Thursdays training brief wrap up

[Darkyprotector]

Had a chat with one of Chris Maynes ex Freo team mates this week, and as of yesterday he was still in the dark as to whether he was going to be selected.

Said that Mayne seems to feel a bit hard done by that he hasn't gotten a decent run at it. But is really keen to do what it takes to get back in the senior team and contribute.

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

Yep been a hatchet job since day1
2 mill over 4

Freos compensation says different

If it was as reported , why was norths compensation same
4 years and younger
3 years and older

So get our facts right his base is nowhere near reports

Gotta love how the media frames opinion

Hook line sinker

 

[Duggy31]

Yep been a hatchet job since day1
2 mill over 4

Freos compensation says different

If it was as reported , why was norths compensation same
4 years and younger
3 years and older

So get our facts right his base is nowhere near reports

Gotta love how the media frames opinion

Hook line sinker

Don't do drugs kids

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[No SPIN]

Jonathan Brown already told us.
Some just don’t want to believe.

Or others like yourself are so easily hood winked.
I've got a car to sell are you interested - going cheap.

 

[Darkyprotector]

Don't do drugs kids

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

Yeah right , your excuse is

The point is
Both unrestricted free agents
Compensation is based on size of contract and age

So any logical explanations why they both only attracted the same compensation?

One 32
One 27

opinion making at an extreme



Do the maths, check the rules

So Lets cut the hysteria out

No where near the reports

 

[loki04]

Yep been a hatchet job since day1
2 mill over 4

Freos compensation says different

If it was as reported , why was norths compensation same
4 years and younger
3 years and older

So get our facts right his base is nowhere near reports

Gotta love how the media frames opinion

Hook line sinker

Both are on 500k+ with only difference being Wells a year less (but on 600k as the balancer) but also older and finished 4th in club BnF which was meant to be another compo indicator, had he been 3 years younger he would of landed Nth band 1 compo!

North were actually upset with getting pick 33 for Wells (which at his age and injury profile they are taking the piss). Freo got pick 23 for a role player who was trending down for 3 years prior to 2015 uplift. Both band 2 but most shocked at the Freo compo as he is not worth that.

Dilena said the AFL's compensation formula put too great an emphasis on a player's age rather than the size of their contract offer, their achievements as a player and their importance to their club.

"We were disappointed. We thought an end of first round pick was appropriate, so after Brisbane's priority pick that would make it pick 20. Instead, because of our finish on the ladder, it at this stage will be 14 places worse.

"We were hopeful of an end of first round pick for Daniel, he is a 240-game player, two-time best and fairest winner, fourth in the best and fairest this year but he is over 30 and once you are over 30 that weighs against you in the AFL's formula."

Dilena said a player's age should not be a consideration rather the amount of the contract the player has been on and the one he is going to sign at his new club. He said the age of the player and the risk of them seeing out that contract was taken into account by the new club in the size of the contract terms they offered. In Wells' case he said the fact he was 31 was secondary to the fact he was accepting a three-year contract offer at Collingwood. North had offered a two-year deal. Under the AFL's formula the amount per year of a contract was more significant than the length of the contract. "I went to [the AFL] because I wanted to better understand the system before I criticised it and I do have a better understanding now, but I don't agree on the significance of the age as a factor in the formula," Dilena said.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...aniel-wells-compensation-20161013-gs1v5b.html

To put it simpler:

North compo got weighed down from band 1 to band 2 due to Wells age.

Freos compo got increased due to Maynes contract length, size and age despite his ability.

 

[jathanas]

Yeah, always public transport nowadays

He lost his licence

Excellent

 

[Darkyprotector]

Both are on 500k with only difference being Wells a year less but also older and finished 4th in club BnF which was meant to be another compo indicator, had he been 3 years younger he would of landed Nth band 1 compo!

North were actually upset with getting pick 33 for Wells (which at his age and injury profile they are taking the piss). Freo got pick 23 for a role player who was trending down for 3 years prior to 2015 uplift. Both band 2 but most shocked at the Freo compo as he is not worth that.



https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...aniel-wells-compensation-20161013-gs1v5b.html

To put it simpler:

North compo got weighed down from band 1 to band 2 due to Wells age.

Freos compo got increased due to Maynes contract length, size and age despite his ability.

It's based on the contract yearly amount in relation to % of rest of competition x age
Compensation rule pretty straightforward

 

[loki04]

It's based on the contract yearly amount in relation to % of rest of competition x age
Compensation rule pretty straightforward

Yes.

And Wells lowers his compo to band 2 due to age, Wells linked to be on 600k over 3 years (100k more then Mayne 1 year less 3 years older).

Fairfax Media understands Wells knocked back a two-year $1.1 million contract at the Kangaroos to sign a three-year $1.8 million deal at Collingwood.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...lingwood-as-a-free-agent-20161010-gryzoa.html

And Mayne increases his to band 2, 500k @ 4 years 27 yo.


Pretty simple.

