Tom Boyd

[Lach72]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...d/news-story/0bff54d0c32dd97f52a7eb4bfc899bbf


Love the 105 rule

Aware me of this rule pls.

 

[Mofra]

Aware me of this rule pls.

The simplified version is that if a club pays 95% of the cap one year, they can pay 105% of the cap in the following year.

There are a myriad of complexities that go along with it (phased amounts for previous years below 100% + penalties for any year in which a club did not reach the mandated 95% minimum).

Basically it's the reason we paid Griff last year - we needed to reach the 95% minimum.

Without the 105 rule we may not have gone so hard for Boyd, and we certainly wouldn't have added Suckling or go hard after potential targets this year.

 

[JeffDunne]

The bizarre thing about the recent criticism of Boyd is it was triggered by an incident that the Bulldogs themselves reported.

And they're still making public comments about him!

 

[Lach72]

The simplified version is that if a club pays 95% of the cap one year, they can pay 105% of the cap in the following year.

There are a myriad of complexities that go along with it (phased amounts for previous years below 100% + penalties for any year in which a club did not reach the mandated 95% minimum).

Basically it's the reason we paid Griff last year - we needed to reach the 95% minimum.

Without the 105 rule we may not have gone so hard for Boyd, and we certainly wouldn't have added Suckling or go hard after potential targets this year.

So...is this available to all clubs or just a few?

We're about to do a massive clean out...could pay 95% this coming year with all the new draftees, then load up for Hogan

 

[Mofra]

So...is this available to all clubs or just a few?

We're about to do a massive clean out...could pay 95% this coming year with all the new draftees, then load up for Hogan

All clubs - the rationale is to allow clubs near the bottom of the ladder to attract players to the club knowing they don't have the luxury of paying below market rates like top 4 teams who are challenging.
Wonder if we can think of any examples...

Edit: not sure if the expansion clubs can access this although they have been given their own golden ticket with list sizes, extra cap space and higher marketing allowance so shouldn't be complaining.

 

[JeffDunne]

So...is this available to all clubs or just a few?

We're about to do a massive clean out...could pay 95% this coming year with all the new draftees, then load up for Hogan

All clubs, provided they can prove they can pay for it.

Brisbane were denied for that reason (they couldn't).

 

[GetDimmaBack]

All clubs - the rationale is to allow clubs near the bottom of the ladder to attract players to the club knowing they don't have the luxury of paying below market rates like top 4 teams who are challenging.
Wonder if we can think of any examples...

Edit: not sure if the expansion clubs can access this although they have been given their own golden ticket with list sizes, extra cap space and higher marketing allowance so shouldn't be complaining.

Your explanations are spot on, Mof.

Clear, concise and so easily understood.

I just have one last one for you: how on earth are we going to keep all of our other players, let alone attract free agents, when Toyd is taking up so much of the salary cap?

 

[Mofra]

I just have one last one for you: how on earth are we going to keep all of our other players, let alone attract free agents, when Toyd is taking up so much of the salary cap?

We've already had a mass exodus of players. That's what was forecast in late October 2014 wasn't it?
We've only re-signed hacks like Dahlhaus, Bonti, Stringer, Macrae, Libba, Wallis, Dickson, McLean, Roughead, Daniel, Dale, Wood, etc
And brought in a FA (Suckling). Biggs was an impressive free hit.

 

[JeffDunne]

If the Bulldogs are a long way under the cap even with Boyd's contract then it means there's a lot of players on their list currently underpaid.

Well that's how they'll see it anyway.

This is either going to put pressure on their cap or it's going to cause divisions in the playing group if Boyd doesn't start living up to his contract. Bulldogs fans can deny that all they like but that's a reality of list management. The situation isn't helped at all by the president saying in the press that they have money to burn. No wonder they are having troubles with CEO's when the president makes stupid public comments like that.

Now Boyd may prove to be worth the money he's being paid & more but currently he's a long way off that. I could understand by Bulldogs getting upset at that but not for people stating the bleeding obvious.

 

[manboob]

Won't be a problem, Boyd, will be like Buddy have one year at crazy money and then the rest at regular dollars.

 

[Mofra]

This is either going to put pressure on their cap or it's going to cause divisions in the playing group if Boyd doesn't start living up to his contract. Bulldogs fans can deny that all they like but that's a reality of list management. The situation isn't helped at all by the president saying in the press that they have money to burn. No wonder they are having troubles with CEO's when the president makes stupid public comments like that.

Now Boyd may prove to be worth the money he's being paid & more but currently he's a long way off that. I could understand by Bulldogs getting upset at that but not for people stating the bleeding obvious.

Yet we've had a re-signing spree over the past year and a half.

