Polak set for PSD at $600,000 for 1 year

[Roundhouse]

I dont understand why Richmond want Polak. The one position they actually dont need is a CHF, Richo is fine there. Polak is not a defender and will never be a good defender, he is a very good forward though.

Other way round sport.

Polak has played his best footy for Freo in defence and has struggled when moved forward.

 

[MarkT]

That is incorrect.

The 2007 TPP allocation will be the higher figure of payment nominated on Section B of the players form 11 or the players actual payment. The 2008 TPP allocation will also be the higher figure of payment nominated on the section B of the players form 11 or the players actual payment. A player can nominate a one year deal, any extension to that contract does not have to be reflected on the form 11, only the players actual payments are allotted to the TPP if they are not specified in the players draft nomination form.

I think we are actually in agreement on this. In the post you quoted I was referring to a 3 year deal. Earlier I commented that they could do a 1 year deal @600k and then run the risk of recontracting at a previously agreed smaller amount for subsequent years.

Furthermore, if a club or player attempts to seek a "deal" whereby the payment recieved by the player is less than what is nominated on the players draft nomination form they are in breach of AFL draft Rules (sect 4 I think).

The following is an extract of a Form 11, PSD nomination form.

I shall advise the AFL immediately in writing should any Club selecting me at the Draft Selection Meeting purport to or does any act or thing which would cause or which may have the effect of causing me to receive any lesser payments than those set out in Section B of this Nomination Form.

Don't take my word for it: Google [AFL draft rules AFLPA form 11], you should be able to find the relevant sections regarding draft tampering.

You may be right. I thought there had been cases where players nominated a deal and were signed for different deals, in some cases less or spread further. Maybe that can’t be done now or maybe I am mistaken.

 

[mick]

Mark T wrote:

I commented that they could do a 1 year deal @600k and then run the risk of recontracting at a previously agreed smaller amount for subsequent years.

Thats fine as long as the total of the three year contract is in excess of the total requested in the nomination form. If you were suggesting that Polack nominated a $600k 1 yr deal then renegotiate with Richmond for a 3 yr deal @ $400kyr 1, $200k 2nd and third year then that would be alright. As for the TPP allocation that would be $600k yr 1, $200k in year 2 and $200k in year 3.

Mark T wrote

You may be right. I thought there had been cases where players nominated a deal and were signed for different deals, in some cases less or spread further.

Doolan, might be one. Less annual salary but a longer gauranteed term of employment. It may have been adjudged by the AFL that it was in the players interest to re-sign. This couldn't be argued with Polack if he re-signed to a longer term contract for less than $600k in total.

Sometimes players can renegotiate a contract to their disadvantage (Hay for instance) but doing so when involved in a PSD selection would be placing a club in breach of AFL draft rules.

 

[mulhollanddrive]

Tigers have said they needed to trade a player such as Tuck to make enough space in the cap...can't see where 600k is spare.

 

[celtic_pride]

Mick Gardiner to St.Kilda apparently.
He's flying into Melbourne toingnt and meeting the aints.

 

[Darth_Tiger]

no they didnt, they said to fit him in the budget. big difference. the tiges are not paying 100% of the cap and are not budgeting too. wouldnt matter if the 600k was included in the cap as long as they dont actually pay it.

 

[Tas]

I'm not certain but I'd think back-ending and front-ending contracts would cost players come tax time.

Sportsmen are allowed to average their income if they so choose so if they have spikes in terms of their earnings they are not adversely penalised. That being said, ANY footballer would be significantly over the highest tax threshold on a minimum payment contract so it wont really matter either way, not unless they got into some heavy "tax minimisation schemes".

 

[jules101]

Gee whiz after the sheningans of the past few days, the AFL will have to come and seriously look at the PSD come seasons end.
If Thornton does go into PSD there is no way he'll go to Hawthorn as I reckon either Carlton or Essendon will pick him up, and from the soudns of, his manager sounds really ticked off and will take the Blues and the AFL to court if he doesn't go to Hawthorn.
Why is it Carlton's fault if the Blues re-draft him anyway ? It is not against the AFL rules, if anything they should blame the AFL and not the club for this situation in the first place.

Why redraft him, why not give him what he wants now? Why redraft a player that clearly doesnt want to play for you?

 

[celtic_pride]

Why redraft him, why not give him what he wants now? Why redraft a player that clearly doesnt want to play for you?

Because the current AFL draft system says we can ...
Don't blame Carlton, blame the AFL.

