He'll definitely need a run in the 2s, having not played for 12 months.
List Mgmt. The too early Jackson Edwards 2017 Draft Plan
- Thread starter Maggsy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Second reply - on further searching, I haven't found a direct link in the funding, but according to the 2016 reports for the AFL and the AFC...
The AFL paid a total of $10,553,565 to each club in 2016. Then there were the "other" payments which ranged from $1,165,077 to the AFC, to over $9 mill to St Kilda. - And before you ask, Port got $3,818,177
On the other side, the AFC's 2016 report shows over $46 million in "Football Operations Revenue" which is the only place the AFL grant could be hiding.
So the AFL gave each club an amount roughly (exactly?) equal to the salary cap.
An untied grant would still be very different to central payroll
I'm not saying it's a "central payroll", just that what the clubs pay the players in total, is covered by the grant from the AFL. So the clubs don't care what the salary cap is, the AFL gives them the $ to cover it.
Now, as to the 38-39-40 on the list: Each of those spots costs about $100K (roughly the base / first year payment) so if you go with 38, for example, you've got $200K+ to spend on the rest of the list. #warchest
Because of the 95-105% thing, you can't underspend the cap, maybe you can underspend one year, but you have to pay it eventually. So going short doesn't save you cash for use outside player payments.
So I'm just thinking - if you think your list is "solid" and you've got a use for the odd $200K, then going with, say, 38 isn't a bad strategy. And I think our list is pretty solid at the moment, and if it helps us retain players like Crouches and Lairds etc, then why not.
Plus we had Wigg and CEY who were both genuine depth and kind of knocking on the door.
pirate bob
Cancelled
- Jul 11, 2017
- 1,635
- 1,406
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I think its also worth keeping in mind that the 5% works out to over $600K in the current cap.I'm not saying it's a "central payroll", just that what the clubs pay the players in total, is covered by the grant from the AFL. So the clubs don't care what the salary cap is, the AFL gives them the $ to cover it.
Now, as to the 38-39-40 on the list: Each of those spots costs about $100K (roughly the base / first year payment) so if you go with 38, for example, you've got $200K+ to spend on the rest of the list. #warchest
Because of the 95-105% thing, you can't underspend the cap, maybe you can underspend one year, but you have to pay it eventually. So going short doesn't save you cash for use outside player payments.
So I'm just thinking - if you think your list is "solid" and you've got a use for the odd $200K, then going with, say, 38 isn't a bad strategy. And I think our list is pretty solid at the moment, and if it helps us retain players like Crouches and Lairds etc, then why not.
Second reply - on further searching, I haven't found a direct link in the funding, but according to the 2016 reports for the AFL and the AFC...
The AFL paid a total of $10,553,565 to each club in 2016. Then there were the "other" payments which ranged from $1,165,077 to the AFC, to over $9 mill to St Kilda. - And before you ask, Port got $3,818,177
On the other side, the AFC's 2016 report shows over $46 million in "Football Operations Revenue" which is the only place the AFL grant could be hiding.
So the AFL gave each club an amount roughly (exactly?) equal to the salary cap.
The grant ensures that every club can pay the minimum 95% of the full salary cap. Whether clubs choose to pay more than that within the rolling year rules or just pay that amount is up to them. If we only pay 95% of the cap, the 5% we're not paying goes straight to our bottom line. We would not be forced to return any of that $10m to the AFL.
Indeed, and given you have to make it up - you're not allowed to go on spending at 95% year after year - then if you move from one year at 95% to a year at 105%, that's $1.2 mill in the #warchest. That makes a big difference to your ability to re-contract players.
(No, it's not $1.8 mill - it's the $600K you underspent in year 1 plus the full spend in year 2. The 105% includes the $600K from year 1)
You're not forced to return it, but you are required to spend it, eventually. I can't find a reference to the exact rule, but it's my understanding that you can't just go on underspending year after year. So spending at 95% gives you some extra cash for a year, but you're going to have to spend it (on player payments) in the following year. "Straight to the bottom line"? I think doing that without counting it as a liability would be dodgy.
