List Mgmt. Crows Salary Cap and Player Salaries (with actual data)

[boffo]

Is it worth considering match day payments and how that affects these prices too.

I thought I read that 1st year players get a base of about 70k plus about 3700 a game.

Let's say that every player gets 4k a game. That means a player like Cheney got 80k more last year than this year. And Kelly the opposite.

It also accounts for about 2.2 mill of the salary cap.

Yep. I understand most players are not on a flat guaranteed wage, only the top tier who get pretty much the same wage even if injured all year.

The young players would be on low guaranteed wage but decent match payments. The mid tier would be on a balance of guaranteed and match payments.

Players we lure from other clubs may be able to weigh their salary towards the guaranteed end e.g. Betts whereas others may be happy to take a lower guarantee and higher match fee e.g. Cheney (I hope).

There can also be end of season bonus incentives such as AA and B&F votes/position.

I think the list manager would have to do an almost weekly tracking of how we are spending against the salary cap, with maybe sometimes late season front ending or back ending of a few contracts to keep within the 95 to 105% margin.

Being an optimist, some of the haggling with Lever and McGovern could be in the detail such as rival offers being big guaranteed payments whereas we might be (just guessing) want a more cautious mix of guaranteed and match payments and incentives.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

Yep. I understand most players are not on a flat guaranteed wage, only the top tier who get pretty much the same wage even if injured all year.

The young players would be on low guaranteed wage but decent match payments. The mid tier would be on a balance of guaranteed and match payments.

Players we lure from other clubs may be able to weigh their salary towards the guaranteed end e.g. Betts whereas others may be happy to take a lower guarantee and higher match fee e.g. Cheney (I hope).

There can also be end of season bonus incentives such as AA and B&F votes/position.

I think the list manager would have to do an almost weekly tracking of how we are spending against the salary cap, with maybe sometimes late season front ending or back ending of a few contracts to keep within the 95 to 105% margin.

Being an optimist, some of the haggling with Lever and McGovern could be in the detail such as rival offers being big guaranteed payments whereas we might be (just guessing) want a more cautious mix of guaranteed and match payments and incentives.

Damn. I work with numbers for a living and I think that would do my head in trying to track all those moving parts.

You'd want to make sure you have very good systems in place so that you don't end up in a situation where you can't upgrade a rookie because your salary cap is too tight, or something similar.

 

[courageous_tom]

Damn. I work with numbers for a living and I think that would do my head in trying to track all those moving parts.

You'd want to make sure you have very good systems in place so that you don't end up in a situation where you can't upgrade a rookie because your salary cap is too tight, or something similar.

All players are guaranteed a wage. For young players, that guaranteed wage is low. usually $65-150k depending on age/games played etc. Those young players then receive match payments of between $3.5k-5k a match, with additional incentives for playing 5,10,15 games. older players are universally on a higher wage, with no match payments. This is their main goal when negotiating contracts after they turn 22-24, they want the additional security that they'll be earning a set amount, week in, week out.

The reality of tracking all this isn't as hard as it may seem. Pretty simple spreadsheets track all the information, all that's required is the accountant to chuck in the latest games played/injury actuals, and forecast for the remainder of the season.

There is usually very little risk of actually exceeding the cap. Clubs need to provide an estimate before the season starts, showing estimated games played, triggers achieved, best and fairest results etc. If Ken Wood accepts the estimate as reasonable (ie. you haven't manipulated the numbers to have all your base only players playing 22 games) then it gets accepted. Of course this esimate is never correct (how could it be), and injuries force clubs to pay more than what they otherwise would. Eg, Talia (base player) will probably miss this week, and be replaced by a young player/Otten who would be paid match payments. This means for this week, both Talia, and his replacement will count towards our salary cap.

Clubs get around this by having an injury allowance built into the salary cap. This allowance effectively allows you to exceed the salary cap by up to $500k ($5k, per player, per game) provided you have enough injuries during the season to use it all. The average number of injury games per club is about 95 (95 x 5k = $475k) which is how the number is set, but changes each year. The effect of this allowance is that the salary cap usually isn't as tight as what you might think.

The only way to really get in trouble with the cap, is to initially be paying close to 100% of your cap (in the estimate), and then have senior, base only players fall out of form, and spend long periods of the year in the seconds. If those players are replaced in the team by youngsters who are receiving match payments, and there's enough of them, then you could find yourself getting in trouble, especially if the drop in form was not expected.

