Does Hart still get veteran salary status if he stays on the primary list?

[DaveW]

I can't figure it out.

There's been no announcement about Hart being put on the veterans list.

We've currently got our primary list down to 34. If we move Hart onto the vets list, then we have to get four new players onto the primary list to fill up the necessary 37.

But if we had to fill four spaces, surely Parker would get one of these?

So Hart must be staying on the main list. Presumably with veteran salary status. Otherwise, why wouldn't we promote him in an instant?

 

[Stiffy_18]

I am really confused with this new rule. Do we place him on veteran's list now or do we have to wait until he turns 30 sometime next year??????

I assume that we can place Hart on veteran's list and have 3 selections in National Draft and still satisfy the minimum list.

Reidy said we will have 5-6 rookies listed players next year so that would mean that we will have 38 to 39 players on our list including veterans.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I am really confused with this new rule. Do we place him on veteran's list now or do we have to wait until he turns 30 sometime next year??????

According to this article. Hart is eligible.

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/16/1055615730761.html

Adelaide gains space from Ben Hart (2004) and Mark Ricciuto (2005).

I assume that we can place Hart on veteran's list and have 3 selections in National Draft and still satisfy the minimum list.

No. We don't. Without Hart, we only have 33 players. Count 'em...

Carey   Massie   Clarke    Burns    Bassett   Edwards   Bode      Doughty   Shirley   Skipworth
Torney  McGregor Welsh     Johncock M.Stevens Stenglein Gallagher Perrie    McLeod    Burton
Rutten  Begley   Jericho   Ricciuto Reilly    Biglands  Goodwin   Hentschel Schuback  Mattner
Ladhams Bock     S.Stevens

Reidy said we will have 5-6 rookies listed players next year so that would mean that we will have 38 to 39 players on our list including veterans.

Well there's further evidence Hart won't go on the vets list. Presumably the "5-6" meant they were still waiting on Smart's decision to retire or not.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by DaveW
Well there's further evidence Hart won't go on the vets list. Presumably the "5-6" meant they were still waiting on Smart's decision to retire or not.

He said that 2 weeks ago.

 

[spindoctor]

Smart really should have retired, IMO. As much as I like him and think he's been an integral player and would still command a place in the 22, I would have liked to see him open a spot for Parker.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
He said that 2 weeks ago.

He did say that Stiffy, and it made me wonder just how much Reidy knows about the rules, as Smart had already announced his decision to play on and also is on the veterans' list. That leaves 5 rookies maximum, without the question of Hart being moved on to the veterans' list.

It also hit me at that time, how the hell can we even have 5 rookies if Hart is eligible to go on to the veterans' list. If he is, surely the AFC would do that for salary cap relief.

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by spindoctor
Smart really should have retired, IMO. As much as I like him and think he's been an integral player and would still command a place in the 22, I would have liked to see him open a spot for Parker.

Exactly right. I was against Smart staying on as I believed it would prevent us from developing a young bloke. That's exactly what has happened.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by DaveW
We've currently got our primary list down to 34. If we move Hart onto the vets list, then we have to get four new players onto the primary list to fill up the necessary 37.

But if we had to fill four spaces, surely Parker would get one of these?

Maybe we will pick 3 players in the National Draft (because that is a minimum number required) and select a ruckman that is ready to play straight away in pre-season draft.

We do have a habit of leaving one spot free to see what might be avaiable in pre-season draft. I know if Hart is move to veterans list we would have 2 spots but I am sure we will run with reduced list this year.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

 

[DaveW]

Then we've denied Parker a spot because we want to keep our options open for the PSD?

And would we have salary cap room for a PS draftee?

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by DaveW
Then we've denied Parker a spot because we want to keep our options open for the PSD?

And would we have salary cap room for a PS draftee?

Anyone we pick up in the pre-season would be on minimum salary ($38K).

I might be wrong but the thinking behind this is that we potentially eliminate some clubs if we recruit a ruckman via pre-season draft.

