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

[FR0GGY]

So Rooch is making it up then?

I refuse to believe

 

[Elite Crow]

So we are at the top of our cap and yet we wanted Gibbs.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

I'm glad we have Rucci to let us know everything is a-okay over at Alberton while the sky falls in Adelaide.

 

[courageous_tom]

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?

Not necessarily. It's not meaningless. The ability for Clubs to carry forward any underspend to future years means that manipulating contacts is done less these days than in the past.

It's just fanciful to think that rooch could have some sort of summary as to where everyone sits in terms of cap position for future years, especially when this year isn't even over yet. So many players have triggers in their contracts that give significant increases based on best and fairest results for example.

 

[boffo]

Not necessarily. It's not meaningless. The ability for Clubs to carry forward any underspend to future years means that manipulating contacts is done less these days than in the past.

It's just fanciful to think that rooch could have some sort of summary as to where everyone sits in terms of cap position for future years, especially when this year isn't even over yet. So many players have triggers in their contracts that give significant increases based on best and fairest results for example.

CT, do you think players know what their teammates earn?

Do clubs try to keep relativities? (Such as, we cannot pay Lever more than Talia or McGovern more than Jenkins?)

Last question, how low would offers go for renewal of contracts for older players. E.g. Thommo this year?

 

[Large 1]

...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.

You are certainly right about this. Prospective payments are meaningless until all contracts are lodged. However, it would indicate flexibility as those without contracts may not be renewed at the same value, or can be jettisoned.

 

[courageous_tom]

CT, do you think players know what their teammates earn?

Do clubs try to keep relativities? (Such as, we cannot pay Lever more than Talia or McGovern more than Jenkins?)

Last question, how low would offers go for renewal of contracts for older players. E.g. Thommo this year?

I think most would have a ballpark idea of what each other earn, I don't think they openly discuss it though. It's player managers which are the loose cannons. They know what everyone earns, and are quite happy to tell other players/managers what player X is earning at Club y, so because of that we're holding out for amount z.

I don't know about relativities. Probably depends on the Club. I haven't heard it being the case at the clubs I've worked with.

The contracts for older players depend on the player. Usually they're structured so that it the player isn't picked, they won't get paid much. However if they play a lot of games, and play well, they can earn some good money. It's important that the old guys have motivation to stay in the team and train just as hard as a young guy.

There are all sorts of contracts. It depends if we wanted him to stay on, or if he was begging us to keep him. In the later case, a $150k base +5k a game might be enough.

Sometimes clubs can put a contract together like this: $100k base + a bonus 100k if you play 10 games, an additional 100k if you get to 18 games, 50k if you finish in the top 10 of the best and fairest etc.

 

[chazwazza]

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 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."

So looking at Port, I'd think Matthew Lobbe and possibly Toumpas would fit in this category perfectly, maybe to a lesser extent this year Pittard and Monfries but he may have re-signed a new contract after the WADA ban.

But from what I understand from your explanation quoted above, Lobbe must be providing quite a cap strain on Port, it's not just that you're paying a player a lot of money for SANFL games but obviously the double up payment to the players replacing him in the team is costly.
What's to stop Port putting Lobbe on a long term injury list by faking some injury to then put his payments under the injury allocation?

Think of the costs and cap pressures for Port just with Lobbe and Ryder.

 

[mistylake]

So we are at the top of our cap and yet we wanted Gibbs.

Plus we just got another $2M
To use, without haveing all the players contracts indexed to this rise apparently.
Meaning to me, we'll be flat out struggling to actually spend this cap space without getting an extra high cost player.

 

[mistylake]

CT, do you think players know what their teammates earn?

Do clubs try to keep relativities? (Such as, we cannot pay Lever more than Talia or McGovern more than Jenkins?)

Last question, how low would offers go for renewal of contracts for older players. E.g. Thommo this year?

I can guarantee you that this kind of thing causes disharmony amongst the average Joe. The information does get out to, eventually.

