Analysis Salary cap repair - What does that look like?

[Old Spice]

It was anticipated. That's why Sydney did the Buddy deal on top of the Tippett one. It's how Geelong could accommodate Dangerfield. Clubs know what is being asked for and they know about where the AFL will land.

The Franklin contract as well as the Tippett contracts were made in the context of COLA and the issue with Franklin in particular is with the length, not the cap space in any one year.

 

[MarkT2]

The Franklin contract as well as the Tippett contracts were made in the context of COLA and the issue with Franklin in particular is with the length, not the cap space in any one year.

Yes COLA helps for sure. The principle with Franklin's contract, as outlined by Andrew Ireland, was that even if he isn't playing for the last couple, of years, $1m won't be nearly as big an impost in the cap as it was when he was signed. Same applied with Brisbane and Alister Lynch. Ireland was involved in that deal as well. He specifically mentioned the expected increase - without articulating the expected magnitude from memory. The reality is The Clubs and the AFL communicate on these issues. Clubs are regularly briefed. The clubs know ball park where the negotiations will land. That's partly why the % or revenue was strongly fought off. It makes cap management difficult because the annual cap is uncertain years in advance.

 

[Quicky]

I don't know that there are any triggers.

That's not what i've heard.

 

[Quicky]

We all know that we paid overs for Mayne, but it's a bit of a leap then to be talking about emergency repair, which makes it sound as though we're over the cap and having to adjust the chairs.

Quicky where did you hear this?

Hey Spicey, meant to respond to this the other day, it was from the leaked presentation slides to the board the other week. Repair was the language they used in the slides.

 

[soreplums]

Salary cap repair may mean restructuring some contracts because we have a big fish ready to lock in.

Some money will free up at the end of 2018 with players in the last year of contracts. Combine this with freeing up cap space with delistings and replacing them and traded out players with draftees

 

[DrDavoren]

I think this is what our salary cap repair should look like with a one way bus ticket for Mayne

 

[jackcass]

The Franklin contract as well as the Tippett contracts were made in the context of COLA and the issue with Franklin in particular is with the length, not the cap space in any one year.

I don't understand this. COLA should be applied equally as a % increase to every players contract and I'd suspect that the contracts specify it will be paid while available. Why do people assume that it was not used in this way or that any 1 player benefited more than the remainder?

 

[Quicky]

The thing with the salary cap I think is in the review it got out (I can't remember if it was a bullet point on the slideshow channel 7 saw or if it was mentioned at the Bucks reappointment pressed) that there was an issue with the TPP structure and it needed to change. Everyone, particularly the ambo chasers like Barratt and Ralph have assumed that means that we have no room in the salary cap.

But I do think that Barratt and others are guessing. It's possible that the cap is tight but the fact that they are specifically talking about structure means they may not be referring to a tight cap. It may be that the current cap is unsustainable (i.e will lead to cap problems in the future) or how contacts are determined from a club perspective (i.e how did the Mayne and Wells contracts come about, was there enough accountability in place).

I hope you don't mind me quoting this post in this thread but it's relevant to the discussion

I tend to agree with you. I think an assumption has been made that the Mayne and Wells contracts have ruined our ability to find room in the cap. I don't think they help, but my recollection was that they were being used as mature stop gaps to get us within the 90% of the required cap spend. I'd love to know if that's true because it would mean we should still have some fat in there. The fact we were chasing Lever 800k suggests we have a bit space in there.

I think the Mayne contract in particular is problematic for it's length but I don't believe it's as high as being reported either and was front ended. I'm hoping the damage is limited by that.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Just a side note - the dogs are looking for a small forward and we're looking for a KPF

That's as I understand it but if he's then on-traded does that change the deal? Could we swap Hawthorn Mayne for Vickery and give both clubs an early out?

You'd think it would, and I'd be tipping the club would be certainly looking at all avenues

 

[jackcass]

Just a side note - the dogs are looking for a small forward and we're looking for a KPF

You'd think it would, and I'd be tipping the club would be certainly looking at all avenues

Players would need to agree to it.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Salary cap repair may mean restructuring some contracts because we have a big fish ready to lock in.

Some money will free up at the end of 2018 with players in the last year of contracts. Combine this with freeing up cap space with delistings and replacing them and traded out players with draftees

Hope you're right, a good KPF and confidence goes up!

 

[Carringbush2010]

Players would need to agree to it.

That's true and that all depends on how it "sold" to them

 

[Babylove]

I hope you don't mind me quoting this post in this thread but it's relevant to the discussion

I tend to agree with you. I think an assumption has been made that the Mayne and Wells contracts have ruined our ability to find room in the cap. I don't think they help, but my recollection was that they were being used as mature stop gaps to get us within the 90% of the required cap spend. I'd love to know if that's true because it would mean we should still have some fat in there. The fact we were chasing Lever 800k suggests we have a bit space in there.