I wonder if that (the 1.2 m or whatever the amount is from a 95% spend plus the following years 105%) could be used as a sign on bonus?
A big name could still fit with the pay model after getting a big upfront amount.
Would be hard for any other club to match, and hard for the player to knock back too.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
A big name could still fit with the pay model after getting a big upfront amount.
Would be hard for any other club to match, and hard for the player to knock back too.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
So you've tried to find the rule, can't, but still believe it exists for no actual reason. It doesn't exist, a poor club can continue spending 95% for as long as they like. Why would not spending 5% of our cap have anything to do with recognising a liability? If we don't spend the full cap, our total player payment expense would be reduced by about $500k which increases our surplus or reduces our loss by that amount, hence "straight to the bottom line". It's pretty simple accounting and impacts only the P&L, there is no liability created by choosing to only spend 95% of the cap.
OK, I should have said - I believe this is the case but I haven't had time to do the search. Not I've searched and I can't find.
I recall this subject being discussed before on this board and my recollection is the 95-105 rule. I might be wrong.
I think 95-105 makes sense, the money is supposed to go to the players and not just to be used by poor clubs to prop up their finances.
IMO. I may be wrong.
I'm not saying it's a "central payroll", just that what the clubs pay the players in total, is covered by the grant from the AFL. So the clubs don't care what the salary cap is, the AFL gives them the $ to cover it.
Now, as to the 38-39-40 on the list: Each of those spots costs about $100K (roughly the base / first year payment) so if you go with 38, for example, you've got $200K+ to spend on the rest of the list. #warchest
Because of the 95-105% thing, you can't underspend the cap, maybe you can underspend one year, but you have to pay it eventually. So going short doesn't save you cash for use outside player payments.
So I'm just thinking - if you think your list is "solid" and you've got a use for the odd $200K, then going with, say, 38 isn't a bad strategy. And I think our list is pretty solid at the moment, and if it helps us retain players like Crouches and Lairds etc, then why not.
Clubs run at a much higher cost base than the TPP, and they run super slim margins
What do we run at 60 or 70 million?
The 95-105 is a rule that allows clubs to 'bank' cap space within certain parameters. The 95% minimum spend is a separate rule to that and only related to the other to the extent that it sets the maximum amount (5%) that can be banked in any one year.
I am confident that Jackson will end up on Adelaide's list, and they may well snag him below value as a rookie. I am sure the club knows what it is doing (although this still does not preclude them from yet nominating him for the national draft). He is as AFC as one can get. His dad is Adelaide, as is his uncle. He has already played for and trained with the AFC. He no doubt has developed friendships there and is a part of the culture. His cousin is at the AFC. He possibly has said that he is AFC through and through in his interviews with other clubs. The only other club that would possibly touch him is the Power, and in light of the above I doubt it. The AFC IMHO is in a very strong position to get him for unders!
Sorry but that’s rubbish.
If we don’t nominate him and he gets drafted, he’s gone.
He ain’t going to willingly choose a rookie list spot over a spot on a main list just to be at Adelaide.
Of course, but my point is who will select him in the mid-late range of the draft when in every likelihood he will gravitate back to the AFC?
A lot of wishful thinking there. I doubt that he's tanked his interviews.
There we go, 95% minimum spend and no rule that requires the gap between that and 100% to be made up in the future. But a mechanism does exist to ensure that the 95% is spent, which is expected, seeing as though it's a mandatory amount. Thanks for that, arrowman appreciates it.
- Jun 10, 2009
- 29,795
- 44,888
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Panthers, GWV Rebels Beaufort Crows
Inside Football/Brett Anderson has Jackson going late/rookie.
mickfaxis
Club Legend
- Sep 28, 2014
- 2,369
- 2,867
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Even though he's a mad Suns fan.
