Confirmed Jackson Macrae: To Saints p/of 4-way trade: B. Smith (WB) & pick 45 to Geel / pick 38 to Carl / Macrae (WB) to StK / pick 17 & Kennedy (Carl) to WB

[Doggy]

By 1 person who never posts,

He would be on 1.2 million now if that was the case

Pretty sure it was Mojorisin

 

[sufficientintent]

It's already been said on our board he's not on that for 3 years at all

Which is complete rubbish. If a 3 time All-Australian isn't on that kind of salary, he has the worst manager in the world

Clearly just random Dogs fans trying to downplay the benefit of getting his salary off the books

 

[CarnTheScray]

By 1 person who never posts,

He would be on 1.2 million now if that was the case

So your view is closer to the truth simply because you post more?

 

[CarnTheScray]

Which is complete rubbish. If a 3 time All-Australian isn't on that kind of salary, he has the worst manager in the world

Clearly just random Dogs fans trying to downplay the benefit of getting his salary off the books

Even if he was getting paid the amount you believe, our salary cap is still not an issue.

Just because we are also a smaller club like St Kilda does not mean we treat our salary cap the same way St Kilda does.

 

[Foxman98]

So your view is closer to the truth simply because you post more?

No my view is closer to the truth simply because of logic and there is no journo going with him being on 400k on the back endo of his deal,

If that was the case we were front loading Macrae off a GF and would've had him on 1.2-1.4 million over the last 3 years not exactly plausible is it

 

[sufficientintent]

Even if he was getting paid the amount you believe, our salary cap is still not an issue.

Just because we are also a smaller club like St Kilda does not mean we treat our salary cap the same way St Kilda does.

Never said the salary cap was an issue. Just saying that he is obviously getting paid a decent amount, and it's naive to suggest he's not on $800k+ for the remainder of his contract.

That would obviously be beneficial for the Dogs to clear if they don't see him as an integral part of the team going forward, regardless of where it sits in the salary cap

 

[Foxman98]

Never said the salary cap was an issue. Just saying that he is obviously getting paid a decent amount, and it's naive to suggest he's not on $800k+ for the remainder of his contract.

That would obviously be beneficial for the Dogs to clear if they don't see him as an integral part of the team going forward, regardless of where it sits in the salary cap

We save cap space you replace and upgrade Crouch Macrae plays his natural position win for all parties

 

[sufficientintent]

We save cap space you replace and upgrade Crouch Macrae plays his natural position win for all parties

Stop being sensible. We must panic

 

[Ash1337]

Never said the salary cap was an issue. Just saying that he is obviously getting paid a decent amount, and it's naive to suggest he's not on $800k+ for the remainder of his contract.

That would obviously be beneficial for the Dogs to clear if they don't see him as an integral part of the team going forward, regardless of where it sits in the salary cap

His 800k is performance based so he's only getting that if he plays enough senior games. It's why he wants a trade to saints. His more playing opportunity is money based. Essentially makes him leaving for more money.

 

[Pencil case]

Saints have offered 47. That’s the best they could come up with? Is this some kind of joke? Guess they don’t want him, good luck to them.

 

[sufficientintent]

His 800k is performance based so he's only getting that if he plays enough senior games. It's why he wants a trade to saints. His more playing opportunity is money based. Essentially makes him leaving for more money.

What? That's not how player contracts work at all. A significant portion of his $800k would be retainer, he'd only be missing match day payments if he didn't play games, which would be a very small amount out of the 800 total

 

[Ash1337]

What? That's not how player contracts work at all. A significant portion of his $800k would be retainer, he'd only be missing match day payments if he didn't play games, which would be a very small amount out of the 800 total

I'm only passing on what was said. We had two different figures presented by media and itks. 1 is saying 800k while the other 600k the next 2 years. Today they said that both are correct but the 800k is including performance bonuses or such. Or as I read it. Idk how AFL contracts work. I know more about soccer contracts which can have bonuses for all sorts of things.

 

[Falchoon]

Saints have offered 47. That’s the best they could come up with? Is this some kind of joke? Guess they don’t want him, good luck to them.

