WC's Salary Cap

[BOND 007]

With the impending intorduction of GWS and the implications that will bring re players salaries does anybody else have doubts WC will be able to hold onto their youngsters ?

At end of 2007 they lost 2 players who at the time would have been close to their most highly paid. Fast foward 2 years from that time and they are unable to utilize pick 39 in the 2009 draft because they have to delist Stenglein after the 2009 season, and hence are left with Ryan Neates in the PSD. Nothing against Neates personally but there seems to be some serious accounting errors within the WC footballing dept if they are sailing so close to salary cap that they cant include Stengleins payments within 2009 - especially with the team they have.

What chance do they have of holding onto players of the ilk of Naitanui, Swift, Shuey, lecras etc in 2012

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

With the impending intorduction of GWS and the implications that will bring re players salaries does anybody else have doubts WC will be able to hold onto their youngsters ?

At end of 2007 they lost 2 players who at the time would have been close to their most highly paid. Fast foward 2 years from that time and they are unable to utilize pick 39 in the 2009 draft because they have to delist Stenglein after the 2009 season, and hence are left with Ryan Neates in the PSD. Nothing against Neates personally but there seems to be some serious accounting errors within the WC footballing dept if they are sailing so close to salary cap that they cant include Stengleins payments within 2009 - especially with the team they have.

What chance do they have of holding onto players of the ilk of Naitanui, Swift, Shuey, lecras etc in 2012

Have we ever lost a player because of money?

 

[BOND 007]

Have we ever lost a player because of money?

Well if you exclude Judd then the answer is no - however the playing field isnt what it used to be with GC and now GWS fighting for the same player pool.

I was also told that one of the reasons that WC was happy to entertain the Staker/Dalziell trade was the salary relief (albeit small) it offered.

 

[Marlin01]

Are you sure they cut Stenglein due to the SC?

Link?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Well if you exclude Judd then the answer is no - however the playing field isnt what it used to be with GC and now GWS fighting for the same player pool.

Of course you exclude Judd.

I was also told that one of the reasons that WC was happy to entertain the Staker/Dalziell trade was the salary relief (albeit small) it offered.

That's fine. Just another reason to do that deal.

The reality is that West Coast are among the shrewdest operators when it comes to managing player payments. I have the utmost confidence in our ability to juggle that.

 

[purple hater]

You would think that Kerr, Cox and Glass' contracts would be front loaded. That way they are being paid a heap while the rest of the squad is relatively young, and then less in future yaers as the squad matures and we need to pay the younger guys more.

I dont think I will lose any sleep about West Coasts ability to balance a ledger.

 

[larrikin]

You would think that Kerr, Cox and Glass' contracts would be front loaded. That way they are being paid a heap while the rest of the squad is relatively young, and then less in future yaers as the squad matures and we need to pay the younger guys more.

I dont think I will lose any sleep about West Coasts ability to balance a ledger.

Spot on

And in both Cox and Kerr's cases word was this was done to a massive extent.

 

[BOND 007]

Of course you exclude Judd.

That's fine. Just another reason to do that deal.

The reality is that West Coast are among the shrewdest operators when it comes to managing player payments. I have the utmost confidence in our ability to juggle that.

I generally agree with the sentiment however this years situation concerned me. Why would they have needed to have Stenglein's termination payment included in the 2010 figures if they werent sailing closer to the wind than they would have liked in 2009 ?

The net result of this was they were unable to utilize pick 39 in the draft which they handed over to Brissie as a goodwill gesture with Staker.
50 odd picks later they settled on Neates - this doesnt seem like they had all their ducks lined up in a row like they usually do

 

[joeyavalanche]

When it comes to handling financial issues as a club.
Not being biased.
But I dont think anyone holds a candle to West Coast.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I generally agree with the sentiment however this years situation concerned me. Why would they have needed to have Stenglein's termination payment included in the 2010 figures if they werent sailing closer to the wind than they would have liked in 2009 ?

Could just be protocol.

The net result of this was they were unable to utilize pick 39 in the draft which they handed over to Brissie as a goodwill gesture with Staker.

Not sure if that's the right conclusion.