Eg. Carlton are interested in Brad Dabrowski from Westies. If we are also interested in Brad and he nominates for pre-season draft we have upper hand over Carlton because they will pick up Nick Stevens with their 1st pick. I might be completely off the mark but that could be the reasoning.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by DaveW
I can't figure it out.

There's been no announcement about Hart being put on the veterans list.

We've currently got our primary list down to 34. If we move Hart onto the vets list, then we have to get four new players onto the primary list to fill up the necessary 37.

But if we had to fill four spaces, surely Parker would get one of these?

So Hart must be staying on the main list. Presumably with veteran salary status. Otherwise, why wouldn't we promote him in an instant?

I've been fishing around Dave, because on the face of it, it's a real mystery.

Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement 1998-2003,

http://www.aflpa.com.au/CBA/default_old.asp?page=29

We have until January 31 of next year to transfer Ben Hart onto the veteran's list, or retain him on the main list with veteran status.

If the AFC haven't done it by draft day, wouldn't that suggest that they are going for the latter option, with Hart making up one of the minimum 37 players required on the list?

That would then limit our draftee numbers to 3, not 4 as we've all been thinking.

That would really get up my nose if that were to be the case.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Re: Re: Does Hart still get veteran salary status if he stays on the primary list?

Originally posted by macca23
I've been fishing around Dave, because on the face of it, it's a real mystery.

Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement 1998-2003,

http://www.aflpa.com.au/CBA/default_old.asp?page=29

We have until January 31 of next year to transfer Ben Hart onto the veteran's list, or retain him on the main list with veteran status.

If the AFC haven't done it by draft day, wouldn't that suggest that they are going for the latter option, with Hart making up one of the minimum 37 players required on the list?

That would then limit our draftee numbers to 3, not 4 as we've all been thinking.

That would really get up my nose if that were to be the case.

I don't understand why wouldn't we place him on Veteran's list if he is eligible. For arguments sake, lets say Hart is on $300K a year. If he was on veteran's list we only half of that ($150K) would be counted as part of the salary cap. THat frees up enough money for the base salary of 3 first round draftees. Going purely on accounting terms wouldn't paying only $38K a year for a 5th round draftee or Parker and still have some $112K left in the cap, be better than paying some $300K a year and all of it being counted as part of the salary cap?

There is something really fishy going on here. Are AFC administration actually aware that they can have Hart on the veteran's list??????

BTW, macca23, thats an old bragaining agreement. Its the one that has expired on october 31st this year but you would think that ruleing for declaring veterans would be the same. Going by the old agreement, Hart would not be eligible until 2005. By new agreement he is eligible this year. I think

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I agree it is all very confusing.

Is there any benefit of not putting Hart on the veteran's list, considering we would save half of his salary (excluded from the cap) if he were on the list???

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
I agree it is all very confusing.

Is there any benefit of not putting Hart on the veteran's list, considering we would save half of his salary (excluded from the cap) if he were on the list???

None that Ican see but I am uneducated when it comes to accounting matters.

 

[macca23]

Re: Re: Re: Does Hart still get veteran salary status if he stays on the primary list?

Originally posted by Stiffy_18

BTW, macca23, thats an old bragaining agreement. Its the one that has expired on october 31st this year but you would think that ruleing for declaring veterans would be the same. Going by the old agreement, Hart would not be eligible until 2005. By new agreement he is eligible this year. I think

Yep, that's the old Bargaining Agreement, but it's the only one posted on the site.

The new agreement would be exactly the same other than that players with 10 years at the club, and turning 30 in that year, can now be placed on the veterans list,

OR

stay on the primary list but the club still receives the same salary cap relief as if they had been placed on the veterans list by nominating them as a veteran.

The difference is this. Say you have two players eligible for the veterans list and they both go onto it, they don't count as part of the primary list. The club can then have 38 players on the primary list plus the 2 veterans = 40 players. Or it can just nominate them as veterans to get the relief, and leave them on the main list. Total number of players =38.

