List Mgmt. 2023 List Management and Trading (Part 2)

[PeterSalt]

Do you have a link to the article? I can't find anything on Google or the AFL website. Not doubting you, just trying to find the article you referenced.

From the article below:

"For instance, it would have allowed Adelaide to list one of Rory Sloane or Taylor Walker as a veteran for 2024 and opened up another spot on their primary list. The idea was designed to keep veterans in the game without sacrificing a list spot that a youngster may have taken, with the veteran’s full payments still counted in the salary cap."

Roos target pick one, Dee to go on, big Dog to stay

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

There's a link in the post above

 

[Scorpus]

I actually reckon we are hoping someone picks Hamill..

And it opens up a spot we can use in the supplimentary period..

I think a good option would be to pass instead of selecting Borlase, then put Borlase and a few others into a trial for an SSP spot

 

[MRB37]

I guess on Borlase. in the statement "Adelaide has committed to redrafting James Borlase" it's dependent on if we stuck some ifs and buts in there or just straight up guaranteed we'd take him.

Now even if we guaranteed we'd take him, we can still pick someone else instead of him, but your list management credibility takes a little ding from that.

 

[simmo97]

So, Curtin gets a 3 year deal, Edwards and Ryan get 2 year deals, correct? From memory it's only the top 20 that now get 3 year deals initially.

Also, we traded our future 2nd, not Melbourne's yesterday, right?

all 3 drafees will get 3 year contracts.

AFL

• 10 per cent increase in base pay in 2023.
• 37 per cent increase in pay over the life of the deal.
• Average player salary to increase from $387,000 in 2022 to $519,000 in 2027.
• Three-year contracts for first round draftees.
• Regulated payments for third year players.
• Player leave has increased based on the last CBA.
• Five-day breaks provide greater flexibility in fixturing – including more Thursday night games.
• Injury and hardship fund ($40 million boost) - $60 million over five years, up from $20 million.
• Discussions on a mid-season trade period to continue with clubs.

Landmark joint Collective Bargaining Agreement reached

The long-term five-year deal provides certainty for the industry from 2023-2027

www.afl.com.au

 

[Crow-eater]

all 3 drafees will get 3 year contracts.

AFL

• 10 per cent increase in base pay in 2023.
• 37 per cent increase in pay over the life of the deal.
• Average player salary to increase from $387,000 in 2022 to $519,000 in 2027.
• Three-year contracts for first round draftees.
• Regulated payments for third year players.
• Player leave has increased based on the last CBA.
• Five-day breaks provide greater flexibility in fixturing – including more Thursday night games.
• Injury and hardship fund ($40 million boost) - $60 million over five years, up from $20 million.
• Discussions on a mid-season trade period to continue with clubs.

Landmark joint Collective Bargaining Agreement reached

The long-term five-year deal provides certainty for the industry from 2023-2027

www.afl.com.au

Well there you go! My google search was unsuccessful.

 

[1990crow]

Well there you go! My google search was unsuccessful.

Use Ask Jeeves next time

 

[simmo97]

Well there you go! My google search was unsuccessful.

no you were correct a 2nd google search showed i was wrong.

From the new CBA.
No First Year Player drafted at an National Draft Selection Meeting may extend their AFL Standard Playing Contract beyond the term of that Standard Playing Contract until the conclusion of round 6 of the AFL Premiership Season in the first year of that contract except that a First Year Player drafted at Pick 21+ at an National Draft Selection Meeting may be contracted for a third year on regulated payments at any time.

 

[El Doederino]

I don't think this is correct .....any Club recruiting Hamill, would have to take on his existing Contract

By your comment, if Hamill's Contract is $280K a year .....the new Club could offer a new Contract at $80K, and we'd be liable for the extra $200K

Illogical

The problem is we had a contract with Hamill and then delisted him. If we didn't pick him up in the rookie draft, then we'd still need to pay out the full amount anyway.

So, we're stuffed either way.

 

[Vader]

I don't think this is correct .....any Club recruiting Hamill, would have to take on his existing Contract

Nope.

By your comment, if Hamill's Contract is $280K a year .....the new Club could offer a new Contract at $80K, and we'd be liable for the extra $200K

Illogical

This is correct. It's covered by Sections 11 & 12 of the 2023-2027 Collective Bargaining Agreement.
https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...23-2027-AFL-and-AFLW-CBA-MASTER-LONG-FORM.pdf

Section 11 says that we have to pay his base salary and a number of match payments (using some formula specified elsewhere), for all remaining years on his contract.

