Why we only took 1 rookie.

[Bentleigh]

I know there was alot of up-roar with us only taking Will Thursfield but there will be some reasoning behind it. My 2 cents.

- First, the shyte reason. We are with Knoble & Wallce contract rumour was we cannot afford to pay to pay for any more than 1. Really though I dont think our current list is good enough to be payed anywhere near 100% of the salary cap. When the likes of Meyer, Deledio & Tambling are 21/22/23 then id be expecting us to be paying near that amount.

- The primary reason i beleive is that the club is looking forwards. Currently, in:


Hartigan, Brent
Foley, Nathan (R)
Schulz, Jay
Roach, Thomas
Archibald, Kyle
Pattison, Adam
Raines, Andrew
Thursfield, Will
Jackson, Daniel
Gilmour, Alex
Meyer, Danny
Polo, Dean
Tambling, Richard
Limbach, Dean
McGuane, Luke
Deledio, Brett

We have 16 players 19 years of age and under. Add to that:

Coughlan, Mark
Newman, Chris
Hyde, Chris
Krakouer, Andrew
Rodan, David
Moore, Kelvin

and thats 22 players, over half our list aged 22 or younger.

Now. say 80% of these players make it as AFL players. In 5 years thats, hopfully qualtity 18 odd players in the 22-27 age bracket. Under the salaray cap we are going to struggle to keep them all.

Look at Saint Kilda now. They have a top class young list. However, there most concerned with keeping Dal Santo, Ball, Riewoldt types thus losing players they would ideally like to keep in Black & Knobel along the way. A trend that would continue in the future.

Similar to us, in the future you'd assume Deledio, Coughlan, Jackson, Tambling, Meyer types would be the ones we'd most want to keep.

Saying all that I would have liked us to got a few more Rookies - the more you have the more chance of 1 comming good. However, there maybe was some reasoning behind it.

 

[Weaver]

- First, the shyte reason. We are with Knoble & Wallce contract rumour was we cannot afford to pay to pay for any more than 1. Really though I dont think our current list is good enough to be payed anywhere near 100% of the salary cap. When the likes of Meyer, Deledio & Tambling are 21/22/23 then id be expecting us to be paying near that amount.

There are two numbers to keep in mind.

1. The salary cap. We are nowhere near it.
2. The club's internal budget for player payments. This number might be (for example) 95% of the salary cap.

The reason we could not afford more rookies is that it would have put us over budget (2), not over the cap (1).

We will be counting on the retirements of Campbell and Richardson in the next few years to clear up a LOT of salary cap space. We are in real danger of being under the minimum and will almost be compelled to go after a big contract player in the next 2 years to get to the minimum.

 

[corporal]

We will be counting on the retirements of Campbell and Richardson in the next few years to clear up a LOT of salary cap space. We are in real danger of being under the minimum and will almost be compelled to go after a big contract player in the next 2 years to get to the minimum.

Enter Judd!

 

[Bentleigh]

We are in real danger of being under the minimum and will almost be compelled to go after a big contract player in the next 2 years to get to the minimum.

You see us going for a Nick Stevens, Jade Rawlings type over the next year or 2?

Enter Judd!

 

[Tambo]

i wouldnt bother...... we'll have our own shortly

 

[jezza]

As for the rookies, Weaver is spot on, we could afford more under the cap, but it's a matter of limiting expenses at the moment. That was the reason as well for selecting a Melbourne based rookie in Thursfield, as opposed to one who would require relocation costs.

I agree that it is a real possibility at the moment that the club are intentionally keeping a lot of cap space free for a high profile recruit, but I wouldn't be looking at a Judd, it's a KPP that we'll be needing, by that time we'll have 20-odd midfielders on the list.

One issue will be who moves on to the veterans list. I'd expect Campbell, Graham and Stafford to retire at the end of the year, leaving Richo on the vets list. I can't recall the exact rule (could someone please clarify the criteria), but I don't think we'll have anyone else applicable. Only Kellaway will be 30 by the time next season starts and if he can be put on, I don't think it will be a big saving cap wise. I am pretty sure Gaspar won't be eligible until the 2007 season (DOB 20/05/1976). We'll have the same issue for a while until the likes of Brown, Johnson, Bowden and Simmonds reach 30. This will be a problem because as all our kids develop, we're going to need all the cap space we can get.

