Salary Cap question

[juss]

They’d still have to pay out the contract if they delist though, wouldn’t they?

I don't know the rules and options lol

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

They’d still have to pay out the contract if they delist though, wouldn’t they?

You cant just delist a contracted player. There are provisions if the player is in breach, but they require the club to make a case to the AFL, and it never happens.

 

[SterlingArcher]

There is no faxing, you deal live with the AFL.

I think the AFL is sweeping something GWS did off the books under the AFL sized rug to avoid penalising them and denying them access to finals next year, I don't think it is possible to go over cap by the magnitude some of the claims have suggested through legitimate dealings. AFL are meant to approve all contracts, they would have known GWS would have gone massively over their 2019 TPP had they all been legitimate contracts and they would have/should have denied those contracts.

Potentially trying to keep as many as they can and then it's easier to trade contracted players for a decent return than it is uncontracted players.

Or expected to lose Kelly end of last year and then ended up keeping him. Or Greene didn't take unders when he signed on. Etc.

 

[courageous_tom]

Most younger players receive a combination of base salary + match payments. In the event of finals, the base salary doesn't change, and is included in the cap. Any match payments for playing finals is included in the cap, but then deducted out again.

Most senior players don't receive match payments, they negotiate a higher base salary instead. They don't get paid anything extra for appearing in finals. Obviously their fame and marketability increases however.

Players can also have bonus triggers for the amount of games they play each year. ie a player that plays 10+ games gets a bonus $20k, hit 15+ games and get an extra $15k, play 20+ and get another $15k. Clubs are usually pretty good at stipulating 'H&A games' when making theses clauses so as not to get caught out in the event the Club plays an extra 2-3 games during finals.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I’m trying to find the answer to this question, and was hoping someone could help.

Using GWS as the example, with them clearing cap space by trading out players.

In the event the fax machine was to play up again tonight at 8:30, and they’re not able to trade Shiel/anyone else to create that cap space, which results in trades not going through, they would then be over their salary cap for 2019.

What exactly happens? Are they penalised by the AFL?

I know you can be a percentage over one year and then be under the following to balance it out (I think) but what if the cap is breached because of a non trade?

1. If you are still using a fax in 2018 you deserve to be punished.

2. You have to have an under spend first, and then can have an over spend it future years. Its not the other way round as you stated above. See Clause 13 of the 2017-22 CBA

13. Payment of Total Player Payment and Additional Services Agreements
(a) Each AFL Club must expend no less than 95% of the combined annual Total Player Payments and Additional Services Agreements limits in Football Payments to Players on its List in each relevant year.
......

(e) AFL Clubs may spend over 100% of the combined Total Player Payments and Additional Services Agreements limit (Combined Limit), if in any of the preceding three years the Club has spent below 100% of the Combined Limit.

(f) The permitted amount of overspend will be tied to the level of underspend in the relevant preceding period. For example, if a Club was $500,000 below the combined Total Player Payments and Additional Services Agreements limit in 2017, and paid 100% of the Combined Limit in 2018 and 2019, the Club would be entitled to spend $500,000 above the Combined Limit in 2020. If a $500,000 overspend was not made in 2020, the Club has lost the right to overspend in 2021.
(g) It is agreed that the overspend amount is to be capped at a maximum of 105% of the Combined Limit in any given year.

3. Unlike previous CBA's ( well my reading of CBA's since the 2003-2008 one) the 2017-22 CBA now allows players and the clubs to renegotiate contracts. The club and player could say renegotiate some of the salary to 2020 if you are going 2 years early and when the player gets traded the old club has to pay that delayed salary next year and its included in their cap. I doubt the player and club would move more than $200k-$300k back a year. The smart player and his manager puts that into the new contract / agreement. See CBA Clause 21.1.(d) below.

However if a Shiel type player only has 1 year to go, then that isn't an option

21. Player’s Contract
21.1 Standard Playing Contract
(a) All contracts for the playing of Australian Football entered into between a Player, an AFL Club and the AFL shall be in the form of the Standard Playing Contract.
(b) All Standard Playing Contracts, variations and Additional Service Agreements lodged with the AFL shall be supported by statutory declarations made by each of the following persons:

(d) The parties to a Standard Playing Contract, which contract has not been terminated, may vary the terms of the contract or renew the contract for a further term/s, by written agreement of the parties.