Any chance of a source for that?
- Banned
- #1,549
Most could understand why.
His dad had just retired and he left under emotional circumstances with a heated debate with the coach, club and Andrew Mcleod. His retirement was handled very badly and within 12 months had just been employed by our arch enemy who brainwash people into believing we are worse than Al-Qaeda.
His son(s) would have been very impressible and seen all of the nonsense occour, no wonder they decided to go for the Gold Coast, however I believe tht was a reaction to the events, not a deep emotional connection like most would with a footy club.
OK this is getting (staying) OT for the Jedwards thread, but anyway....
I do think that all but the most penurious / irresponsible of clubs would use the money to balance their player list (example below) rather than prop up other areas, but yes, there's no obligation to do so.
Anyway - that's all by the by. What's interesting/relevant in terms of list management, is 13 (e) (f) & (g).
For illustration and using nice easy round numbers, let's assume the TPP is an even $10mill, therefore the 95% minimum is $9,500,000, 5% is $500K, and the 105% maximum is $10,500,000 (the maximum spend in any one year).
A club could - for example - underspend by $500K in each of 2018 and 2019, then spend an extra $500K in each of 2020 and 2021. In fact, if I read the rule correctly ("during any of the previous 3 years", they could underspend in 2018, 2019 AND 2020, and extend the overspend to 2021, 2022 and 2023. In other words, they could build a #warchest of $500K per year for 3 years.
In fact, given the hypothetical club is moving from $9.5mill per year to $10.5 mill, they've actually got an extra $1 mill in the three "overspend" years #amirite
Obviously it's more complex than that (who'd be a list / payments manager!) but this admittedly extreme example does illustrate the potential for a club to bank a #warchest for a 3 year shot, as it were. And it's made easier if you're running 1-2 short on the list.
Which brings me full circle to the comments about running with a list of 39 (or even 38). If your list is solid enough, and the last 2 spots on the list are not all that important to you, you can use that to your advantage.
Thanks for looking that up. OK, so I was wrong. As 1970crow said:
I really thought there was some requirement to make up a shortfall, but I was wrong.
Yes, I do actually. Why so snarky? (Or have I misunderstood your tone?)
True, but it seems to me that the fact that the amount is so close to the TPP that it's not a coincidence. It may not be tied, but the intention is certainly clear. If the AFL didn't pay that amount (at least) to the clubs, there'd be hell to pay if/when the AFL negotiated a new CBA that significantly increased TPP.
I do think that all but the most penurious / irresponsible of clubs would use the money to balance their player list (example below) rather than prop up other areas, but yes, there's no obligation to do so.
Anyway - that's all by the by. What's interesting/relevant in terms of list management, is 13 (e) (f) & (g).
For illustration and using nice easy round numbers, let's assume the TPP is an even $10mill, therefore the 95% minimum is $9,500,000, 5% is $500K, and the 105% maximum is $10,500,000 (the maximum spend in any one year).
A club could - for example - underspend by $500K in each of 2018 and 2019, then spend an extra $500K in each of 2020 and 2021. In fact, if I read the rule correctly ("during any of the previous 3 years", they could underspend in 2018, 2019 AND 2020, and extend the overspend to 2021, 2022 and 2023. In other words, they could build a #warchest of $500K per year for 3 years.
In fact, given the hypothetical club is moving from $9.5mill per year to $10.5 mill, they've actually got an extra $1 mill in the three "overspend" years #amirite
Obviously it's more complex than that (who'd be a list / payments manager!) but this admittedly extreme example does illustrate the potential for a club to bank a #warchest for a 3 year shot, as it were. And it's made easier if you're running 1-2 short on the list.
Which brings me full circle to the comments about running with a list of 39 (or even 38). If your list is solid enough, and the last 2 spots on the list are not all that important to you, you can use that to your advantage.
- Status
