Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Iva Bigun]

Sounds about right from my understanding. Other point is that GC extra in the cap will decrease over time IIRC, Sydneys extra allowance just goes on forever.
Lets hope City Hall put an end to the Swans allowance it next year!!!!

Is that Gotham city hall

 

[Tex200]

Sydney would need 4 x 1mil to pick him up too in that case.

Correct.

What has me curious are these reports that tippett is starting to stress over his playing future. If Sydney were 100% committed to pricing all comers out and they would do that regardless of a likely 4-10 week suspension, you would think Kurt would be surfing without a care in the world.

As it is he is on the aflpa door step agitating about his fate.

I'm thinking that whilst Sydney may not have abandoned him completely, its likely also they cannot guarantee their offer will be enough for him to slide through.

 

[Dr B]

Can't back or front load contacts in the PSD, flat time for cap purposes. If he ageed to a 800, 800, 1.2, 1.2 deal with sydney, they will still incur a 1.2 whack on the TPP ledger.

My understanding is that if you nominate a back ended deal any club wishing to pick you up need to meet the total dollars. They would not need to back end the deal, which in GWS's case would not be something they would want to do.

So if KT nominated the deal that I said then GWS would be quite within their right to pay him a 1.0m a year for 4 years.

 

[fairfooty]

Correct.

What has me curious are these reports that tippett is starting to stress over his playing future. If Sydney were 100% committed to pricing all comers out and they would do that regardless of a likely 4-10 week suspension, you would think Kurt would be surfing without a care in the world.

As it is he is on the aflpa door step agitating about his fate.

I'm thinking that whilst Sydney may not have abandoned him completely, its likely also they cannot guarantee their offer will be enough for him to slide through.

Yep I think this is right. If you join the dots correctly you can only come to one conclusion. Tippett would not be crying to the Players Union if he had had a conversation with Sydney saying they would even most likely pick him up in the PSD. And thats why the word aroudn is 'he is fearful for his playing future'.

The Players Union isn't stupid. While making all the right noises publicly (this is what unions do), behind the scenes they will be recognising this is a situation of Tippetts own making. So while they'll help him, there has been no injustice done here, so they won't bend over backwards for him or publicly got for the throat. Union/employer deals are done behind the scenes - and they won't jeopardise that working relationship for plain dumb, badly behaved employees.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I just dropped by to see if Steven Trigg was still the CEO.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Yeah, fairly sure it's AFL promotion/advertising, not TPP.

Brisbane's allowance has rightly ended, about time $ydney's did too... they're very definitely established now. However, if the current investigation reveals a higher cost of living in Sydney, surely the allowance could be continued but limited to rookies and players on less than $150k and administered by the AFL to eliminate any speculation.

10k per player living in Sydney would do it. That equals about 1/2 of what they are getting at the moment.

 

[CrowHop]

If they wanted him bad enough, surely they should just pay market value (or close enough) for him at trade time instead of trying to reem us with a piss poor offer. Hope he goes to GWS.

 

[MattyB_76]

My understanding is that if you nominate a back ended deal any club wishing to pick you up need to meet the total dollars. They would not need to back end the deal, which in GWS's case would not be something they would want to do.

So if KT nominated the deal that I said then GWS would be quite within their right to pay him a 1.0m a year for 4 years.

No, if KT nominates a back-ended contract, other clubs would need to match it exactly as specified in the nomination.

If you only choose to nominate "a total $$ over X years", clubs can forward or back end as they like. If you nominate specifically, clubs must match that.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Folau isn't under their cap though. Well, most of it isn't. Giants probably pay $200k for Izzy. The AFL pays the rest from their own pocket.

This is a good point.