You are arguing Mayne cant be on 500k because that's what North got for wells on 600k, but that doesn't make sense when they are getting different size contracts.

Also the AFL after the "buddy fiasco pick 19" compo put a rider in that they can its own "discretion" tamper with the compo result if it throws up an anomaly result. So yes they do use "discretion" on top of the formula to give compo results.

The committee can recommend alternative outcomes to the AFL's football operations manager Mark Evans if the formula produces a materially anomalous result.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-10-...-to-earn-firstround-free-agency-compensation-

Further to break it down:

The AFL also explained that if a player's contract offer ranked in the next 10 per cent band then he would command compensation at the end of the first round, the next 15 per cent earned a second-round pick and the next 20 per cent earned a pick at the end of the second round.

This places Mayne in the top 30% earners.

In 2014 (Mayne and Wells compo worked out the very next year):

In 2014, the AFL annual report showed that six per cent of AFL players (which includes those under 25 and therefore not part of the sample relevant to compensation) earned more than $600,000. However, the figure needed to earn a first-round pick would be different this year.

So 1 year later wells 600k offer (with subtracting points for Age) has him fall out of, likely end of first round compo, into band 2.

Mayne on the other hand goes up into band 2 compo due to hitting in the top 30% of paid players above 25.

 

[doppleganger]

Length of the contract is irrelevant.

Wells finished 4th in the 2016 North BnF, Mayne finished 6th in the Freo BnF in 2016

Age is relevant, being 30+ meant no increase for Wells. Being 27 meant a 8 ranking point increase for Mayne.

Players are ranked based on ‘guarnateed’ contract amount, the base salary. Highest get a rank of 100, lowest get 0.

Wells’ guaranteed contract is less than 500K, so would assume that Mayne is in th same boat.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...free-agency-compensation-20180221-p4z16j.html

 

[loki04]

Length of the contract is irrelevant.

Wells finished 4th in the 2016 North BnF, Mayne finished 6th in the Freo BnF in 2016

Age is relevant, being 30+ meant no increase for Wells. Being 27 meant a 8 ranking point increase for Mayne.

Players are ranked based on ‘guarnateed’ contract amount, the base salary. Highest get a rank of 100, lowest get 0.

Wells’ guaranteed contract is less than 500K, so would assume that Mayne is in th same boat.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...free-agency-compensation-20180221-p4z16j.html

Not according to your link.

The length of contract is only a ‘‘tie-breaker’’ if annual salary is equal to another player. The contract must be at least two years.

Also these "rules" have changed year on year from inception, what set of "guidelines" they have used has been constantly changing, hence why there is so much confusion. Previously BnF finishing, length and amount were all used in this formula!

2017/18 compo calculations do not have much relevance to 15/16 and similarly 13/14 as the goal posts kept moving.

Each year they have been tweaking as the criticism' have come in.

And I'm not sure what you are saying different to me Wells age was used against him demoting his value to band 2.

It's interesting about the base wage only being used in that article because not too long ago, there was article quoting that the total payments were used and not the base alone.

As I said moving goal posts.

Anyway who cares Bucks has all but admitted on radio there was some miscommunication around his contract and at the AGM they said there would be "significantly" more room in the cap minus wells and Mayne. So obviously they are on a fair wicket and close to reported. Not once has the club denied the 2 mil @ 4 years, and 3 @ 1.8mil wells contracts when they have had ample opportunity to refute it. They have only ever misdirected the questions.

 

[doppleganger]

And I'm not sure what you are saying different to me Wells age was used against him demoting his value to band 2.

The article explains how the eligible players are actually ranked based on the contract amount.

So you can be ranked as 34, if you are 30+ your ranking remains as 34. If you are 25 with a ranking of 34, you then are bumped up to 22.

Wells wasn’t ‘demoted’ he just stayed at the ranking the guaranteed base component of his contract afforded him.

Mayne being 27 had his ranking bumped up by 8 points. His base guaranteed contract may not be in top 30%, but after the age adjustment his ranking does jump into the 30...because of the additional 8 ranking points his age afforded him in the calculations.

Being a 3 or 4 year contract doesn’t change free agency agency bands, it can be a tie breaker in how players are ranked.

A player who is paid $500,000 a season, who can make $800,000 with incentives, is ranked on the basis of a $500,000 contract.
It was this factor - plus the player’s age - that meant North Melbourne received only a second-round pick for star Daniel Wells, even though Wells can make more than $1.5 million over his three-year contract.

His base is less than $500,000 a season and he was 31 when he signed with Collingwood.

So yeah Wells is guaranteed less than 500K a season, but he has incentives that can see him earn more.

So if Wells guaranteed base is less than 500K, Mayne’s is also less than that. As unlike Wells, Mayne’s FA ranking received a boost due to his age.

 

[lyfsux]

What the hell is this last page got to do with training

 

[Darkyprotector]

Length of the contract is irrelevant.

