Meeting the Salary Cap

[stkildathunda]

Chris Pelchan - Salary cap issue is NOT doom & gloom as media has made out. Would be very surprised if any star player walks out.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

yeah but if the PA negotiate a change in the cap it affects everyone?

Yes but only the financials, not the concept of free agency.

 

[SamFisher25]

Chris Pelchan - Salary cap issue is NOT doom & gloom as media has made out. Would be very surprised if any star player walks out.

all but told caro to shut her fat face

Yes but only the financials, not the concept of free agency.

your original point on cap re-modelling as it relates to free agency is well made

 

[SaintsSeptember]

If true then Free Agency would seem to pay the big names more, at the expense of the GOP's.
I wonder who convinced the rank and file that this would be a good idea.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

If true then Free Agency would seem to pay the big names more, at the expense of the GOP's.
I wonder who convinced the rank and file that this would be a good idea.

Not necessarily SS. A 10 year player for example can walk for nothing, although some compensation may occur in terms of draft picks, etc. Gives a player a shot at moving to a club he would otherwise have no chance of getting to because a trade woulod be too difficult to work out.

8 year players are different. The opposition club can make an offer and their current club has the opportunity to match the offer. All in the eye of the beholder.

The difficult part is preparing to have the cap space in order to make an offer at someone in 2 or 3 years time as they reach qualification status.

 

[The Punter]

A ten year player must have come out of contract at least once before to be eligible for free agency.

It means Brendon Goddard is not eligible for free agency next year.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

A ten year player must have come out of contract at least once before to be eligible for free agency.

It means Brendon Goddard is not eligible for free agency next year.

I'm confused on this point. Goddard would have negotiated another contract since his original when he was drafted.

 

[Defacto]

dont we only need to delist 3?

 

[Armitage2Riewoldt]

dont we only need to delist 3?

Seems no one is quite sure. But I think 3 is the minimum.

 

[Confuscius]

I'm confused on this point. Goddard would have negotiated another contract since his original when he was drafted.

Unless we've been re-signing and extending contracts before any of them have expired?

 

[Kildonan]

dont we only need to delist 3?

The rule was that clubs must delist at least 3 players and recruit three more, but that may be overcome by counting a rookie promotion as one of the players turned over.

We have already acquired 2 players (Saad, Milera) plus we have 6 draft picks (#25, #35, #37, #42, #60, #68) which we intend to use so that is a turnover of 2 + 6 = 8 players [at least].

If we decide to promote rookies we are almost definitely going to use draft picks beyond #68, but for each rookie promoted we will have to delist another main list player.

So the maths suggest 8 players to delist with a possibility of more.

We already have delisted Gardiner, Baker, McQualter, and Lynch from the main list - so we need to delist 4 more players in order to use all the draft picks listed.

What people have been doing is looking at who is already contracted and who is not to see who most likely will be delisted. Sometimes it is not the worst players who are most at risk, it's more who's out of contract now...

hope that helps

 

[Defacto]

The rule was that clubs must delist at least 3 players and recruit three more, but that may be overcome by counting a rookie promotion as one of the players turned over.

We have already acquired 2 players (Saad, Milera) plus we have 6 draft picks (#25, #35, #37, #42, #60, #68) which we intend to use so that is a turnover of 2 + 6 = 8 players [at least].

If we decide to promote rookies we are almost definitely going to use draft picks beyond #68, but for each rookie promoted we will have to delist another main list player.

So the maths suggest 8 players to delist with a possibility of more.

We already have delisted Gardiner, Baker, McQualter, and Lynch from the main list - so we need to delist 4 more players in order to use all the draft picks listed.

What people have been doing is looking at who is already contracted and who is not to see who most likely will be delisted. Sometimes it is not the worst players who are most at risk, it's more who's out of contract now...

hope that helps

dont we currently have 3 on the rookie list?
39 on the senior list (including the 2 new recruits)?

we could have 3 veterans. which means we have 36 on the senior list. so if we want to draft 6 on the senior we only need to delist 2 more? 1 if were keeping archer on the rookie list.

