Salary Cap Estimates

[blues4flag]

I find that you are becoming quite defensive. If it is such a rubbish suggestion then why are you getting so touchy. I am simply raising the question of perhaps Carlton paying over the salary cap. I am not stating anything

Clearly, you've got a very weak grasp of the English language. Your post implied that the club was paying our players using brown paper bags. The question pertained to whether the OP had included those payments in his figures.

What sort of dullard can't even interpret his own posts?

 

[len_jet]

I find that you are becoming quite defensive. If it is such a rubbish suggestion then why are you getting so touchy. I am simply raising the question of perhaps Carlton paying over the salary cap. I am not stating anything

no one is getting touchy... i thought the idiot comment was spot on...

Just because you put a question mark at the end of "statement" doesn't always make is a question...

I think if you carefully read the OP and some of the constructive subsidiary comments you will find our cap, including room, has been justified...

One would think some serious jealousy has lead to your posting in this thread... maybe a few years of your club being destroyed by the likes of Miller and Wallace has finally caught up with you? Especially on the back of Carlton taking leaps and bounds re: Cordy, Swann, Icke, Judd etc?

 

[len_jet]

What sort of dullard can't even interpret his own posts?

Don't you feel silly, you answered your own question before asking it...

Read your post again. The implication is clear, you idiot.

 

[King_Mallee]

Mate we are Carlton, we don't have a salery cap. Warnock gets 100k a year plus an extra 400k for taking out the Visy bins around Princes' Park. , the same applies for many other players on our list.

is this defamation then? I thought not. This is a statement, what I asked was a question. I don't think I am the dullard

 

[Effes]

what stands out like dogs balls on this list is who is over-valued and under-valued - nick stevens is clearly not our 3rd most valuable player - they need to trade him this time next year

I don't think Nick would be on that many (he has signed a new contract since his first one IIRC.) He would have been paid big money to entice him to the club/get him in the PSD.

Good effort btdg...I would suspect Kreuzer would be on the 50K base and Judd would be on less than you have there...same with Fev, with some of their money being paid legally outside the cap using the marketing allowance. As others have mentioned Fev and Judd would be heavily front loaded with Fev going on the veterans list in a couple of years. I'd also think Hartlett wouldn't be on that much

Apparently Warnock isn't on as big money as was indicated in the media - the large salary was thrown around to scare clubs off.

Seems opposition supporters don't understand the concepts of

*Front loading contracts
*Marketing allowance/Visy (all approved by the AFL)
*Veterans lists
*Having so many youngsters on the list

 

[len_jet]

is this defamation then? I thought not. This is a statement, what I asked was a question. I don't think I am the dullard

nope that would be tounge in cheek as it came from a Carlton supporter...

as an opposition supporter your statement was defamatory as it implies that we pay players under the table...

 

[OZBomb]

I find that you are becoming quite defensive. If it is such a rubbish suggestion then why are you getting so touchy. I am simply raising the question of perhaps Carlton paying over the salary cap. I am not stating anything

Yes I am getting defensive, because you've just implied that we've done something you have absolutely no proof of. Kevin Bartlett did the same thing on his show the other day and I know many Carlton supporters have just about had enough of the joke.

I would advise Mr Bartlett and yourself that many of Carlton's closest associates are at the highest level of the legal profession and would have no problem taking a case pro-bono.

Had enough.

 

[len_jet]

As others have mentioned Fev and Judd would be heavily front loaded with Fev going on the veterans list in a couple of years. I'd also think Hartlett wouldn't be on that much

Fev would be back ended so that the vets list 50% factor would be taken into cosideration...

 

[Effes]

Fev would be back ended so that the vets list 50% factor would be taken into cosideration...

Ah yep that would be the best way to structure it

We're still cheating though

 

[Silvagnis]

did you include money coming in paper bags?

Nice shiny recycled Visy Paper Bags paid for by Richmond supporters such as yourself.

your threats shouldnt stop the media investigating what is a legitimate concern. IN my eyes and in the eyes of many including the respected Mr Bartlett, Carlton's actions have been suspect and should be investigated.

Thanks Rhett.

Has Caroline Wilson finished investigating Richmond's contracts yet and stopped defending Wallace?

 

[Effes]

Carlton's actions have been suspect and should be investigated.

Could you please go into more detail?

 

[btdg]

what stands out like dogs balls on this list is who is over-valued and under-valued - nick stevens is clearly not our 3rd most valuable player - they need to trade him this time next year

To be honest, several of my estimates are probably too high. But those estimates are the absolute maximum you would argue that our players are earning - and there is still enough room for O'Keefe.

As for Stevens - salaries will never reflect current worth, because they inherently show a lag - that is, players are rewarded in the future based on past efforts. Older players therefore always have higher salaries than recent draftees. Stevens may not be our 3rd best player, but he's probably our 3rd highest paid, particularly when you factor in our recruiting him from interstate.

That's what people don't understand with Carlton. Because we have so few players in the 28-30 age bracket, guys who were good but are past their prime, we have very few wasted salary cap dollars. Collingwood, for example, have grand final midfielders like O'Bree and Holland, Wakelin, Rocca - all players who are still serviceable, but are probably earning dollars they deserved 4 years ago (when they took the team to 2 straight grand finals). We have absolutely no-one in that situation. We can therefore pay exorbitant contracts to Fev and Judd and still have plenty of room to pay our top draft picks when they renegotiate, and on top of that chase the few gaps in our list (a la Warnock and O'Keefe). Is it good list management - only if you call 7 years on the bottom good list management. It certaintly gives you flexibility to rebuild in the manner that you want, but I'd still rather Collingwood's 2 grand finals than our ability to chase O'Keefe in the PSD.

Bear in mind as well that Hawthorn just won the premiership with a young list that, like ours, has very few players who are in the 28-30 age bracket. As a result, they can not only keep their whole list (as opposed to Geelong who have offloaded King, Gardner, Prismall and Byrnes in the last 12 months), and also have the space to chase O'Keefe themselves.

The benefits of a young-list are many - but apparently too confusing for the morons on Bigfooty...