Section 12, which is all about "unjust enrichment" basically says that our debt to him is reduced by the salary he receives from his new club.

Note also that the CBA also specifies a minimum contract conditions of $130K base salary, and $5K senior match payments, so they wouldn't be able to offer him a new contract of only $80K.

 

[Vader]

That would be my understanding or we pay out his contract of course....

Borlase isn't contracted for 2024. We have said that we'll re-draft him, but unlike Hamill, there is no existing contract in place.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

This is correct. It's covered by Sections 11 & 12 of the 2023-2027 Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Then the change has occurred in the brand new CBA ....pretty sure it wasn't the case in the old CBA

 

[Vader]

Then the change has occurred in the brand new CBA ....pretty sure it wasn't the case in the old CBA

That rule has been in place for donkey's years. In the 2017-22 CBA it was sections 17 & 18, in Schedule C - Minimum Terms and Conditions. the wording of these sections are unchanged, other than the addition of references to AFLW players.

 

[Redline]

I actually reckon we are hoping someone picks Hamill..

And it opens up a spot we can use in the supplimentary period..

I'd say so but I doubt anyone is interested in Hamill or Borlase.

 

[Dangarman]

I don't think that's what was intended.

Adelaide has 2 picks in the RD, and has committed to selecting Hamill & Borlase. If we pick Hamill first, that leaves the door open for Port to grab Borlase with their first RD pick. I don't think there's any suggestion of Port selecting Hamill.

In the event that another club does select Hamill, Adelaide would have to pay any difference between the contract he signs with the new club, and his existing contract with the AFC.

Only if the contract with the new club is less than the existing contract. When I first read this I was thinking if he signed a bigger contract - e.g if he was on $200k and signed for $250k we'd have to pay the $50k and the new club paid the $200k. Which makes no sense whatsoever, but yes, if he can't get the same money from another club, makes sense that he is not out of pocket from his signed contract. Can't imagine he would be on huge money anyway, having played just 20 games before signing the extension.

 

[Vader]

Only if the contract with the new club is less than the existing contract. When I first read this I was thinking if he signed a bigger contract - e.g if he was on $200k and signed for $250k we'd have to pay the $50k and the new club paid the $200k. Which makes no sense whatsoever, but yes, if he can't get the same money from another club, makes sense that he is not out of pocket from his signed contract. Can't imagine he would be on huge money anyway, having played just 20 games before signing the extension.

Of course...

Adelaide agreed to contract him for $X - and the onus is on us to ensure that he receives a minimum of $X for the duration of his contract. If another club drafts him, and agrees to pay him $Y, we're only on the hook for $(X-Y). We're obviously not going to be supplementing his income if Y > X!

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Nope.

This is correct. It's covered by Sections 11 & 12 of the 2023-2027 Collective Bargaining Agreement.
https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...23-2027-AFL-and-AFLW-CBA-MASTER-LONG-FORM.pdf

Section 11 says that we have to pay his base salary and a number of match payments (using some formula specified elsewhere), for all remaining years on his contract.

Section 12, which is all about "unjust enrichment" basically says that our debt to him is reduced by the salary he receives from his new club.

Note also that the CBA also specifies a minimum contract conditions of $130K base salary, and $5K senior match payments, so they wouldn't be able to offer him a new contract of only $80K.

You've not read the CBA correctly .....it is as I stated, the Club taking on Hamill, takes on his existing Contract, or if the Contract is of greater value & length ....that the player is not disadvantaged by the new Contract

I.E .....if there's one year at $280K remaining ....the new Club cannot average that out over 2 years

Section 11 is voided, upon this:
The provisions of this item 11 will not apply to a Player:
(i) who, by agreement, is involved in a trade between Clubs which results in a
transfer and such Player being listed with the transferee Club;

Section 12 refers to my example
Where a Club employs a Player whose name has been delisted from the AFL or AFLW
List (as applicable) of another Club and where the terms of employment of such Player
provide that the average of all payments which the Player would be entitled to earn over
the whole of the period of the new contract is:

(a) the same or greater during the balance of the years in which the Player was delisted
by their previous Club

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Of course...

