List Mgmt. 2025 List Management discussion

[PJays]

So one element of my arguments against St Kilda signing De Koning has been incorrect (one of many, but still an important one).

Worth discussing since it’s relevant to what St Kilda is doing.

I thought there was a 1-year overspending mechanism in the AFL TPP.

This was incorrect.

There is a 4-year overspending mechanism in the current 2023 – 2027 CBA. In the previous 2017 – 2022 CBA there was a 3-year overspending mechanism. You just can’t exceed 105% in any individual year. (Refer Section 6.3 (f) and (g) of the current CBA).

This means if St Kilda has been spending less than the cap in 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025, they can spend over by the same amounts in 2026, 2027, 2028 and 2029. As long as they don’t exceed 105% in any given year.

This doesn’t change my other arguments - the problems with spending on a ruckman when mids are more crucial to flag chances, the issues with De Koning’s durability, the issues this could cause club culture, the comparison with NWM’s salary, the gamble of overspending on someone who isn’t an A Grader, the risks to long-term salary cap flexibility with existing players etc etc.

But it does change the salary cap position, at least as I understood it.

As an example:

Year	$ TPP	95%	$ Underspend
2022	13,538, 993	12,862,043	676,950
2023	15,022, 778	14,271,639	751,139
2024	15,788,222	14,998,811	789,411
2025	17,761,999	16,873,899	888,100
Total Underspend			3,105,600

If St Kilda has spent the minimum 95% in each of the last 4 years, they have an extra $3,105,600 to spend over the next 4 years, as long as they don’t exceed 105% in any given year.

For example, if St Kilda spent the full allowable excess in 2026 and 2027:

Year	$ TPP	105%	$ Overspend
2026	18,293,194	19,207,854	914,660
2027	18,440,415	19,362,436	922,021
Total Overspend			1,836,681

And still have lots left over for 2028 and 2029.

Now this actually changes the argument in multiple ways.

In some ways it weakens my anti De Koning argument, because it means we have more excess cash to spend than I’d realised.

But it also strengthens the anti De Koning argument. If we have 4 years to utilise the overspend, we can afford to be patient and wait for the right player or players – even if that’s at the end of 2026 or the end of 2027. In other words, because there’s a 4-year mechanism, we’re only losing the 2022 portion if we don’t spend it in 2026.

That’s only $676,950 we lose in 2026.

At most.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

View attachment 2333433

 

[PJays]

Room temp IQ stuff this

We'd probably up our offer if he did an ACL.

St Kilda would reduce their offer if he did his ACL in August. No question.

Carlton would probably keep their offer the same. Increasing the chances he'd stay.

Would be a good result for St Kilda

Not that I wish ill on anyone. I don't want anyone to do their ACL.

I just would rather our club spend on mids. We can wait for the right one/ones. Whether that's this year or next year.

Every flag team has elite mid/s. Many flag teams have average rucks.

 

[Sully111]

100%


It's not too late to back out

This is a bit cruel, but I'm half hoping De Koning does an ACL or something just so St Kilda takes their offer off the table.

My previous hope - that Carlton makes a finals run and contends for the flag so he'd stay - that horse has bolted. Just can't see another post bye miracle like 2023.

If wishing ACLs on players is where you're at.... you might want to have a look at yourself mate.

 

[sasaint]

Port sent this to persuade NAS to make a massive life changing decision?

View attachment 2333495

Rest easy folks- billy bob couldn't convince anyone to switch brands of cereal.

Wouldn't it be funny if NAS convinced JHF to join the Saints instead!

 

[stavro#4]

So one element of my arguments against St Kilda signing De Koning has been incorrect (one of many, but still an important one).

Worth discussing since it’s relevant to what St Kilda is doing.

I thought there was a 1-year overspending mechanism in the AFL TPP.

This was incorrect.

There is a 4-year overspending mechanism in the current 2023 – 2027 CBA. In the previous 2017 – 2022 CBA there was a 3-year overspending mechanism. You just can’t exceed 105% in any individual year. (Refer Section 6.3 (f) and (g) of the current CBA).

This means if St Kilda has been spending less than the cap in 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025, they can spend over by the same amounts in 2026, 2027, 2028 and 2029. As long as they don’t exceed 105% in any given year.

This doesn’t change my other arguments - the problems with spending on a ruckman when mids are more crucial to flag chances, the issues with De Koning’s durability, the issues this could cause club culture, the comparison with NWM’s salary, the gamble of overspending on someone who isn’t an A Grader, the risks to long-term salary cap flexibility with existing players etc etc.

But it does change the salary cap position, at least as I understood it.

