List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.2

[True Believer]

Where does anything state that the front or back end loading affects anything? Only the “average guaranteed base salary” is mentioned. Conflating the “5 years maximum consideration” and the loading is pure speculation, and would make the formula even more unfair. Two players of the same age getting exactly the same contract, with differing loading, would result in different compensation. Imagine the outrage at that?

Also, the yearly increase of 1% is complete guesswork and irrelevant. Future salary cap
Increase is not “guaranteed base salary”, and a contracts % of the salary cap currently, or in the future, is not part of the formula.

I know sometimes you have some ITK info, but you don’t need to try to know everything.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

The average matters because the contract is supposedly over 6 years, but the AFL only measure up to 5 years. So if the sixth year is lower and some of that year is bumped into year one through year five, that inflates the average over the five year period that they measure - it helps us!

 

[CursingFijian]

[emoji[emoji6

]

][emoji[emoji6

]

[emoji6

]]][emoji[emoji

[emoji[emoji6

]

Sorry CursingFijian you had me up to here & then I lost interest.

This some iOS18 vs Tapatalk anti Fijian matrix. Hopefully Chief and the crew get on top of it soon.

 

[CursingFijian]

I'm shocked to be sitting here hearing you made a brash statement with scant regard as to facts and objective truth.

He is one of us.

 

[_Maximus_12]

I'm shocked to be sitting here hearing you made a brash statement with scant regard as to facts and objective truth.

I’ll have you know that I have a great source that says he sleeps with the light on each night and has 4 sugars in his hot chocolate to make it sweeter

 

[stavro#4]

Its rises by 16.7%, not 20%. Also, if most clubs mirror the rise, then the increase makes 0% difference to the comparison to other players wages. That is simple mathematics.

You also noticeably didn’t address any of the other points.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Sorry mate you are right it’s a 16.7% increase across 3 years and no, you are now wrong as the “900k” required for band 1 this season is based on the current wages for 2025.

So whatever salary increase factored in are already accounted for across the league.

Therefor the threshold Battle needs is the above mentioned 900k average across his deal at Hawthorn. This can be achieved by a built in increase across his deal on what is the starting point in year 1 - let’s say 875k (hypothetical- I have no idea what he is on).

I never made the original point. I mentioned who did. Ask them.

 

[St Neil]

On the contrary I think it was a great move.

It seemed as if he was just speaking to the club faithful. And it was something we all loved to hear.

But he knew damn well the furore it would create in the broader industry. And let’s remember, any publicity is better than no publicity. He’s been talking about this all year. It’s not the first the AFL have heard about it, and now he’s placed the issue front and centre in the public eye.
And more, he said he’s not taking a backward step on it.

This guy didn’t build a multimillion dollar company by chance.
I think many of you underestimate him.

Bassat is smart.

Bassat is bloody ruthless.

I suspect the AFL, the media and other clubs have significantly underestimated him.

He won’t stop until he gets what is fair and equitable. The AFL may have now realised that it might be a good idea to work with him because he isn’t going away.

He is a magnificent President for our club. We are lucky to have him.

 

[PandaG]

So where are all the people saying Battle is coward or lack character for not showing up last night? Bunch of sheep

Maybe it’s the club that lacks a bit of character

Weak as p1ss from the club

Josh battle can collect a big bag of dicks

 

[austinnn]

Hammercock.

Shagmore

 

[Chief]

This some iOS18 vs Tapatalk anti Fijian matrix. Hopefully Chief and the crew get on top of it soon.

Email support@tapatalk.com with details. They are best placed to help.

 

[TheJackal]

I always thought it did, but not according to this: https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/free-agency

Maybe the original formula took B&F and Brownlow finishes into account? Or did I just make that up?

I recall something like that back in the Dal Santo/BJ days.

Edit: I can't find anything online confirming this. There is however information about B&F finishes relating to matching a FA contract offer, which is what we may be getting mixed up with.

 

[stfan]

Where does anything state that the front or back end loading affects anything? Only the “average guaranteed base salary” is mentioned.

I think it just that if "Hawthorns offer is front loaded" and that combined with " Band 1 compensation is based on the first 5 years" it is then thought that this may get the 5 year average over the $900K average, even though the 6 year (contract length ) average may be under $900K.

So the average being based on 5 years, rather than 6, in this case makes it more likely that we get Band 1.

 

[Sainter88]

Josh battle can collect a big bag of dicks

 

[Dr Spaceman]

 

[SteeleSaints]

On a tribal note, can you imagine the abuse Battle is going to get from Saints supporters if we don't get a band 1 compo. It will be epic supporters will turn up to the game just to give him a spray. Our games against Hawthorn might end up like their old games against Essendon.
BRING BACK THE BIFF!

 

[Tommy Wigs]

The average matters because the contract is supposedly over 6 years, but the AFL only measure up to 5 years. So if the sixth year is lower and some of that year is bumped into year one through year five, that inflates the average over the five year period that they measure - it helps us!

