Matthew Clarke

Stiffy_18

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
37,871
Likes
11,930
Location
who cares
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings
#26
Originally posted by macca23
You really know how to depress a guy Stiffy!! :(

While I always suspected that we hadn't chased Pavlich hard enough, I haven't heard all of what you've posted above, and if this is as it happened, then it's madness.

10 years of a rising Pavlich vs 2 years of a fading Carey only warrants a milli-second to make the choice - Pavlich by the proverbial length of the straight!!

Depressing!!:(
I know mate its very depressing, especially when you think that someone like Carey is on $300K-$350K a year. Would you be rather paying that sort of money to Carey or $400K to Pavlich??????

Also keep in mind that we are paying Burns some $200K a year while Geelong is paying him another half.

Which brings us to another question, if we went after Pavlich and got him, would we have a tight salary cap at the minute and would we be running with a full list????? If we got Pavlich we couldn't have aforded Burns so in effect we would have had some $100K-$150K more to work with.

Too many ifs but one has to wonder. I also think that we would have been a MUCH better team with Pavlich rather than Carey.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Stiffy_18

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Posts
37,871
Likes
11,930
Location
who cares
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sacramento Kings
#27
Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Stiffy, I agree that it is unlikely that we will be able to get a gun, as one falling off a back of a truck cheaply like with N Stevens is rare (& we are not likely to finish bottom).

Assuming that we don't sign any more gun type players & we lose quite a few higher profile players that are replaced with lower paid youngsters, the question is what we do with the room we have in the cap.

I didn't suggest we should over-pay our players - far from it as that is crazy. Rather, we front load some of players on say 3 year deals, to take the pressure of for future years, when we made need extra room if the "value" of our squad increases after some rebuilding. Not using up our salary cap & say paying only 90% is stupid, when we may need extra in later years to keep a talented squad together.
We might be worring over nothing. Whats to say that AFC have realised that we could potentially be under the minimum limit and might have front loaded some of the contracts of players that signed on last year (Te likes of Roo, Hart, McLeod, Goody, Burton, Bassett etc.)
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Posts
1,099
Likes
1
Location
in a tree
Other Teams
Glenelg
#28
Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Why doesn't that surprise me.
I'll predict he plays on, if the price is right
You're on!
He's been considering his retirement for a while. No burning desire to continue playing. He could make more as a vet.
When things turn to sheet this year I won't be surprised to see him get dropped at some point, depending on Hudson's SANFL form.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Posts
1,099
Likes
1
Location
in a tree
Other Teams
Glenelg
#29
Originally posted by Stiffy_18
We might be worring over nothing. Whats to say that AFC have realised that we could potentially be under the minimum limit and might have front loaded some of the contracts of players that signed on last year (Te likes of Roo, Hart, McLeod, Goody, Burton, Bassett etc.)
Impossible. What you're suggesting doesn't make sense.

Most of those players took pay cuts last year because of salary cap constraints! Remember, the reason that Parker was supposedly given for staying on the rookie list was...

Besides, I thought that under the new EB agreement front or back loading contracts was banned.
 

macca23

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Posts
19,404
Likes
6,166
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
#30
Originally posted by naughty monkey

Besides, I thought that under the new EB agreement front or back loading contracts was banned.
I don't know whether either front or back loading contracts are now banned, but if not , IMO they should be.

Naturally player contracts should have an indexation factor - say to a maximum of 5 to 10% pa, but that should be it. A club would then balance the cost of it's playing list in real terms, not back-ending it as Essendon and others have done, ultimately leading to an unsustainable situation.
 

Portia

#DrewBlood
Joined
Oct 7, 2001
Posts
50,781
Likes
24,640
Location
Fragile bastion of liberalism
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Muckbuckle Dolmens
#31
In my opinion, frontloading or backloading contracts should be up to each individual club. If a given club can't manage their contracts then welcome to Carlton's world...they should get a bit more professional.

In reality, Essendon's `cap trouble' made a great ruse to offload a series of ordinary or aging second tier players for draft picks without looking like callous bastards cutting off good club men.

The Crows only hope re: Pavlich now is that he gets sick of playing as a midfielder. Better to prepare to raid the Dogs and Dees.
 
Joined
May 21, 2001
Posts
49,519
Likes
38,509
Location
Floating around the Universe
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
#32
Originally posted by macca23
I don't know whether either front or back loading contracts are now banned, but if not , IMO they should be.
I agree back-loading contracts is unhealthy as it will catch up with you eventually ... but what is wrong with front-loading contracts if you have the opportunity?
 

macca23

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Posts
19,404
Likes
6,166
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide Crows
#35
Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
I agree back-loading contracts is unhealthy as it will catch up with you eventually ... but what is wrong with front-loading contracts if you have the opportunity?
Nothing really, except that if you don't manage to attract any new talent to the club in the following year, then what do you do as the amount paid falls?

A much better problem than the other way around though.

As for Porthos' comment re Essendon using the cap as a ruse to tastefully dump "ordinary or aging second tier players for draft picks without looking like callous bastards cutting off good club men.", he is right on the money, as the clubs that have fallen for it have found to their disappointment.

Essendon do that better than any other team.
 

DaveW

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Posts
16,285
Likes
65
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
QPR
#36
Originally posted by Porthos
In my opinion, frontloading or backloading contracts should be up to each individual club. If a given club can't manage their contracts then welcome to Carlton's world...they should get a bit more professional.
Agree completely. There's no need to protect the clubs from themselves.

I think what naughty monkey is thinking of is that the backloading veteran's list loophole has been closed. e.g. Hird for instance had a backloaded contract so they can exclude a large amount from the salary cap for the years he's on the vets list. Now, for new contracts, the portion excluded is averaged out over the term of the contract.

In reality, Essendon's `cap trouble' made a great ruse to offload a series of ordinary or aging second tier players for draft picks without looking like callous bastards cutting off good club men.
Interesting conspiracy theory. I certainly agree some people/clubs have a strange obsession with overrating the Bombers' players.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Crow-mosone

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 8, 2003
Posts
7,598
Likes
4
Location
on the turps
Other Teams
Adelaide
#37
Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Pavlich signed a 3 year deal so he is out of contract at the end of 2005 season. Well to cut the long story short we wanted Carey more than Pavlich. We weren't prepared to beat Freo's offer of $1.1m over 3 years when it was obvious to everyone slightly interested in football that Pavlich was about to burst and become one of the best players in the comp.

Instead we opted to spend that money on Carey and Burns. We really didn't go after Pavlich as hard as we should have and oif we put in only half the effort we put in for getting Carey Pavlich would be in tri-colors now and Wells would be a Docker instead of a roo. ;)

Picks 2 and 18 would have been enough to satisfy Dockers for Pavlich and that would have been a fair trade.

From a very reliable source: If we offered Pavlich $1.2m over 3 year he would have signed on despite Port offering $1.5m over 3 years. I think Pavlich was a bit disheartened after that. Can't blame him really ;)
don't forget we are paying carey considerably less than that.
 
Top Bottom