Pick 39 may have been part of the deal all along, rather than a "goodwill gesture".

 

[WCErevival]

They couldnt be paying Wilkes surely.

 

[Brazen]

Will Cox, Glass and Embley's impending veteran status help out as a factor?

 

[larrikin]

Will Cox, Glass and Embley's impending veteran status help out as a factor?

Big time

 

[BartBart]

Interesting thought - Vet List will play a part in keeping players from moving under the Free Agency plans.

 

[BJF1]

I think Stenglien retired with a year to go on his contract so that maybe why it still counts this year

 

[Altum Volantes]

When it comes to handling financial issues as a club.
Not being biased.
But I dont think anyone holds a candle to West Coast.

They did give ASH HANSEN a 3 year contract...

 

[larrikin]

They did give ASH HANSEN a 3 year contract...

He's paying us though

 

[Hap Hapablap]

i think we have a shitload in our cap considering the calibre that we've lost in the past few seasons.

 

[the fox]

They did give ASH HANSEN a 3 year contract...

Yes they did and big money probably. Also a few of the other older guys.

 

[the fox]

They did give ASH HANSEN a 3 year contract...

I dont know how much there is to go around but next year maybe better.

 

[94_Eagles]

Exactly how legal is front/back loading a contract and to what extent can it be loaded?

 

[Byron_Clanger]

West Coast have always been great with the SC, there'll be no problems at all

 

[NYJetsfor2029]

I generally agree with the sentiment however this years situation concerned me. Why would they have needed to have Stenglein's termination payment included in the 2010 figures if they werent sailing closer to the wind than they would have liked in 2009 ?

The net result of this was they were unable to utilize pick 39 in the draft which they handed over to Brissie as a goodwill gesture with Staker.
50 odd picks later they settled on Neates - this doesnt seem like they had all their ducks lined up in a row like they usually do

Our Cap is very tight and always is, i've heard a few times before we always like to use at least 98% to keep players and AFLPA happy (and i must admit which club would you rather be at, Melbourne where they try to spend the minimum 92% or us with at least 98%).

Plus pick 39 certainly wasnt a good will gesture it was part of the deal. Pick 55 to the swans was the good will gesture because we were doing the stenglien thing anyway and maybe ripped them off a bit with Seaby.

 

[Mr Q]

I generally agree with the sentiment however this years situation concerned me. Why would they have needed to have Stenglein's termination payment included in the 2010 figures if they werent sailing closer to the wind than they would have liked in 2009 ?

I would expect because they budgeted Stenglein's 2010 salary into forward salary cap planning - he was contracted after all. Given that the Eagles would have freed up quite a lot with Hunter and Wirrpanda coming off the list at the end of last year, it's probably no more than an accounting thing to ensure they didn't have too much coming off in one season.

A lot of clubs sail close to the wind on this one. Indeed, in a few seasons, clubs have even breached their salary caps because injury payments have mounted up excessively high (Brisbane in 2007, Freo in 2001 of all years, even the Eagles back in about '97).

 

[greennick]

I would expect because they budgeted Stenglein's 2010 salary into forward salary cap planning - he was contracted after all. Given that the Eagles would have freed up quite a lot with Hunter and Wirrpanda coming off the list at the end of last year, it's probably no more than an accounting thing to ensure they didn't have too much coming off in one season.

A lot of clubs sail close to the wind on this one. Indeed, in a few seasons, clubs have even breached their salary caps because injury payments have mounted up excessively high (Brisbane in 2007, Freo in 2001 of all years, even the Eagles back in about '97).

Spot on. We just historically (and I assume now) frontload contracts so much in "slower" times that when we have significantly higher payments due to injuries to regular squad members, we are very often close to the salary cap and have to juggle a bit at the last minute. No doubt this is what happened last year, we didn't budget for Stinger leaving, but it happened late enough in the year that we couldn't juggle our payments around enough. Therefore we had to hold off delisting him till 2010 to stay under the SC. No doubt there is lots of room though being saved up for when the good times are rolling, we are not dumb arses paying 92% of the cap as some of the other lower ranked clubs are.