 

[Kildonan]

Looking at the AFLPA agreement 2011

"...the maximum Primary List size shall be 38 and Veterans List size shall be 2".
("There shall be a limit of two Players that may be placed on a Club’s Veterans List with no limit on the number of Players that may be classified as veterans on the AFL Club’s Primary List".)
"The minimum number of Players on the Club’s Primary List and Veterans List
combined shall be 38".

I think we currently have 37 players on the senior list + 1 veteran (Hayes).
(Archer is currently listed on senior list on Saints web site but is still a rookie).

I think we currently have 4 players on the Rookie list (counting Archer)

I expect we will place another player (?Milne) onto the Veteran list which makes the list 36 and 2.

Assuming that we will use all 6 of our draft picks - it means we still need to delist four players to alllow that to happen.

i.e. 36 main list + 2 veterans

delist 4 = 32 main list + 2 veterans

recruit 6 = 38 main list + 2 veterans

Page 97 of the agreement shows that we can only have 4 rookies if we have a maximum list of 38 players and 2 veterans but there may be an exception with the NSW scholarship players

 

[Defacto]

Looking at the AFLPA agreement 2011

"...the maximum Primary List size shall be 38 and Veterans List size shall be 2".
("There shall be a limit of two Players that may be placed on a Club’s Veterans List with no limit on the number of Players that may be classified as veterans on the AFL Club’s Primary List".)
"The minimum number of Players on the Club’s Primary List and Veterans List
combined shall be 38".

I think we currently have 37 players on the senior list + 1 veteran (Hayes).
(Archer is currently listed on senior list on Saints web site but is still a rookie).

I think we currently have 4 players on the Rookie list (counting Archer)

I expect we will place another player (?Milne) onto the Veteran list which makes the list 36 and 2.

Assuming that we will use all 6 of our draft picks - it means we still need to delist four players to alllow that to happen.

i.e. 36 main list + 2 veterans

delist 4 = 32 main list + 2 veterans

recruit 6 = 38 main list + 2 veterans

Page 97 of the agreement shows that we can only have 4 rookies if we have a maximum list of 38 players and 2 veterans but there may be an exception with the NSW scholarship players

legend!!! that clears up so much confusion.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

Unless we've been re-signing and extending contracts before any of them have expired?

I don't believe that qualifies.

 

[The Punter]

They basically have to get to a point where they don't have a contract to play football, then they re-sign. If they sign extensions while under contract, then they have never come out of contract.

There is a very similar rule under the pre-lockout NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement that relates to no-trade clauses, stating that to be eligible to have one in your contract, you have to have come out of contract, and then re-sign with your original team (only one player has ever qualified: Kobe Bryant).

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

They basically have to get to a point where they don't have a contract to play football, then they re-sign. If they sign extensions while under contract, then they have never come out of contract.

There is a very similar rule under the pre-lockout NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement that relates to no-trade clauses, stating that to be eligible to have one in your contract, you have to have come out of contract, and then re-sign with your original team (only one player has ever qualified: Kobe Bryant).

I understand your point, but thought it was semantics.

Is that documented anywhere our new opening batsman?

 

[The Punter]

I have seen the AFL's page on free agency quoted in this regard somewhere on this veritable forum (BigFooty).

 

[StFly]

Under the agreement:

• Players delisted by a club on or before 31 October will be unrestricted free agents.

• Players who are not in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their clubs will be eligible for unrestricted free agency if they have served eight years on the primary list of the club.

• Players who are in the top 25 per cent of salaries at their club will be eligible for restricted free agency for their first new contract after they have served eight years on the primary list of the club. This is the case regardless of when the first new contract arises. For example, a player who is contracted after his seventh year for two, three, four or years will still only be eligible for restricted free agency for his next contracts as a nine, 10, or 11 year player.

