List Mgmt. 2016 Trade, Draft and free agency news (no hypothetical trades)

[Brishawk]

Players get executive-sized salaries. They should be made public to ensure good governance. While AFL clubs are not publicly listed, the structure of Members > Board > CEO > Club is the same in form and function as Shareholders > Board > CEO > Company. Club members are terribly informed about the operations of their club which is why we end up with the likes of Melbourne, Richmond, St Kilda, Brisbane etc. being s**t for decades at a time. Members need this type of information in order to hold their board to account. I realise this would take away a competitive advantage we have over the rest of the league but for the sake of the competition I'd be willing to give that up. The AFL should also publish ambassador payments because, lets face it, its a vehicle of discretionary favouritism that needs to be eliminated via public opinion. Of course clubs and the AFL will not want this to happen (of course neither would the players).

 

[bradburygold]

Players get executive-sized salaries. They should be made public to ensure good governance. While AFL clubs are not publicly listed, the structure of Members > Board > CEO > Club is the same in form and function as Shareholders > Board > CEO > Company. Club members are terribly informed about the operations of their club which is why we end up with the likes of Melbourne, Richmond, St Kilda, Brisbane etc. being s**t for decades at a time. Members need this type of information in order to hold their board to account. I realise this would take away a competitive advantage we have over the rest of the league but for the sake of the competition I'd be willing to give that up. The AFL should also publish ambassador payments because, lets face it, its a vehicle of discretionary favouritism that needs to be eliminated via public opinion. Of course clubs and the AFL will not want this to happen (of course neither would the players).

Perfectly put! But its not like the afl to ignore the fans...

 

[Thaihawk]

I am more than happy how our club is run, and I think history tells us that to chase, and get the most expensive player, or one of them, doesn't guarantee a premiership.

Judd > Brown baggers.
Gary > Gold Coast.
Our #23> Sydney.
Danger > Cats (not yet clear)

For this reason I believe we will only chase JOM, Crouch or Mitchel if they want to come, and value the chance of a premiership more than an extra $100-150.

 

[cryptor]

Players get executive-sized salaries. They should be made public to ensure good governance. While AFL clubs are not publicly listed, the structure of Members > Board > CEO > Club is the same in form and function as Shareholders > Board > CEO > Company. Club members are terribly informed about the operations of their club which is why we end up with the likes of Melbourne, Richmond, St Kilda, Brisbane etc. being s**t for decades at a time. Members need this type of information in order to hold their board to account. I realise this would take away a competitive advantage we have over the rest of the league but for the sake of the competition I'd be willing to give that up. The AFL should also publish ambassador payments because, lets face it, its a vehicle of discretionary favouritism that needs to be eliminated via public opinion. Of course clubs and the AFL will not want this to happen (of course neither would the players).

We wouldn't even really be losing an advantage either. Player salaries aren't private from other clubs. Player managers will often share that information with list managers of other clubs if they believe it could lead to a better offer.

Our players know the deal anyway. That they're getting less than they could get elsewhere. It's other clubs where the players aren't getting success and so will care a hell of a lot more if a teammate they perceive themselves to be better than is getting more than them.

 

[tige19]

We wouldn't even really be losing an advantage either. Player salaries aren't private from other clubs. Player managers will often share that information with list managers of other clubs if they believe it could lead to a better offer.

Our players know the deal anyway. That they're getting less than they could get elsewhere. It's other clubs where the players aren't getting success and so will care a hell of a lot more if a teammate they perceive themselves to be better than is getting more than them.

You have to take into account the commercial value long term of coming to Hawthorn, you hold a lot more sway when you're a 3x premiership player or even a 2x premiership player. Whether you want to get into coaching, media and/or guest appearances your value sky rockets if you have had success.

 

[Hawk Dork]

Even being chased to play local footy for a g a week

 

[Davo23]

We wouldn't even really be losing an advantage either. Player salaries aren't private from other clubs. Player managers will often share that information with list managers of other clubs if they believe it could lead to a better offer.

Our players know the deal anyway. That they're getting less than they could get elsewhere. It's other clubs where the players aren't getting success and so will care a hell of a lot more if a teammate they perceive themselves to be better than is getting more than them.

The contracts are registered at the AFL, so they would be known to everyone at the upper level of the clubs.

It's just confidentiality, isn't it?

Why does every person out there have to know every player's salary?

 

[cryptor]

The contracts are registered at the AFL, so they would be known to everyone at the upper level of the clubs.

It's just confidentiality, isn't it?

Why does every person out there have to know every player's salary?

