The too early Jackson Edwards 2017 Draft Plan, Nov 9, 2017
  1. 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.
  2. The too early Jackson Edwards 2017 Draft Plan, Nov 8, 2017
  3. 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)
  4. The too early Jackson Edwards 2017 Draft Plan, Nov 8, 2017
  5. arrowman

    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.
  6. List Management 2018 predictions, Oct 23, 2017
  7. Samcro24

    Gov, Lynch, Gaff & Dalhaus.

    Now excuse me, I have to change hands.

  8. Trade & Free Agency V - Stringer, Smith and Saad deals DONE - Delisted Free Agents? Crameri?, Oct 17, 2017
  9. Nick Suban to StKilda, Sep 25, 2017
  10. Re-Signing Jake Lever, Jul 11, 2017
  11. Sanders

    Don't forget

  12. Re-Signing Jake Lever, Jul 4, 2017
  13. Sanders

  14. The Association Football AFL thread, May 22, 2017
  15. The Association Football AFL thread, May 22, 2017
  16. Doctor Gero

    "North Melbourne is poised to launch a major play for explosive Tigers star Dustin Martin with a long-term contract offer worth more than $1 million a season in a deal that would tie him to the Kangaroos until at least the end of 2022.

    The North board has given the club the green light to table the offer of between five and six years to the 25-year-old who has told Richmond he will not make a decision on his future until the end of this season.

    In an attempted recruiting raid reminiscent of decades past, the North Melbourne Martin offer marks the second audacious bid by the club in recent months following the $9 million nine-year play for young GWS Giant Josh Kelly.

    Richmond has accepted it will need to pay Martin $1 million a season to retain him and has offered its star a five-year deal. The North offer will exceed that.

    The Kangaroos are hopeful of luring Kelly and Martin to Arden Street next season saying their #WARCHEST remains one of the most generous in the competition following the forced retirements last year of Brent Harvey, Drew Petrie, Nick Dal Santo and Michael Firrito."

    Source: The Age