AFC will definitely do one of these two things to get the salary cap relief.

But if the club doesn't put Hart onto the veterans list but only nominates him as a veteran, then that must mean that our cap is so tight that we can't afford to put a draft choice into it, because we're opting not to when the opportunity to do so is available.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

The issue of half of Hart's salary counted as a verteran would appear to be a non-issue.

However, if the Crows are intending to 1 short, they probably figure they may as well keep him on the main list - as perhaps this allows them to pick an extra rookie. Can't we pick up an extra rookie if we have 1 less on the actual vets list???

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
The issue of half of Hart's salary counted as a verteran would appear to be a non-issue.

However, if the Crows are intending to 1 short, they probably figure they may as well keep him on the main list - as perhaps this allows them to pick an extra rookie. Can't we pick up an extra rookie if we have 1 less on the actual vets list???

Yes we can, and this is probably the answer. Reidy has said all along that we would have 5 rookies, which means that they are definitely choosing to take an extra rookie rather than a draft pick.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Jerome
Exactly right. I was against Smart staying on as I believed it would prevent us from developing a young bloke. That's exactly what has happened.

He can develop whilst being on the rookie list

Smart is still our best option when all is said and done

He had a good year and will have another one next year

Loyalty to a veteran that is playing well is what helps make the fabric of a club.

 

[macca23]

Well it looks like Hart was added to the veterans list when the final lists were lodged, but that it went unannounced. See the link below for the final lists lodged by each club.

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=126247

Adelaide is shown as being allowed to have up to 40 players on it's list (38 primary plus 2 veterans)

Currently we have 35 players in total - 33 on the primary list and 2 veterans. As each club is required to have a minimum of 37 and a maximum of 38 players on the primary list, that means we will have to draft either 4 or 5 players.

My guess is we will take the minimum 4.

3 in the national draft, and 1 in the pre-season.

 

[DaveW]

I still think Hart will be staying on the primary list.

Do you really think we would have got Parker to agree to staying on the rookie list just so that we can have an extra non-essential pick up our sleeve?

Look at this post for reference: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=1496649#post1496649

Originally posted by ThePope
Not quite... a club can name a veteran either inside the 38, which means that they get the salary cap relief and can still have 6 rookies, but have less on their "normal" senior list, or outside the 38, which gives the same salary cap relief but allows 38 "normal" senior listings, but reduces the rookies list by however many veterans that you have. I'm not sure if you can move your veteran from one category to the other over various years.

I'm pretty sure that Hart will be a veteran inside the list.

As for his last point, I think once a player goes onto the veteran's list, he can't come back to the primary list (save via a delisting & redrafting). So Smart will remain as a veteran outside the list.

 

[macca23]

You might well be right Dave and Hart may still be staying on the primary list but niminated as a veteran.

But if that's right then the AFL listings are wrong as for each of the 16 teams they have allowed 38 players plus the number of veterans indicated by a (v).

Lists for teams with no veterans are only numbered up to 38, while those with 1 are numbered up to 39 and those with 2 are numbered up to 40.

If Hart is going to stay on our primary list as a veteran then they should have only listed Adelaide up to 39, shouldn't they?

 

[DaveW]

The convention in the player lists of the AFL's past almanacs has been: (v+) for a veteran outside the 38; and (v) for a veteran inside the 38.

Clearly they haven't used that here and have just put (v) beside every veteran.

But you might have something about that list of 40.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Maybe we will just promote Parker.

This crap is too confusing.

 

[macca23]

At last the AFL site has clarified the Hart/veteran situation beyond any doubt - see

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=126890

By counting one of the veterans inside the list of 38, it costs us a draft pick, but frees a rookie spot. We have room for 5 rookies - Parker +4.

Either we're very tight with our salary cap, or they're thinking that anything above pick #70 is very doubtful - which could well be the case.

 

[DaveW]

Just as I suspected all along.

Next year the primary list will be the minimum 37 consisting of the current 34 (incl Hart, not incl Smart) plus the mandatory three draft picks.