Speculation Tom Barrass (OOC 2027)

[TiAn_]

It has been reported that Barrass:

• is contracted for 3 more years at $750,000 per year
• is seeking a 2 year extension from from the Eagles
• has been offered $3M over a “long number of years” (presumably 5 years, being 3+2) by the Bulldogs.

Would think it’s likely the Eagles come to the party and offer him the extra 2 years. But would be a welcome addition to the Dogs backline if not.

 

[Obeanie1]

So currently on 3 x $750. Total of $2.25m.

And the Dogs offer an $600k pa for 5 years?

That isnt much of an incentive to move really. Time value of money and all that.

Why would he move to get paid less over the next 3 years?

 

[TiAn_]

So currently on 3 x $750. Total of $2.25m.

And the Dogs offer an $600k pa for 5 years?

That isnt much of an incentive to move really. Time value of money and all that.

Why would he move to get paid less over the next 3 years?

To get the additional $750,000 over the following two years? Which the Eagles to date haven’t matched.

Pretty straightforward that $3M > $2.25M

The Eagles can always offer to extend his contract by two years in response to the Dogs offer. Hasn’t happened yet though, hence the speculation.

 

[fargothegreat]

Why would the Eagles be desperate to keep a 28 year old?

Pretty similar to the Rioli/Bolton situation with us where the player is gettable if the deal is right. Dogs should have two first round picks, possibly one inside the top 10 which could get this done.

 

[Obeanie1]

To get the additional $750,000 over the following two years? Which the Eagles to date haven’t matched.

Pretty straightforward that $3M > $2.25M

The Eagles can always offer to extend his contract by two years in response to the Dogs offer. Hasn’t happened yet though, hence the speculation.

Time value of money is why.

Its a finance term. Money now is worth more than money in the future.

Eagles just need to increase the current deal by approx $250k to match and with no extension in time.

$2.5m in three years equates to $3m over 5 years. Because you get the cash sooner, invest it in something that inflation doesnt reduce its value.

So it isnt as simple as you are making out.

 

[TiAn_]

Time value of money is why.

Its a finance term. Money now is worth more than money in the future.

Eagles just need to increase the current deal by approx $250k to match and with no extension in time.

$2.5m in three years equates to $3m over 5 years. Because you get the cash sooner, invest it in something that inflation doesnt reduce.d

So it isnt as simple as you are making out.

No, what I’m saying is pretty simple and based on what has been reported.

What you’re talking about are the abstract financial benefits of your own hypothetical contract scenario that hasn’t been reported anywhere.

 

[Obeanie1]

No, what I’m saying is pretty simple and based on what has been reported.

What you’re talking about are the abstract financial benefits of your own hypothetical contract scenario that hasn’t been reported anywhere.

Ok you dont know about how discounted cashflow works? That isnt a hypothetical scenario BTW......its just plain math.

The basic premise is money now is worth more than the future. And you can use money now to earn more money in the future. And due to inflation money in the future wont buy what it can today. You do understand this bit?

The Dogs deal you put up has TB earning $150k less per year in the first three years then more. So $450k less in the first 3 years than his current deal. Not smart.

You also have totally ignored that TB will be earning a salary for years 4 and 5 even if he wasnt playing AFL at all.

Anyway I will leave it at that as I feel the finance theory and math is going way over your head. And your answer seems to be just ignore it.

Edit. Or Lol at the post because you simply dont have the brains to understand it seems.

 

[eaglevision]

Ok you dont know about how discounted cashflow works? That isnt a hypothetical scenario BTW......its just plain math.

The basic premise is money now is worth more than the future. And you can use money now to earn more money in the future. And due to inflation money in the future wont buy what it can today. You do understand this bit?

The Dogs deal you put up has TB earning $150k less per year in the first three years then more. So $450k less in the first 3 years than his current deal. Not smart.

You also have totally ignored that TB will be earning a salary for years 4 and 5 even if he wasnt playing AFL at all.

Anyway I will leave it at that as I feel the finance theory and math is going way over your head. And your answer seems to be just ignore it.

Edit. Or Lol at the post because you simply dont have the brains to understand it seems.

I see nothing has changed. Bloke still has NFI.