But what St Laz is saying is that these are two different things.

1. Length of contract: 5 years gets you max points
2. Contract $ average

I’ve not seen anything saying one way or the other that the average is the full length of the contract or if it’s aligned with the length criteria at 5 years. But it may be specified, I’m not sure.

 

[Significant]

But what St Laz is saying is that these are two different things.

1. Length of contract: 5 years gets you max points
2. Contract $ average

I’ve not seen anything saying one way or the other that the average is the full length of the contract or if it’s aligned with the length criteria at 5 years. But it may be specified, I’m not sure.

That was my take as well. Contract length is one criteria (up to 5 years max) and average annual wage another. Two separate criteria.

 

[SalfordRed]

Just watched the clips of Bassat.

What's the story with his voice? That a melting pot of accents or an impediment?

Edit: I'm an idiot.

 

[ScrappyDo]

Just watched the clips of Bassat.

What's the story with his voice? That a melting pot of accents or an impediment?

He's deaf dude

 

[Ads734]

There is a hidden “discount” in the whole FS/NGA pick trading scenario also. Clubs get 20% (soon to be 10%) discount. But also, when they put their early pick up for auction (such at GC likely trading out 12 this year). All clubs out forward their best offer which is a higher value pick set than the single early pick. So they might gain 20% extra in pick value from the trade, and then get a 20% discount as well.

Force them to have a pick in the same round and only use 1 other max to make up the value.

Also no need for academies. AFL should just fund them and the kids go into the pool. Northern clubs can pick locals if they want to remove go-home factor. AFL can pay the northern clubs to run the academies if they want, but there’s no need to give them the access to the kids. They can come home in the future if they want and pay fair value.
What are we achieving in having GC pay for and run the academy when AFL owns GC anyway?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Re the academies have been arguing this for years.

The fact that JUH was in an academy is a disgrace. The whole system is racist and corrupt.

Interesting fact Josh Wirral if not for an admin error would have saints academy

 

[pebblesofsand]

That was my take as well. Contract length is one criteria (up to 5 years max) and average annual wage another. Two separate criteria.

That's correct. Otherwise it becomes too easy to manipulate.

So Battles average guaranteed wage over the guaranteed length of his contract will be compared against everyone else's wage in 2025.

His will be something like $875k per year.

That will easily place him in the top 10% of all players (around 60 players) and then because he gets bonus points for age (10 out of a maximum of 12) and length of contract (3 points???) he will easily move into the top 5%.

Don't forget that the vast majority of players on slightly higher wages are much older than Battle.

Band 1

 

[Saintbloke]

Bassat is smart.

Bassat is bloody ruthless.

I suspect the AFL, the media and other clubs have significantly underestimated him.

He won’t stop until he gets what is fair and equitable. The AFL may have now realised that it might be a good idea to work with him because he isn’t going away.

He is a magnificent President for our club. We are lucky to have him.

I think you will find all our presidents have raised these matters behind closed doors with the AFL for years up to now, and largely fallen on deaf ears, but at least Bassat has allowed his thoughts to go public and appear in the media, and we will see what the reaction is from the AFL, but don't hold your breath.
We as a club have made many dumb decisions for years with our recruiting on and off the field, and could have had more premierships if leadership was stronger.

 

[botts]

That's correct. Otherwise it becomes too easy to manipulate.

So Battles average guaranteed wage over the guaranteed length of his contract will be compared against everyone else's wage in 2025.

His will be something like $875k per year.

That will easily place him in the top 10% of all players (around 60 players) and then because he gets bonus points for age (10 out of a maximum of 12) and length of contract (3 points???) he will easily move into the top 5%.

Don't forget that the vast majority of players on slightly higher wages are much older than Battle.

Band 1

I though he turns 26 this year that mean he doesn’t get max points for his age

 

[Significant]

I though he turns 26 this year that mean he doesn’t get max points for his age

26 is the youngest you can be coming into free agency (8 years service from 18), unless you have a late birthday (which both Perryman and McKay do).

 

[pebblesofsand]

I though he turns 26 this year that mean he doesn’t get max points for his age

Yep - 12 points for 25 yo (Harry Perryman), 10 points for 26 yo (Josh Battle), 8 for 27 yo etc etc and no extra points for players above 30.

I see Perryman has nominated Collingwood (let me guess - "I'm going because it gives me the chance to play marquee games in front of big crowds at the MCG").

Just reinforces Bassat's comments about how the draft, fixture, FA and Academy's significantly disadvantage some clubs.

 

[stavro#4]

26 is the youngest you can be coming into free agency (8 years service from 18), unless you have a late birthday (which both Perryman and McKay do).

The “Late birthday” is such a cop out. Players are all drafted because of birth year. But for free agency we split the tiering up by birth months and….

Battle misses out by 1 month