Salary cap issues

[CrowCro]

It is much too my surprise that Stephen Trigg has come out and said we have salary cap restrictions to the point we couldn't sign a player like Davis who is rumoured to want $350k. Our list is so young with some good players but no superstars. I think we needed to make a hard call on someone like Reilly this year to free up some space. His spot is easily replaceable by someone on signifivantly less money unless he is playing for peanuts these days.

I have also always wondered how Hawthorn fot players under the CAP. Something is not right here. They keep bringing players into their mix with big salaries. I heard Gunston got substantially mor ethan here at Adelaide. Interstate teams should have 250k more in ther cap than VIC teams as we always have to pay over the odds to keep players from VIC here.

 

[Drummond]

Excellent post CrowCro, couldn't agree more. I actually thought about making this exact same thread when I read the paper and saw Trigg's comments. I couldn't believe it when I read that comment. We're pretty useless, and other than Thompson and Johncock, we have no out and out stars, and yet we're still right up against the cap??? Firstly, who does our negotiations in player contracts, and secondly, who the heck on our list (other than Tippett...) is tying up all this cash??

 

[taylor_walker_13]

We clearly have a alot of over paided hacks on our list, surely Reilly, Tambling and Symes couldnt be commanding more than what Leon Davis would be???

If we cant afford LD there was no hope in hell we were ever going to keep Filthy Davi$

 

[BACCS]

Source? The Port flogs will love this.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Interstate teams should have 250k more in ther cap than VIC teams as we always have to pay over the odds to keep players from VIC here.

No, it works both ways.

Non-Victorian teams get an extra $250,000 to try and hold onto say a Patrick Dangerfield.

Yet Victorian teams don't get extra to try and hang onto a Bryce Gibbs?

It works both ways, and it's completely unfair to the 10 Victorian clubs to implement a larger salary cap for Non-Victorian clubs.

 

[cammo84]

No, it works both ways.

Non-Victorian teams get an extra $250,000 to try and hold onto say a Patrick Dangerfield.

Yet Victorian teams don't get extra to try and hang onto a Bryce Gibbs?

It works both ways, and it's completely unfair to the 10 Victorian clubs to implement a larger salary cap for Non-Victorian clubs.

Not really unfair, because Victorian clubs never have to deal with the fact that there are up to 10 clubs in a players home state throwing offers at him to move home. The most they have to deal with is two clubs fighting for a players services. Look at the Gunston scenario - he wanted to go home and theoretically there could have been a bidding war between 5 or 6 clubs. If Gibbs wants to move back to his home state, he's got to choose between Adelaide and Port. The larger the field, the more chance of a juicy offer being presented to the player, hence the interstate clubs need a little bit extra to balance things out.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Source? The Port flogs will love this.

Source

LEON DAVIS is increasingly unlikely to be finding his exit from Collingwood to Adelaide.

Trigg has declared the All-Australian defender is priced too high for the Crows to make a play for the West Australian in the pre-season draft in December.

"We don't have space for that level of pay," Trigg said.

It does seem strange that poorly performing teams with young lists and very few stars could be near 100%. You think we'd be scraping around to fill up the minimum 90 and having to front load a few contracts to do so.

There seem to be two types of pay structures that clubs use.

One (ours) is a fair-minded system that gives weight to tenure, valuing all members of the squad, rewarding B&F results etc. A very flat pay scale with very few players at the top end of the salary range but lots and lots of players in the middle.

The other is a more market based system, where the demand sets the prices. Eg if Michael Doughty's contract is up he gets offered the bare minimum because regardless of B&F results no other club would take him at his age and we are therefore in no danger of losing him. This system leaves stars (and potential stars) paid more but mid-rangers paid less.

The latter system also seems to leave more room for clubs to 'make a play' at an established players during trade/draft time, whereas ours has very little space to move.

 

[LowHP]

Surely Rielly, Tambling, Symes and co. aren't demanding ridiculous amounts? How do you even demand anything when you're replaceable and not likely to get a gig anywhere else?

I agree re. making some "hard" decisions in letting go of our mediocre players, especially if they think they're worth a lot more than they are.

 

[Footypie32]

We clearly have a alot of over paided hacks on our list, surely Reilly, Tambling and Symes couldnt be commanding more than what Leon Davis would be???

