1. New Image Editor now Live

    A basic image editor is now available to all users. Improvements are still in the works, but it is usable right now. Just hit "Edit Image" when you upload an image into a post. Try It ...

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Dismiss Notice


    Gaff - does he stay or go? Let me set the scene.., Oct 8, 2018
  1. Candiru

  2. Dylan Shiel [traded with future 2nd to Essendon for #9 and future 1st round pick], Oct 7, 2018
  3. the Ziebull

  4. Trade & Free Agency VI - SHIEL now a Bomber, COLYER to Fremantle, Oct 7, 2018
  5. Kyptastic

  6. Gibbs is now a Crow, Apr 14, 2018
  7. Thetrader15

  8. Ollie Wines [re-signed], Feb 7, 2018
  9. the Ziebull

    Obviously not, both coming to north #warchest
  10. The too early Jackson Edwards 2017 Draft Plan, Nov 9, 2017
  11. arrowman

    OK this is getting (staying) OT for the Jedwards thread, but anyway....

    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.
  12. The too early Jackson Edwards 2017 Draft Plan, Nov 8, 2017
  13. arrowman

    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)