Salary cap question

[Niximus]

I know that Kurt leaving freed up a lot of space in our cap but would we actually be going under the cap this year?

I mean, I cannot see any reason not to spend 100% of the cap every single year.

If for example we were currently siting at 95%, that would leave $456,500 that we aren't using this year. Surely we would be able to renegotiate some contracts to give a few players a little more this year, and therefore make them cheaper next year.

Hell, it would almost pay for Eddie Betts.

Does anyone know if we do this?

 

[Skippy231]

The way it's generally done is for example danger is on say 600k over 3 years, we can choose to pay him 800k for the first 2 years of the 3 year contract and 200k in the 3rd year when other contracts (say sloane and crouch) are due. This allows us more space in future years. Most teams would front load contracts if they have space in the salary cap as a minimum of 95% must be used each year.

 

[Niximus]

The way it's generally done is for example danger is on say 600k over 3 years, we can choose to pay him 800k for the first 2 years of the 3 year contract and 200k in the 3rd year when other contracts (say sloane and crouch) are due. This allows us more space in future years. Most teams would front load contracts if they have space in the salary cap as a minimum of 95% must be used each year.

Yes, I get that bit, but what I mean is that if right now we aren't at 100% for 2013, that money is wasted if we don't spend it.

e.g. If we were going to be $250k under this year, and the next 2 years:
a. We could just submit out paperwork and be under the cap by that amount, or
b. Be renegotiating some contracts now to spread that $250k around (say, $50k extra this year for 5 players). This would have us $500k under next year, spread that around and in year 3 you have $750k to spare, $750k you wouldn't have had if you didn't hit 100% of the cap.

It's like June for a government department.

 

[Skippy231]

on the b point: we don't actually have to renegotiate any contracts just adjust what they earn each year according to salary cap space. It's all pretty complex as this needs to be organized for 40+ players but it's simply creative accounting

 

[Slippery Pete]

I'm no accountant.... But, I think when we re-signed a few players this year (Reilly for instance) we front-ended their contracts with the Tippett money.

Therefore we'll reap the benefits in the latter stages of the Reilly contract.

Did that make any sense?

If so, somebody please explain it to me.

 

[FR0GGY]

I'm no accountant.... But, I think when we re-signed a few players this year (Reilly for instance) we front-ended their contracts with the Tippett money.

Therefore we'll reap the benefits in the latter stages of the Reilly contract.

Did that make any sense?

If so, somebody please explain it to me.

If you can explain how you got Reilly and us reaping benefits in the same sentence?

 

[Niximus]

I think when we re-signed a few players this year (Reilly for instance) we front ended their contracts with the Tippett money.

Therefore we'll reap the benefits in the latter stages of the Reilly contract.

Did that make any sense?

If so, please explain it to me.

I think we're on different pages.

I get the whole front loading contracts etc. I am meaning with all that taken into account, will our TPP for 2013 be 100% of the salary cap?

e.g. I presume we would have needed to leave some wiggle room for potential finals payments and bonuses that now won't be applicable. Will that put us under and will we redistribute that money to other contracts now rather than simply be that much under the cap?

 

[weekend at bernies]

I'm no accountant.... But, I think when we re-signed a few players this year (Reilly for instance) we front-ended their contracts with the Tippett money.

Therefore we'll reap the benefits in the latter stages of the Reilly contract.

Did that make any sense?

If so, somebody please explain it to me.

WHAT??? We are actually paying him?

 

[headache1]

I'm no accountant.... But, I think when we re-signed a few players this year (Reilly for instance) we front-ended their contracts with the Tippett money.

Therefore we'll reap the benefits in the latter stages of the Reilly contract.

Did that make any sense?

If so, somebody please explain it to me.

Largely because we'll be reaching the point where we don't have to pay him anymore.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I think we're on different pages.

I get the whole front loading contracts etc. I am meaning with all that taken into account, will our TPP for 2013 be 100% of the salary cap?

e.g. I presume we would have needed to leave some wiggle room for potential finals payments and bonuses that now won't be applicable. Will that put us under and will we redistribute that money to other contracts now rather than simply be that much under the cap?

The club said that they would restructure some existing contracts ie pay money intended for 2014 and 2015 out this season. That would soak up the unpaid Tippett money and free up some further space in the future.

The proof of whether they have actually done this will be in the money we splash around at season's end.

 

[GROTTO]

If you can explain how you got Reilly and us reaping benefits in the same sentence?

Thats Gold Jerry, GOLD.

 

[1970crow]

would it depend on when the official version of the player's contract is lodged with the afl. my impression is that this is done at the beginning of the year. if that is the case, then there may be some issue with adjusting the contract at a later date. of course, we could have a side contract that allows us to do things that aren't necessarily within the afl's defined rules. if you keep it quiet and control the paper trail, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Niximus]

would it depend on when the official version of the player's contract is lodged with the afl. my impression is that this is done at the beginning of the year. if that is the case, then there may be some issue with adjusting the contract at a later date. of course, we could have a side contract that allows us to do things that aren't necessarily within the afl's defined rules. if you keep it quiet and control the paper trail, it shouldn't be a problem.

I'm fairly certain that you submit the TPP report at the end of the season.