Would like him for 2025, mildly interested for 2026 and not interested at all for 2027.

I would still prefer Kennedy, as may the Bulldogs.

 

[Falchoon]

I'm only passing on what was said. We had two different figures presented by media and itks. 1 is saying 800k while the other 600k the next 2 years. Today they said that both are correct but the 800k is including performance bonuses or such. Or as I read it. Idk how AFL contracts work. I know more about soccer contracts which can have bonuses for all sorts of things.

makes sense for a 33 year old,

ie 2027 is $600k base + $200k in potential add ons based on minimum games played and B&F placing etc.

 

[Ash1337]

Would like him for 2025, mildly interested for 2026 and not interested at all for 2027.

I would still prefer Kennedy, as may the Bulldogs.

I don't know why SoS is not chasing Kennedy. He's a utility type that wants to play mid. Could even throw him forward if a key player is injured.

 

[Veer Right]

Saints have offered 47. That’s the best they could come up with? Is this some kind of joke? Guess they don’t want him, good luck to them.

Personally i'd rather we get mid time into Hugo and Phillipou, rather then wasting time on a 30 year old that's somewhat passed his best.

Now in saying that i would of thought this was a fair deal for both parties. Macrae doesn't have to play bench warmer and he will if he stays because Bevo wants more speed in the middle and someone has to make way in your slow midfield.

Macrae will be useful in the interim but your not getting shit when it comes to picks.

 

[BEEG]

Saints always want players, when they get a sniff offer up crap.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

What? That's not how player contracts work at all. A significant portion of his $800k would be retainer, he'd only be missing match day payments if he didn't play games, which would be a very small amount out of the 800 total

You're getting confused with triggers/performance bonuses and retainer/match payments.

Macrae's 2027 salary - his retainer for 2027 - will is being determined by the extent that he performs well in 2025 and 2026.

For instance, (this is just an example and not the case of Macrae or whatever) if he only gets selected for fewer than 35 games over the two seasons or fails to reach the top 20 in the best and fairest in one of those seasons (or similar), his retainer for 2027 goes down from $800k to $600k or whatever.

It's still good money for a player who, on the condition they fail to reach those levels in 2025/26 will still be overpaid, but it minimises some of the salary cap pressure for a player not getting a game by that time.

It's not an ongoing payment on the current year that's for getting picked or whatever.

 

[sufficientintent]

You're getting confused with triggers/performance bonuses and retainer/match payments.

Macrae's 2027 salary - his retainer for 2027 - will is being determined by the extent that he performs well in 2025 and 2026.

For instance, (this is just an example and not the case of Macrae or whatever) if he only gets selected for fewer than 35 games over the two seasons or fails to reach the top 20 in the best and fairest in one of those seasons (or similar), his retainer for 2027 goes down from $800k to $600k or whatever.

It's still good money for a player who, on the condition they fail to reach those levels in 2025/26 will still be overpaid, but it minimises some of the salary cap pressure for a player not getting a game by that time.

It's not an ongoing payment on the current year that's for getting picked or whatever.

That's all fair, but in my view it would be incredibly strange for a 3 time All-Australian coming off a semi-recent premiership to have strict performance related bonuses and games triggers. He might have some, but they won't be hard to meet at all.

In any case, the same point stands - Macrae's manager would need to be fired if he's allowing a clause to be included in his client's contract where his client (who was a top 22 player in the comp at the time) can cop a 25% or similar pay cut if he doesn't hit lofty games targets or otherwise. The AFLPA also wouldn't allow clauses in contracts that allow for player salaries to be significantly reduced year to year, as it doesn't give the players financial certainty, so the amount that Macrae's contract can come down from $800k is going to be negligible.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

That's all fair, but in my view it would be incredibly strange for a 3 time All-Australian coming off a semi-recent premiership to have strict performance related bonuses and games triggers. He might have some, but they won't be hard to meet at all.

In any case, the same point stands - Macrae's manager would need to be fired if he's allowing a clause to be included in his client's contract where his client (who was a top 22 player in the comp at the time) can cop a 25% or similar pay cut if he doesn't hit lofty games targets or otherwise. The AFLPA also wouldn't allow clauses in contracts that allow for player salaries to be significantly reduced year to year, as it doesn't give the players financial certainty, so the amount that Macrae's contract can come down from $800k is going to be negligible.