As has been pointed out already above, the club members are the top of the pyramid like the shareholders in a company. The Hawthorn board is accountable to the members and it all flows down to the staff who include the players. Now it's true shareholders aren't privvy to staff member salaries outside of the CEO, etc. but players aren't like your regular company staff. Players are also a commodity within the framework of the game. Their price needs to be known so we as members can know that our board, etc are making the right moves. Less of a concern for Hawthorn members under this administration but I'm sure other clubs members would value knowing how much certain players of theirs are being over paid. I think it would also help with the integrity of the game if people could understand how certain successful teams manage to keep a list of good players.

 

[Davo23]

As has been pointed out already above, the club members are the top of the pyramid like the shareholders in a company. The Hawthorn board is accountable to the members and it all flows down to the staff who include the players. Now it's true shareholders aren't privvy to staff member salaries outside of the CEO, etc. but players aren't like your regular company staff. Players are also a commodity within the framework of the game. Their price needs to be known so we as members can know that our board, etc are making the right moves. Less of a concern for Hawthorn members under this administration but I'm sure other clubs members would value knowing how much certain players of theirs are being over paid. I think it would also help with the integrity of the game if people could understand how certain successful teams manage to keep a list of good players.

It's really nothing akin to company structure or law: members are not shareholders.
It's confidential information that players should have the right to keep to themselves.

Why does Harry from Nunawading need to know?

 

[RobHawk]

Have I just opened the sports section of the paper or the business section?

 

[Davo23]

Have I just opened the sports section of the paper or the business section?

Harry?

 

[cryptor]

It's really nothing akin to company structure or law: members are not shareholders.
It's confidential information that players should have the right to keep to themselves.

Why does Harry from Nunawading need to know?

We can argue semantics but at the end of the day the members vote for the board, the board appoints a CEO who then hires football department staff including the list manager who manages player salaries.

Why do members need to know? That's already been explained. So they can hold the elected board and their appointed staff to account for wreckless list management decisions.

The players already make certain sacrifices (living in public eye, drug testing, etc) to have the privilege of being paid very good money to play a game for a living. This is just one more and it benefits them too in terms of their own bargaining power. Their career conditions are not directly comparable to the average joe.

 

[bhutt0]

It's really nothing akin to company structure or law: members are not shareholders.

It's confidential information that players should have the right to keep to themselves.

Why does Harry from Nunawading need to know?

I agree mate. There is a big distinction between a sporting club and a corporation in that respect. Publicly listed companies don't disclose remuneration because shareholders want it or feel they deserve it or are entitled to it. It's entirely due to statutory and regulatory compliance - even then it's a limited disclosure. As mere supporters/members whilst our emotional investments is huge, our financial investment is negligible and I expect trading out of our footy club is not an option. But having a rant on Bigfooty ... that's another story

 

[Bardo State]

I think understanding contracts and salaries will become more important as player movement becomes more fluid. You see it in other salary capped sports like basketball in the US. In an environment where cap space and flexibility become more/just as important as accumulating assets, a contract becomes essential to evaluating the performance of list management staff. We're transitioning away from an environment where you are going to get 90c on the dollar for a player that wants out via trade.

I could hardly imagine the NBA off season without knowing players salaries. Fans would be completely in the dark as to the appropriateness of transactions and signings, which is not what you want when the makeup of boards is largely determined by the members of a club.

Terms and negotiations only seem to go one way with the AFLPA, so I don't think public salaries will happen any time soon, but they should.

 

[Gralin]

I really don't care what anyone on our list is making as long as we are under the TPP.
The minimum a rookie who plays no games can make is just under $58k
First year players are in the $62-75k range before match payments and senior players start at $82k before match payments.
There are other requirements and allowances and how many games players are selected for, winning awards or finals or other accelerators in their contracts can change the final number.
You could have a player on 300k who could end up with 400k after a b&f win during a premiership year.

The AFL requiring clubs to pay a minimum of 95% of the cap makes any discussion of player salaries a bit of a waste of time, you're going to have overpaid players at poor clubs and underpaid players at good clubs and everything in-between.
Thinking that if you know what player X is paid you can make an informed decision on whether to vote for the board or not is a bit of a dumb way to look at it.
The overall health of the club on and off the field us more important than what one player makes.

 

[Mitchell54]

The AFL requiring clubs to pay a minimum of 95% of the cap makes any discussion of player salaries a bit of a waste of time, you're going to have overpaid players at poor clubs and underpaid players at good clubs and everything in-between.

The AFL need to lower the salary floor to 85%. That way lower clubs don't need to pay players like Lewis Taylor 500K and instead pay them 300K.

 

[seysearles]

I really don't care what anyone on our list is making as long as we are under the TPP.
The minimum a rookie who plays no games can make is just under $58k
First year players are in the $62-75k range before match payments and senior players start at $82k before match payments.
There are other requirements and allowances and how many games players are selected for, winning awards or finals or other accelerators in their contracts can change the final number.
You could have a player on 300k who could end up with 400k after a b&f win during a premiership year.

Thanks for this info, you seem to know a lot about this. I am trying to get a handle on how the clubs manage the TPP.

