Salary Cap Issues...

[FAITH]

Why is Adelaide almost at their capacity in terms of salary cap when we have so many young players - inexperienced, vetreran list players and middle age range players who arent anything special?

What happens when our youngsters get better, how we going to keep them under salary cap?

Also when you consider Brisbane/Geelong and even Bulldogs and StKilda, they have so many exerience players and still are under salary cap?

Are we paying our average players too much?

 

[Dangerzone_19]

Why is Adelaide almost at their capacity in terms of salary cap when we have so many young players - inexperienced, vetreran list players and middle age range players who arent anything special?

What happens when our youngsters get better, how we going to keep them under salary cap?

Also when you consider Brisbane/Geelong and even Bulldogs and StKilda, they have so many exerience players and still are under salary cap?

Are we paying our average players too much?

Where has it ever been mentioned that we are?

 

[FAITH]

Where has it ever been mentioned that we are?

News/Radio everywhere.
Was the reason why we didnt go for Luke Ball and Leon Davis.

 

[birdmanptr]

Why is Adelaide almost at their capacity in terms of salary cap when we have so many young players - inexperienced, vetreran list players and middle age range players who arent anything special?

What happens when our youngsters get better, how we going to keep them under salary cap?

Also when you consider Brisbane/Geelong and even Bulldogs and StKilda, they have so many exerience players and still are under salary cap?

Are we paying our average players too much?

Kurt would have pushed it up a bit but there will be plenty for our kids after this year

Dont panic

 

[relapse]

Kurt would have pushed it up a bit but there will be plenty for our kids after this year

Dont panic

I agree after 2010 cap room should free up as our senior players start to retire.

 

[arrowman]

Was the reason why we didnt go for Luke Ball and Leon Davis.

That doesn't mean we couldn't have squeezed those guys in, or that we have cap "issues". (Although both of those guys would be expensive).

It means (IMHO) that if we had squeezed them in, we wouldn't have enough room to reward/retain some of the younger guys as they improve.

I'd say it was more of "eye on the future" than current issues.

 

[arrowman]

Also when you consider Brisbane/Geelong and even Bulldogs and StKilda, they have so many exerience players and still are under salary cap?

Are we paying our average players too much?

Plus: remember that every club is required to pay a minimum (92.5%?) percentage of the salary cap. That narrows the difference between the top clubs and the bottom.

That makes it a fact of life that some players at Geelong and St Kilda (e.g.) and Brisbane before them, will have to choose between $ and staying with their mates and a successful club. And that many players at Melbourne, Richmond and Fremantle are overpaid.

 

[magtrev]

Yeah, I missed the memo that says we are.

People seem to be extrapolating from not wanting to overpay Tippett that we are right against the cap, whereas I remember interviews from during the year that said we have a fairly large amount of room in our cap.

We didn't go after Ball because St Kilda wanted a Shaun Burgouyne type deal for a player that wasn't even in their best 22.

 

[Mismatched]

Plus: remember that every club is required to pay a minimum (92.5%?) percentage of the salary cap. That narrows the difference between the top clubs and the bottom.

That makes it a fact of life that some players at Geelong and St Kilda (e.g.) and Brisbane before them, will have to choose between $ and staying with their mates and a successful club. And that many players at Melbourne, Richmond and Fremantle are overpaid.

Yeah, this is a big factor, it doesn't take a lot to bring you from the minimum 92.5%, right up to 100%. From memory the salary cap is around 7 million, 92.5% of that, is just under 6.5 million. Now you couple this with the fact that we're only going to make minimal changes to our list, and only delist several low profile/earners, its no surprise we havn't got a heap of space in our cap. Couple this with Kurt likely having 250-300k+ increase in his contract and suddenly we're really out of space and unless we start cutting the salaries of other players massively, we're near full capacity.

Oh and the Veteran List bit hardly helps with our salary cap, yes we get a 50% discount off of two of our Veterans, but we're still operating with an extra two players on our list, the discount effectively cuts out one of their salaries, but still leaves an extra players salary within our cap. If as expected at the end of 2010, all 5 veterans (Goodwin, Edwards, McLeod, Doughty and Burton) retire, then we'll automatically lose those two extra players, so we'll be paying one less players salary, whilst also free up substantial space, considering all would be on 200k at the very least.

 

[WALL-e]

McLeod, Goodwin, Edwards, Burton, Doughty, Stevens would take up a LOT of our cap, now they will all go in the next 1-3 maybe 4 years.

Truck, Bock and then Thomo can take their place on the vet list, after that we're pretty clean with salary.

The club know's what it's doing.

It wouldn't surprise me that when they talk about salary cap restraints, they are not just talking about this year, acknowledging that they'll have to stay liquid in their management. Thus all the 1 year deals for the vets.