 

[UpTheGuts]

They may as well wack him on a 5 year contract while they are at it..

5 year contract @ $250-300K p.a. = bargain, esp when mean salary is set to top $200K soon

 

[jules101]

Because the current AFL draft system says we can ...
Don't blame Carlton, blame the AFL.

You are drafting a player that clearly does not want to play for you though. Doesn't help team unity....

 

[Mr Q]

You guys simply are that naive ...

Polak or any player for that matter can put any price on his head for x amount of years and go into the PSD. The club that selects him without a doubt will pay the amount for that 1st year, but from then on anyone (club or individual) can re-negotiate the contract at ANY TIME.

Yeah, for sure. But I'm reasonably certain that Richmond would have to include the original amount in their SC calculations. Otherwise it's draft tampering.

 

[Rancid_Beasties]

I am pretty sure that we could say we are putting him on a 800,000 contract for one year, have that amount count against our salary cap, and then once hes here renegotiate how much he actually gets down to say 250-300,000. Polak would agree to this before signing with our club, and if anyone else tried to take him in the PSD they would be forced to pay the full 800,000.

So basically, we get Polak and whilst the 800,000 counts against our salary cap, we wouldnt have to pay it all. This would solve the dilemna we currently face where we have room in the salary cap but not the budget. And freo would get nothing. Same thing is gonna happen to carlton, thornton will go to Hawthorn most likely through the same mechanism.

 

[theGav56]

I am pretty sure ...

Beastie, you are wrong. The whole concept is about trying to stop clubs tampering with the draft. What you are proposing makes it the perfect tampering tool. If he has a proic n hi shead, or any other terms to his contract, then you need to accpet those.

If it is a 1 year deal for $800K and he accepts it, when you want to renegotiate that contract he is not obliged to accept the future terms, and the $800K is definitely on the books for that year. Given you guys thought you'd have to offload a player to find room for him, that looks a little improbable.

 

[Moo]

remember that the mean salary will be over $200K a year soon.

Sounds like a kind salary to me

 

[theGav56]

Sounds like a kind salary to me

No Moo. That is a really average response. He doesn't mean mean as in mean, he means... ah forget it.

 

[Rancid_Beasties]

Beastie, you are wrong. The whole concept is about trying to stop clubs tampering with the draft. What you are proposing makes it the perfect tampering tool. If he has a proic n hi shead, or any other terms to his contract, then you need to accpet those.

If it is a 1 year deal for $800K and he accepts it, when you want to renegotiate that contract he is not obliged to accept the future terms, and the $800K is definitely on the books for that year. Given you guys thought you'd have to offload a player to find room for him, that looks a little improbable.

Yeah he is not obliged to, but if he wants to prolongue his afl career past the next year, then it would probably be a good idea to establish that he is trustworthy.

And that whole talk of having to offload a player was smoke and mirrors, we're only at 94% of our salary cap currently, with a few more players to delist. If polak did pull an absolute shifty on us, then we'd only be breaking the budget by 500,000, which would probably mean we'd break even overall and not be able to pay off any outstanding debts. Dodgy, but not the end of the world.

Anyway, if you guys arent willing to be reasonable and to realise you have no bargaining power you deserve to be screwed over like this.

 

[theGav56]

Yeah he is not obliged to, but if he wants to prolongue his afl career past the next year, then it would probably be a good idea to establish that he is trustworthy.

If polak did pull an absolute shifty on us, then we'd only be breaking the budget by 500,000, which would probably mean we'd break even overall and not be able to pay off any outstanding debts. Dodgy, but not the end of the world.

Anyway, if you guys arent willing to be reasonable and to realise you have no bargaining power you deserve to be screwed over like this.

That is very funny. You want Polak to do the shifty on us, then establish his trustworthiness with you?

 

[Rancid_Beasties]

Polak isnt pulling a shifty on you, he just nominated the club he would like to go to. But you guys had to play hardball and so hes probably gonna miss out. Why couldn't you just be receptive to our offers like Brisbane were to the Doggies with Aker? I mean we offered you Tuck for polak and a pick, we offered you 8 and our 2nd round for 13 and your 2nd round and polak. You guys rejected both offers (which I think were fair).

So basically hes gonna be stuck at carlton or something. I think its you guys that are pulling a shifty on him. I know i'd be mighty peeved if I had to go to Carlton. If there was a loophole like the one I'm talking about, I know I'd take it.

 

[theGav56]

Stop it Beastie, the joke has already been made, you can't improve on it.