If we cant afford LD there was no hope in hell we were ever going to keep Filthy Davi$

Reckon you're spot on the money with these 3! Knights might be another considering he only plays 5 games a year! Maybe the AFL would consider allowing the non-victorian teams to pay performance based bonuses above the salary cap? Like for making the AA team or kicking more than 50 goals in a season (we'll never have to pay this anyway). Or maybe we should just get VISY to sponsor us!

 

[BACCS]

It does seem strange that poorly performing teams with young lists and very few stars could be near 100%. You think we'd be scraping around to fill up the minimum 90 and having to front load a few contracts to do so.

There seem to be two types of pay structures that clubs use.

One (ours) is a fair-minded system that gives weight to tenure, valuing all members of the squad, rewarding B&F results etc. A very flat pay scale with very few players at the top end of the salary range but lots and lots of players in the middle.

The other is a more market based system, where the demand sets the prices. Eg if Michael Doughty's contract is up he gets offered the bare minimum because regardless of B&F results no other club would take him at his age and we are therefore in no danger of losing him. This system leaves stars (and potential stars) paid more but mid-rangers paid less.

The latter system also seems to leave more room for clubs to 'make a play' at an established players during trade/draft time, whereas ours has very little space to move.

I found it odd Melbourne had so much cap space for Mitch Clark too. I would still rather the system we employ, as the 2nd option leaves open the chance of divide in the playing squad due to what they are getting paid. Collingwood and Geelong use very much the same system that we do, and look where they are at. Bodes for a far better culture at the club if you employ a fair system based on B&F results, as it rewards everyone equally, bar players like Tippett who are in demand elsewhere, forcing us to bump up their salary.

You have a far greater chance of keeping a successful squad together if all players are getting paid according to their worth at the club.

 

[mackga]

Last year on MMM Roo said there were 3 players who, in his opinion are overpaid.....Tippett, Knights and Danderfield. Also, has AFC only ever paid 92.5% of the cap? If so, why?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I found it odd Melbourne had so much cap space for Mitch Clark too. I would still rather the system we employ, as the 2nd option leaves open the chance of divide in the playing squad due to what they are getting paid. Collingwood and Geelong use very much the same system that we do, and look where they are at. Bodes for a far better culture at the club if you employ a fair system based on B&F results, as it rewards everyone equally, bar players like Tippett who are in demand elsewhere, forcing us to bump up their salary.

You have a far greater chance of keeping a successful squad together if all players are getting paid according to their worth at the club.

Geelong do, Collingwood don't. That's why the likes of Davis and McCaffer are on the verge of getting squeezed out and Dawes has to accept much less than he could get elsewhere. That's one of the things I admire about Collingwood, that they can recognise the players they can afford to lose and low-ball them in order to keep Pendlebury/Thomas.

With the Geel/Adel system, the success of it relies heavily on future finals appearances. The players need to be able to justify getting paid less because they expect premiership success is imminent.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Last year on MMM Roo said there were 3 players who, in his opinion are overpaid.....Tippett, Knights and Danderfield. Also, has AFC only ever paid 92.5% of the cap? If so, why?

I'm of the impression that we have paid very close to 100% for some time. Can't remember where I heard this though.

 

[Crows#1]

According to AFL rules, every team has to pay a certain percentage of the salary cap, regardless of whether they have any "superstars" or not.
Tippett is on $650k+
And Tambling was signed up for a 3 year $1m deal. What were they thinking?
And if Roo thinks Dangerfield is overpaid, maybe he wants to see him go back to Victoria as well.

 

[Crows#1]

And regarding the extra money to interstaters, Sydney and Brisbane get extra, and you can bet so will Gold Coast and GWS when their honeymoon periods are over.

 

[TheVelourFog]

He may just be saying this because the club doesn't want to pick up Davis and need a reason to tell the public why they don't want to pick him up. Although if we do have cap issues it's very worrying as we have a pretty young and average list of players who wouldn't deserve the money we're paying them.

Having salary cap issues with a young group of players is a very bad sign as they're only going to ask for more when they actually start playing well. In the end we might have to get rid of Tippett unless he's willing to take a pay cut.