(e) All Standard Playing Contracts shall expire on 31 October in the final year of the Player’s contract unless the contract has been varied or renewed, in which case the contract shall expire on 31 October in the final year of the varied or renewed contract.

4. If its only a 1 year contract I would be pushing the club to go and help find a true independent Additional Services Agreement (see Clause 12 of the CBA) for me to sign a variation to my current contract to make up the short fall in the payment I would have got in 2019.

5. Its the AFL so they can make up any rules they like and if it wants to protect its investment in the GWS not fine them.

6. If they cant shift the payment to 2020 or find an independent ASA to make up for the short fall in a renegotiated contract to stay under the 2019 cap, then they can be sanctioned by the AFL for both $$$ and to lose draft picks.

The AFL could then take the amount they have sanctioned the GWS (or GC) and give it back to them as some sort of development / academy distribution <insert cynicism smiley>

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

1. If you are still using a fax in 2018 you deserve to be punished.

2. You have to have an under spend first, and then can have an over spend it future years. Its not the other way round as you stated above. See Clause 13 of the 2017-22 CBA



3. Unlike previous CBA's ( well my reading of CBA's since the 2003-2008 one) the 2017-22 CBA now allows players and the clubs to renegotiate contracts. The club and player could say renegotiate some of the salary to 2020 if you are going 2 years early and when the player gets traded the old club has to pay that delayed salary next year and its included in their cap. I doubt the player and club would move more than $200k-$300k back a year. The smart player and his manager puts that into the new contract / agreement. See CBA Clause 21.1.(d) below.

However if a Shiel type player only has 1 year to go, then that isn't an option



4. If its only a 1 year contract I would be pushing the club to go and help find a true independent Additional Services Agreement (see Clause 12 of the CBA) for me to sign a variation to my current contract to make up the short fall in the payment I would have got in 2019.

5. Its the AFL so they can make up any rules they like and if it wants to protect its investment in the GWS not fine them.

6. If they cant shift the payment to 2020 or find an independent ASA to make up for the short fall in a renegotiated contract to stay under the 2019 cap, then they can be sanctioned by the AFL for both $$$ and to lose draft picks.

The AFL could then take the amount they have sanctioned the GWS (or GC) and give it back to them as some sort of development / academy distribution <insert cynicism smiley>

So you've made an argument we're in breach that logically implodes up it's own rear end. Well done.

How do you answer the challenge that we cant be in breach of a TPP we've yet to make a payment for?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

So you've made an argument we're in breach that logically implodes up it's own rear end. Well done.

How do you answer the challenge that we cant be in breach of a TPP we've yet to make a payment for?

It wasnt my question. It was a hypothetical and I answered the hypothetical. I never said, the questions were real and gave an answer to a real situation. I thought it was obvious once the fax machine was mentioned.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

It wasnt my question. It was a hypothetical and I answered the hypothetical. I never said, the questions were real and gave an answer to a real situation. I thought it was obvious once the fax machine was mentioned.

Mmmm
Just pointing out that pesky 4th dimension.

You cant simply say in any scenario that a single contract would exceed a TPP that cant actually be predicted reliably. You can certainly be aware of the contracts yourl're carrying forward, but not the actual payments they require in many cases.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Mmmm
Just pointing out that pesky 4th dimension.

You cant simply say in any scenario that a single contract would exceed a TPP that cant actually be predicted reliably. You can certainly be aware of the contracts yourl're carrying forward, but not the actual payments they require in many cases.

Of course a single large contract can tip you over the TPP figure if you have stuffed up your calculations, which appears the GWS is getting itself into potential trouble with a couple of salary dump trades for a bugger all pick, especially Scully.

2019 is the last year the GWS gets extra allowance outside the cap and COLA was removed after some long term contracts were signed.

Once again, the OP was a scenario where the club did its sums, worked out the player had to be moved on, but stuffed up. Its a hypothetical - Geoffrey Robertson style - not likely to ever happen.

At the start of the century clubs wouldn't play certain players late in the season because match payments were larger than the minimum and the base guaranteed payment was a smaller percentage of the total package a payer got, compared to today and they were approaching the TPP limit. Part of that change occurred, so as to have greater certainty in handling the TPP limit especially after the AFL said each club had to pay a minimum of 92.5% of the cap and then upped that to 95%.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Of course a single large contract can tip you over the TPP figure if you have stuffed up your calculations, which appears the GWS is getting itself into potential trouble with a couple of salary dump trades for a bugger all pick, especially Scully.

