List Mgmt. List Management 2017 -Who Stays, Who Goes?

[Coobk001]

Coobk001 relax man, I don't reckon it's as bad as you think.

I'm not stressed about it. The Magpies aren't the number 1 priority. I just think there's no point being in denial. Our best 22 has clearly improved, but our depth has certainly weakened as a whole.

My only reason for hoping for a key forward like Close or Crameri was that if Marshall does play a lot of SANFL he is going to be the lone key forward a lot. That's a lot of pressure and a lot of attention he'll cop which will make development and performing harder. So it would've been nice to avoid that but ah well.

 

[RangaInTeal]

I'm not stressed about it. The Magpies aren't the number 1 priority. I just think there's no point being in denial. Our best 22 has clearly improved, but our depth has certainly weakened as a whole.

My only reason for hoping for a key forward like Close or Crameri was that if Marshall does play a lot of SANFL he is going to be the lone key forward a lot. That's a lot of pressure and a lot of attention he'll cop which will male development and performing harder. So it would've been nice to avoid that but ah well.

I honk Frampton will play Forward a heck of a lot more this year, Latham’s will win the Magpies B&F

 

[shewho]

Thought 'DOOOGS' Howard is worth a spot.....still young!!!

OOPs. try this:

F Howard Hayes Johnson
HF Atley Marshall Drew
C Amon Wines Barry
HB Bonner Hombsch Houston
B DBJ Clurey Lienert

R Frampton Powell-Pepper Wingard

I Garner Farrell Patmore Neade

E Hewett Snelling Toumpas Irra Ladhams

 

[Wargreymon90]

OOPs. try this:

F Howard Hayes Johnson
HF Atley Marshall Drew
C Amon Wines Barry
HB Bonner Hombsch Houston
B DBJ Clurey Lienert

R Frampton Powell-Pepper Wingard

I Garner Farrell Patmore Neade

E Hewett Snelling Toumpas Irra Ladhams

Thats pretty close to our current defence

 

[Coobk001]

I honk Frampton will play Forward a heck of a lot more this year, Latham’s will win the Magpies B&F

I'd be disappointed if Frampton wasn't rucking 70% to develop his ruckwork which is his weakness.

 

[Schulzenfest]

I wonder when Carlton are going to start copping s**t for picking up Mullett, Garlett, O’Shea and Shaw? Say what you like about our recruiting strategy this year but at least all of the guys we picked up have shown some football ability at some stage in their careers. Matt Shaw

 

[Forzaport]

http://m.portadelaidefc.com.au/news/2017-07-12/houston-extends

This press release from the club states twice that he’ll be upgraded to the senior list next year.

That article is dated July so it’s possible something may have changed that has kept Houston on the rookie list.

For example, recruiting Watts was totally unexpected and may have had a material impact on the TPP.

Also, the club may consider Houston a senior player, even if he technically remains a rookie.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

That article is dated July so it’s possible something may have changed that has kept Houston on the rookie list.

For example, recruiting Watts was totally unexpected and may have had a material impact on the TPP.

Also, the club may consider Houston a senior player, even if he technically remains a rookie.

You can only be a rookie for 3 years. If Houston signed a 2 year deal and stayed on the rookie list that means he is a rookie for 2016 2017 2018 and 2019. Why wold we knowingly break the rules in July?

 

[rainwizard39]

wouldn't be suprised if Houston is still on the rookie list. There is just no need to upgrade players anymore, rookies can now play round 1 without needing to be upgraded.

 

[OneGreatClub]

All 25-30-year-old rejects, even though six newcomers are younger than that.

Oh! And, apparently, we got rid of our 20-25-year-olds, like Angus, Krak, White, Eddy, ...

(in fairness, it was only one post saying that; but, I couldn't resist)

Nah a Crows acquaintance told me the same at dinner last week, that all we've brought in are a bunch of ageing rejects.

 

[Forzaport]

You can only be a rookie for 3 years. If Houston signed a 2 year deal and stayed on the rookie list that means he is a rookie for 2016 2017 2018 and 2019. Why wold we knowingly break the rules in July?

Do player contracts dictate whether a player is rookie or senior listed? Or are player contracts standardised with special provisions that are triggered if a player is on a senior list or on a rookie list?

It might be possible for Houston to be a rookie in 2018 but senior listed in 2019.

 

[GreyPower]

wouldn't be suprised if Houston is still on the rookie list. There is just no need to upgrade players anymore, rookies can now play round 1 without needing to be upgraded.

There is a need to upgrade them, because if theyre good enough theyll be disgruntled with being a rookie and theyre likely to get good offers from other clubs.

 

[NoddyHolder]

It would show a complete lack of respect to Houston to keep him on the rookie list. Would be the best way to encourage him to * off elsewhere if the club did that to him

 

[RossFC]

It would show a complete lack of respect to Houston to keep him on the rookie list. Would be the best way to encourage him to **** off elsewhere if the club did that to him

He can still play due to the new rules. If he's getting paid a fair amount and is playing AFL it doesn't matter what list he's on.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Do player contracts dictate whether a player is rookie or senior listed? Or are player contracts standardised with special provisions that are triggered if a player is on a senior list or on a rookie list?

It might be possible for Houston to be a rookie in 2018 but senior listed in 2019.

Can't do that. After 3 years on a rookie list you have to go thru the draft again.

 

[Forzaport]

Fair enough.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I was hoping for a Cat B rookie announcement. Like an American basketballer or a rugby player or something. No reason, just don't want this off season to end.

 

[Janus]

Done some digging. This is going to take a bit of explaining, so bear with me. Skip down to the TL;DR section if you can't be bothered with the explanation.

Apparently, the base payment to a rookie is outside of the cap to the equivalent of a first year, pick 41+ player. Which according to this schedule for 2018 is $80k.