 

[jezza]

OK, regarding veterans (from the CBA):

13.2 A Player is eligible for inclusion on an AFL Club’s Veterans List or to be classified
as a veteran, on the Primary List if:
(a) the Player has been at the AFL Club on the Primary List for at least ten (10)
years; and


(b) the Player is 30 years of age or older as at 30 September in the relevant AFL
Season,

I take part (b) to mean that the player can be moved onto the vets list when they are 29, as long as they turn 30 before Sept 30 of that year.

So by I think this year only Campbell and Richo were eligible.

In 2006, Campbell, Richo, Gaspar and Kellaway are eligible.

In 2007, Campbell, Richo, Gas, Kellaway and Chaffey are eligible.

So we should be ok for players to put on there, although Chaffey and Kellaway probably won't be a big saving when it comes to their turn after others have retired.

 

[Weaver]

So by I think this year only Campbell and Richo were eligible.

In 2006, Campbell, Richo, Gaspar and Kellaway are eligible.

In 2007, Campbell, Richo, Gas, Kellaway and Chaffey are eligible.

2005 - Campbell, Richardson
2006 - Gaspar
2007 - Kellaway, Chaffey
2008 - Bowden
2009 - Tivendale, Hilton

And just to clarify. Johnson, Brown, Simmonds will never be eligible because they won't play 10 years with us.

 

[Weaver]

You see us going for a Nick Stevens, Jade Rawlings type over the next year or 2?

Probably a Nathan Thompson, Josh Carr type. Not a superstar but a senior player looking for a 2-3 year deal.

I think that is part of the reason that aren't too concerned about giving Simmonds and Krakouer long term deals.

If Campbell, Gaspar, A.Kellaway and Stafford left at the end of the year (as some suggest) we could be looking at paying only 88-90% of the cap, which is below the 92-94% (?) figure. We would basically have to throw $400k at someone to get to the minimum.

 

[jezza]

2005 - Campbell, Richardson
2006 - Gaspar
2007 - Kellaway, Chaffey
2008 - Bowden
2009 - Tivendale, Hilton

And just to clarify. Johnson, Brown, Simmonds will never be eligible because they won't play 10 years with us.

Thanks for that. In a few years it's likely a lot of those blokes will be gone, we might be struggling to get much use out of the concession.

 

[Bentleigh]

Probably a Nathan Thompson, Josh Carr type. Not a superstar but a senior player looking for a 2-3 year deal.

I think that is part of the reason that aren't too concerned about giving Simmonds and Krakouer long term deals.

If Campbell, Gaspar, A.Kellaway and Stafford left at the end of the year (as some suggest) we could be looking at paying only 88-90% of the cap, which is below the 92-94% (?) figure. We would basically have to throw $400k at someone to get to the minimum.

Places big importance on a couple of the Kellaway, Gaspar, Chaffey, Campbell, Graham, Tivendale, Morrison, Tuck, Pettifer types to prove they are worth keeping on the list 2006 and onwards.

.One issue will be who moves on to the veterans list. I'd expect Campbell, Graham and Stafford to retire at the end of the year, leaving Richo on the vets list.

This will be a problem because as all our kids develop, we're going to need all the cap space we can get.

Graham will play on 2006. I beleive he has a 2 year contract.

There is plenty of spots on our list as it is for kids to get game. The like of Pettifer, Morrison & Hall will not play infront of the Limbach, Meyer & Gilmour types unless they are desevre to.

 

[Tambo]

And just to clarify. Johnson, Brown, Simmonds will never be eligible because they won't play 10 years with us.

but what if they reach 30? dont they then become eligible?

 

[Bentleigh]

but what if they reach 30? dont they then become eligible?

You have to be 30 and have played 10 years at the club I beleive.

 

[jezza]

but what if they reach 30? dont they then become eligible?

Nope, has to be 30 AND 10 years at the club.

 

[Tambo]

Nope, has to be 30 AND 10 years at the club.

oh okay! ived learnt something!

 

[jezza]

I learnt Kane Johnson will be eligible for the veterans list in 2013

 

[Tambo]

I learnt Kane Johnson will be eligible for the veterans list in 2013

heheheh! thats acheivable

 

[Weaver]

Thanks for that. In a few years it's likely a lot of those blokes will be gone, we might be struggling to get much use out of the concession.

Hilton has managed 7 years so far without ever managing to actually earn a game. He'll make it.

 

[Bentleigh]

Hilton has managed 7 years so far without ever managing to actually earn a game. He'll make it.

Lets hope not.

Unless he shows a dramaticly inprovment he looks being the first in line to be delisted at the end of the season.

 

[telsor]

We've all heard of back ended contracts...just wondering if Richmond might get into a situation where they might be looking to front-end some contracts so we reach the 92% minimum.

