Numpties?
With hundreds upon hundreds of references, many written by journalists with more of an insight and connections to those involved than many of us - sources from the Herald Sun, The Age, Foxsports, Footy Classified - I may very well be wrong bud, but what I've written is based on evidence from a lot of sources.
*He later signed a seven-year, $7 million contract with the Bulldogs
*Then there's Boyd's contract — a whopping $7 million over seven years
*Boyd's stunning seven-year deal worth about $7 million
*Former Western Bulldogs champion says $7 million Tom Boyd contract is a 'monster risk'.
*The 2013 No.1 pick joined the Western Bulldogs on a seven-year contract understood to be worth about$7 million.
*By virtue of his seven-year $7 million contract Tom Boyd will always..
*First-year player Tom Boyd sent shockwaves through the footy industry after he scored himself a reported $7 million seven-year deal
*TOM Boyd arrived at the Bulldogs with a $7 million contract amid a media storm
*He is believed to be on over $7 million for seven years and after being paid around $200,000 under his standard second-year contract in 2015 will be earning well over $1 million a season. So he could be paid as much as $400,000 a season more than Hawkins in 2016 despite almost no exposed form.
There's other sources that quote $6mil and they could very well be right, but regardless of which figure is correct/incorrect, if it's not beyond you, maybe try contribute something to the discussion rather than one sentence pot-shots at people providing a (possibly factual) point of view that you don't like hearing.
With hundreds upon hundreds of references, many written by journalists with more of an insight and connections to those involved than many of us - sources from the Herald Sun, The Age, Foxsports, Footy Classified - I may very well be wrong bud, but what I've written is based on evidence from a lot of sources.
*He later signed a seven-year, $7 million contract with the Bulldogs
*Then there's Boyd's contract — a whopping $7 million over seven years
*Boyd's stunning seven-year deal worth about $7 million
*Former Western Bulldogs champion says $7 million Tom Boyd contract is a 'monster risk'.
*The 2013 No.1 pick joined the Western Bulldogs on a seven-year contract understood to be worth about$7 million.
*By virtue of his seven-year $7 million contract Tom Boyd will always..
*First-year player Tom Boyd sent shockwaves through the footy industry after he scored himself a reported $7 million seven-year deal
*TOM Boyd arrived at the Bulldogs with a $7 million contract amid a media storm
*He is believed to be on over $7 million for seven years and after being paid around $200,000 under his standard second-year contract in 2015 will be earning well over $1 million a season. So he could be paid as much as $400,000 a season more than Hawkins in 2016 despite almost no exposed form.
There's other sources that quote $6mil and they could very well be right, but regardless of which figure is correct/incorrect, if it's not beyond you, maybe try contribute something to the discussion rather than one sentence pot-shots at people providing a (possibly factual) point of view that you don't like hearing.
The reason that the $7 million comes around because it's the sum of the trade when you consider paying Griffen's salary.
I provided links above - and just to prove my point:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...n/news-story/32da7cfd105a328227b2725faef60a06
"estimated at $6 million"
etc.
I'm not denying the accumulative hit against the cap was, or is, slightly above $7 million across the 7 years from 2015-2021.
That's where the confusion comes from.
It's quite possible, even likely, that us submitting our contract to the AFL for the purposes of showing we remain under the salary cap, and also us submitting our paperwork to show we're paying Griffen in 2015, was done at the same time, or even in the same set of paperwork, at the time the trade was done. It's because of this reason people put two and two together - maybe through contacts at the clubs or AFL - and thing $7 million over 7 years is what Boyd's getting paid. It's not, but it is correct to say it's the cost of the trade in total. But Boyd's only getting paid $6 million over the 6 years from this year onwards, not $7 million, which is why I was pointing out it was incorrect.
It's easy to see where the confusion comes from. $7 million is the cost of paying players as a whole, as a function of the trade, both Boyd and Griffen. But we're paying Boyd $6.2 million over 7 years - maybe slightly more - 200k last year as part of the fixed amount that players receive on their initial two-year draftee contract, and $6 million over 6 years (which ties in to the fact that all media sources talk about an average of $1 million per year, not more than $1 million per year from this 6 year period). People get that confused. They talk about the cost to the club of making the trade, which cost us $7 million in accumulation. That is correct. But then they get that confused about how much Boyd is actually earning, (and therefore analysing his output compared to his salary), which is $6.2 over 7 years that he's contracted to the club.


