List Mgmt. 2023 List Management

[4flagsin5yrs]

What are you assuming in terms of other player salaries? Eg if TDK doesn't leave...probably add another $300k+ per year.

Out of the top 6 that you've said are goneski, only Paddy would be on huge coin. (I don't think McGovern leaves).

I'm not saying we won't have space - just that your analysis doesn't show much at all really.

It wasn't an "analysis", it was a list.

And really, we know the average AFL salary is circa $400k, right?

Of those 12, Dow, Ed, Fish, Marchy (dare I say), Plow, JSOS would all be higher that.....

New blokes (draftees) on less than the average by some margin.

Need I join the dots?

 

[marcmurphy3]

Not sure why anyone would run with the tight cap narrative. The AFL have strict rules in place that force every team (regardless of talent or ladder position) to pay extremely close to the cap limit. It's not like the NBA where you can hold over large amounts of cap space year after year in the hope that a star player will want to come to you. Our cap system is like a tight rope.

That's true though you can push money forward to reach your cap floor in early years, creating space in later years and vice versa.

I think when people are talking about tight cap they are referring to a clubs overall position not just where they are sitting for the year ahead.

2 clubs could be paying the same amount of the cap this year with one owing massive amounts in years to come and another not much. I wouldn't say those clubs are in the same position capwise even though their current payments are roughly in line.

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

It's pretty obvious we have a very tight cap. Yeah the media exaggerates but we have signed a lot of players on big long term contracts over the last few years. More then other clubs. Doesn't take much logic to deduce that we don't have a lot of room to move. Not an ideal position to be in if you aren't even challenging.

Now that doesn't mean we are completely stuck. There are always ways to create more flexibility. Just depends how desperate we are and what we need to bring in.

I personally think we have more then enough stars to challenge so the shortage of funds isn't a huge issue. You cant have stars in every position. We just need our stars to actually play to their potential. Role players we should still be able to afford to recruit if we are short somewhere.

I'm happy with the strategy of hitting the draft for a few years. After that we will have flexibility again to pursue high end out of contract players. Also best for our age profile. I do think we need to trade a couple of surplus players to boost our picks in line with this approach. TDK the most obvious if we can get at least a mid first for him or a late first and change.

It's analogous, sort of, to the full/overflowing hospital pitch....

They need to be close to full to be profitable/working optimally....too empty, you're not doing your job well.

 

[Monty1978]

I thought every team would be close to the cap. Don’t you have to be above 95% so 5% wiggle room isn’t that much regardless of team.. the problem we have is we over paid for our stars and the ones we recruited have not lived up to the price we paid for them.
I feel we will be in a better position this year and the following years once the plowman and Dow’s , martins and gov”s are gone and we don’t over pay TDK

 

[FRUMPY]

I thought every team would be close to the cap. Don’t you have to be above 95% so 5% wiggle room isn’t that much regardless of team.. the problem we have is we over paid for our stars and the ones we recruited have not lived up to the price we paid for them.
I feel we will be in a better position this year and the following years once the plowman and Dow’s , martins and gov”s are gone and we don’t over pay TDK

Its a reason i roll my eyes at people laughing at north paying someone like corr $700k a year (or what ever it is). They have to pay 95% of the cap (or thereabouts) so you need to pay BOG average players more than they are worth to get to 95% (in his instance, to go from one club to theirs). I presume the rule is there on behalf of players and agents who can then ask for their other clients to get more for their better players in negotiations.

For instance, we pay Dow $400k a year (example only) and his manager goes to carlton for Fisher and says, 'you are paying Dow $400k a year to play VFL, Fisher deserves $500k minimum' (allnames and figures are just examples, not facts, wouldnt havea clue who manages who)

 

[DangerousD]

Think you and DangerousD have gotten as close to agreeing as you'll get. End of the day there's noise in the media about a tight cap, and at the very least our CEO's comments are consistent with that.

Not sure what you're trying to achieve here by dragging it out.

It’s all good, we have finished our back and fourth

 

[Juddernaut08]

It wasn't an "analysis", it was a list.

And really, we know the average AFL salary is circa $400k, right?

Of those 12, Dow, Ed, Fish, Marchy (dare I say), Plow, JSOS would all be higher that.....

New blokes (draftees) on less than the average by some margin.

Need I join the dots?

If you do the Maths, you'll see that of the 'goneski' list, there's not much being freed up at all. The people you've said 'might be traded' can't be taken into account because they might not happen.