As an example:

Year	$ TPP	95%	$ Underspend
2022	13,538, 993	12,862,043	676,950
2023	15,022, 778	14,271,639	751,139
2024	15,788,222	14,998,811	789,411
2025	17,761,999	16,873,899	888,100
Total Underspend			3,105,600

If St Kilda has spent the minimum 95% in each of the last 4 years, they have an extra $3,105,600 to spend over the next 4 years, as long as they don’t exceed 105% in any given year.

For example, if St Kilda spent the full allowable excess in 2026 and 2027:

Year	$ TPP	105%	$ Overspend
2026	18,293,194	19,207,854	914,660
2027	18,440,415	19,362,436	922,021
Total Overspend			1,836,681

And still have lots left over for 2028 and 2029.

Now this actually changes the argument in multiple ways.

In some ways it weakens my anti De Koning argument, because it means we have more excess cash to spend than I’d realised.

But it also strengthens the anti De Koning argument. If we have 4 years to utilise the overspend, we can afford to be patient and wait for the right player or players – even if that’s at the end of 2026 or the end of 2027. In other words, because there’s a 4-year mechanism, we’re only losing the 2022 portion if we don’t spend it in 2026.

That’s only $676,950 we lose in 2026.

At most.

We already know this isn’t the case as Ross & Bassat have referenced the cap being full by the time RTB got here at the end of 2022.

 

[PJays]

If wishing ACLs on players is where you're at.... you might want to have a look at yourself mate.

I don't wish anyone does their ACL but I wish we had smarter management at our club.

Just over incompetent or irresponsible management.

Tassie, Seaford, Brad Hill, Simon Lethlean... so many costly and poor decisions over the years.

I fear De Koning is the next mistake.

 

[PJays]

We already know this isn’t the case as Ross & Bassat have referenced the cap being full by the time RTB got here at the end of 2022.

Thanks, I was wondering about that.

Hence my comment "at most".

This strengthens the anti De Koning position further.

If St Kilda's cap was maxed out in 2022, with a 4 year overspend mechanism it means we don't lose a dollar of carried forward cap space in 2026.

 

[_Maximus_12]

I don't wish anyone does their ACL but I wish we had smarter management at our club.

Just over incompetent or irresponsible management.

Tassie, Seaford, Brad Hill, Simon Lethlean... so many costly and poor decisions over the years.

I fear De Koning is the next mistake.

The previous management, not the current is responsible for the mistakes you’ve listed. Shall we assess this sides performance on the results delivered in 2000 as well?

 

[PJays]

The previous management, not the current is responsible for the mistakes you’ve listed. Shall we assess this sides performance on the results delivered in 2000 as well?

The current management wants to sign De Koning

Read my post from half an hour ago?

Based on the AFL CBA, if Stavros is correct about the cap being maxed in 2022, this means we don't lose a dollar of carried forward cap space in 2026.

So all the talk in this thread of ....."free hit" ...... "use it or lose it"......"Must spend the money"

Has all been greatly exaggerated or flat out incorrect.

Pretty significant, yes?

 

[pebblesofsand]

So one element of my arguments against St Kilda signing De Koning has been incorrect (one of many, but still an important one).

Worth discussing since it’s relevant to what St Kilda is doing.

I thought there was a 1-year overspending mechanism in the AFL TPP.

This was incorrect.

There is a 4-year overspending mechanism in the current 2023 – 2027 CBA. In the previous 2017 – 2022 CBA there was a 3-year overspending mechanism. You just can’t exceed 105% in any individual year. (Refer Section 6.3 (f) and (g) of the current CBA).

This means if St Kilda has been spending less than the cap in 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025, they can spend over by the same amounts in 2026, 2027, 2028 and 2029. As long as they don’t exceed 105% in any given year.

This doesn’t change my other arguments - the problems with spending on a ruckman when mids are more crucial to flag chances, the issues with De Koning’s durability, the issues this could cause club culture, the comparison with NWM’s salary, the gamble of overspending on someone who isn’t an A Grader, the risks to long-term salary cap flexibility with existing players etc etc.

But it does change the salary cap position, at least as I understood it.

As an example:

Year	$ TPP	95%	$ Underspend
2022	13,538, 993	12,862,043	676,950
2023	15,022, 778	14,271,639	751,139
2024	15,788,222	14,998,811	789,411
2025	17,761,999	16,873,899	888,100
Total Underspend			3,105,600

If St Kilda has spent the minimum 95% in each of the last 4 years, they have an extra $3,105,600 to spend over the next 4 years, as long as they don’t exceed 105% in any given year.