I presume that match payments are included in the cap. What would these be for the different category of player? Also am I right in saying that that there are performance bonuses for things like winning B&F's, Brownlows, premierships etc. How would these be accounted for in the cap? A premiership winning club would find itself with 22 x bonuses that they have to pay out on which is a major variable.

EDIT: Having looked at the Collective Bargaining Agreement I see that the match payments and bonuses are calculated on the previous season, which makes sense. So you balance your books at the beginning of each new season based on the previous seasons outcomes.

It also states that ....

23. PremiershipandFinalsPrizeMoney

A prize money pool of $1.1 million (excluding GST) will be distributed by the AFL to the AFL Clubs, which finish in the top 4 in an AFL Season, to be redistributed to Players on the List of that Club in the relevant year on an equitable basis in accordance with guidelines agreed to between the AFL and AFLPA.

It is not clear whether or not this is included in the cap though. I suspect not.

 

[Gralin]

Thanks for this info, you seem to know a lot about this. I am trying to get a handle on how the clubs manage the TPP.

I presume that match payments are included in the cap. What would these be for the different category of player? Also am I right in saying that that there are performance bonuses for things like winning B&F's, Brownlows, premierships etc. How would these be accounted for in the cap? A premiership winning club would find itself with 22 x bonuses that they have to pay out on which is a major variable.

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...cPSL25gqN15HYbzrQ&sig2=Nh-jfXplfxKw6itHOLMhSg

 

[seysearles]

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/2015-2016%20CBA%20FINAL.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi4v86Ix4bOAhVBtJQKHbNiCUYQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNHL2wnZv54kScPSL25gqN15HYbzrQ&sig2=Nh-jfXplfxKw6itHOLMhSg

Ok lets see here....

 

[LuckyHawk]

The AFL need to lower the salary floor to 85%. That way lower clubs don't need to pay players like Lewis Taylor 500K and instead pay them 300K.

And further to this, our players are getting paid basically the same under the salary cap to Brisbane players yet look at the vast difference
in results achieved. Its difficult to make sense of it other than its just another equalisation measure.

 

[eldorado]

We know the balance sheet.

Expendable items (Players) 38-40
Total Expenditure $10,060,000 - $10,600,000

We don't need it itemised...

 

[Davo23]

We can argue semantics but at the end of the day the members vote for the board, the board appoints a CEO who then hires football department staff including the list manager who manages player salaries.

Why do members need to know? That's already been explained. So they can hold the elected board and their appointed staff to account for wreckless list management decisions.

The players already make certain sacrifices (living in public eye, drug testing, etc) to have the privilege of being paid very good money to play a game for a living. This is just one more and it benefits them too in terms of their own bargaining power. Their career conditions are not directly comparable to the average joe.

It's not semantics, cryptor, it's a legal position.
Members of a club are not shareholders, see bhutt0 post above.

As members, we don't own any part of the club; what we pay for is simply a season ticket: the right to see some games.

 

[Mitchell54]

Thanks for this info, you seem to know a lot about this. I am trying to get a handle on how the clubs manage the TPP.

I presume that match payments are included in the cap. What would these be for the different category of player? Also am I right in saying that that there are performance bonuses for things like winning B&F's, Brownlows, premierships etc. How would these be accounted for in the cap? A premiership winning club would find itself with 22 x bonuses that they have to pay out on which is a major variable.

EDIT: Having looked at the Collective Bargaining Agreement I see that the match payments and bonuses are calculated on the previous season, which makes sense. So you balance your books at the beginning of each new season based on the previous seasons outcomes.

It also states that ....


It is not clear whether or not this is included in the cap though. I suspect not.

It's not included in the cap
"In calculation of the Total Player Payments for each AFL Club, the following payments will not be taken into account:"

• Match payments (at the Player’s contract rate for Matches played in the AFL Premiership Season) made to AFL Players participating in the AFL Finals Series Matches
• prize money paid to Players

It could do the list but you get the idea(hopefully). Those are not included in the cap.

 

[cryptor]

It's not semantics, cryptor, it's a legal position.
Members of a club are not shareholders, see bhutt0 post above.

As members, we don't own any part of the club; what we pay for is simply a season ticket: the right to see some games.

I wasn't saying members are shareholders in a literal sense. They're like shareholders in a figurative sense, in that the board is elected by a members vote and the club exists much like a company does to operate in such a way as to make a return on investment for them. Our dividend is premierships.

And the club is effectively owned by the members. Not in the sense that I could go down to Waverley and demand a 75,000th of the building. But as I described above we have a 75,000th say in who runs the club in the pursuit of our collective will of winning premierships. If the members aren't the effective owners of the HFC then I'd like to know who is. And it's not the AFL.

 

[Steven Tyler]

Sooo.......

O'Meara or Crouch or Mitchell or Prestia?