News the double deal?

[lockheed]

Probably safe, but you'll get a mixture of replies.

But just to clarify a couple of points. You can underspend, but only by 5%, you need to pay a minimum of 95% of the TPP.
If you pay less than the 95% a club pays the balance to the afl of up to the 95% and the afl distributes this to that clubs players.
A club can only overspend by a maximum of 5% of the TPP in any one year. ie 105% of that years TPP. Any underspend in one year can be banked for up to 3 years then it ceases. So it can roll on, but it doesn't accumulate, if that makes sense.
You can only ever have a maximum of 105% of the TPP to spend in any one year.

Reference the link you provided. But scroll down to paragraph 13 (f) and (g).
http://www.aflplayers.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-2022-CBA.pdf

tigerwill, thank you.

So the number is essentially the same, but that extra 5%, assuming it exists, that would have been banked over each of three years, can only be redrawn over three years.

So the WAG figure, of a $6.3M kitty, thankfully, can't all be spent in one year.

 

[Dirty_11]

unfortunately the mail (not even mail it's known fact) that he's friendship with cotchin is a lot stronger than marley williams, him and cotchin are practically family and the three main people aware of martins decison is Carr, Shane and Cotchin

Ok. Why no signature then?

 

[Kimbo]

Assuming that we paid 95%for this year and last year we can overspend to 105%for 2018 and 2019?

But that 105% becomes 105% of the new salary cap?

Is it only me that recalls reading somewhere that we got permission to go to 93%? If not, who said it?

 

[blackshadow]

Is it only me that recalls reading somewhere that we got permission to go to 93%? If not, who said it?

I don't recall any mention. If so, which years?

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

 

[Kimbo]

I don't recall any mention. If so, which years?

This year I think. Seems like a strange thing to 'recall' if I didn't read it somewhere.

 

[tigerwill]

Assuming that we paid 95%for this year and last year we can overspend to 105%for 2018 and 2019?

But that 105% becomes 105% of the new salary cap?



Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

That's how it seems to read.
I found the fact interesting, that if a club underspent less than the 95%, that money (the difference up to the 95%) is paid by that club to the afl to distribute equally to that clubs players. Personally, I never knew that.

*edit* the gap between 100% of TPP and 95% of the TPP is approx $500k.
So in effect, what you underspend in year 1 and can overspend in year 2 (or 3 whenever you use it) is approx $1mill maximum.
I'm not sure how it affects the latest CBA as it went up by 20%. $2mill. Not sure if it's calculated in actual $s or a % ie a club would have $3 mill ($1mill + $2ill) extra or 10% of TPP plus CBA increase ie $1mill + $1.2mill ($1.2 mill being 10% (95%/105%) of the new TPP of $12mill approx.
Or, just a flat 10% of the new TPP of $12 mill. It's only my personal opinion, but I think the he afl go with the formula of 10% of the TPP. So in effect $1.2 mill max per year.

 

[Dirty_11]

I'll start by saying that this is totally surmise, and that I am as far from the inner circle of NM as anyone on this Board.

I still don't expect Dusty to come to North Melbourne, but the figures being bandied are high enough, if you believe are esteemed scribes, to be concerning. Nonetheless, I assume that our club knows exactly what they're doing. So I thought I'd do some sums.

I'm drawing heavily from Augustine's original post. I've adjusted his figures on the feedback I received, that Harvey and Petrie were only fairly small amounts. Assuming that Dal Santo and Wells were on $600,000, Harvey, Petrie and Firrito were on $200,000. I'm guessing that Black was on $300,000, and that Nahas, Mackenzie, Tippett and Ray averaged $100,000 each. That would be a saving of $2,5000,000. I'm guessing again that Williams and Hrovat are on $300,000 each, and Ahern is perhaps on $200,000.We also have to find money for Simpkin: $74,730, Watson and Josh Williams: $67,935 each, Larkey, Zurhaar, Junker, Taylor, each on $64,395. If I've done the sums correctly, we have a saving (and this is very approximate). We've also resigned a few players. Trying to be conservative, I'll assume that out TPP were unders by $1.4M this year, and that we've front loaded contracts, giving us a spare $2.8 M in cash.

Last year's TPP was $10.37M, and the figure this year is $12.45. Hence the kitty increases by $2.08M to a possible total of $4.88 M.

I'll make two further assumptions, that NM has been paying the minimum salary cap for the last three years, and has been 'banking' that amount for that time with the AFL. Hence we might have an additional TPP of 3 times 5% of $10.37M, or about $1.5 M. So the kitty is now up to $6.3 M.

This is a total exercise in guessery, but we may have an extra cache of $6.3 M, or $4.9 M over our existing TPP gap for this year, to attract Kelly and Martin. If this is correct, we can comfortably afford both players, pay Big Ben what he deserves and have space to renew our current players contracts as they role over.

Please let me know if you find the obvious or less obvious errors, and I'll try and update this information accordingly.