Wells finished 4th in the 2016 North BnF, Mayne finished 6th in the Freo BnF in 2016

Age is relevant, being 30+ meant no increase for Wells. Being 27 meant a 8 ranking point increase for Mayne.

Players are ranked based on ‘guarnateed’ contract amount, the base salary. Highest get a rank of 100, lowest get 0.

Wells’ guaranteed contract is less than 500K, so would assume that Mayne is in th same boat.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...free-agency-compensation-20180221-p4z16j.html

Cheers

Which means the report of 2 million over 4 is false
5 years age difference would and does increase compo
Therefore I suggest his base would be about 1.2 to 1 .4 allowing for bonuses and triggers he hasn't met

 

[Darkyprotector]

What the hell is this last page got to do with training

More cheap shots based on rubbish loaded reporting bagging a bloke who has a crack and pointing out a fact
That's what

 

[Darkyprotector]

Not according to your link.



Also these "rules" have changed year on year from inception, what set of "guidelines" they have used has been constantly changing, hence why there is so much confusion. Previously BnF finishing, length and amount were all used in this formula!

2017/18 compo calculations do not have much relevance to 15/16 and similarly 13/14 as the goal posts kept moving.

Each year they have been tweaking as the criticism' have come in.

And I'm not sure what you are saying different to me Wells age was used against him demoting his value to band 2.

It's interesting about the base wage only being used in that article because not too long ago, there was article quoting that the total payments were used and not the base alone.

As I said moving goal posts.

Anyway who cares Bucks has all but admitted on radio there was some miscommunication around his contract and at the AGM they said there would be "significantly" more room in the cap minus wells and Mayne. So obviously they are on a fair wicket and close to reported. Not once has the club denied the 2 mil @ 4 years, and 3 @ 1.8mil wells contracts when they have had ample opportunity to refute it. They have only ever misdirected the questions.

He's on a lot less than the hysteria reported and the club doesn't have to defend anything .
We're on a hiding to nothing with the media and it seems some of our supporter base
The blokes been hung out to dry by cheap shot artists and with limited opportunity he's working hard
I hope he gets games this year and shoves it up a fair few
Including the 4 clowns at the intraclub heckling him

Who cares i do and by the way , you should
He plays for us and he's being bullied on something that ain't true and has been ridiculed even before getting here

Disgrace

 

[Finnishpie]

I

Don't do drugs kids

Sent from my MHA-L09 using Tapatalk

always found drugs helped me with the magical mystery tour that is being a Collingwood supporter.

 

[regpies]

-Treloar got on the track pretty late, did a bit of light running and a few drills with the group. Read into this what you will.

-Match simulation, not much has changed. Same old kicking with the switch and turning it over.

Sounds like Treloar is sore, great news 1 round in.

It’s still mind boggling we are trying to play a game style that relies on precise kicking with slow movement.

 

[loki04]

Cheers

Which means the report of 2 million over 4 is false
5 years age difference would and does increase compo
Therefore I suggest his base would be about 1.2 to 1 .4 allowing for bonuses and triggers he hasn't met

Its not false as that is what gets eaten out of the cap, it does not matter what his base is in relation to our TPP. His total contract signed for was a reported 2 mil @ 4 years never been denied by anyone not his manager not the club not him no one despite the weight of controvesy around it!!!

In relation to our TPP that is what matters his whole contract not part of.

Maynes contract is meant to total 500k pa if he plays all games etc. When doing the TPP both base wages and "incentives" on performance or games played is taken into account.

Of course Maynes base wage is below 500k, because if it wasn't, his contract would add up to more then 500k pa... wouldn't it!

Like Wells 600k pa is what goes into our cap for tpp.

Whether we pay Mayne his 400k base or his 500k total doesn't matter, at the end of the day his 500k total is what is included in OUR CAP. who gives a flying **** what his base is, as it is irrellevant when discussing impact on tpp caps.

It is a form of deflecting. doppleganger

 

[doppleganger]

In relation to our TPP that is what matters his whole contract not part of.
doppleganger

The clubs would negotiate contracts, and majority have a base component..a guaranteed annual salary that is paid monthly.

Then there are match payments, say 5K per senior game, that players would also negotiate. These are mostly paid in addition and at a different schedule to the ‘annual’ base salary.

On top of that could be written in bonus incentive payments for playing number of games or BnF position etc. these payments get paid end of season.

The club then has to balance the books, but if a player is on a 200K base salary with 4K match payments...what hits the TPP is dependent on how many games they play.

440K is only put into the TPP unless they actually play all the games.

Finals match payments are outside the cap, some relief is also given for LTI.

Mayne playing VFL football last year when fit would have cost him $$, and reduced his impact on our TPP. Potentially lost about 100K that he may have earnt if he played the 22 games.

The 95% is not understood by the masses properly either. If a club doesn’t meet the 95% in TPP this is communicated to the AFLPA and then the club is obligated to make up the shortfall, with the AFLPA then distributing the difference amongst the listed players.

So the club effectively pays the 95%, but can fall short in terms of ongoing contractual obligations.