New salary cap rule

[Event Horizon]

What stood out from yesterday's AFL announcement was the change to the salary cap rules. A club paying 95% of the cap one year, would be allowed to pay up to 105% the following year. Without reading through the fine print of the rule, I am not sure how quick a club would have to get back to within 100%, but it doesn't change the fact this rule change could have major ramifications. A club like ours (are we still paying 95 or are we now up to 100% ?) could all of a sudden bring in two quality players from other clubs or one star player.

Would be interesting if we are bold enough to try to capitilise on our relatively healthy position on the premiership clock.

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

We didn't have the cash to pay up to 100% before (maybe a year ago or so) but we're either there now or close to it, yeah?

 

[Pykie]

What stood out from yesterday's AFL announcement was the change to the salary cap rules. A club paying 95% of the cap one year, would be allowed to pay up to 105% the following year. Without reading through the fine print of the rule, I am not sure how quick a club would have to get back to within 100%, but it doesn't change the fact this rule change could have major ramifications. A club like ours (are we still paying 95 or are we now up to 100% ?) could all of a sudden bring in two quality players from other clubs or one star player.

Would be interesting if we are bold enough to try to capitilise on our relatively healthy position on the premiership clock.

I'm pretty sure I read crazy Carl last year say when we were recruiting Dal Santo, one of the reasons being bumping our salary cap up to the new 95% rule as apposed to the old 92.5%. I'm almost sure we are paying 95% with the view of increasing it to 100% if the younger players deserve it.

When's Drews contract up? That's the one pretty sizeable contract that would be coming off in the next few years.

I'd imagine Boomer would still be on around 400k too.

 

[Only Forwards]

I'm pretty sure I read crazy Carl last year say when we were recruiting Dal Santo, one of the reasons being bumping our salary cap up to the new 95% rule as apposed to the old 92.5%. I'm almost sure we are paying 95% with the view of increasing it to 100% if the younger players deserve it.

When's Drews contract up? That's the one pretty sizeable contract that would be coming off in the next few years.

I'd imagine Boomer would still be on around 400k too.

Both would be listed as veterans now though yeah?

400K but only half listed in the cap?

 

[GarnerSmash]

That's all well and good if a club can actually afford to pay 100% of the cap in the first place, and thus take advantage of a 5% saving the following year to go 10% over the cap. This does not in any way address the larger issue of equalisation of AFL revenue which impacts upon a clubs ability to use this new rule.

 

[Pykie]

Both would be listed as veterans now though yeah?

400K but only half listed in the cap?

Wasn't the veterans rule changed a few years ago?

I'm pretty sure it's a maximum of 100k excluded from the cap per player.

With Drew and Boomers contracts, that's probably a good $600k still on the books IMO.

 

[Augustine]

Wasn't the veterans rule changed a few years ago?

I'm pretty sure it's a maximum of 100k excluded from the cap per player.

With Drew and Boomers contracts, that's probably a good $600k still on the books IMO.

Plus Firrito would be on somewhat decent money.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

I'm pretty sure I read crazy Carl last year say when we were recruiting Dal Santo, one of the reasons being bumping our salary cap up to the new 95% rule as apposed to the old 92.5%. I'm almost sure we are paying 95% with the view of increasing it to 100% if the younger players deserve it.

When's Drews contract up? That's the one pretty sizeable contract that would be coming off in the next few years.

I'd imagine Boomer would still be on around 400k too.

Crazy Carl has been in the papers this year and last and indicated the following:

* Met minimum 95% 2013 by pre-paying players into 2014.
* Are closing in on 100% in 2014 by pre-paying players into 2015.

So this would suggest cap room in 2015 even if we stick to 100% in 2015. Or we are front loading Goldy and Basti.

 

[Twinkletoes]

Wasn't the veterans rule changed a few years ago?

I'm pretty sure it's a maximum of 100k excluded from the cap per player.

Yep, that's my understanding of it Pykie.

 

[King Corey]

Don't agree with it being reported as a savior of poorer clubs.

If it stays in it'd simply evolve into a TPP cycle for clubs between rebuilding and peaking phases.

For example Hawthorn or Collingwood could stay under the cap this year with the amount of youth they've got plus the fact they lost players to FA then next year could load up with some poaching and re-signings and run at 105%.

Imo this is just a new budget planning consideration rather than some filip to lower funded clubs.

 

[Pres]

Don't agree with it being reported as a savior of poorer clubs.

If it stays in it'd simply evolve into a TPP cycle for clubs between rebuilding and peaking phases.

For example Hawthorn or Collingwood could stay under the cap this year with the amount of youth they've got plus the fact they lost players to FA then next year could load up with some poaching and re-signings and run at 105%.

Imo this is just a new budget planning consideration rather than some filip to lower funded clubs.

Exactly. How in hell is this being sold as an equalisation measure?

 

[Phillyroo]

I personally love this move... straight from the NFL play book. Hopefully we take on some of their other ideas too, like trading future draft picks for players, trades on draft day, and in season trading.

 

[Event Horizon]

Exactly. How in hell is this being sold as an equalisation measure?

It's a bit like saying people on lower income can now buy in Toorak, as the banks will be instructed to lend them 120% of the property price

 

[TooUglyForFugly]

I don't get out much so humour a doofus. What's the running joke about Toorak?

 

[Tas]

Yeah, we are only at the minimum because we are bringing player contracts forward. We had a big shortfall once we stopped paying Hale ($450k) and didn't have McIntosh's ($500k) on the books, also lost mature aged players in Edwards, Campbell, Garlett who wouldn't have been on big contracts but likely getting more than un-established kids.

It is why we went after Boak the year before, and then offered Caddy a wad of cash. Not wanting to sound disrespectful but a lot of our senior players are stodgy and wouldn't be asking the world. It is probably why we have no issues re-signing the younger players. If we had salary cap issues then players would be more vulnerable.

I wouldn't mind us getting another A-grade free agent but not sure the options are as good this year.

 

[Dirty_11]

Cameron would be handy.

 

[Event Horizon]

I don't get out much so humour a doofus. What's the running joke about Toorak?

No running joke, just the median house price being $2,560,000

 

[Phillyroo]

It helps equalisation on the field not off it... It means clubs down the bottom can save money by not paying the full cap and then have a "war chest" to bring in free agent talent as well as through the draft. A fantastic initiative.

 

[Phillyroo]

I'm pretty sure I read crazy Carl last year say when we were recruiting Dal Santo, one of the reasons being bumping our salary cap up to the new 95% rule as apposed to the old 92.5%. I'm almost sure we are paying 95% with the view of increasing it to 100% if the younger players deserve it.

When's Drews contract up? That's the one pretty sizeable contract that would be coming off in the next few years.

I'd imagine Boomer would still be on around 400k too.

Is boomer seriously only on 400k??? Woweeeee best value in the league!

 

[abby]

extra cash could be handy in getting Cameron

make it happen Walsh and co!

 

[Arthur Cloke]

What stood out from yesterday's AFL announcement was the change to the salary cap rules. A club paying 95% of the cap one year, would be allowed to pay up to 105% the following year. Without reading through the fine print of the rule, I am not sure how quick a club would have to get back to within 100%, but it doesn't change the fact this rule change could have major ramifications. A club like ours (are we still paying 95 or are we now up to 100% ?) could all of a sudden bring in two quality players from other clubs or one star player.

Would be interesting if we are bold enough to try to capitilise on our relatively healthy position on the premiership clock.

Yes sir. Bring in Patrick Dangerfield, then lock in back-back flags. It's up to you.

 

[MaddAdam]

WAR CHEST!