Payments to rookies are only included in the cap if they for some reason exceed what would have been paid to a third round draft pick. This is usually never the case, but can sometimes happen with a mature age rookie. So playing a rookie, actually provides salary cap relief, not pressure. Especially if you would otherwise be playing (paying) a young player who would be receiving match payments.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

All players are guaranteed a wage. For young players, that guaranteed wage is low. usually $65-150k depending on age/games played etc. Those young players then receive match payments of between $3.5k-5k a match, with additional incentives for playing 5,10,15 games. older players are universally on a higher wage, with no match payments. This is their main goal when negotiating contracts after they turn 22-24, they want the additional security that they'll be earning a set amount, week in, week out.

The reality of tracking all this isn't as hard as it may seem. Pretty simple spreadsheets track all the information, all that's required is the accountant to chuck in the latest games played/injury actuals, and forecast for the remainder of the season.

There is usually very little risk of actually exceeding the cap. Clubs need to provide an estimate before the season starts, showing estimated games played, triggers achieved, best and fairest results etc. If Ken Wood accepts the estimate as reasonable (ie. you haven't manipulated the numbers to have all your base only players playing 22 games) then it gets accepted. Of course this esimate is never correct (how could it be), and injuries force clubs to pay more than what they otherwise would. Eg, Talia (base player) will probably miss this week, and be replaced by a young player/Otten who would be paid match payments. This means for this week, both Talia, and his replacement will count towards our salary cap.

Clubs get around this by having an injury allowance built into the salary cap. This allowance effectively allows you to exceed the salary cap by up to $500k ($5k, per player, per game) provided you have enough injuries during the season to use it all. The average number of injury games per club is about 95 (95 x 5k = $475k) which is how the number is set, but changes each year. The effect of this allowance is that the salary cap usually isn't as tight as what you might think.

The only way to really get in trouble with the cap, is to initially be paying close to 100% of your cap (in the estimate), and then have senior, base only players fall out of form, and spend long periods of the year in the seconds. If those players are replaced in the team by youngsters who are receiving match payments, and there's enough of them, then you could find yourself getting in trouble, especially if the drop in form was not expected.

Payments to rookies are only included in the cap if they for some reason exceed what would have been paid to a third round draft pick. This is usually never the case, but can sometimes happen with a mature age rookie. So playing a rookie, actually provides salary cap relief, not pressure. Especially if you would otherwise be playing (paying) a young player who would be receiving match payments.

The problem is, as the competition for players intensifies, list managers may feel more pressure to fly closer to the sun (reduce their safety margin), until a series of unlikely events causes it to break.

Or are you saying that the AFL would allow clubs to break the cap provided they could show that the reason why they broke the cap was due to an abnormal number of injuries to players on guaranteed match payments? If this is the case, that would mitigate a lot of the risk.

 

[courageous_tom]

Or are you saying that the AFL would allow clubs to break the cap provided they could show that the reason why they broke the cap was due to an abnormal number of injuries to players on guaranteed match payments? If this is the case, that would mitigate a lot of the risk.

Correct, the injury allowance is on top of the salary cap. So your raw data might show that you've actually spent 104% of the salary cap, but after the allowance is applied, it brings you back under the cap.

 

[GreyCrow]

Great work everyone and thanks to courageous_tom for the insight.

Am I correct in saying there have been rumours of players not getting games due to
1. triggers ie Henderson
2. Rookies/juniors not getting games because of match payments getting close to the limit? ie playing a Thompson/VB because of the salary structure of those 2.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Everyone has jumped to the conclusion that we are in salary cap trouble because of the rumours surrounding Lever and McGoverns contracts. I am looking at it the other way that we are trying to fit either or both Rockliff and Gibbs into our cap. The simple fact is that its all media guess work as player contracts are confidential.

 

[Large 1]

Everyone has jumped to the conclusion that we are in salary cap trouble because of the rumours surrounding Lever and McGoverns contracts. I am looking at it the other way that we are trying to fit either or both Rockliff and Gibbs into our cap. The simple fact is that its all media guess work as player contracts are confidential.

Rucci just mentioned in passing on 5aa that some info on where clubs fall within in the new salary cap will be released, and that the 'crows are at the top end and Port at the bottom end'.

Not sure whether that means the crows are at the top end of payments (I.e. We have little room) or top end in available cap space. Stupidly Bicks and Rowie failed to ask him to explain.

Any way keep a look out, probably in a newscorp paper soon.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Rucci just mentioned in passing on 5aa that some info on where clubs fall within in the new salary cap will be released, and that the 'crows are at the top end and Port at the bottom end'.

Not sure whether that means the crows are at the top end of payments (I.e. We have little room) or top end in available cap space. Stupidly Bicks and Rowie failed to ask him to explain.

Any way keep a look out, probably in a newscorp paper soon.