GR or TT - if this passes scrutiny, please feel free to tweet this to your wise friends in the media; credit the collective NM BF posters.

Give or take $50-100k here or there on some of the player contract amounts I'd say it looks pretty good. Quality post.

 

[lockheed]

That's how it seems to read.
I found the fact interesting, that if a club underspent less than the 95%, that money (the difference up to the 95%) is paid by that club to the afl to distribute equally to that clubs players. Personally, I never knew that.

The power of the fine print

 

[GarnerSmash]

So we can give em both $6 mil in the next two years, which increases their ability to invest in the short term and maximize returns in the long run.

Hard to turn that down. Their accountants would be rubbing their hands together.

 

[Dirty_11]

So we can give em both $6 mil in the next two years, which increases their ability to invest in the short term and maximize returns in the long run.

Hard to turn that down. Their accountants would be rubbing their hands together.

Exactly, it would be beneficial to have the contracts front loaded and get the money working for them sooner.

 

[blackshadow]

So we can give em both $6 mil in the next two years, which increases their ability to invest in the short term and maximize returns in the long run.

Hard to turn that down. Their accountants would be rubbing their hands together.

And when Goldie goes or his current contract expires there's another huge chunk of change freed up.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

 

[ozzyoslo]

And when Goldie goes or his current contract expires there's another huge chunk of change freed up.

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

Wait, what....what ju talkin about wyllis

 

[tigerwill]

So we can give em both $6 mil in the next two years, which increases their ability to invest in the short term and maximize returns in the long run.

Hard to turn that down. Their accountants would be rubbing their hands together.

tigerwill, thank you.

So the number is essentially the same, but that extra 5%, assuming it exists, that would have been banked over each of three years, can only be redrawn over three years.

So the WAG figure, of a $6.3M kitty, thankfully, can't all be spent in one year.

I'm not sure if the number is essentially the same, I'm not party to the actual figures of course
For arguments sake, let's just say the difference between the 100% and minimum 95% is $500k p.a. (TPP $10 mill)
But. You could only "bank" $500k per year. You can "overspend" by the same amount with 3 years to do it. What you save you can spend. But it doesn't accumulate over those 3 years to spend as a club sees fit. A club can only overspend by up to a maximum of 5% over the TPP.

Old TPP $10 mill the 5% under = $500k. The max overspend $1 mill
New TPP =$12 mill the 5% under = $600k . The max overspend $1.2 mill
It probably needs a little more research and confirmation how it gets divvied up.
I think some of the figures bandied around are just die to excitement levels .

But in my unexpert opinion. $2mill TPP CBA increase plus the overspend could give a club $3.2 mill extra p.a.
There's your $1.6 mill each for Dusty and Kelly. Maybe be doable if you don't have anyone else in mind that may want an increase in salary in the future, given that figure of 95% is for the rest of the total list. No doubt there will be retirements and deli stings, biut with a fairly young list quite a few may be on "cheapie" contracts. Also keep in mind that after year 1 of the new CBA there are only minor pay increases forthcoming.

It's certainly going to be be an exciting off season. If Dusty does accept Norths offer, no doubt we go off looking to trade in. I just hope we haven't put all our eggs in one basket and have the time and our FD have contingencies in place. We won't replace Dusty if he does leave, but thems the breaks. Life rolls on, we spend the money elsewhere and opportunities will present the self

 

[Groucho]

Is it only me that recalls reading somewhere that we got permission to go to 93%? If not, who said it?

Yeah definitely remember reading that a few weeks back. It was for this year and had to seek special permission from the AFL to do it. Who it was and which thread,sorry,can't remember.

 

[Kimbo]

Yeah definitely remember reading that a few weeks back. It was for this year and had to seek special permission from the AFL to do it. Who it was and which thread,sorry,can't remember.

Whether it was an "ITK" report, or a media report of some kind, if anyone can find it, that'd be great.

 

[The Filth Wizard]

It's certainly going to be be an exciting off season. If Dusty does accept Norths offer, no doubt we go off looking to trade in. I just hope we haven't put all our eggs in one basket and have the time and our FD have contingencies in place. We won't replace Dusty if he does leave, but thems the breaks. Life rolls on, we spend the money elsewhere and opportunities will present the self

Match it and you keep him. If it was just a matter of North vs Richmond with no financial advantage either way it is Richmond every day of the week.

Actually I think another 100k gets it done for you anyway.

 

[giantroo]

Bear in mind also the story that we got permission to go to 93% of the cap (2% below the minimum), meaning not only can we go to 100% of the cap, but presumably up to $105 or maybe 107% in 2018. This supports the front-loading approach.

Yeah definitely remember reading that a few weeks back. It was for this year and had to seek special permission from the AFL to do it. Who it was and which thread,sorry,can't remember.

Whether it was an "ITK" report, or a media report of some kind, if anyone can find it, that'd be great.

This post?


"we have already front loaded most of our contracts. we are paying roughly 93% with permission from the afl.
we need to spend."

