List Mgmt. Trade & F/A - 2018/2019 - Part 2!

[jonbe54]

I'd be happy to be West Coast for the moment.

West Coast are always a bit of a surprise packet one way or another.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Don't really follow trades all that much until the end of season.. so if this has been mentioned.. soz re..

What about Brad Hill?

Doesn't he want out of Fremantle.. wouldn't mind him at all. Has finals experience as well which will suit us. Still only 25-26 yrs of age.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Don't really follow trades all that much until the end of season.. so if this has been mentioned.. soz re..

What about Brad Hill?

Doesn't he want out of Fremantle.. wouldn't mind him at all. Has finals experience as well which will suit us.

Unless there's something seriously wrong at Freo I highly doubt Hill would be asking to move again after walking out on Hawthorn to come back home and play with his brother.

 

[BringouttheGimp]

Unless there's something seriously wrong at Freo I highly doubt Hill would be asking to move again after walking out on Hawthorn to come back home and play with his brother.

Well there were rumours he wants out.. so there must be.. but you may be right he did say the rumours are rubbish coupla days ago. I'd be talking to his manager.. if there's a lil bit of a wif of him wanting to leave.. I'd start working on turning that wif into a clear blown trade.. chip away at it.

Imagine him playing that Wells Varcoe Phillips role on the wings.. quick and skillful and at his prime you'd think.

 

[Jonno94]

Would think Beams is ours if they land Neale, they need the cash and would get back into the draft.

 

[Moeydw]

Well there were rumours he wants out.. so there must be.. but you may be right he did say the rumours are rubbish coupla days ago. I'd be talking to his manager.. if there's a lil bit of a wif of him wanting to leave.. I'd start working on turning that wif into a clear blown trade.. chip away at it.

Imagine him playing that Wells Varcoe Phillips role on the wings.. quick and skillful and at his prime you'd think.

He spoke out about the rumours and said he doesnt want out.

 

[Chrispiesssss]

This is Brisbane’s list manager.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If Wells theoretically retires what are the salary cap implications?

 

[CFC2010]

If Wells theoretically retires what are the salary cap implications?

sideswipe

 

[Chrispiesssss]

If Wells theoretically retires what are the salary cap implications?

Still on our salary cap, as he was acquired as a FA. I think it’s the “Buddy Franklin” rule.

 

[Jonno94]

Do people realize that if we pull off a Footscray / Richmond somehow and snag the biggie that Mayne will be a premiership player, and one who has made meaningful contributions during the year????

FMD . . . who'd a thunk it???

I don't think anyone will be thinking that when we get done next weekend.

 

[jonbe54]

I don't think anyone will be thinking that when we get done next weekend.

Lol we'll see, I always take an open minded view - not opinionated in that way.

 

[jackcass]

Would think Beams is ours if they land Neale, they need the cash and would get back into the draft.

Maybe they foresee a midfield with both Beams and Neale playing.

 

[sideswipe]

If Wells theoretically retires what are the salary cap implications?

Still on our salary cap, as he was acquired as a FA. I think it’s the “Buddy Franklin” rule.

CFC2010
If Wells was to retire, other than recommending he speak to his mental health professional for giving up a rumoured $600k salary, there would be no effect on the salary cap.

Wells came in as an unrestricted free agent. It is only the first contract after a transfer of a restricted free agent that goes towards the cap, whether it is paid or not. This is what people might think of as the Buddy rule - or the Ty Vickery rule - but the rule was in place before Buddy moved to Syd. The AFL merely confirmed its existence at the time of the Buddy trade.

Reason it is there is to prevent cap/trade manipulation. For instance Buddy could have had a wink and a nudge with Sydney that they offer him a massive long term contract, but they agree he will retire before the end of it so they don't have to pay it all. Hawthorn decide not to match what is an artificial offer and lose him. To prevent this occurring, this rule is in place. Even if Buddy doesn't make it to the end of his contract term, and the Swans aren't obliged to pay for the years he doesn't play, the unpaid contracted amounts still go to the TPP for the relevant year.

Other than the first contract of an RFA, the TPP cap is only concerned with what is paid to players. This includes Free agents, as there is no matching offer process for them.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

CFC2010
If Wells was to retire, other than recommending he speak to his mental health professional for giving up a rumoured $600k salary, there would be no effect on the salary cap.

Wells came in as an unrestricted free agent. It is only the first contract after a transfer of a restricted free agent that goes towards the cap, whether it is paid or not. This is what people might think of as the Buddy rule - or the Ty Vickery rule - but the rule was in place before Buddy moved to Syd. The AFL merely confirmed its existence at the time of the Buddy trade.

Reason it is there is to prevent cap/trade manipulation. For instance Buddy could have had a wink and a nudge with Sydney that they offer him a massive long term contract, but they agree he will retire before the end of it so they don't have to pay it all. Hawthorn decide not to match what is an artificial offer and lose him. To prevent this occurring, this rule is in place. Even if Buddy doesn't make it to the end of his contract term, and the Swans aren't obliged to pay for the years he doesn't play, the unpaid contracted amounts still go to the TPP for the relevant year.