And this is what rookies get paid:

However, the match payments for a senior listed player are $5000, and the base payment is $105k.

So..

TL;DR

If Houston is a rookie and played all 22 games, he'd earn a minimum of $175k - and $80k would be outside of the cap. A cost to our TPP of $95k.

If Houston is a senior listed player and played all 22 games, he'd earn at a minimum $215k, with all of that going against our TPP.

What would you rather - save $120k that we can use to retain Wines...or give Houston the touchy feelies by elevating him to the senior list for no reason at all? He wouldn't be getting paid any less, it's just a way of sidestepping the TPP issue.

Can't do that. After 3 years on a rookie list you have to go thru the draft again.

Really? I thought all you needed to do was enter into a Contract of Service:

Since Houston now has a two year Contract of Service, we can list him as a rookie for this year and then elevate him for the 2019 season.

All you have to do for a third year rookie is get them to agree to being retained on the rookie list:

That's how I read it anyway. What would be the point of retaining them for a third season if anyone can pick them up at the end of it?

 

[DaTBird187]

SANFL intercept king could replace Lever

FORMER first-round draft pick Tom Doedee is poised to put his hand up as Jake Lever's replacement in the Adelaide backline.

Doedee – the 17th overall selection in the 2015 NAB AFL Draft – is one of several players who will get the opportunity to push for a regular spot in the Crows' defence.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-11-21/sanfl-intercept-king-doedee-looms-as-new-lever


Lol

SANFL Intercept King.

Dude should get that on a ******* T-Shirt.

 

[Andre]

If Houston is a rookie and played all 22 games, he'd earn a minimum of $175k - and $80k would be outside of the cap. A cost to our TPP of $95k.

If Houston is a senior listed player and played all 22 games, he'd earn at a minimum $215k, with all of that going against our TPP.

What would you rather - save $120k that we can use to retain Wines...or give Houston the touchy feelies by elevating him to the senior list for no reason at all? He wouldn't be getting paid any less, it's just a way of sidestepping the TPP issue.

So that's working on the assumption we're under the cap in 2018, in order to be able to overpay in 2019 for Wines (and Wingard)?

 

[RossFC]

I was hoping for a Cat B rookie announcement. Like an American basketballer or a rugby player or something. No reason, just don't want this off season to end.

205cm American basketballer that can defend sounds good!

 

[Janus]

So that's working on the assumption we're under the cap in 2018, in order to be able to overpay in 2019 for Wines (and Wingard)?

I believe we paid 95% in 2016 thanks to Ryder/Monfries and 95% in 2017 thanks to the new CBA. If we pay 95% in 2018, that gives us 2019/20/21 to pay 105% of the cap and really gun for flags.

Which corresponds to Hinkley’s three year extension I believe. It’s almost like there is a plan.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Final lists had to lodged with the AFL today 2pm. Guess it will be confirmed soon what Houston's status is.

Unless there is an anti-avoidance type clause I think Janus theory on using the TPP exemption on a rookie is correct. There used to be a rule around the 2007-11 and I think for some of 2012-16 CBA period that you had to let a rookie go into the draft after 3 years because rookies were only paid 50-60% of what primary list players and it was there to stop clubs ripping them off. Plus football match payments to rookies used to be 50% outside the TPP cap and 50% inclusive.

The original discussion around this CBA ie 2017-22 was that rookies would be abolished but because the AFLPA didn't agree to the CBA until after 1st November 2016 the AFL has had to keep them and structure better pay for them.

But there now is more options to manipulate. How many club's are doing what Janus suggested I have no idea. If what he suggested is indeed happening then the question is are we getting $80k outside the cap of $80k + Houston's match payments?? From the 2017-22 CBA

10. Total Player Payments
(a) The amount of Total Player Payments for each AFL Club shall be as set out in item 1 of Schedule B.
(b) In calculation of the Total Player Payments for each AFL Club, the following payments will not be taken into account:
.....
(ix) Football Payments to Rookie Players except to the extent that this Agreement provides otherwise;

16. Player Lists – 2018 - 2022
(a) Each AFL Club shall maintain their Lists during the Term as follows:
......
(b) Any amount paid to a Rookie Player in excess of the base payment payable to a 1st year, 41+ choice selection shall be included in the relevant AFL Club’s Total Player Payments. For the avoidance of doubt, the minimum base payment payable to a 1st year, 41+ choice selection shall be excluded in the relevant AFL Club’s Total Player Payments for each Rookie Player.

So the question is, does match payments paid to a rookie fit the meaning of payments in excess to of the base payments ie $4k per game + bonuses for games played?? Part of me says they aren't payments in excess of base payments as the phrase base payments and Senior Match payments are used throughout the CBA to distinguish between the 2 and another part of me says this seems to generous to leave open for upto 2 rookies who are going to play just about every game and provided another $100k x 2 players = $200k of TPP exemptions to pay extra top line players on top of the potential $80k x 2 players = $160k already exempt from the TPP.

 

[GremioPower]

Nah a Crows acquaintance told me the same at dinner last week, that all we've brought in are a bunch of ageing rejects.

It is amazing and amusing how people can only see our young guys going out and the old fellows we have brought in. They can't see the young players who came in nor the old blokes that went away.

P.S.: Our current 44-man list is merely 3 months and 18 days older (avg.) than last year's.

 

[Sleezy]

It is amazing and amusing how people can only see our young guys going out and the old fellows we have brought in. They can't see the young players who came in nor the old blokes that went away.

P.S.: Our current 44-man list is mery 3 months and 18 days older (avg.) than last year's.

Not bad, considering the 75.5% of our list that didn't retire, get traded, delisted or drafted is, on average, 1 year older than last season.