 

[macca23]

Yeah, I missed the memo that says we are.

People seem to be extrapolating from not wanting to overpay Tippett that we are right against the cap, whereas I remember interviews from during the year that said we have a fairly large amount of room in our cap.

We didn't go after Ball because St Kilda wanted a Shaun Burgouyne type deal for a player that wasn't even in their best 22.

Both Steven Trigg and John Reid have said on 5AA within the last month that there is not a lot of room in our salary cap. Reidy in particular stated that was one of the reasons why we weren't hunting any big names during that trade period.

The guys that we delist this year will create a bit of slack in it, but not a lot. Macca and Edwards will both probably go at the end of 2010 and be replaced by draftees which again will create a bit more room.

Another reason for our cap being so tight is that we have just resigned quite a few of the young guns who would have got a good lift in their contract amount after good performances this year.

 

[magtrev]

Theres not a lot of room, when you consider future contracts that will have to be negotiated.

That's very different from saying we're already right up against it.

 

[Vantz]

News/Radio everywhere.
Was the reason why we didnt go for Luke Ball and Leon Davis.

We don't have Salary cap issues. From memory, JR stated we could have paid Tippett $1 Million a season, however it would have been out of Adelaide's pay structure and against the ethos of rewarding all players at the club.

The reason we did not go for Leon Davis is because he is 28 and Collingwood would want way to much for him.

 

[Stiffy_18]

We don't have Salary cap issues. From memory, JR stated we could have paid Tippett $1 Million a season, however it would have been out of Adelaide's pay structure and against the ethos of rewarding all players at the club.

The reason we did not go for Leon Davis is because he is 28 and Collingwood would want way to much for him.

We could pay Tippett $1million but that could also mean that we would need to send off 2-3 of our veterans off to retirement.

There is no way we would have had $1million in capspace considering that every club has to at least pay 92.5% of the cap EVERY year. If we were operating at the bare minimum of 92.5% the most we would have in our cap is about $500K

 

[Hondo]

I researched this the other day and best I could tell is that the 2010 salary cap is around $8m

You have to spend 92.5% of it so the most any club has spare is about $600K. I'd be surprised if any club has that much spare, certainly not us based on Reidy's comments ... "we didn't go after a marquee player because we can't afford it".

 

[WALL-e]

Thus if you want to sign a player for more than $600,000 you must give something up, no matter what club you are.

This proves how valuable 1 year contracts are, making a teams cap nice and liquid.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

We may be tight with the cap but we can't be right on the margin, given we just delisted a 1st year player who we will need to payout the 2nd year.

 

[Crow-mo]

Theres not a lot of room, when you consider future contracts that will have to be negotiated.

That's very different from saying we're already right up against it.

that would be fair if it were an accurate representation.

what the club has said is we ARE up against it. not we might be one day down the track.

 

[Crow-mo]

the veterans retirees will have minimal effect on our cap due to their veterans cap space number.

given we have an immature list, we do have potential problems coming up.

 

[magtrev]

that would be fair if it were an accurate representation.

what the club has said is we ARE up against it. not we might be one day down the track.

As I said, I must have missed that memo.

 

[Stiffy_18]

the veterans retirees will have minimal effect on our cap due to their veterans cap space number.

given we have an immature list, we do have potential problems coming up.

Only 2 of our oldies are on veterans list but the other 2 have their full salary coming off the books.

Lets assume that all 4 are on say $350 each. Thats 1.4 million - 350K = 1.05M coming off the books when they are gone. That leaves us a bit of room to play with for the pay increases.

 

[Mismatched]

the veterans retirees will have minimal effect on our cap due to their veterans cap space number.

given we have an immature list, we do have potential problems coming up.

The Veterans list bit will reduce this effect somewhat, but then, if all our veterans retire next year(we won't have any eligible for another year or so), we'll effectively cull our list from 40 to 38, that two less players to fit under the cap, even if only half their salaries contributed to our Cap, we'll still have less players to fit under the salary cap.

 

[StuPendus]

the veterans retirees will have minimal effect on our cap due to their veterans cap space number.

given we have an immature list, we do have potential problems coming up.

Too true given when Dangerfield tears up the new season on the last year of his first contract.

We will need the contents of Fort Knox to keep him.

 

[Crow-mo]

As I said, I must have missed that memo.

missed it, or didn't pay attention when officers of the club said it. repeatedly

 

[Crow-mo]

Only 2 of our oldies are on veterans list but the other 2 have their full salary coming off the books.

Lets assume that all 4 are on say $350 each. Thats 1.4 million - 350K = 1.05M coming off the books when they are gone. That leaves us a bit of room to play with for the pay increases.

poor maths stiffy, but maybe there is something there.

Goody 350k
edwards 350k
Macca 350K

OK. but that would give us 700 coming off wouldn't it?