• A top 25 per cent player will then be eligible for unrestricted free agency for his next contract, provided that a player can’t be an unrestricted free agent until completing at least 10 years service at one clubs.

• Restricted free agents have the right to move to a club of their choice subject to the current club’s right of first refusal over their services. That is, if the current club can match the offer from a rival club, the player must stay or enter the draft. The tabled offer only includes capped salary and capped ASA amounts.

• Compensation in the form of AFL allocated draft picks will apply to clubs with a net loss of free agents. This will be based on a formula to be determined by the AFL.

• The Veterans List allowance will be amended to apply to players with 10 years service at one club and will be based on a set amount of TPP per player calculated as a percentage of TPP.

• The AFL will closely monitor access to uncapped third party independent arrangements.

• All player investments with associates must be lodged with the AFL.
The new system will commence at the end of 2012 after the entry of Team GWS into the competition, and will remain in place until reviewed at the end of 2016.

The sticking point is of course once again with the AFL's use of terminology in what constitutes a "new" contract as opposed to a pre-existing one, as one could be of the opinion that an extension of a contract is a new contract because it is not the initial length of the previous contract entered into and thus terms are altered which effectively rewrites the original contract. You then also have to consider the AFL throwing around "spirit of the rules" (ala GWS circumvention of "limited" trading practices that were scuttled) where letter of the law pales in comparison to "that's not how it was intended".

Ultimately until the AFL update the process instead of linking to articles and thoughts from 2010 we're stuck with that logic, I'd expect it to be included in any new CBA the AFL & AFLPA enter into.

 

[Look2Me4Guidance]

The sticking point is of course once again with the AFL's use of terminology in what constitutes a "new" contract as opposed to a pre-existing one, as one could be of the opinion that an extension of a contract is a new contract because it is not the initial length of the previous contract entered into and thus terms are altered which effectively rewrites the original contract. You then also have to consider the AFL throwing around "spirit of the rules" (ala GWS circumvention of "limited" trading practices that were scuttled) where letter of the law pales in comparison to "that's not how it was intended".

Ultimately until the AFL update the process instead of linking to articles and thoughts from 2010 we're stuck with that logic, I'd expect it to be included in any new CBA the AFL & AFLPA enter into.

Hardly clear cut is it?! I guess we'll wait and see for someone to test the waters and learn from there.

 

[StFly]

Hardly clear cut is it?! I guess we'll wait and see for someone to test the waters and learn from there.

If there is one thing I have learned form reading AFL documents it's that a majority of them who wrote it were probably lawyers.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Interesting that Collingwood may be in it at least as deep as StKilda, "oh incindently Leon, we need you to take a massive pay cut."

 

[Kildonan]

Saints circle the men in the middle
Jared Lynch
October 27, 2011

NEW St Kilda coach Scott Watters is confident he will soon re-sign a group of mid-range players threatened by the club's salary-cap pressures.

Senior players Zac Dawson, Brett Peake, Raph Clarke, Farren Ray, Ryan Gamble and Dean Polo are all out of contract and likely to take an enforced pay cut next year if they want to stay with the Saints.

The Saints have been negotiating new contracts on lower terms to fit the players in the salary cap and Watters said he expected the talks to be finalised in coming days.

''There is a certain time schedule we are well and truly aware of,'' he said.
''But towards the end of the week we would be pretty close with all those players.''

 

[HoldenMCaulfield]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/saints-circle-the-men-in-the-middle-20111026-1mk3n.html...Senior players Zac Dawson, Brett Peake, Raph Clarke, Farren Ray, Ryan Gamble and Dean Polo are all out of contract and likely to take an enforced pay cut next year if they want to stay with the Saints ...

"...we would be pretty close with all those players.''

so he has not been delisted after all ?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

so he has not been delisted after all ?

Depends how big a pay cut it is.

If you're offered a 100% pay cut is that the same as being sacked?