For example, if St Kilda spent the full allowable excess in 2026 and 2027:

Year	$ TPP	105%	$ Overspend
2026	18,293,194	19,207,854	914,660
2027	18,440,415	19,362,436	922,021
Total Overspend			1,836,681

And still have lots left over for 2028 and 2029.

Now this actually changes the argument in multiple ways.

In some ways it weakens my anti De Koning argument, because it means we have more excess cash to spend than I’d realised.

But it also strengthens the anti De Koning argument. If we have 4 years to utilise the overspend, we can afford to be patient and wait for the right player or players – even if that’s at the end of 2026 or the end of 2027. In other words, because there’s a 4-year mechanism, we’re only losing the 2022 portion if we don’t spend it in 2026.

That’s only $676,950 we lose in 2026.

At most.

So you're saying that we should utilise the 95% TPP provisions to enable us to stockpile some extra cash to throw at (some might say overpay) free agents in order to help attract them to a smaller club.

And if we aren't able to attract any free agents in any given year we should front load some existing contracts to ensure we maintain our rolling surplus in order to be able to throw it at any free agents that may become available the following year.

Clever!!!

 

[PJays]

So you're saying that we should utilise the 95% TPP provisions to enable us to stockpile some extra cash to throw at (some might say overpay) free agents in order to help attract them to a smaller club.

And if we aren't able to attract any free agents in any given year we should front load some existing contracts to ensure we maintain our rolling surplus in order to be able to throw it at any free agents that may become available the following year.

Clever!!!

View attachment 2333583

More importantly I'm suggesting this 4 year flexibility allows us to be patient.

We don't lose any cap space at all by refusing the urge to overspend on a Ruckman right now - contra the suggestions in countless posts in this thread.

 

[stavro#4]

Thanks, I was wondering about that.

Hence my comment "at most".

This strengthens the anti De Koning position further.

If St Kilda's cap was maxed out in 2022, with a 4 year overspend mechanism it means we don't lose a dollar of carried forward cap space in 2026.

It means we can over spend in 2026 - which is when the TDK deal will begin and reported will be front ended to the tune of $2m+.

It means if you take the reported 12/7 as a guarantee amount and involving 0 performance triggers (which seems completely unlikely)

You are sitting at 10m/6 at worse. Which is roughly $1.6m. It’s likely TDK would also get paid 100-200k through that AFL fund. So it’s again probably not as painful as being reported.

 

[PJays]

It means we can over spend in 2026 -

Of course

But my point is, instead of overspending in 2026, we can overspend the same amounts in 2027, 2028 etc. We don't have to spend it in 2026.

The "use it or lose it" phrase wheeled out countless times in this thread was incorrect with regards to St Kilda's 2026 situation if you're right about 2022.

 

[stavro#4]

The current management wants to sign De Koning

Read my post from half an hour ago?

Based on the AFL CBA, if Stavros is correct about the cap being maxed in 2022, this means we don't lose a dollar of carried forward cap space in 2026.

So all the talk in this thread of ....."free hit" ...... "use it or lose it"......"Must spend the money"

Has all been greatly exaggerated or flat out incorrect.

Pretty significant, yes?

My understanding is that it’s 2 years at 95% to use 105% in year 3.

You can’t bank it forever and you can’t turn it into 110% etc

 

[stavro#4]

Of course

But my point is, instead of overspending in 2026, we can overspend the same amounts in 2027, 2028 etc. We don't have to spend it in 2026.

The "use it or lose it" phrase wheeled out countless times in this thread was incorrect with regards to St Kilda's 2026 situation if you're right about 2022.

That implies we will be spending 95% of the cap in 2026 to do this.

Which we won’t as we will have trade targets and the NAS deal etc.

And even if we can do that your left having to spend on Whoever will come in 2026 - thus ending up with potentially a worse player. You also miss the chance to potentially cash in on Marshall.

Or you do lose it.

 

[PJays]

stavro#4 and anyone else

Important bits highlighted.

Here's the CBA

6.3 Payment of AFL Total Player Payments and Additional Services Agreements

(a) Each Club must expend no less than 95% of the combined annual AFL Total Player Payments and Additional Services Agreements limits in Football Payments to AFL Players on its AFL List in each relevant year.

(b) Where a Club does not expend the amount set out in clause 6.3(a) in Football Payments to AFL Players on its AFL List, the Club will be required to pay to AFL, any shortfall in Football Payments.

(c) AFL will advise AFLPA whether each Club has expended 95% of the combined annual AFL Total Player Payments and Additional Services Agreements limits in Football Payments and will advise AFLPA of any shortfall by any Club including the amount of such shortfall.

(d) Any shortfall will be distributed in an equitable manner between the AFL Players in the relevant Club in a manner determined by AFL and AFLPA after consultation with the AFL Players from that Club.