$800,000 of his salary is marketing - not playing salary.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

If KT nominates a 4 year contract that he thinks Sydney can afford ie: 800k 800k 1.2m 1.2m. Total 4m the GWS would need to match it in time and total amount. 4 x 1.0m

sydneys cap would still count as 1mil 1mil 1.2 1.2

so if they need to pay him 800 in the first 2 years he HAS to nominate 800k or they cant afford him, at which point GWS can get him for 800k

 

[JasRulz63]

if you
look next year will lose bradshaw off our list he was on 400,000 and goodes okeefe lewis roberts thomson and bolton onto the veterans list in 2013

Wouldn't Goodes, O'Keefe and Bolton already be on the veterans list? LRT would only go on the veterans list under the new rules, however that's offset by the max for veterans being $100,000 each outside of the cap (rather than half for two veterans, a third for three veterans etc.). Sydney would probably keep the old rules as they'd have more room that way (you'd assume Goodes, ROK and Bolton are being paid more than $100,000 each outside of the cap).

I think the interesting thing will be that the contract Tippett nominates will probably be without the COL, therefore being lower than what Sydney would actually pay him if he gets there. However it being lower means more clubs may be able to afford him. He can't nominate higher because then COL would be stacked on top of what he nominates I'm assuming.

 

[MRB37]

I am pretty sure I've heard somwhere that Folau and Hunt's wages do not fall under the salary cap, they have some sort of marquee status due to them being a alternate code athlete or something along those lines.

Yep, it's the "Alternate Talent" rule

In addition, clubs have the capacity to attract elite athletes from other sports under the ‘Alternative Talent’ Rule. The player may not have been registered or played in an Australian Football competition for at least three years, and have played in a recognised elite sporting competition. Clubs may offer one spot under this rule. Player payments are outside the salary cap if he does not play senior football, with a pro-rata payment inside the cap for any senior matches. A player may remain on the ‘Alternative Talent’ list for three years, before being placed on the Primary List.

Crows used it last year to sign basketballer Ben Dowdell.

 

[Dr B]

sydneys cap would still count as 1mil 1mil 1.2 1.2

so if they need to pay him 800 in the first 2 years he HAS to nominate 800k or they cant afford him, at which point GWS can get him for 800k

Can you show us where you got that info from. It is not my understanding of how it works, but happy to be corrected.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Can you show us where you got that info from. It is not my understanding of how it works, but happy to be corrected.

From Vader somewhere in the last 730 pages

 

[cmndstab]

This is an enormous loss in and of itself. If Kurt is worth 2 first rounders, then the AFL refusing to allow that trade means that at best we have already lost one first round pick, and more realistically (had we not been so stupid) two. To lose another first rounder smacks as unfair and if we lose anything on top of that in terms of draft picks we should be livid. This is not even in the realm of what Carlton did.

Well yes, but we were only the position to trade for two first rounders because we did this illegal deal to begin with. That's like stealing some jewelry, getting caught, and then saying that you have already been penalised by not being allowed to sell them.


Had we not made this offer, Tippett would have been traded back in 2009 when his value was realistically closer to a single first rounder - and it's not as though this offer was taken away from us by the AFL. We gambled it away on this illegal deal.

 

[MattyB_76]

Can you show us where you got that info from. It is not my understanding of how it works, but happy to be corrected.

You can start with the AFL Draft Nomination Rules: http://www.nabafldraftnom.com.au/images/AFL Draft Booklet 2012.pdf

Nominated Football Payments
A player (other than a first-year draft choice or a second-year player) may specify in the nomination form the football payments he will require over two years if selected at a Draft Selection Meeting. ** note - the form actually discusses the ability to nominate payments over 2-5 years

By specifying these requirements, the player will be taken to have made an offer to the Club which selects him to accept employment in return for the specified payments. The Club that selects a player who has specified payment requirements will be deemed to have accepted the offer. Immediately following the Draft Selection Meeting, the player and the Club will execute a Contract of Service providing for the specified payments.

It doesn't specifically talk about the dollars from the contact being the dollars paid under the salary cap, but in the light of recent discussions, that's a pretty safe bet.

 

[Vader]

From Vader somewhere in the last 730 pages

Yeah.. that's not actually quite right.. as I came to conclude with some of the later posts.

He can specify what payments he wants, over a minimum of 2 years. Those payments don't have to be at the same rate every year.