I think the Mayne contract in particular is problematic for it's length but I don't believe it's as high as being reported either and was front ended. I'm hoping the damage is limited by that.

I can't remember specifically about Wells and Mayne, but I do recall Hine mentioning a couple of years ago in the member forums that that was a strategy they were using in managing the TPP in general.

 

[jackcass]

That's true and that all depends on how it "sold" to them

Doubt anyone could sell a "hey listen we're going to trade you to the Hawks so you can be sacked" when a player has a contract in place.

 

[Babylove]

I don't understand this. COLA should be applied equally as a % increase to every players contract and I'd suspect that the contracts specify it will be paid while available. Why do people assume that it was not used in this way or that any 1 player benefited more than the remainder?

Many industry people believed that Sydney were misusing COLA. Whilst it was intended to be used in the way that you described, it actually wasn't legislated that way. It was just extra money that Sydney had to use to keep players from wanting to return home by overcoming the cost of living discrepancies. However many within the industry believed that Sydney was rorting it which is how the got Tippett and Franklin and there must have been some compelling evidence as not only was it taken off Sydney but also GWS (at least in the form it was in. I can't recall if they replaced it, but Eddie hasn't mentioned it since) and you know that the AFL wouldn't bring GWS back to the pack in any measure unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Many industry people believed that Sydney were misusing COLA. Whilst it was intended to be used in the way that you described, it actually wasn't legislated that way. It was just extra money that Sydney had to use to keep players from wanting to return home by overcoming the cost of living discrepancies. However many within the industry believed that Sydney was rorting it which is how the got Tippett and Franklin and there must have been some compelling evidence as not only was it taken off Sydney but also GWS (at least in the form it was in. I can't recall if they replaced it, but Eddie hasn't mentioned it since) and you know that the AFL wouldn't bring GWS back to the pack in any measure unless absolutely necessary.

They both lost COLA as the AFL knew the academy system would be more beneficial for them & there was no way they could justify allowing them both.

The AFL takes with one hand but gives with Neil Mann sized hand with the other.

If it suits their agenda.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

I love that people keep suggesting we're still paying a chunk of Heater's salary. The guy will be three years retired and people will still be trotting that out.

 

[jackcass]

Many industry people believed that Sydney were misusing COLA. Whilst it was intended to be used in the way that you described, it actually wasn't legislated that way. It was just extra money that Sydney had to use to keep players from wanting to return home by overcoming the cost of living discrepancies. However many within the industry believed that Sydney was rorting it which is how the got Tippett and Franklin and there must have been some compelling evidence as not only was it taken off Sydney but also GWS (at least in the form it was in. I can't recall if they replaced it, but Eddie hasn't mentioned it since) and you know that the AFL wouldn't bring GWS back to the pack in any measure unless absolutely necessary.

But every contract is lodged with the AFL for scrutiny so that means it's an AFL sponsored rort. Long bow.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

AFL was fine with what Sydney was doing with Cola til they broke the rules with Tippett and then followed that up by biting the hand that fed it by messing up the AFL's Buddy to GWS plans.

 

[jackcass]

AFL was fine with what Sydney was doing with Cola til they broke the rules with Tippett and then followed that up by biting the hand that fed it by messing up the AFL's Buddy to GWS plans.

I don't doubt the 10% extra or whatever it was could make a difference to the Buddy and Tippett level contracts, 10% of $800k - $1m is $80-100k and not to be sneezed at, but it was that AFL who set the rules. They should have specified a cut-off salary level of (say) $250-300k and it would never have been an issue. Using the systems that are in place hardly constitutes a rort.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

I don't doubt the 10% extra or whatever it was could make a difference to the Buddy and Tippett level contracts, 10% of $800k - $1m is $80-100k and not to be sneezed at, but it was that AFL who set the rules. They should have specified a cut-off salary level of (say) $250-300k and it would never have been an issue. Using the systems that are in place hardly constitutes a rort.

I didn't say it was a rort. I implied that the AFL took it away as revenge after Sydney upset the AFL by causing controversy and harming GWS, at the same time that Foghorn McGuire down here was bitching about COLA.

 

[jackcass]

I didn't say it was a rort. I implied that the AFL took it away as revenge after Sydney upset the AFL by causing controversy and harming GWS, at the same time that Foghorn McGuire down here was bitching about COLA.

Not suggesting you did, was a reference to the themes of the conversation back through the thread.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Not suggesting you did, was a reference to the themes of the conversation back through the thread.