2019 is the last year the GWS gets extra allowance outside the cap and COLA was removed after some long term contracts were signed.

Once again, the OP was a scenario where the club did its sums, worked out the player had to be moved on, but stuffed up. Its a hypothetical - Geoffrey Robertson style - not likely to ever happen.

At the start of the century clubs wouldn't play certain players late in the season because match payments were larger than the minimum and the base guaranteed payment was a smaller percentage of the total package a payer got, compared to today and they were approaching the TPP limit. Part of that change occurred, so as to have greater certainty in handling the TPP limit especially after the AFL said each club had to pay a minimum of 92.5% of the cap and then upped that to 95%.

The problem with that is the club cant possibly do the sums during trade period. There's delisting, DFA listting and the draft to come. The list is not known, again neither is the required payment on many contracts.
Even if we ignore all of that, and it obviously cant be ignored, the solution can be to alter any contract or contracts to the required amount.
We have many players coming off contract next year, and re-signing players allows the terms to be altered.

I believe we have already done this last year when we extended Shaw a year and backended his contract to free up money in this years cap to retain Kelly. Conceivably that puts more pressure on this years cap, when Kelly and Shaw have to be paid. It's all part of a bigger, very flexible, picture though.

I believe we have asked players to forgo bonuses they've earned to stay within the max TPP BTW.

The long term affect is actually like a rolling debt that has to bite at some point. Hence I believe the adjustment. People often quote Einstein "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". Very relevant in this discussion I think.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The problem with that is the club cant possibly do the sums during trade period. There's delisting, DFA listting and the draft to come. The list is not known, again neither is the required payment on many contracts.
Even if we ignore all of that, and it obviously cant be ignored, the solution can be to alter any contract or contracts to the required amount.
We have many players coming off contract next year, and re-signing players allows the terms to be altered.

I believe we have already done this last year when we extended Shaw a year and backended his contract to free up money in this years cap to retain Kelly. Conceivably that puts more pressure on this years cap, when Kelly and Shaw have to be paid. It's all part of a bigger, very flexible, picture though.

I believe we have asked players to forgo bonuses they've earned to stay within the max TPP BTW.

The long term affect is actually like a rolling debt that has to bite at some point. Hence I believe the adjustment. People often quote Einstein "everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler". Very relevant in this discussion I think.

Bullshit. you have a spreadsheet with about 10 different scenarios because the likelihood is you will move a max of 10 players. Its not that hard.

Once again look at the hypothetical, its that you did your sums, you had to move player X to get under the cap, but you stuff up the trade because of incompetence of "the fax machine," didnt work. The hypothetical isn't that you couldnt do the sums correctly.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Bullshit. you have a spreadsheet with about 10 different scenarios because the likelihood is you will move a max of 10 players. Its not that hard.

Once again look at the hypothetical, its that you did your sums, you had to move player X to get under the cap, but you stuff up the trade because of incompetence of "the fax machine," didnt work. The hypothetical isn't that you couldnt do the sums correctly.

Bullshit is an exasperated reponse and a determination not to adress a complex argument. I get it.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Bullshit is an exasperated reponse and a determination not to adress a complex argument. I get it.

No, Bullshit is a cut thru word to cut thru the crap.

There is useless bullshit and complete and utter ****en bullshit. You are more former than the later.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

No, Bullshit is a cut thru word to cut thru the crap.

There is useless bullshit and complete and utter ****en bullshit. You are more former than the later.

It's easier than trying to get your head around it. When you cant refute an argument and need to get personal it's done.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

It's easier than trying to get your head around it. When you cant refute an argument and need to get personal it's done.

I've got my head around it. I answered the question in the OP. You are free to ponder further scenarios that have nothing much to do with the OP's scenario.

Using bullshit isn't personal. I call it, when you see it. Anyway bullshit makes the world go round.

 

[courageous_tom]

Bullshit. you have a spreadsheet with about 10 different scenarios because the likelihood is you will move a max of 10 players. Its not that hard.

It's quite a simple thing to run a spreadsheet that maps out the next 4-5 years of your list. You input the known contracts that you've signed. You make up list spots with draft picks (known salaries). You estimate how much you think players will re-sign for. You estimate how much the cap will increase etc etc. Things like who wins the best and fairest might not be known in advance (for incentive payments) but the amount paid is usually the same, no matter who wins, so it's easy enough to include in calcs.