Next challenge is 2018 with Bonti & Stringer coming off contract but hopefully by then the next Cap/TV rights distribution deal is completed.
Some have suggested the major weighting of Boyd's contract will be finished by the end of 2017, some say it's 2018 but it is certainly weighted towards the front end of the deal (with the exception of 2015 when he was paid the AFL mandated second year contract).

 

[GetDimmaBack]

We've already had a mass exodus of players. That's what was forecast in late October 2014 wasn't it?
We've only re-signed hacks like Dahlhaus, Bonti, Stringer, Macrae, Libba, Wallis, Dickson, McLean, Roughead, Daniel, Dale, Wood, etc
And brought in a FA (Suckling). Biggs was an impressive free hit.

Yeah, but we can't sign 'em all.

What about Boyd's contract?

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Won't be a problem, Boyd, will be like Buddy have one year at crazy money and then the rest at regular dollars.

This.

Lots of crazy posts which suggest a complete lack of understanding of the whole thing.

You're a breath of fresh air in a whole lot of smog, Manboob!

 

[bird_man]

Every club front loads contracts. Remember though he was on very little last year due to being a second year player, so they have to make up for that. And then they need to fit in 7 mil over the 7 years.

 

[Royal Flush]

Salary cap increases, broadcasting rights. It's relative, has zero impact as it impacts all clubs equally. Talk about front loading contracts isn't a new strategy and unique to the bulldogs. All clubs do it. Probably just a simple accounting spreadsheet, forecasting into the future. 1 million over seven years is 1 million over seven years irrespective of how it is structured, it's the equivalent of two gun players from Hawthorn, Geelong or Sydney (excluding buddy and tippet)

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Every club front loads contracts. Remember though he was on very little last year due to being a second year player, so they have to make up for that. And then they need to fit in 7 mil over the 7 years.

You're right, bird.

The club has said to members that his contract is heavily front loaded, and given the retirements of Murph, MBoyd, Morris and perhaps even Picken by the time many of the younger players are up for renewal, there will be plenty of cap room. The club has done it's figures, and I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise, to be honest.

Here's one for you: With Carlisle on $700k+ for 5 years, they're still in the chase for Hurley, who will want $800k+, probably for 5 years. How will
the Saints fit Steven, McCartin et al into the cap with so much money committed to these two?

Just wondering

 

[Substance]

6m over 7 years = 857k/year. That might include performance triggers so the real amount could be substantially lower. combined with the front loading, cap space opening up in 2018, and the increased salary cap with a new tv deal, i'm not worried atm.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

6m over 7 years = 857k/year. That might include performance triggers so the real amount could be substantially lower. combined with the front loading, cap space opening up in 2018, and the increased salary cap with a new tv deal, i'm not worried atm.

Not many of us Doggies are, really.

It's everyone else that has problems with it.

 

[Roadto2018]

You're right, bird.

The club has said to members that his contract is heavily front loaded, and given the retirements of Murph, MBoyd, Morris and perhaps even Picken by the time many of the younger players are up for renewal, there will be plenty of cap room. The club has done it's figures, and I'm not sure why anyone would think otherwise, to be honest.

Here's one for you: With Carlisle on $700k+ for 5 years, they're still in the chase for Hurley, who will want $800k+, probably for 5 years. How will
the Saints fit Steven, McCartin et al into the cap with so much money committed to these two?

Just wondering

Carlisle on less than 700k I believe not more, 50k taken off it after the snapchat thing as well

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Carlisle on less than 700k I believe not more, 50k taken off it after the snapchat thing as well

Fair enough.

Still, if Hurley goes the Saints, that would be about $1.5m for two players per year.

The same as Tom Boyd and Matt Suckling.

It's all relative.

 

[Roadto2018]

Fair enough.

Still, if Hurley goes the Saints, that would be about $1.5m for two players per year.

The same as Tom Boyd and Matt Suckling.

It's all relative.

True but we haven't signed Hurley yet so it's not really a valid point, Mccartin won't be on big money for a while anyway, Steven signed a 5 year deal so it'll be a while before he needs another contract

 

[bird_man]

Fair enough.

Still, if Hurley goes the Saints, that would be about $1.5m for two players per year.

The same as Tom Boyd and Matt Suckling.

It's all relative.

There you go, you have proven my point right there. Every club has players on big bucks, but it just so happens that the guy you are paying the most money to isn't very good and is showing little signs of becoming the player you hope.

Now tell me, would you really prefer Boyd and Suckling over Carlisle and Hurley?

I don't think Hurley will go to St Kilda, but it's a good point you've made.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

With tonight's first half efforts you can see why they went hard for him.

 

[Righteo]

With tonight's first half efforts you can see why they went hard for him.

With the coin he's on it's a disgrace he doesn't have 5 goals already

/BF

 

[ManOfClay]

With tonight's first half efforts you can see why they went hard for him.

It's so good having a big man who kicks set shot goals from outside 50