 

[kimirocks]

would it depend on when the official version of the player's contract is lodged with the afl. my impression is that this is done at the beginning of the year. if that is the case, then there may be some issue with adjusting the contract at a later date. of course, we could have a side contract that allows us to do things that aren't necessarily within the afl's defined rules. if you keep it quiet and control the paper trail, it shouldn't be a problem.

Not really an area our club is adept at.

 

[1970crow]

I'm fairly certain that you submit the TPP report at the end of the season.

No doubt that is correct, but I think that is part of the end of year 'audit' process. I don't think a player can set foot on the park if the official version if their contract isn't in the afl's hands. Whether theres any leeway to vary that mid-stream I'm not sure.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Its a bit more complex than fixed numbers! Teams always need some wiggle room in case of injuries!

The numbers are not a "fixed" number. For example if Douglas is on $450k, that is not a fixed $450k he gets regardless! A component of that would be made up of match payments so if he does not play any games he will get the base payment without match payments!

Similarly if a player is playing in SANFL and gets injured, he is not receiving match payments from AFC just base payment. If however, a player gets injured while playing for the AFC, he will get match payments even while out injured and not playing. The player that comes in to replace him will be receiving match payments as well so essentially you are paying match payments to two players instead of one!

Its a lot more complex than it appears at first. A few years back we came REALLY close to going over the cap because we had all these injuries to players while they were playing for AFC!

 

[Vader]

No doubt that is correct, but I think that is part of the end of year 'audit' process. I don't think a player can set foot on the park if the official version if their contract isn't in the afl's hands. Whether theres any leeway to vary that mid-stream I'm not sure.

While this is true, contracts can always be re-negotiated mid-season. As long as the AFL is provided with a copy of the updated version then there's no problem.

 

[1970crow]

While this is true, contracts can always be re-negotiated mid-season. As long as the AFL is provided with a copy of the updated version then there's no problem.

Well, there you go. Thanks vades.

 

[cmndstab]

Its a bit more complex than fixed numbers! Teams always need some wiggle room in case of injuries!

The numbers are not a "fixed" number. For example if Douglas is on $450k, that is not a fixed $450k he gets regardless! A component of that would be made up of match payments so if he does not play any games he will get the base payment without match payments!

This is pretty much it. Contracts are actually extremely complicated. The club has a number of players on variable contracts ("performance-based") but obviously if every player on those contracts plays a blinder, the club can't just say "oops we went over the salary cap, oh well." So either there needs to be a clause in the contract to cover that eventuality, or the club needs to make it so the maximum they can possibly end up paying is 100% of the salary, and the minimum is 92.5% or whatever the bottom rung is.

 

[FR0GGY]

This is pretty much it. Contracts are actually extremely complicated. The club has a number of players on variable contracts ("performance-based") but obviously if every player on those contracts plays a blinder, the club can't just say "oops we went over the salary cap, oh well." So either there needs to be a clause in the contract to cover that eventuality, or the club needs to make it so the maximum they can possibly end up paying is 100% of the salary, and the minimum is 92.5% or whatever the bottom rung is.

The better way to structure it would to say to danger or crouch, If you do x, well take some cash from bling or Reilly and give it to you.

 

[cmndstab]

The better way to structure it would to say to danger or crouch, If you do x, well take some cash from bling or Reilly and give it to you.

Good luck getting that one past the AFLPA. I do like it though

 

[Sanders]

If we have allowed 800k for the big nothing, and he leaves we are below the minimum salary cap level

So we call up daniel Talia and say to him, you know how we owe you 600k over the next 2 years, how about we pay you an extra 200 this year, so this split is 500 + 100

We create 200k in next years cap

Repeat with 3 other players.

We don't lose cap space. Because we pay next years cap today, creating room next year

 

[Bacon8]

Its a bit more complex than fixed numbers! Teams always need some wiggle room in case of injuries!

The numbers are not a "fixed" number. For example if Douglas is on $450k, that is not a fixed $450k he gets regardless! A component of that would be made up of match payments so if he does not play any games he will get the base payment without match payments!

Similarly if a player is playing in SANFL and gets injured, he is not receiving match payments from AFC just base payment. If however, a player gets injured while playing for the AFC, he will get match payments even while out injured and not playing. The player that comes in to replace him will be receiving match payments as well so essentially you are paying match payments to two players instead of one!

Its a lot more complex than it appears at first. A few years back we came REALLY close to going over the cap because we had all these injuries to players while they were playing for AFC!

I think there would be a percentage of players on fixed contracts, so they get their cash irrespective of games played, and others on match-payments also.

First contract draftees, for example, have a base payment & match payments.
But someone like Thommo would be on a fixed amount, maybe with a slight reduction for LTI.

It's really only discussed in the CBA about first year players & rookies.

I think that bit about injuries happened because they budget, say, 10 of the match day 22 to be on match-day payments, but he had 14. Just an example of how it can blow out.

 

[Allefgib]

Isn't what Nick is getting at more about topping up someone, anyone, everyone? at the end of each year to ensure we hit 100%?

 

[jackster83]

Isn't what Nick is getting at more about topping up someone, anyone, everyone? at the end of each year to ensure we hit 100%?

Pay Jaensch's and Graham's contracts out.