 

[headache1]

I found it odd Melbourne had so much cap space for Mitch Clark too. I would still rather the system we employ, as the 2nd option leaves open the chance of divide in the playing squad due to what they are getting paid. Collingwood and Geelong use very much the same system that we do, and look where they are at. Bodes for a far better culture at the club if you employ a fair system based on B&F results, as it rewards everyone equally, bar players like Tippett who are in demand elsewhere, forcing us to bump up their salary.

You have a far greater chance of keeping a successful squad together if all players are getting paid according to their worth at the club.

Not only did they have the space to offer him huge money, it has apprently only put them near the minimum 92.5% of salary cap paid.

I hope that we don't have the cash to pay Davis because we're taking into account pay rises for people like Dangerfield next year and not because we're maxed out already.

 

[Crows#1]

Exactly. I'd rather pay Dangerfield more to stay next year, than get Davis this year.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

How do we think it's structured?

Salaries we roughly know:
Tippett - $650,000
Tambling - $333,000
Jacobs - $300,000

100% Guesswork:

Category 1 (ave salary of this group $400,000) - Dangerfield, Johncock, Rutten, Thompson S, Vince

Category 2 (ave salary of this group $300,000) - Douglas, Knights, Mackay, van Berlo, Walker

Category 3 (ave salary of this group $200,000) - Otten, Porplyzia, Reilly, Sloane

Category 4 (ave salary of this group $100,000) - Doughty, Henderson, Jaensch, Johnston, McKernan, Petrenko, Smith, Symes, Talia, Thompson L

First year draftees/rookie promotions ($50,000) - Jenkins, Lynch, Lyons, Martin, Riley, Shaw, Wright plus 3

Rookies - 4 x $30,000

This all adds up to about $7.2million.

How does it work with match payments? Bonuses? Incentives?



PS - please don't be an absolute spanner and argue vehemently with the figures or categorising of players above. It's wrong. It's a guess. Just a discussion starter. Save your eye rolls for when it really matters.

 

[Campbell's Chunky]

You'll be surprised that Scott Thompson isn't actually on as much as you think. Real clubman.

Our second highest paid player is Chris Knights...

 

[Footypie32]

I reckon those you have in Category 2 will be trying to push into Category 1 when their next contract comes up. Not sure when they last renewed Dougies contract but, I bet is agent will be waiving that yellow jacket in their face! As for Van Berlo, the captain should be paid a bit more out of principle, no matter who it is.

* as you said, tried not to take your figures to literally but, i think you're pretty close to the mark!

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You'll be surprised that Scott Thompson isn't actually on as much as you think. Real clubman.

Our second highest paid player is Chris Knights...

To be fair to the club it probably seemed like a good idea at the time

He looked our best player in 2009.

I doubt anyone on here would have argued at the time but happy to see threads bumped proving otherwise.

 

[WALL-e]

The way contracts roll over, salary cap issues for a team without any notable superstars, such as us, isn't an issue for too long, so long as you are ruthless....which we will need to be.

CC is right about Knights, he's #2 and Danger #3. I have no idea where the Davi$ for 350 to stay came from, I heard a figure higher than this and it's less than half his GWS pay.

We'll gain some flexibility in the coming year with Tippo and Knights expiring as well as Vince and Dougie getting on lower deals along with Tambo. This will of course be spent in securing our youth.

At present we don't have any players demanding the 500 range, so we're lucky, but what we will need to do is be creative given the age of our list. Front load to get to the cap minimum, drop salaries of players in the 18-30 depth list, long deal the good youngsters with high initial incentives (clause an injury out if possible).

We'll need to antisipate the development of Sloane, Walker, Talia and the like to know that there will need to be funds available when they come out. This is where Nobes has been quite usefull. We're targeting not only our own contract situations, but other teams. Don't be surprised to see a war chest built for the 2013 summer.

 

[Wilburwild]

I'm not sure whether I believe the 'not enough money' line. I feel its more we aren't prepared to pay that for a 30y.o.

 

[Drummond]

I'm not sure whether I believe the 'not enough money' line. I feel its more we aren't prepared to pay that for a 30y.o.

Yeah but this isn’t the first time I’ve heard this line from someone at the club. I’m led to believe that we are genuinely close to the cap, how that happened I wouldn’t have a clue, our squad’s hardly dominant...