Maccas New Contract

[CaptainDangerfield]

I couldn't find the Contracts thread and I didn't think it was appropriate to post this in the "Macca 250th" thread. I just wanted to get peoples thoughts on whether the AFC should break its policy ( 1 year contracts for players 30+) and give Macca a 2 year contract. IMO they should, and given their service to the club, players such as Roo, Macca, Goody, Hart and Edwards should be exempted from this policy.

However, even given Maccas outsanding form on the weekend, if I was him I would be ready to expect a quite substantial pay cut. Over the past 3 years, he was "reportedly" paid between $500-$550, which IMO was way too much. Going forward, there's no way you pay that sort of money to a guy who is now basically a premanent Half Back/Back Pocket player, no matter how good he is.

Thoughts?

 

[maccas_no1]

No doubt I would think he deserves a 2 yr deal, playing fantastic footy and is in great form, but as you say SC a pay cut will have to be a trade off for getting a 2yr deal, drop down to say $400K.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

No doubt I would think he deserves a 2 yr deal, playing fantastic footy and is in great form, but as you say SC a pay cut will have to be a trade off for getting a 2yr deal, drop down to say $400K.

I was thinking between $300-$350.

 

[maccas_no1]

I was thinking between $300-$350.

Yes that could be right.

Mcleod would have to respect the fact that players such as Rutten, Van berlo, Reilly and Hentschel will be asking for more coin.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Yes that could be right.

Mcleod would have to respect the fact that players such as Rutten, Van berlo, Reilly and Hentschel will be asking for more coin.

and Johncock. IMO Stiffy should be paid at least what Macca gets.

 

[maccas_no1]

and Johncock. IMO Stiffy should be paid at least what Macca gets.

Yes very true.

 

[Vader]

Personally I think he should be offered a 1-year contract, in line with the AFC policy of only handing out 1-year contracts to all players aged 30+.

I have no doubt that he will be suitably compensated for his ongoing good performances. From what I recall from the last time this subject came up, money was not a major issue.

 

[Mad Dog]

It might seem pedantic but I would like to see the club maintain it's stance on contracts no matter who the player. It sends a good message of strength to other players and Macca should be happy to play his part in maintaining that unity.

Having said that there is no question that Macca deserves a 2 year deal....but club policy is club policy IMO.

There are a few things the club can do to make sure Macca isn't disadvantaged like signing him to a 2 year deal before he turns 30 maybe. I know both parties want to wait to see how much the pie will be worth after next year's TV rights kick in.....which could mean a deal before he's 30 can't be done.

Macca hopefully understands that the club will be happy to give him 1 year deals until he wants to give it away. Loyalty is a 2 way street - hopefully 12 years of association so far, augers well for agreement between the parties.

 

[RogerRabbit69]

There was a bit in the Advertiser today suggesting the club might look at a two-year deal for McLeod - and they would offer it to him before he turns 30 sometime in August.

 

[- PC -]

There was a bit in the Advertiser today suggesting the club might look at a two-year deal for McLeod - and they would offer it to him before he turns 30 sometime in August.

This will be the sneaky way around the situation...and at a reduced amount

 

[Stiffy_18]

Give him a two year deal. He hasn't shown signs of slowing down so IMHO there is no reason why he can't play abother couple of years.

Springy you keep harping on the fact that paying X amount of dollars is "too much for a half back flanker" well newsflash, in today's game a lot of team create their opportunities from the half back flank. Why do you see a lot of teams moving their best creating players from midfield to the half back?

Half back flanker of today is very different to the half back flanker of 20 years ago. At the moment, McLeod has no peer as a half back flanker. He is probably our most damaging player and he is no doubt a match winner even from the HBF.

We wouldn't be anywhere near as good as we are if it wasn't for McLeod's and Johncock's rebound from the HBF. We sure as hell wouldn't be 7-2 if it weren't for those 2 half back flankers.

Also $500-550K is not as much as it was 2-3 years ago. With the new broadcast right deals the salary cap will increase and players WILL get more. If anyone thinks that players will sign on for same amount of money as they did 2 years ago they are kidding themselves. They will ask for more and rightly so.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Give him a two year deal. He hasn't shown signs of slowing down so IMHO there is no reason why he can't play abother couple of years.

Springy you keep harping on the fact that paying X amount of dollars is "too much for a half back flanker" well newsflash, in today's game a lot of team create their opportunities from the half back flank. Why do you see a lot of teams moving their best creating players from midfield to the half back?

Half back flanker of today is very different to the half back flanker of 20 years ago. At the moment, McLeod has no peer as a half back flanker. He is probably our most damaging player and he is no doubt a match winner even from the HBF.

We wouldn't be anywhere near as good as we are if it wasn't for McLeod's and Johncock's rebound from the HBF. We sure as hell wouldn't be 7-2 if it weren't for those 2 half back flankers.

Also $500-550K is not as much as it was 2-3 years ago. With the new broadcast right deals the salary cap will increase and players WILL get more. If anyone thinks that players will sign on for same amount of money as they did 2 years ago they are kidding themselves. They will ask for more and rightly so.

Fair call on your half back flanker comment but do you believe Macca should be paid MORE than 500-550?