Unless that is information that is being put out by the AFL, then it's just guess work from NewsCorp tabloids.

 

[pirate bob]

Rucci just mentioned in passing on 5aa that some info on where clubs fall within in the new salary cap will be released, and that the 'crows are at the top end and Port at the bottom end'.

Not sure whether that means the crows are at the top end of payments (I.e. We have little room) or top end in available cap space. Stupidly Bicks and Rowie failed to ask him to explain.

Any way keep a look out, probably in a newscorp paper soon.

Does that mean that the AFL are now leaking confidential financial information to Rucci?

 

[adelaidecrows]

Does that mean that the AFL are now leaking confidential financial information to Rucci?

I think it will be how close each team is paying to the salary cap.

 

[Large 1]

Unless that is information that is being put out by the AFL, then it's just guess work from NewsCorp tabloids.

The way I understood it was it is AFL compiled data, which has been provided to journos (not rucci per se, more likely another news corp journo) not sure if it will be de-identified, or what info it provides.

 

[courageous_tom]

The way I understood it was it is AFL compiled data, which has been provided to jurnos (not rucci per se, more likely another news corp jurno) not sure if it will be de identified, or what info it provides.

No salary cap spend data is provided to journos. It's not even provided to other clubs. The closest the AFL provides is in their annual Club Financial Review which discloses each clubs total football expenditure, which includes coaches, equipment etc. It doesn't allow clubs to work out where each other is in terms of salary cap as this would be a huge competitive advantage.

 

[Vader]

Does that mean that the AFL are now leaking confidential financial information to Rucci?

It's not confidential if it can't be broken down to the level of what individual players are being paid. If it's one figure, TPP, for each club, then that's probably fine. The AFL reports this kind of thing occasionally.

 

[courageous_tom]

It's not confidential if it can't be broken down to the level of what individual players are being paid. If it's one figure, TPP, for each club, then that's probably fine. The AFL reports this kind of thing occasionally.

Where have they ever reported on the TPP position of a club? While working for an AFL club, we spent a lot of time trying to work out where other clubs potentially sit. To my knowledge, the info isn't available.

 

[pirate bob]

It's not confidential if it can't be broken down to the level of what individual players are being paid. If it's one figure, TPP, for each club, then that's probably fine. The AFL reports this kind of thing occasionally.

That makes more sense. I would still have thought it would still be commercially sensitive? Certainly less invasive though.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

It's not confidential if it can't be broken down to the level of what individual players are being paid. If it's one figure, TPP, for each club, then that's probably fine. The AFL reports this kind of thing occasionally.

I'd be highly surprised if they did. It would gives clubs a massive advantage. If I'm Adelaide and I want to target a player I'll know that clubs at or near the salary cap are prime targets as they won't have much room to up their offers, so they may lose the player.

Similarly, if I'm working a deal for a trade which involves another club paying the salary of a player, I'm going to push hard if I know that club has plenty of cap space.

 

[Large 1]

No salary cap spend data is provided to journos. It's not even provided to other clubs. The closest the AFL provides is in their annual Club Financial Review which discloses each clubs total football expenditure, which includes coaches, equipment etc. It doesn't allow clubs to work out where each other is in terms of salary cap as this would be a huge competitive advantage.

From rucci's article as foreshadowed.

The AFL’s review of the 18 clubs’ wage bills - and potential to work to the new collective bargaining agreement signed in late June - highlights Port Adelaide can make big plays in the free agency market because it has minimal salary cap pressure.

The Power’s salary cap profile for future seasons is - contrary to popular opinion - in the bottom six of AFL payments, according to the league’s official summary.

No article yet on the Crows, but you know one is coming, bagging us for not being able to afford Lever and Gov.

 

[FR0GGY]

From rucci's article as foreshadowed.

The AFL’s review of the 18 clubs’ wage bills - and potential to work to the new collective bargaining agreement signed in late June - highlights Port Adelaide can make big plays in the free agency market because it has minimal salary cap pressure.

The Power’s salary cap profile for future seasons is - contrary to popular opinion - in the bottom six of AFL payments, according to the league’s official summary.

No article yet on the Crows, but you know one is coming, bagging us for not being able to afford Lever and Gov.

Would that be because they didn't have to pay ryder or monfries last year? Or did they?

 

[courageous_tom]

The Power’s salary cap profile for future seasons is - contrary to popular opinion - in the bottom six of AFL payments, according to the league’s official summary.

I have never heard of an 'official summary' of future salary cap expenditure. Clubs aren't required to lodge any documents about planned future spending or list plans, so I don't know how they would have that knowledge. The TPP Dept of the AFL has a reputation for being one of the few secure parts of the AFL that clubs can trust. Not much leaks from them, unlike the rest of the AFL.

