Mulling over a stars pay

[BW]

Mulling over a star`s pay
By Daryl Timms

Friday, July 06, 2001

RICHMOND and the Kangaroos are poised to make delicate decisions on the market value of key players.

The Tigers must decide on the value of captain Wayne Campbell, while the Kangaroos must make a tougher decision on Corey McKernan.

Both players are in the top bracket of wage earners and are uncontracted at the end of the season.

The cash-strapped Roos must decide whether they keep McKernan`s pay at least $360,000 a season.

While McKernan`s stocks at the elite level have nose-dived this season, Campbell`s elevation to the captaincy have enhanced his value.

Campbell, who signed a two-year deal during the 1999 season, is set to improve on his $320,000-plus salary.

McKernan had a horror start to the season with his form being so poor that he was relegated to the VFL competition and spent a Saturday afternoon going around with the Murray Bushrangers.

While his form has gradually improved, it`s still significantly short of his 1996 performance when he tied with Michael Voss and James Hird for the Brownlow Medal but was ineligible because of suspension.

Kangaroos chief executive Greg Miller acknowledged that McKernan`s performances this season would probably influence the make-up of a new contract.

``But we haven`t discussed anything yet,`` Miller said.

``Corey is a required player and he won`t be going anywhere.

``He is a Kangaroo player and he has said he wants to stay.`` Miller said the club would talk to McKernan and his management at the appropriate time.

McKernan`s value will rise markedly if he can recapture his form in the second half of the season and play a significant role in the finals . . . if the team makes it.

But the Roos would be justified to reduce his contract and offer him a deal based on performance.

McKernan would be a temptation to other clubs if the Roos decided they wanted to make a significant saving.

Plenty of coaches would have enough confidence in their ability to reinstate the 27-year-old McKernan to the top level that they would offer him more than his form warrants.

The gap between the ``stay`` price and ``go`` price is significant.

The pending retirement of veteran full-back Mick Martyn, a $300,000-a-year player, would give the Roos nearly $700,000 to spend or save if a deal could not be reached with McKernan.

Richmond must also be wondering about their new skipper Campbell.

His new contract will justifiably skyrocket when they sit down to negotiate a deal later in the year.

 

[35eye]

Thank heavens you know who decided he didn't want to mix it with us ill-educated juveniles anymore.

I know he's champing at the bit to get in on this thread.

Whatever happens, negotiations with Corza are bound to be a rotten time for all of us. But think back to last year when we were at risk of losing Kingy. It is but a distant memory now. . .

 

[Malibu]

Yeah but Mr Holier than thou did have to have a dig on the official forum.

He just can't KEEP AWAY!

 

[choppy]

How can we save $700K if we have to pay 95% of the salary cap. That would mean the salary cap would be 14 million?

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by choppy
How can we save $700K if we have to pay 95% of the salary cap. That would mean the salary cap would be 14 million?

OK, I will make a tool of myself if this is not correct, but here goes...

The 5% buffer in the salary cap represents between $250,000-300,000. Of Martyn's salary, only half of his alleged $300,000 is counted in the salary cap because of his veteran's status, so while the club reduces his salary from $300,000 to $0 if he is not on the list, it creates an additional $150,000 of space in the salary cap.

BUT

With Wayne Carey and Anthony Stevens going on to the veterans list next year, half of their (approximate) $1,250,000 salary is vacated within the cap, allowing more room to bargain with other players. However because there is now more money being paid (legally) outside the confines of the cap, this will actually cost the club more money.

Let's say the salary cap stands at $5.5 million at the moment (that's a semi-educated guess):

Season 2001 :
95-100% of salary cap, as required : $5,225,000 - $5,500,000
Mick Martyn, 50% veterans list salary exemption : $150,000

This places the wage bill at between $5,375,000 and $5,650,000

Season 2002*:
95-100% of salary cap, as required : $5,225,000 - $5,500,000
Anthony Stevens and Wayne Carey, 50% veterans list salary exemption : $600,000

This places the wage bill at between $5,825,000 - $6,100,000

*In the hope of making this example easier to understand, let's hypothetically assume there is no rise in the salary cap.


The only thing we gain is room to move within the salary cap, to re-sign and raise current contracts, and aggressively hunt a big name or two.

Actual cash savings are non-existent, in fact it's the opposiite because while legal spending OUTSIDE the cap goes up, spending WITHIN the cap remains constant by the regulations of the AFL.

 

[35eye]

Is there any way you can fast track this commerce degree, Darky? With all your sums & things, you're way too bright for us ill-educated juveniles.

 

[choppy]

Originally posted by Darky

Actual cash savings are non-existent, in fact it's the opposiite because while legal spending OUTSIDE the cap goes up, spending WITHIN the cap remains constant by the regulations of the AFL.

Are you sure on this? Is there any 'legal' requirement to put Carey and Stevens on the veterans list. Would JB not be allready on the list? I thought you could only have two veterans? Can you swap and change them from year to year.

Or is JB not on the veterans list? or would he have to turn 40 to be eligible

 

[Darky]

Sorry it's all gibberish I know, and if my grasp of the rules aren't correct, it's just plain old bullsh*t.

The only way an increased wage bill can be averted is if Stevens and Carey AREN'T added to the veterans list, and their salaries stay entirely within the salary cap - I don't know if AFL regulations allow this.
It would avert the wage bill increase, but it would allow for less room to bargain and manouevre within the salary cap come contract and draft time.

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by choppy


Are you sure on this? Is there any 'legal' requirement to put Carey and Stevens on the veterans list. Would JB not be allready on the list? I thought you could only have two veterans? Can you swap and change them from year to year.

Or is JB not on the veterans list? or would he have to turn 40 to be eligible

Point 1 - addressed above (if that's what you meant).

Point 2 - John Blakey has not met the 10-year requirement at the club, even though he is over 30 (the other requirement).

 

[Groucho]

Posted by Darky


"The only thing we gain is room to move within the salary cap, to re-sign and raise current contracts, and aggressively hunt a big name or two."

Isn't that the whole point? By putting players on the veterans list it gives you an additional amount to spend on recruiting or holding players. The club was never going to spend $700k less, it was just going to have that much more to spend within the salary cap. True, the club will,in reality,have to spend more next year but,despite our club's financial situation,it's the quality of the list that is the most important thing.

 

[Darky]

Groucho : I used the word "only" because I was relating it to the comment in the article (posted by blueworms) which said we would have $700,000 to spend or save - in other words it means we could "only" spend it, and not save it, because of the 95% rule.

By no means was I suggesting that the benefit of bargaining power was insignificant.

 

[Redd]

Darky, your knowledge never cease to amaze me.
is there anything you don't know?
Maybe if we cut your hair you will lose all this knowledge.