So, if he specifies a minimum 4-year contract, with payments of $800k, $800k, $1.2M, $1.2M, then that's what he has to get paid - and that's what shows up on the TPP.

 

[Vader]

And if Sydney lose their concessions they could have a large chunk of their cap tied up with Kurt. Also they will be informing all those premiership players that their highest paid player isn't one of them. It's got to cause some angst.

Agreed. Having the AFL review their CoL allowance, with the potential to severely curtail it (given the way they are obviously abusing it with the recruitment of KT), represents a huge risk to Sydney. They may find themselves in the position of having more vested in the later years of KT's contract than they first thought.

 

[Dr B]

You can start with the AFL Draft Nomination Rules: http://www.nabafldraftnom.com.au/images/AFL Draft Booklet 2012.pdf



It doesn't specifically talk about the dollars from the contact being the dollars paid under the salary cap, but in the light of recent discussions, that's a pretty safe bet.

Thanks for that. I can't see anything though that supports what you were saying though. I may do some more digging.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Yeah.. that's not actually quite right.. as I came to conclude with some of the later posts.

He can specify what payments he wants, over a minimum of 2 years. Those payments don't have to be at the same rate every year.

So, if he specifies a minimum 4-year contract, with payments of $800k, $800k, $1.2M, $1.2M, then that's what he has to get paid - and that's what shows up on the TPP.

ok my bad

 

[Vader]

We don't know that. Your just guessing.

We know that Brisbane's CEO (?) stated that they offered around $750k per year and didn't come close to matching Sydney's offer. Thus the conclusion that Sydney offered $1M per year, or very close to it.

We know that Ireland (Sydney's CEO) stated that his salary in 2013 would be less than what Adelaide offered, once again reported to be around the $750k mark.

We know that Goodes, Bolton and several other high profile players are expected to retire in 2013, thus freeing up a large proportion of Sydney's salary cap.

So.. if he's on roughly $1M per year, over the 4-year contract - and the first year's salary is less than $750k, then the contract must be backloaded to the extent that he's earning well over $1M in the latter years of the contract.

 

[Vader]

Sydney in 2013 have extra money in their cap because Bradshaw has finally dropped off their payment schedule, reportedly $400k/yr.

Also they have delisted Seaby, Moore, Meredith, Gordon and traded out Spangher, Dennis-Lane and Heath (rookie), have I missed anyone? Not big money players but cumulatively it adds up to to quite a bit.

Of all the players listed, most would have been on very close to minimum wages. Sydney have to draft new players to replace them and the salaries of the outgoing will be very close to matching those of the incoming players. No gain here.

Losing Bradshaw's salary will definitely help them though, but he's only one player.

 

[Vader]

When they couldn't dump white onto us they offloaded two others late in the trading. Would have to think that was in response to not being able to get rid of white.

I still think that we are just guessing if we think we know what Sydney's salary cap situation is. Is Bolton going to play on next year. I'm not sure but if he isn't then that would surely make a large difference. Do they have any other players with back ended contracts, also who is on there veterans list. I don't know the answer to any of these questions and I am guessing not many on BF would either

Would have to think that was in response to them getting offers for players who were going to be delisted anyway. None of the players they traded would have been on much more than minimum wages - effectively balanced by the new player they're going to have to draft in order to replace them.

 

[MattyB_76]

Thanks for that. I can't see anything though that supports what you were saying though. I may do some more digging.

What additional information would you like to see? That quote (and the form on the website) deals with the nominations from the player to the nomination form (either total amount over X years, or specific amounts in specific years), and how the nominated amount is automatically included in the Contract of Service.

 

[Mego Red]

good point. is there a precedent in any other major sporting league anywhere in the world? I can't think of one off the top of my head and I imagine variations in cost of living would be much greater in the US with cities like New York and Oklahoma City for example.

It's much worse in the US - they have exchange rate issues (Canada) and the issue of state income taxes - or in the case on NYC, state AND city income taxes. And yet no one gets allowances there. If anything, the expensive cities are that way because they're more desirable places to live.