We do have a definate problem with the clubs finances affecting what we can spend though and while I'm not expecting much ont he field this year, hopefully there will be enough glimpses of whats to come to convince some sponsors that they want to get in early for some big/long term deals.

 

[jezza]

All of this is dependant of course on the sequence of retirements at the club. We could very well end up with Richo and Gas staying around for another few years which will probably prevent any cap problems.

By the way, it's a much nicer problem to have being close to the minimum rather than the max....

 

[CJH]

We've all heard of back ended contracts...just wondering if Richmond might get into a situation where they might be looking to front-end some contracts so we reach the 92% minimum.

We do have a definate problem with the clubs finances affecting what we can spend though and while I'm not expecting much ont he field this year, hopefully there will be enough glimpses of whats to come to convince some sponsors that they want to get in early for some big/long term deals.

Wasn't Gaspar's original contract 'front-ended' to scare off Melbourne who had Pick #1 in the PSD?

 

[OneEyedHawk]

I know there was alot of up-roar with us only taking Will Thursfield but there will be some reasoning behind it. My 2 cents.

- First, the shyte reason. We are with Knoble & Wallce contract rumour was we cannot afford to pay to pay for any more than 1. Really though I dont think our current list is good enough to be payed anywhere near 100% of the salary cap. When the likes of Meyer, Deledio & Tambling are 21/22/23 then id be expecting us to be paying near that amount.

- The primary reason i beleive is that the club is looking forwards. Currently, in:


Hartigan, Brent
Foley, Nathan (R)
Schulz, Jay
Roach, Thomas
Archibald, Kyle
Pattison, Adam
Raines, Andrew
Thursfield, Will
Jackson, Daniel
Gilmour, Alex
Meyer, Danny
Polo, Dean
Tambling, Richard
Limbach, Dean
McGuane, Luke
Deledio, Brett

We have 16 players 19 years of age and under. Add to that:

Coughlan, Mark
Newman, Chris
Hyde, Chris
Krakouer, Andrew
Rodan, David
Moore, Kelvin

and thats 22 players, over half our list aged 22 or younger.

Now. say 80% of these players make it as AFL players. In 5 years thats, hopfully qualtity 18 odd players in the 22-27 age bracket. Under the salaray cap we are going to struggle to keep them all.

Look at Saint Kilda now. They have a top class young list. However, there most concerned with keeping Dal Santo, Ball, Riewoldt types thus losing players they would ideally like to keep in Black & Knobel along the way. A trend that would continue in the future.

Similar to us, in the future you'd assume Deledio, Coughlan, Jackson, Tambling, Meyer types would be the ones we'd most want to keep.

Saying all that I would have liked us to got a few more Rookies - the more you have the more chance of 1 comming good. However, there maybe was some reasoning behind it.

So your theory is that Richmond only took 1 rookie because in a few years time their young list will be so good they couldn't possibly fit them all into the cap? So they just pass on the available talent now? What happens if a certain percentage of them fail to make the grade, then you passed up the opportunity to get some good young talent for nothing. Highly unlikely this would be their reasoning. Wouldn't it be a better idea to ge as much good talent as you possibly can and worry about potential salary cap issues when they happen ie.StKilda. Am sure 16 out of 16 clubs would rather be in the postion of having such a good list that they may have salary cap issues down the track than pass up talent now so they can leave salary cap room sometime in the future.
Being over their budget now sounds much more likely, yours is a pretty average theory IMO.

 

[Tambo]

telling us about getting most talent? what happened with tambling? thought he was the best player in the draft?

 

[jezza]

So your theory is that Richmond only took 1 rookie because in a few years time their young list will be so good they couldn't possibly fit them all into the cap? So they just pass on the available talent now? What happens if a certain percentage of them fail to make the grade, then you passed up the opportunity to get some good young talent for nothing. Highly unlikely this would be their reasoning. Wouldn't it be a better idea to ge as much good talent as you possibly can and worry about potential salary cap issues when they happen ie.StKilda. Am sure 16 out of 16 clubs would rather be in the postion of having such a good list that they may have salary cap issues down the track than pass up talent now so they can leave salary cap room sometime in the future.
Being over their budget now sounds much more likely, yours is a pretty average theory IMO.

I think if you read the other posts you'll see that the issue is internal budgeting, not salary cap issues. We have a financial plan in place so that at worst this year we make a small loss and then a definite profit in 2006. That's when we'll start making full use of the rookie list. Until then, the belt stays fastened.