traded, Guys like Martin Mattner retired too. Some players were delisted and again, the Salary cap grew by $500,000 again

 

[BEEG]

2nd best player in the comp, worth the money.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Gee people have absolutely no idea when it comes to the salary cap. This isn't the NBA where one bad contract can spell disaster.

Salary cap is about $12 million and Dusty is getting $1.1 million. Say his true market worth or value or "could" have been retained for $700k or whatever. That's a 400k difference. Among 40 other main listed players, the difference to cap room is $10k per player. If you build a good club culture or have players who want to play for your team, you're saving more than $10k on them. It's just common sense.

People were saying the same thing about Tom Boyd, and not only have we not lost any player we've wanted to keep and resigned every single talented young player on our list, we've already gotten once FA since we signed that deal (Suckling) and are almost certainly going to add another this off-season.

Even then all of this is assuming that Richmond overpaid for Dusty's true worth, which isn't even guaranteed to be true.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I double all things instinctively. They're really bad conditions to have

You shouldn't play backgammon for money then.

 

[Haggard H]

In this case though, North didn't really force up Richmond by all that much, so if they were playing the spoiler, they didn't do that great a job.

When you take the supposed starting offer and add in the 20% increase in the CBA, the increase can largely be put down to Martin's form improvement from earlier in the year. Indeed, it's arguable that the benchmark set by the Fyfe deal had more impact (the contracts do seem to be quite similar after all).

The biggest difference North might have made is the duration. Richmond wanted 4 or 5 and got pushed up to 7, but Fyfe got 6, so again, that could have had a bigger impact.

Yep, love people thinking North has forced Richmond into doing something we wouldn't otherwise have done.

At the beginning of 2017 we offered $800K a year to our second-best midfielder/third best player who through the course of the year has become our best and most important player and arguably in the top three in the competition.

Reckon we would have quite reasonably raised our offer to $1 million a year for the player Dusty now is.

Then the CBA jumped by 20% raising that to $1.2 mil - what we finished up paying.

North forced it into a seven-year deal but to be honest that's probably worked in our favour, locking Dusty in for 'life' and saving us another contract circus, and likely rise, in three years' time.

 

[The Final Word]

Or the receiving team needs to furnish a realistic trade. After all, if they're not prepared to cough up anything for a player they are poaching, then does that player really want that club? If North's 1st round pick was part of an offer for Dusty it would've sat a lot better with the spirit of the current socialistic system. Pick 15-16 was a pitiful joke.

I'm a big fan of free agency, just not where compensation is offered. If you want them bad enough, you'll sign them. Especially a restricted FA where you can match. Can't sign due to salary cap issues? We'll that's down to your list managers and backroom staff.

If a player goes as a FA to another club, yes they want him. They're giving up cap space and they've convinced him to come and the player has agreed.

 

[Freomaniac]

He has first dibs on the drugs trade in Richmond that will be like printing money

I am sure John Elliot and his mates at Lygon street could of offered Martin something too.

 

[telsor]

Yep, love people thinking North has forced Richmond into doing something we wouldn't otherwise have done.

At the beginning of 2017 we offered $800K a year to our second-best midfielder/third best player who through the course of the year has become our best and most important player and arguably in the top three in the competition.

Reckon we would have quite reasonably raised our offer to $1 million a year for the player Dusty now is.

Then the CBA jumped by 20% raising that to $1.2 mil - what we finished up paying.

North forced it into a seven-year deal but to be honest that's probably worked in our favour, locking Dusty in for 'life' and saving us another contract circus, and likely rise, in three years' time.

Yep.

and it's even more 'reasonable' when you consider that the figures you used (800K & 1.2M) would be the lowest and highest estimates. (850k & 1.1M have also be mentioned by credible sources and would mean we barely moved at all, except for the duration)

I'd have preferred 5 years, but not by so much that I think 7 makes for a bad deal. I just think that in a sport where serious injuries can happen, 7 is a bit of a risk (but again, Fyfe got 6, and his history with injury is far worse).