It's becoming more and more standard for long term deals for good players.



It became more popular after teams such as Collingwood got themselves in strife having to dump Grundy and Treloar by still paying them (and others) big money despite having individual season or seasons where they were out of form, injured, etc.

 

[sufficientintent]

It's becoming more and more standard for long term deals for good players.



It became more popular after teams such as Collingwood got themselves in strife having to dump Grundy and Treloar by still paying them (and others) big money despite having individual season or seasons where they were out of form, injured, etc.

I hope you can see the difference between the inclusion of performance triggers in one season wonder Jake Waterman's contract signed last month vs three time All Australian (2019, 2020, 2021) Jack Macrae's contract signed in mid-2022.

No reason to suggest that Macrae would have agreed to strict performance / games triggers coming off back to back to back AA.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No reason to suggest that Macrae would have agreed to strict performance / games triggers coming off back to back to back AA.

I mean sure he would, if the overall money is higher. I know how these contracts worse.

He'd agree to it with the potential for higher earnings ie instead of $700k guaranteed he's getting $600k if he doesn't meet bonuses and $800k if he does meet bonuses.

It's strange that you seem so confused that it could possibly happen. It does happen. In fact, its by very virtue of the fact that Macrae himself will not get these bonuses should he stay at the Dogs and not get selected, and if he moves clubs, retains the bonuses and does get selected, that he is requesting the trade in the first place - he likes the Dogs as a club (obviously) but he also wants to get paid more money (which is not unreasonable).

 

[sufficientintent]

I mean sure he would, if the overall money is higher. I know how these contracts worse.

He'd agree to it with the potential for higher earnings ie instead of $700k guaranteed he's getting $600k if he doesn't meet bonuses and $800k if he does meet bonuses.

It's strange that you seem so confused that it could possibly happen. It does happen. In fact, its by very virtue of the fact that Macrae himself will not get these bonuses should he stay at the Dogs and not get selected, and if he moves clubs, retains the bonuses and does get selected, that he is requesting the trade in the first place - he likes the Dogs as a club (obviously) but he also wants to get paid more money (which is not unreasonable).

Not confused at all - I'm sure it happens, but not nearly in the magnitude that you're thinking (ie 100k per year). Player payments going up that much would be problematic for salary cap purposes, and down that much would not be allowed by the AFLPA, nor accepted by top tier players. But such a clause is also not guaranteed to be in Macrae's contract, which is what you're suggesting.

Could he be moving to maximise his total payments? Sure (likely, in fact, both for normal match payments and in the chance there are any performance/games triggers, which we don't know). Could he also be moving because he's being played completely out of position and might not be enjoying footy at the moment? Definitely.

 

[THE_GUN]

Cant believe this is taking this long
#45 is the right pick

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Player payments going up that much would be problematic for salary cap purposes,

Which is only why they're done for long-term deals, because the variable amount that may get paid in the final years of the deal can be anticipated and adjusted and accounted for with other contracts well in advance. It's not common even in three and four year deals.

and down that much would not be allowed by the AFLPA,

They are. We have deals (e.g. Mac Andrew) that have "four year triggers" in them. AFLPA's main concern is that all teams are paying their playing unit as a collective between 95 and 105% of the salary cap. The manner in which that payment is distributed they're not all that fussed about, provdied a listed player gets a minimum amount and that draftee contracts also have a game bonus (non-draftee contracts don't explicitly have a games played extra amount, some do).

But such a clause is also not guaranteed to be in Macrae's contract, which is what you're suggesting.

It is, because I know it is, because I've been told it is. All I can say is "trust me" but other Dogs posters on the board have more or less confirmed the same thing.

Could he be moving to maximise his total payments? Sure (likely, in fact, both for normal match payments and in the chance there are any performance/games triggers, which we don't know). Could he also be moving because he's being played completely out of position and might not be enjoying footy at the moment? Definitely.

I don't deny both are true but the key thing here is both.