(e) Clubs may spend over 100% of the combined annual AFL Total Player Payments and Additional Services Agreements limit (Combined Limit), if in any of the preceding four years the Club has spent below 100% of the Combined Limit.

(f) The permitted amount of overspend will be tied to the level of underspend in the relevant preceding periods. For example, if a Club was $500,000 below the combined Total Player Payments and Additional Services Agreements limit in 2022, and paid 100% of the Combined Limit in 2023, 2024 and 2025, the Club would be entitled to spend $500,000 above the Combined Limit in 2026. If a $500,000 overspend was not made in 2026, the Club has lost the right to overspend in 2027.

(g) It is agreed that the overspend amount is to be capped at a maximum of 105% of the Combined Limit in any given year.

 

[jwikked]

stavro#4 and anyone else

Important bits highlighted.

Here's the CBA

You’re forgetting that St Kilda has pre-paid a number of players, so despite only having an extra 5% of the salary cap to spend per year, you’re clearly not accounting for a lower payable salary for the next few years, due to putting players on front loaded deals so that we could spend big to land some players.

We’ve got cap space even without going over 100% of the salary cap. Weve put the work in so that spending money won’t affect the team negatively. And if we don’t spend it, all that work is for nothing.

 

[g_TRAIN]

You’re forgetting that St Kilda has pre-paid a number of players, so despite only having an extra 5% of the salary cap to spend per year, you’re clearly not accounting for a lower payable salary for the next few years, due to putting players on front loaded deals so that we could spend big to land some players.

We’ve got cap space even without going over 100% of the salary cap. Weve put the work in so that spending money won’t affect the team negatively. And if we don’t spend it, all that work is for nothing.

I assume that this would mean if we didn't spend it on TDK, we’d need to allocate some of it back to other player payments in 2026/2027 to bring us back up to the minimum level.

 

[PJays]

You’re forgetting that St Kilda has pre-paid a number of players, so despite only having an extra 5% of the salary cap to spend per year, you’re clearly not accounting for a lower payable salary for the next few years, due to putting players on front loaded deals so that we could spend big to land some players.

We’ve got cap space even without going over 100% of the salary cap. Weve put the work in so that spending money won’t affect the team negatively. And if we don’t spend it, all that work is for nothing.

Yeah, this is true.

I hadn't forgotten about this.

I'm merely talking about the excess available under the carried forward rules.

I'm not sure how much of a difference this will make though. I wouldn't have thought it was huge.

 

[The Punter]

The front ending eventually catches up to you because of the salary floor. The club have said we have more room in next year's cap than any team has in AFL history. Most of it will have to be used, with only NWM as a OOC player likely to be on significant coin.

So it is a little bit "TDK this year or someone else this year", and the best midfield option appears to be James Worpel

29

James Worpel

Age

26

Ht

186cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.5

5star

K

12.2

5star

HB

11.3

5star

M

2.9

3star

T

4.5

5star

CL

5.1

5star

No current season stats available

D

15.6

4star

K

6.2

3star

HB

9.4

5star

M

1.0

1star

T

3.2

5star

CL

1.8

4star

. Bergman would be a converted HBF, Bont ain't leaving the Dogs, everyone else costs draft capital.

 

[SG34]

What are your thoughts on the potential resilience and injury-resistance of NAS? Built like a flamingo/pelican..but maybe that is a strength? The heavier they are, the harder they fall?

 

[TheJackal]

If I was Pou's agent I'd be trying to get him a monster contract extension this year. Long term on overs, he should be asking for a slice of that 'world's biggest ever' pie.

 

[_Maximus_12]

The current management wants to sign De Koning

Read my post from half an hour ago?

Based on the AFL CBA, if Stavros is correct about the cap being maxed in 2022, this means we don't lose a dollar of carried forward cap space in 2026.

So all the talk in this thread of ....."free hit" ...... "use it or lose it"......"Must spend the money"

Has all been greatly exaggerated or flat out incorrect.

Pretty significant, yes?

And how is making a bid on TDK incompetent?

Incompetent would be walking away from a player who has committed to your club when you have the cap space to spend because you’re hopeful a different player of equal or greater calibre will want to join you in the future.

 

[gringo2011]

I don't know if we're offering TDK too much money, but we're so deep in this now we need to show we can get it done.

I disagree on that. It has to be done with a lot of planning. Getting it done was how we justified over paying Hill which I still say held us back from moving forward with momentum.

We have already rolled out the chase for plenty and failed. Just keep dangling the carrot and eventually someone will bite. If I'm a player manager right now I'm asking every client how they feel about the Saints.