I'm not trying to pick a fight so apologies if you've taken it that way. I just think your list shows close to nothing of relevance to the point you're trying to make.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I think a “tight cap” can also mean no big contracts coming out which makes things harder to work around.
Teams like Geelong obviously have a heap coming to an end. (Plus Selwood last year which I think people overlook)
Collingwood have players like Pendlebury, Sidebottom and Howe nearly all coming to an end. Plus Mihocek, Cox, Adams, Crisp and Mitchell who turn 30 or older this year where we only have Curnow, Newman and Doc.

If Martin and Gov were front ended contracts then we won’t actually save a lot when they come out too.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Looking at who falls out of contract in 24, Durdin, Lemmey, Carroll, Jack Martin

19

Jack Martin

Age

29

Ht

186cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.2

4star

K

10.0

4star

HB

6.3

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.7

5star

G

0.9

4star

D

14.9

4star

K

7.9

3star

HB

7.0

4star

M

4.3

4star

T

3.6

4star

G

1.1

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

4.6

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.6

3star

, Binns, Boyd, Lob, Cotterell, Owies.. you would think unless any of them have major breakout years none of them will be pushing for a significant increase, most will just be happy to be contracted again.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Its a reason i roll my eyes at people laughing at north paying someone like corr $700k a year (or what ever it is). They have to pay 95% of the cap (or thereabouts) so you need to pay BOG average players more than they are worth to get to 95% (in his instance, to go from one club to theirs). I presume the rule is there on behalf of players and agents who can then ask for their other clients to get more for their better players in negotiations.

For instance, we pay Dow $400k a year (example only) and his manager goes to carlton for Fisher and says, 'you are paying Dow $400k a year to play VFL, Fisher deserves $500k minimum' (allnames and figures are just examples, not facts, wouldnt havea clue who manages who)

I suspect the rule is part of equalisation. They don't want poor clubs cutting down on player wages to help their bottom line.

Probably needs some reviewing though as I don't think any club would actually do that. It's not like there are any real consequences to being an unprofitable afl club.

 

[HarryFlashman]

I suspect the rule is part of equalisation. They don't want poor clubs cutting down on player wages to help their bottom line.

Probably needs some reviewing though as I don't think any club would actually do that. It's not like there are any real consequences to being an unprofitable afl club.

I don’t like that’s there’s a “salary collar”. Cap ($13.54m) makes perfect sense, but a “collar” where u have to have a minimum spend especially when it 95% ($12.86m). It’s only $600k variance, if u haven’t got the talent that deserves the cash, or if u can get your players to take less than market value to bring in an extra player then good luck to u.
Current system runs way to close to the line and takes very little to balls up.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I suspect the rule is part of equalisation. They don't want poor clubs cutting down on player wages to help their bottom line.

Probably needs some reviewing though as I don't think any club would actually do that. It's not like there are any real consequences to being an unprofitable afl club.

That works for the AFL and the AFLPA are hardly going to allow the industry to pay them less

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

That works for the AFL and the AFLPA are hardly going to allow the industry to pay them less

However it hinders the poor clubs as they end up paying average players far too much and then lock themselves in a vicious cycle

 

[FRUMPY]

However it hinders the poor clubs as they end up paying average players far too much and then lock themselves in a vicious cycle

The point still stands though - the players wont agree to being paid less. The AFL would need to increase the cap and keep the minimum as is, or in other words, another win for the players.

 

[jj1978]

Surely at least freeing up Dow, Marchbank, Ed, Fogarty, Honey, McGov (which we should do) at least at the end of this season will free up a decent amount.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

The point still stands though - the players wont agree to being paid less. The AFL would need to increase the cap and keep the minimum as is, or in other words, another win for the players.

Agree but it naturally increases annually regardless, if the AFLPA and AFL renegotiated that clubs could choose to spend more in the soft cap offset by not spending as much in salary cap, the outlay would be the same but struggling clubs would be able to tip more into player development which would benifit the club and players more in the long run than paying someone like Nick Larkey a million dollars a year.

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

It’s all good, we have finished our back and fourth

The names I names - let's say the first six are on average of $475k, their replacements on $275k (as draftees) - there's 6 x $200k or $1.2m saved.

The balance on average $400k, replaced by 275k types there's 6 x $125k or $725k saved.

Do you want me to add $1.2m and $0.725m?

Loose numbers surely, but "nothing of relevance"?

 

[katmanblue]

the guv, jack martin

19

Jack Martin

Age

29

Ht

186cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.2

4star

K

10.0

4star

HB

6.3

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.7

5star

G

0.9

4star

D

14.9

4star

K

7.9

3star

HB

7.0

4star

M

4.3

4star

T

3.6

4star

G

1.1

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

4.6

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.6

3star

and Williams (so far) trades have worked out badly for us. No luck at all.