 

[courageous_tom]

So looking at Port, I'd think Matthew Lobbe and possibly Toumpas would fit in this category perfectly, maybe to a lesser extent this year Pittard and Monfries but he may have re-signed a new contract after the WADA ban.

But from what I understand from your explanation quoted above, Lobbe must be providing quite a cap strain on Port, it's not just that you're paying a player a lot of money for SANFL games but obviously the double up payment to the players replacing him in the team is costly.
What's to stop Port putting Lobbe on a long term injury list by faking some injury to then put his payments under the injury allocation?

Lobbe yes, Toump no. Toumpas was very close to being jobless when port traded for him. They would have been under no pressure to sign him to a contract with a high base, especially given his prior history with Melbourne. He's a perfect example of the type of player you put on a lower base, and incentivise with match payments and triggers for playing games.

Lobbe is the only thing stopping port putting him on the LTI list as you proposed. He wants to resurrect his career and fight his way back into the team. Not sit out the year with a fake injury to help ports poorly managed salary cap.

 

[chazwazza]

Lobbe yes, Toump no. Toumpas was very close to being jobless when port traded for him. They would have been under no pressure to sign him to a contract with a high base, especially given his prior history with Melbourne. He's a perfect example of the type of player you put on a lower base, and incentivise with match payments and triggers for playing games.

Lobbe is the only thing stopping port putting him on the LTI list as you proposed. He wants to resurrect his career and fight his way back into the team. Not sit out the year with a fake injury to help ports poorly managed salary cap.

Which is fair enough for Lobbe and the fact that Port may need to use him if other rucks got injured but are there any AFL rules, regulations or ways they would police such a thing. I'm sure the AFLPA would be concerned.
If there's not, it's a massive loop hole, one that would be unlikely to be manipulated I'll admit.

 

[courageous_tom]

regulations or ways they would police such a thing. I'm sure the AFLPA would be concerned.
If there's not, it's a massive loop hole, one that would be unlikely to be manipulated I'll admit.

It's not really a loophole that can be exploited. As I mentioned you have to show before the season even starts that even after playing 22 games, assigning bonuses etc that you would be under the cap. The injury allowance just means that you don't have to worry about injuries forcing you over the cap. Most clubs would have at least 50 games worth of injuries each year anyway.

 

[pirate bob]

It's not really a loophole that can be exploited. As I mentioned you have to show before the season even starts that even after playing 22 games, assigning bonuses etc that you would be under the cap. The injury allowance just means that you don't have to worry about injuries forcing you over the cap. Most clubs would have at least 50 games worth of injuries each year anyway.

Thanks for all the info. Interesting that the piece Rucci is writing and promoting will essentially be fictitious.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

"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."

So looking at Port, I'd think Matthew Lobbe and possibly Toumpas would fit in this category perfectly, maybe to a lesser extent this year Pittard and Monfries but he may have re-signed a new contract after the WADA ban.

But from what I understand from your explanation quoted above, Lobbe must be providing quite a cap strain on Port, it's not just that you're paying a player a lot of money for SANFL games but obviously the double up payment to the players replacing him in the team is costly.
What's to stop Port putting Lobbe on a long term injury list by faking some injury to then put his payments under the injury allocation?

Think of the costs and cap pressures for Port just with Lobbe and Ryder.

Probably the risk that, if they are caught, they are effectively caught for rorting the salary cap, which would see them cop a big financial penalty and lose draft picks. Seems like a big risk for a few hundred thousand in the cap.

Plus, according to Rooch, they don't need to. They've got tonnes of cap space!

 

[NikkiNoo]

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.

So he is going on the wage bills and thinking that because Adelaide's is higher it means we play our players more. But this is the total wage bill across the whole organisation, right? Do we employ more people in positions that are not players? Do we have them on short term contract positions, or full time/part time permanent positions? All of this information needs to be gathered/ascertained before making a guess on the players wages.