Other than the first contract of an RFA, the TPP cap is only concerned with what is paid to players. This includes Free agents, as there is no matching offer process for them.

As I thought.

Bit bemused by the "make Wells retire" talk

Hopefully (a) he gives us some decent games next year and (b) he doesnt cost 600 because he has already been heavily frontloaded in past seasons.

Personally I dont see why the rule only applies to free agents. If you sign up a player (free agent, traded player, existing player, no matter) you should have to carry his cap for the entirity of the contract regardless as to whether he sees it out or renegotiates it later at a lower rate.

 

[sideswipe]

Personally I dont see why the rule only applies to free agents. If you sign up a player you should have to carry his cap for the entirity of the contract regardless as to whether he sees it out or renogotates it later at a lower rate.

Just to be pedantic, the Buddy rule only applies to RFAs, not FAs. The rule makes sense.

Save for that instance, the TPP must only be concerned with what is paid, rather than what is originally contracted, to allow for cap management. One of the main reasons is that clubs need the flexibility to move their TPP in any given year because of TPP variations in a given year. For instance, if a club has a higher than expected proportion of "match payment players" playing a lot of games (think Stevo), their TPP might be higher than initially expected as they are paying the match payments plus the guaranteed amounts to the likes of (dare I mention it) Wells. In order not to breach the TPP, they may seek to vary an existing contract of a player to move more of his payments into another year.

Even more importantly, this sort of finagling might see a player contract varied so that he is paid more than originally contracted in 2018 and less in 2019, so we free up space in 2019 to land a new player.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Just to be pedantic, the Buddy rule only applies to RFAs, not FAs. The rule makes sense.

Save for that instance, the TPP must only be concerned with what is paid, rather than what is originally contracted, to allow for cap management. One of the main reasons is that clubs need the flexibility to move their TPP in any given year because of TPP variations in a given year. For instance, if a club has a higher than expected proportion of "match payment players" playing a lot of games (think Stevo), their TPP might be higher than initially expected as they are paying the match payments plus the guaranteed amounts to the likes of (dare I mention it) Wells. In order not to breach the TPP, they may seek to vary an existing contract of a player to move more of his payments into another year.

Even more importantly, this sort of finagling might see a player contract varied so that he is paid more than originally contracted in 2018 and less in 2019, so we free up space in 2019 to land a new player.

I have no problem with adjusting contracts from year to year. Front and backloading is part and parcel of player management. But in the final year of a contract the balance of the originally contracted amount (total contarcted amount less amounts actually paid to date) should be included in the salary cap.

I understand match payments add a degree of confusion/risk/volatility to the issue.

Bottom line, I dont see why theres one rule for RFA's and one for everybody else.

 

[unplugged]

Can we extend Wells' contract for a year at say $100,000, renegotiated to 300k per year... similar to Cotchin etc. And then cut his contract and only pay him next year's 300k?

 

[sideswipe]

I have no problem with adjusting contracts from year to year. Front and backloading is part and parcel of player management. But in the final year of a contract the balance of the originally contracted amount (total contarcted amount less amounts actually paid to date) should be included in the salary cap.

I understand match payments add a degree of confusion/risk/volatility to the issue.

Bottom line, I dont see why theres one rule for RFA's and one for everybody else.

The rule is there to prevent clubs/players manipulating the RFA offer matching process by offering an artificial inflated contract so the current club doesn't match. If you can't see the purpose of the rule in the Buddy example, well I cant really say much more.

Other than that, TPP is concerned with payments, not contracts.

Think of the Cyril retirement situation. Was reportedly contracted for 2019 and 2020. Based on what has been written, the Club and him have agreed to cancel the final 2 years. Would you want that amount to appear in the TPP even though it wasn't paid, Cyril didn't play and no other club was involved?

 

[Tazzaye]

Can we extend Wells' contract for a year at say $100,000, renegotiated to 300k per year... similar to Cotchin etc. And then cut his contract and only pay him next year's 300k?

Shit like that shouldn’t even be allowed in the game

 

[sideswipe]

Can we extend Wells' contract for a year at say $100,000, renegotiated to 300k per year... similar to Cotchin etc. And then cut his contract and only pay him next year's 300k?

Not quite sure if i understand your proposed variation, but the situation is simple. The club and Wells can agree to whatever sort of player contract and subsequent variation that they want. Only what we pay him goes to the TPP cap for that particular year.

 

[Buckleys_Chance]

I hope so, but I just can't see how Lynch could possibly be a smokescreen. Imagine if you pretended to be interested in a player to deflect media attention only for that player to end up choosing you!

Whatever the case, it appears we are up to something big. I hope I'm not disappointed. If we could land Beams and a KPP (either end) that would be an amazing outcome.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Football God]

 

[Hong Kong Pie]

View attachment 551835

Man, i love Beamsy - the guy still has A-grade ability - but it is risky, and if we trade for him i still hope we can work out/make further deals to bring in a top or promising defender like Kelly. A massive need still.

 

[Soups]

View attachment 551835

Haha no ****ing way that will happen. Lions will have to give up pick 4 for Neale.