Adelaide agreed to contract him for $X - and the onus is on us to ensure that he receives a minimum of $X for the duration of his contract. If another club drafts him, and agrees to pay him $Y, we're only on the hook for $(X-Y). We're obviously not going to be supplementing his income if Y > X!

No ....incorrect !

 

[George CantStandYa]

And sliders we’d like to pick up if we could?

 

[Vader]

You've not read the CBA correctly .....it is as I stated, the Club taking on Hamill, takes on his existing Contract, or if the Contract is of greater value & length ....that the player is not disadvantaged by the new Contract

I.E .....if there's one year at $280K remaining ....the new Club cannot average that out over 2 years

Section 11 is voided, upon this:
The provisions of this item 11 will not apply to a Player:
(i) who, by agreement, is involved in a trade between Clubs which results in a
transfer and such Player being listed with the transferee Club;

Section 12 refers to my example
Where a Club employs a Player whose name has been delisted from the AFL or AFLW
List (as applicable) of another Club and where the terms of employment of such Player
provide that the average of all payments which the Player would be entitled to earn over
the whole of the period of the new contract is:

(a) the same or greater during the balance of the years in which the Player was delisted
by their previous Club

You might want to read that again... Hamill hasn't been involved in a trade between clubs - so the section 11 clause you highlighted is irrelevant. Hamill was delisted, not traded - so the exclusion provisions (Section 12.f) do not apply.

 

[ams4crows]

And sliders we’d like to pick up if we could?

We have no list spots available so no point really thinking about it

 

[Vader]

We have no list spots available so no point really thinking about it

Unless we plan on reneging on our commitment to Borlase or Hamill.

If we reneg on Hamill, then we'd have to pay him a Termination Payment, effectively paying out his 2024 salary under the 2023 salary cap. Borlase isn't contracted for 2024, so there's no financial penalty, just the reputational loss from reneging on our commitment.

Drafting Curtin probably reduces the need for retaining Borlase, so I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility of us reneging. It's possible, but unlikely.

... and if we did reneg, and not re-draft Borlase, we'd probably pass on the RD. We could then invite players to train with the team, before signing one during the PSSP.

 

[George CantStandYa]

We have no list spots available so no point really thinking about it

Still interesting to know if there’s a 4th player we’d like to get?

Mostyn how about you?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

You might want to read that again... Hamill hasn't been involved in a trade between clubs - so the section 11 clause you highlighted is irrelevant. Hamill was delisted, not traded - so the exclusion provisions (Section 12.f) do not apply.

No, it's covered in the same section .....I'm comfortable with my interpretation

It's simply protecting the player who has years remaining on a Contract .....you delist, you payout ....OR in this case, re-employ under the same conditions

If a Club comes a knocking & snares Hamill, the player cannot be disadvantaged .....we would be liable for any shortfall against his existing Contract ....if for example, our Contract is $280K PA ...and another Club offers $200K, but for 3 years ...we would be liable for the $80K shortfall in year 1

It's a Grundy type Contract scenario

 

[Head Selector]

With Curtin, if he becomes a defender, where does Petty fit in?

We really need Curtin to become a mid.

Curtin could end up through the middle
Petty may play forward once Tex is cooked .
We are building versatility ... which is grouse.

 

[Vader]

No, it's covered in the same section .....I'm comfortable with my interpretation

It's not... there are different rules for players being traded, as distinct from those who are delisted. The section you quoted specifically excludes players who are being traded from the terms of Section 11. Section 11 definitely applies to players like Hamill, who have been delisted while still contracted.

If a Club comes a knocking & snares Hamill, the player cannot be disadvantaged .....we would be liable for any shortfall against his existing Contract ....if for example, our Contract is $280K PA ...and another Club offers $200K, but for 3 years ...we would be liable for the $80K shortfall in year 1

That's exactly what I've been saying...

 

[119others]

That's exactly what I've been saying...

So Vader any time a half decent player UNDER contract (let’s assume Hamill and Crows at 350k base salary) is moved from main list to rookie list allows an arbitrage situation of another team swooping late in the national draft or before the incumbent team re-drafting this player in the rookie draft and only offer say 100k, and forcing the Crows to cover the remaining contracted salary.

I know you have clarified this before for me but it just seems like a massive loophole that is rarely exploited - perhaps deemed unethical?