 

[Large 1]

So he is going on the wage bills and thinking that because Adelaide's is higher it means we play our players more. But this is the total wage bill across the whole organisation, right? Do we employ more people in positions that are not players? Do we have them on short term contract positions, or full time/part time permanent positions? All of this information needs to be gathered/ascertained before making a guess on the players wages.

You are right. I have no idea what the data is, what it is measuring and what conclusions can be made.

If it is the total wage bill, it has little relevance to salary cap as $600k is approximately the difference between 95% and 100% of the new salary cap and staff costs would easily account for that between clubs. Also if it is forward costs, it would not account for players unsigned and Port had 17 of them coming out of contract this year and I am not sure how many are still left and not how many of those that have resigned are included in the data.

From and AFLs point of view, I assume the most relevant information is how much are total costs incurred by a club, how will the new salary cap affect that, and can clubs afford it. So the total wages are more important than TPP.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Probably the risk that, if they are caught, they are effectively caught for rorting the salary cap, which would see them cop a big financial penalty and lose draft picks. Seems like a big risk for a few hundred thousand in the cap.

Plus, according to Rooch, they don't need to. They've got tonnes of cap space!

What's in it for Lobbe though? Go on the LTI to help Port out, he sits out a year of footy. No playing no training to keep up the ruse. No extra payments. And when trade time comes and his manager speaks to other clubs, they aren't interested due to concerns over his body.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

What's in it for Lobbe though? Go on the LTI to help Port out, he sits out a year of footy. No playing no training to keep up the ruse. No extra payments. And when trade time comes and his manager speaks to other clubs, they aren't interested due to concerns over his body.

Exactly. There is nothing in it for him, other than not having to train and play SANFL (and I'm guessing he actually likes playing football).

 

[Vader]

What's in it for Lobbe though? Go on the LTI to help Port out, he sits out a year of footy. No playing no training to keep up the ruse. No extra payments. And when trade time comes and his manager speaks to other clubs, they aren't interested due to concerns over his body.

He can still train while on the LTI list - he just can't play at any level.

 

[chazwazza]

What's in it for Lobbe though? Go on the LTI to help Port out, he sits out a year of footy. No playing no training to keep up the ruse. No extra payments. And when trade time comes and his manager speaks to other clubs, they aren't interested due to concerns over his body.

My initial reason for putting up this hypothetical was to see if there's any checks and balances that the AFL have in place to stop this or to investigate the possibility. I wasn't suggesting that it's feasible or likely to happen. However my assumption that the AFL have all their ducks in a row is also misplaced.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

He can still train while on the LTI list - he just can't play at any level.

He was suggesting that Lobbe wouldn't train, otherwise it would ruin the ruse that he was injured.

 

[Betts are off]

It does seem like we have spent pretty considerable amounts of our salary cap down our spine and particularly within the forward 50 (Walker, Jenkins, Lynch, Jacobs, Sloane, Talia, Hartigan all on good money). I wouldn't at all be surprised if we were short on Cap space. Also wouldn't be surprised if this entire time our FO has been less urgent about resigning Lever and Gov (and now Cameron) and more been looking at getting max compensation for our 4th tall forward and 3rd tall defender (and now line breaking mid).

Actually makes sense in a longevity standpoint. Keep the spine in tact and develop cheaper players around them. AFC fans wont want to hear it, but if we roll out of the trade period with multiple first rounders in the next few drafts and maybe a big bodied MID, we've probably set up for more sustainable success.

Realistically this trade period could be looked back at as the time we screwed the pooch, or the time we set up a dynasty.

 

[Linekers Ears]

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.

There used to be some incentive to declare players injured...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...277d6c7d7?sv=ae472bb4c2bbf7e6cc077bb85f08bcd9

 

[Donald Pyke]

So I have a question...
AFL figures for 2018: Salaray cap $12.45m, average wage $371k
Using these figures (salary cap/average wage), this gives us 33.55 players per list.
Even when adding $500k of injury payments ($12.95m/$371k) it comes out at 34.9 players per team.
As the average team has 39.1 players on their main list, where does the average wage of $371k come from? It just doesn't add up.