Just watching front bar and Burgoyne is on. Apparently hawks risked trading him while he was under knee surgery. Goes on to play 250 more games and 3 flags.

We desperately need some luck nailing a couple of trades. Players that comes in and make immediate impact.

They had Jack Russell to manage his recovery. Where do we get someone like that?

On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[katmanblue]

We all hope that the players we retained are worth the contracts they signed and maybe if we are tight cap wise it’s temporary, time will tell, a big worry for me is, a club who hasn’t played finals in 10 years shouldn’t be tight cap wise.

Clubs above us, with stronger lists had enough $$$$ to target ready made players they needed, the premier even had money to take on a dud contract to get them pick 7, something that we couldn’t afford to do.

We will see what happens.

95% is the salary cap floor.

Every team is at close to 100%, the expiring contracts that give cap space.

The fact that we have many high paid players on long contracts could be seen as an issue, but I don't think it is.

Those players are locked in. The contracts are locked in, hopefully they aren't indexed to the salary cap.

There will be a major increase in cap space soon, so if we have those guys at previous cap levels then we'll have plenty of cap space available soon.


On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

95% is the salary cap floor.

Every team is at close to 100%, the expiring contracts that give cap space.

The fact that we have many high paid players on long contracts could be seen as an issue, but I don't think it is.

Those players are locked in. The contracts are locked in, hopefully they aren't indexed to the salary cap.

There will be a major increase in cap space soon, so if we have those guys at previous cap levels then we'll have plenty of cap space available soon.


On SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

in fact it's a boon.

Those long term contracts can be massaged to back or front (or other) end payments as required....

 

[gbatman]

Is our cap tight as in we are paying 100% of our salary cap this year or is it tight as in we don't have much room next year? Media people don't necessarily understand how player salary is managed. All clubs should be paying 100% of their salary cap each season, that is how you open your cap up down the track.

If you get to get to a point where you're paying 95% of your cap, that's when your get guys like Cripps and Weitering in and say to them, that you want to renegotiate their contract, pay them extra this season and a little less next but it all adds up to the same for the contract's duration.

Again, what we need to know is whether we have cap pressure for next year and following seasons or is this just the media translating Carlton are paying 100% of their cap (which all clubs should be) into Carlton have cap pressure?

If you are paying under your salary cap you are missing opportunities to front load contracts and will miss opportunities to open your cap up in the future.

We still seem to be able to bring in mature quality players like Acres. Not sure the cap pressure that is reported is real.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Is our cap tight as in we are paying 100% of our salary cap this year or is it tight as in we don't have much room next year? Media people don't necessarily understand how player salary is managed. All clubs should be paying 100% of their salary cap each season, that is how you open your cap up down the track.

If you get to get to a point where you're paying 95% of your cap, that's when your get guys like Cripps and Weitering in and say to them, that you want to renegotiate their contract, pay them extra this season and a little less next but it all adds up to the same for the contract's duration.

Again, what we need to know is whether we have cap pressure for next year and following seasons or is this just the media translating Carlton are paying 100% of their cap (which all clubs should be) into Carlton have cap pressure?

If you are paying under your salary cap you are missing opportunities to front load contracts and will miss opportunities to open your cap up in the future.

We still seem to be able to bring in mature quality players like Acres. Not sure the cap pressure that is reported is real.

I don't think the media commentary has anything to do with what we are paying this year for the reasons you highlighted. It's more around money we have committed to in the future.

Acres was only brought in on 350k a year. I think we can manage recruiting that type fine. Where we are limited is bringing in the 600k plus types

 

[DangerousD]

clearly maths is not your strong point.

The names I names - let's say the first six are on average of $475k, their replacements on $275k (as draftees) - there's 6 x $200k or $1.2m saved.

The balance on average $400k, replaced by 275k types there's 6 x $125k or $725k saved.

Do you want me to add $1.2m and $0.725m?

Loose numbers surely, but "nothing of relevance"?

(yes, you are spoiling for a fight)

Im not great at maths and I ain’t spoiling for no fight, I also dont think this post was supposed to be for me.

 

[gbatman]

I don't think the media commentary has anything to do with what we are paying this year for the reasons you highlighted. It's more around money we have committed to in the future.

Acres was only brought in on 350k a year. I think we can manage recruiting that type fine. Where we are limited is bringing in the 600k plus types

We've signed guys up on massive length contracts, IMO that's only a good then when it comes to salary cap management. It also has no bearing on whether we have cap pressure or not. Still going to be paying those players then regardless of contract length, you would hope anyway.

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

Im not great at maths and I ain’t spoiling for no fight, I also dont think this post was supposed to be for me.

No, it wasn't!