 

[Pinepower]

Thought that you may like to see this

http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200605/1650284.htm?sa

McLeod's future dependent on salary cap
Monday, 29 May 2006. 20:00 (AEDT)Monday, 29 May 2006. 19:00 (ACST)Monday, 29 May 2006. 19:00 (AEST)Monday, 29 May 2006. 20:00 (ACDT)Monday, 29 May 2006. 17:00 (AWST)

Adelaide star Andrew McLeod says he is waiting on a decision from the league about the salary cap for next season before negotiating a new contract.

McLeod will play his 250th game for the Crows against Essendon at Football Park on Friday night.

While there has been some debate about the length of contract McLeod will be offered, he says it is not an issue.

"Both the club and myself, we're pretty comfortable with where things are at the moment," he said.

"That'll all sort itself out, we're just waiting to get confirmation from the AFL and we'll see what happens there."

 

[Stiffy_18]

Fair call on your half back flanker comment but do you believe Macca should be paid MORE than 500-550?

He is still arguably our biggest match winner so yes. Especially considering that TTP from next year will increase by a fair margin.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Give him a two year deal. He hasn't shown signs of slowing down so IMHO there is no reason why he can't play abother couple of years.

Springy you keep harping on the fact that paying X amount of dollars is "too much for a half back flanker" well newsflash, in today's game a lot of team create their opportunities from the half back flank. Why do you see a lot of teams moving their best creating players from midfield to the half back?

Half back flanker of today is very different to the half back flanker of 20 years ago. At the moment, McLeod has no peer as a half back flanker. He is probably our most damaging player and he is no doubt a match winner even from the HBF.

We wouldn't be anywhere near as good as we are if it wasn't for McLeod's and Johncock's rebound from the HBF. We sure as hell wouldn't be 7-2 if it weren't for those 2 half back flankers.

Also $500-550K is not as much as it was 2-3 years ago. With the new broadcast right deals the salary cap will increase and players WILL get more. If anyone thinks that players will sign on for same amount of money as they did 2 years ago they are kidding themselves. They will ask for more and rightly so.

I expect Macca's salary will stay about the same, but he will be taking up a much smaller proportion of the salary cap, given it has increased substantially since his last contract negotiation.

I have no issue giving him a 2 year deal prior to his 30th birthday, as his body is holding up OK & his is in good form(touch wood).

 

[DaveW]

Also $500-550K is not as much as it was 2-3 years ago. With the new broadcast right deals the salary cap will increase and players WILL get more. If anyone thinks that players will sign on for same amount of money as they did 2 years ago they are kidding themselves. They will ask for more and rightly so.

I liked the rest of your post, but this assumption seems a bit cavalier. That's the sort of thing that got Essendon into trouble.

 

[Crow-mo]

why talk about money, none of us knows anything about this.

I am sure the club will handle itself properly, and make sure he is looked after. the 1 year > 30 stance is fine, but it needs a humane element as well. This needs to be communicated effectively to the player, that he won't be abandoned, and he still has some security. he's earned at least that, and I am sure it will be handled correctly.

 

[jc67]

Veterans list = half under the cap

 

[Southerntakeover]

Veterans list = half under the cap

Yeah, i was thinking that might apply. For the record, give him the two years before he turns 30 and avoid the potential headache.

 

[Vader]

Veterans list = half under the cap

Not necessarily so.

Assuming Clarke is the only significant retiree at the end of 2006, Adelaide will begin 2007 with six players aged 30+, five of whom would qualify for the Veterans List. The exception is Nathan Bassett, who started his career at Melbourne. He may not qualify for the VL under the 10-year qualification, others may wish to confirm whether or not he qualifies.

It is possible to have more than two players on the Veterans List, but there is also a downside.

Firstly, the more players you put on the VL, the less you get to discount their salary (against the cap):
2 Veterans = 50% discount
3 Veterans = 33% discount
4 Veterans = 25% discount
and so on.

Secondly, every player you place on the VL is one less player you can have on your Rookie List. Clubs are entitled to have up to six players outside the main list - how they divide them between rookies and veterans is up to the individual club. Brisbane & Sydney are also permitted to have a number of "local rookies", but this is of no consequence to our discussion about Adelaide.

At present, Adelaide have Mark Ricciuto and Ben Hart on the Veterans List. No doubt the AFC management will be getting out their calculators over the next few months, trying to work out the optimal solution in terms of who (and how many) players Adelaide have on the Veterans List in 2007.

 

[macca69]

anyone know the latest on McLoed's injury last night?

 

[macca23]

anyone know the latest on McLoed's injury last night?

According to the club, he doesn't have one. They say he went off the ground to have his ankle re-taped, and he did come back onto the ground and finish the game.

Can't be anything too serious.

 

[RoosterLad]

Sign him up for 10 years.

 

[macca69]

According to the club, he doesn't have one. They say he went off the ground to have his ankle re-taped, and he did come back onto the ground and finish the game.

Can't be anything too serious.

Dunno how accurate this is, but I heard he broke a bone in his hand or something, is there any truth to that at all?

 

[macca23]

Dunno how accurate this is, but I heard he broke a bone in his hand or something, is there any truth to that at all?

Haven't heard that one at all.

When he came back on, his hand wasn't bandaged, and he handled the ball as well as ever.