- Oct 18, 2016
- 5,068
- 9,797
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Banned
- #276
Itt opposition supporters worrying about the 11th placed side having too many expensive players.
Recommitted Clayton Oliver [re-signed until 2030]
- Thread starter Footyfreak31
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I never said they couldn't afford it. I am saying Carlton fans numbers in this thread don't add up.
Maybe the CEO is being very loose with what he rates as an 'A grader'
Maybe the CEO is puffing out his chest a little leading in to the trade period
Or maybe Carlton have some players on the way out to go with the players coming in
Or maybe Carlton have just got the cash and been managed brilliantly
I am simply disputing that Carlton have front loaded a lot of contracts, had veterans on big money whilst also paying the minimum amount of the cap they can.
- Sep 25, 2013
- 15,308
- 29,576
- AFL Club
- Carlton
If we can get the Geelong deal done I’d offer 13 + our future first. Not really enough unless he’s absolutely desperate to leave.
Really depends on the Saad fall out as I don’t think we have enough currency unless we steal him for 27. Even then 7 + a future first is touch and go.
Can’t see Oliver leaving. Will cost any club far too much trade capital and Melbourne will be able to meet his salary requirements anyway. Probably the best pure inside mid in the comp outside our own Cripps but is 2 years younger.
Really depends on the Saad fall out as I don’t think we have enough currency unless we steal him for 27. Even then 7 + a future first is touch and go.
Can’t see Oliver leaving. Will cost any club far too much trade capital and Melbourne will be able to meet his salary requirements anyway. Probably the best pure inside mid in the comp outside our own Cripps but is 2 years younger.
Regardless of how it is structured (which doesn’t matter)the ceo had said we have space for another A grader which would cost anywhere between 800 to 1 million. You only pay money like that to A grade mids or Kpps. So if we are in play for oliver we could fit him in with our current salary structure. Is there potential to push out some talented kids later down the track absolutely but let’s be honest our kids haven’t exactly set the world on fire. If they do come on that’s a good problem to have for us if anything we will get draft capital.
Sorry mate no way year to year contract Simmo is on $600k and Kruezer on that.
The most would have been $500k
Disagree. Who are we paying if not our senior players?
This year?
A heavily front loaded Martin (still had room for Papley)
A big McGovern contract
Some overpaying on players from GWS that we had to pay to get out (Setterfield etc)
No club is massively paying a 36 year old on year to year contracts mate, Kade has his big contract 10 years ago, he would haven’t been on $750,000
- Oct 18, 2016
- 5,068
- 9,797
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Banned
- #283
They were both unrestricted free agents, so that should tell you enough.
There’s zero chance we’d let him go for that. Put it this way. Not only is he worth significantly more. Mahoney and Goodwin have their jobs on the line this year. A first rounder this year and next isn’t helping their cause. It’d only happen this year if Melbourne could add an elite player to the list for next season.
wouldn’t they be unrestricted automatically even if in the top 25% because they both served more than 10 years at the club though?
Whilst I'm not a Carlton supporter, it's pretty obvious how they have cap room....
For the past 2 season they would of struggled to be at the 95% minimum so they front ended McGovern and Martin (and maybe others) to get to the max of 105%.
They are now paying heaps less on those front ended contracts for the coming seasons.
The difference between 95% and 105% is $1.24m, so if they are paying McGovern and Martin $400k less each this year than last, plus $1m from Kruezer and Simpson, that is $1.8m less than the 105% cap, or around 92%.
Meaning they have around 8%, or $900k just to reach 100% of the cap, plus another $600k to reach 105% if they have/need to.
All that said, according to AFL.com they are looking at a cheaper player then Oliver, and going on the above guesstimations, that tends to make sense.
My money would be on a Constable type
For the past 2 season they would of struggled to be at the 95% minimum so they front ended McGovern and Martin (and maybe others) to get to the max of 105%.
They are now paying heaps less on those front ended contracts for the coming seasons.
The difference between 95% and 105% is $1.24m, so if they are paying McGovern and Martin $400k less each this year than last, plus $1m from Kruezer and Simpson, that is $1.8m less than the 105% cap, or around 92%.
Meaning they have around 8%, or $900k just to reach 100% of the cap, plus another $600k to reach 105% if they have/need to.
All that said, according to AFL.com they are looking at a cheaper player then Oliver, and going on the above guesstimations, that tends to make sense.
My money would be on a Constable type
- Sep 25, 2013
- 15,308
- 29,576
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I agree that two firsts won’t cut it even with nothing on the way back. It’s a fair offer, anything more and it starts getting towards Judd level. Couldn’t blame Melbourne for turning that down considering the position your list is in.
In saying all that, surely with Petracca, Viney, Brayshaw and Oliver in the middle something has to give? It won’t be Petracca and Viney has now signed.
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
Trading Oliver is like Carlton trading Cripps
I said $600, not $750. Again, with the average being $400, what do you think we are paying the younger guys...we had 30 on the list 23 or under, with 3 maybe 4 likely earning more than the average.
Some of the over 23 include Lang, Gibbons, Levi, Newnes and Newman who aren't making bank. Doesn't add up.
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
No nothing does have to give, but let’s say it does. Why would Melbourne trade Oliver, the leagues number contested possession player and leagues number one clearance player?
- Sep 25, 2013
- 15,308
- 29,576
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Good question.
- Oct 18, 2016
- 5,068
- 9,797
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Banned
- #293
I can't see that in the rules on the AFL website.
- Jul 14, 2005
- 18,723
- 29,562
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC
- Banned
- #294
Every club has senior players they pay a reasonable amount of money, but we've got a big drop off after those guys. It's not as though Walsh/Weitering/Setterfield are earning much yet.
Curnow's 'big' contract was heavily frontloaded so we could meet the minimum 95% at the time.
No one really knows, but I suspect we'd still have enough for another star.
- Jul 14, 2005
- 18,723
- 29,562
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Chelsea FC
- Banned
- #295
He's not happy and wants to leave?
Doubt it happens, but these kind of trades will become more common in the future IMO. Players topping their current contracts up and taking a punt on another team long term.
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
Who made this up? What’s he not happy at?
Which is why they had enough money to heavily front load Martin while still having the cap for others that didn’t eventuate.
A top 25 per cent player is eligible for unrestricted free agency when next out of contract, provided a player can never be an unrestricted free agent until completing at least 10 years’ service at one club.
Free Agency - AFL.com.au
Australian Football League. All the latest AFL news, video, results and information
www.afl.com.au
Clearly I'll bow to your detailed knowledge of our contracts...and I think you know where you can stick your emoji.Which is why they had enough money to heavily front load Martin while still having the cap for others that didn’t eventuate.
Similar threads