Even then, assuming the AFL did have some sort of summary, it would be based on the official contract status of each club's players. If Port are in the bottom six for future expected payments it would be impossible for the AFL to know if it was genuine cap space, or if Port just have a lot of players that they haven't got around to re-signing yet.

In a climate where every tiny detail of the AFL is reported in extreme detail, would an 'official summary' of club's future salary cap expenditure really go unreported from everyone but Rucci!? It would be back page of every paper, and reported in every article as journos try to pad articles with reasons why certain players are going to certain clubs.

Someone at Port has been whispering to Ruc, and he's run off and wrote his article as if it's fact.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

All players are guaranteed a wage. For young players, that guaranteed wage is low. usually $65-150k depending on age/games played etc. Those young players then receive match payments of between $3.5k-5k a match, with additional incentives for playing 5,10,15 games. older players are universally on a higher wage, with no match payments. This is their main goal when negotiating contracts after they turn 22-24, they want the additional security that they'll be earning a set amount, week in, week out.

The reality of tracking all this isn't as hard as it may seem. Pretty simple spreadsheets track all the information, all that's required is the accountant to chuck in the latest games played/injury actuals, and forecast for the remainder of the season.

There is usually very little risk of actually exceeding the cap. Clubs need to provide an estimate before the season starts, showing estimated games played, triggers achieved, best and fairest results etc. If Ken Wood accepts the estimate as reasonable (ie. you haven't manipulated the numbers to have all your base only players playing 22 games) then it gets accepted. Of course this esimate is never correct (how could it be), and injuries force clubs to pay more than what they otherwise would. Eg, Talia (base player) will probably miss this week, and be replaced by a young player/Otten who would be paid match payments. This means for this week, both Talia, and his replacement will count towards our salary cap.

Clubs get around this by having an injury allowance built into the salary cap. This allowance effectively allows you to exceed the salary cap by up to $500k ($5k, per player, per game) provided you have enough injuries during the season to use it all. The average number of injury games per club is about 95 (95 x 5k = $475k) which is how the number is set, but changes each year. The effect of this allowance is that the salary cap usually isn't as tight as what you might think.

The only way to really get in trouble with the cap, is to initially be paying close to 100% of your cap (in the estimate), and then have senior, base only players fall out of form, and spend long periods of the year in the seconds. If those players are replaced in the team by youngsters who are receiving match payments, and there's enough of them, then you could find yourself getting in trouble, especially if the drop in form was not expected.

Payments to rookies are only included in the cap if they for some reason exceed what would have been paid to a third round draft pick. This is usually never the case, but can sometimes happen with a mature age rookie. So playing a rookie, actually provides salary cap relief, not pressure. Especially if you would otherwise be playing (paying) a young player who would be receiving match payments.

Great summary mate. Learnt a lot.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Everyone has jumped to the conclusion that we are in salary cap trouble because of the rumours surrounding Lever and McGoverns contracts. I am looking at it the other way that we are trying to fit either or both Rockliff and Gibbs into our cap. The simple fact is that its all media guess work as player contracts are confidential.

You spelt Dustin Martin wrong

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

No salary cap spend data is provided to journos. It's not even provided to other clubs. The closest the AFL provides is in their annual Club Financial Review which discloses each clubs total football expenditure, which includes coaches, equipment etc. It doesn't allow clubs to work out where each other is in terms of salary cap as this would be a huge competitive advantage.

So Rooch is making it up then?

 

[GreyCrow]

So Rooch is making it up then?

Shocked, shocked to be sitting here

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

I have never heard of an 'official summary' of future salary cap expenditure. Clubs aren't required to lodge any documents about planned future spending or list plans, so I don't know how they would have that knowledge. The TPP Dept of the AFL has a reputation for being one of the few secure parts of the AFL that clubs can trust. Not much leaks from them, unlike the rest of the AFL.

Even then, assuming the AFL did have some sort of summary, it would be based on the official contract status of each club's players. If Port are in the bottom six for future expected payments it would be impossible for the AFL to know if it was genuine cap space, or if Port just have a lot of players that they haven't got around to re-signing yet.

In a climate where every tiny detail of the AFL is reported in extreme detail, would an 'official summary' of club's future salary cap expenditure really go unreported from everyone but Rucci!? It would be back page of every paper, and reported in every article as journos try to pad articles with reasons why certain players are going to certain clubs.

Someone at Port has been whispering to Ruc, and he's run off and wrote his article as if it's fact.

Would it be correct to say that looking at salary cap details for one year in isolation, is meaningless in this day and age of back, front and side loading of contracts?