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...y-or-martin-type.1169998/page-3#post-51102440

 

[Kimbo]

This post?

"we have already front loaded most of our contracts. we are paying roughly 93% with permission from the afl.
we need to spend."

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...y-or-martin-type.1169998/page-3#post-51102440

Okay, so inner scrotum (?), not official or media reported, not that that's gospel.

So, Unity-28, anything else to add to this, and the implication we may be able to spend 107%? If this was true, tigerwill, what's interpretation of the implication.

 

[Dirty_11]

Match it and you keep him. If it was just a matter of North vs Richmond with no financial advantage either way it is Richmond every day of the week.

Actually I think another 100k gets it done for you anyway.

I think we are so invested now that if the Tiges up it $100k then we will do the same.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

We need to get this double deal done... if for no other reason than to shove it up everyone!

 

[tigerwill]

Match it and you keep him. If it was just a matter of North vs Richmond with no financial advantage either way it is Richmond every day of the week.

Actually I think another 100k gets it done for you anyway.

I highly doubt we'll match. Actually I'm certain we won't. Our lists are at a different stage of development, plus we'll want room to upgrade existing contracts and maybe bring a player or 2 in. I believe our final offer has been tabled.
All banter aside, it's exciting for a club to be in a position that they may be able to bring 2 high quality players in. How that transpires down the track none of us really know. It will improve your clubs on field performance, but will it cost a player or 2 in the future if there's a salary squeeze or other players get a bit envious and feel undervalued?
Me, I'm pragmatic. I'll argue and banter in reply, but if Dusty leaves it will be disappointing. Bloody disappointing in fact. But all clubs have great players leave and/or retire. Clubs push forward. Or they need to. Other opportunities will arise. More salary cap room, the ability to attract key players, a more even spread of $s and talent, it makes for slightly easier list management without putting most of your eggs in one basket, or two.
I haven't conceded he's left or he's staying. Too many conflicting stories and rumours and $s and years.
I'm hopeful he stays, at our price we've supposedly tabled. I don't want to match reported/rumoured offers just to appease our members. He's been good for us and us for him. Will that count, who really knows.

Everyone's listening and believing whatever suits them and then measuring dicks. At least we'll all know in a week or 2s time and will either be cursing or celebrating.

 

[tigerwill]

Okay, so inner scrotum (?), not official or media reported, not that that's gospel.

So, Unity-28, anything else to add to this, and the implication we may be able to spend 107%? If this was true, tigerwill, what's interpretation of the implication.

I'm not sure how accurate it is as it's hard to verify. Was it confirmed officially or was that figure just "mentioned" and now becomes fact? Or are they getting a little confused with previous CBAs when a club had to meet the 92.5 % minimum TPP. But couldn't bank the underspend?
Was this before the new CBA came into effect?
Does it allow north to pay 107%? Which then breaches the CBA. Are all clubs allowed to do this or was it a once off? I'm betting other clubs will be all over it if it was indeed the case.
Maybe they allowed north to pay 93% but forgo north paying the 2% ($200k-ish) to the afl to distribute to the players.
A whole lot of unknowns, a whole heap of guesses
Who knows with the afl, they're so transparent aren't they?

 

[GreatBradScott]

Hinges on today. Can't see how we have the chips without #1.

 

[Jindrrk]

I highly doubt we'll match. Actually I'm certain we won't. Our lists are at a different stage of development, plus we'll want room to upgrade existing contracts and maybe bring a player or 2 in. I believe our final offer has been tabled.
All banter aside, it's exciting for a club to be in a position that they may be able to bring 2 high quality players in. How that transpires down the track none of us really know. It will improve your clubs on field performance, but will it cost a player or 2 in the future if there's a salary squeeze or other players get a bit envious and feel undervalued?
Me, I'm pragmatic. I'll argue and banter in reply, but if Dusty leaves it will be disappointing. Bloody disappointing in fact. But all clubs have great players leave and/or retire. Clubs push forward. Or they need to. Other opportunities will arise. More salary cap room, the ability to attract key players, a more even spread of $s and talent, it makes for slightly easier list management without putting most of your eggs in one basket, or two.
I haven't conceded he's left or he's staying. Too many conflicting stories and rumours and $s and years.
I'm hopeful he stays, at our price we've supposedly tabled. I don't want to match reported/rumoured offers just to appease our members. He's been good for us and us for him. Will that count, who really knows.

Everyone's listening and believing whatever suits them and then measuring dicks. At least we'll all know in a week or 2s time and will either be cursing or celebrating.

I think Saints fans are the biggest d*ck measures going around.

 

[Only Forwards]

I've found it very funny the setting of arbitrary dates that then expire only to be reset to a further date.

Neither have signed, we're clearly into both.

We might get both, we might get neither.

Our club has some serious cojones going for it though.

BTW if we land both it will fundamentally alter the NMFC for the next 10-15 years if not longer.