Demons facing salary cap cuts

[sylvinator 96]

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/demo...7702145798.html

"Mod Edit: Its fine to post the link to the article. But please avoid quoting the article in full. Thanks"

I think this makes perfect sense- When 95% of your starting 22 are under 23 yrs old and you are coming dead last you should NOT be using up 100% of your salary cap!!!

Neitz, White and Yze are 3 of our highest paid players and think its now a certainty that all 3 are gawn at years all. Holland and Carrol would also help, Plus Robbo and McDonald are now veterans... So actually bringing down the salary cap will not be too difficult.

If our young players become stars in 2-3 years time we can start paying them real money when they deserve it!

In terms of finances this will save us close to a million dollars in unused salary cap + will mean we will get perhaps 1.5 millino from the afl next season instead of 250k!

Overall this could earn us $2.25 Million next season, plus it seems logical for a rediculously young and developing side...

I just wonder how on earth we have been so over-paying our players all this time. it's not like we have any true superstars in our team?

[Rogue 585]

The tone of the article is that we've been forced to make cuts, but as you suggest, we'd be looking at reducing our TPPs anyway, given the position of the Club on and off the field.

Our injuries would have contributed fairly substantially to TPPs over the last season and a half, as mentioned in the article.

Fwiw - apparently the 2008 salary cap $8.5 million, with the salary floor coming in at $7.65 million (wiki salary caps article).

[Cards13 9,117]

Fark you news media!!! Fark you all!! We had a fantastic positive evening that got virtually no play in the newspaper media at all!!! Two paragraphs at the end of an article saying the AFL is forcing us to play at less than 100% even playing field.

Thanks for nothing guys!

[Bring-Back-Powell 14,833]

Fark you news media!!! Fark you all!! We had a fantastic positive evening that got virtually no play in the newspaper media at all!!!

They did the same to North as well.

Why does this surprise you?

The media don't care about good news stories.

[Cards13 9,117]

They did the same to North as well.

Why does this surprise you?

The media don't care about good news stories.

No mate it doesn't surpise me, well it does in one way, I was assuming no coverage at all of the huge night. So the fact we got MORE negative coverage really

sh !ts me.

[Jarka 767]

Over the last 5 years what the hell was going on with our list management?

[Travman 0]

No mate it doesn't surpise me, well it does in one way, I was assuming no coverage at all of the huge night. So the fact we got MORE negative coverage really

sh !ts me.

Hang on. On one hand we have a club asking its members to fork out for $500 a head functions, memberships, merchandise and significant donations to cut debt. At the same time they are asking the AFL and MCC for even larger cash injections.

I'm glad the AFL have raised this as the current player payments are a disgrace and smacks of the worst kind of business management.

Whilst I will give my hard earned unconditionally I thank the AFL for looking to put some checks and balances in place.

[Pipefitter 2,159]

Wonder how much bruce is on?

[rpfc 28,433]

They are just reporting relevant news, and another reason why McNamee is gone.

Stynes would not mind this piece IMO.

Look, we will be at 92.5%, or lower if we request like the Kangas did, with or without the demands of the AFL.

Holland (150k), Neitz (450K - 1/2 outside cap), Yze (350k - 1/2 out), White (350k), and TJ (200k - we paid half his wage this year).

In real terms we will be approx. $1.5m better off, and the cap space will be approx. $1.1m.

The AFL should tell us that if you are rebuilding, your wage bill should reflect that. Fair enough.

[Gorgoroth 12,954]

I reckon Holland would have been on more, Neitz, White and Yze too.

[Demons 32 235]

Wonder how much bruce is on?

I have a feeling he is on around the 350k to 400k mark.

Remember hearing that when he signed his heavily back ended contract years ago so he wouldn't go to the Pies. He would be our highest paid player, along with Yze who is on about 350k as well. I assume Robbo would be on big cash and Green should be getting paid a bit.

It won't be so hard to cut it down, with Yze, White, Neitz off the books we should already cut about 700k-800k from the books. Then it's just about looking at what we have got, I could see Brucey and Green taking a cut, they love the club and will help out if asked (then again I don't think they will be asked).

Also, I think we stop paying the 200k of TJ's salary next season, so thats about 1mil off the books next year. Plus Robbo and Jmac are going to be veterans, so the cap should look fine.

[Demons 32 235]

I reckon Holland would have been on more, Neitz, White and Yze too.

Definately not, Bruce is the highest paid player at the club, he is the 350k-400k area. Closer to 400k I think. Then the Yzes, Whites, Robbos etc will be on 350k.

Id say Holland would be one 150k. He only got a 1 year deal and we knew he wouldn't be killing it all season.

[Travman 0]

I have a feeling he is on around the 350k to 400k mark.

Remember hearing that when he signed his heavily back ended contract years ago so he wouldn't go to the Pies. He would be our highest paid player, along with Yze who is on about 350k as well. I assume Robbo would be on big cash and Green should be getting paid a bit.

It won't be so hard to cut it down, with Yze, White, Neitz off the books we should already cut about 700k-800k from the books. Then it's just about looking at what we have got, I could see Brucey and Green taking a cut, they love the club and will help out if asked (then again I don't think they will be asked).

Also, I think we stop paying the 200k of TJ's salary next season, so thats about 1mil off the books next year. Plus Robbo and Jmac are going to be veterans, so the cap should look fine.

Players should be paid on merit. I'd be surpised if Green took a cut. He's one of the few who deserves his $$s.

[H_T 3,047]

The AFL should tell us that if you are rebuilding, your wage bill should reflect that. Fair enough.

Bloody oath. The current list does not and should not reflect 100% full use of Salary Cap. Some would argue the current list should make up not even 90%.

[H_T 3,047]

Over the last 5 years what the hell was going on with our list management?

I agree Jarka.

[davey_magik 1]

No real worries, at the start of next year we'll have a lot of space in the cap when you consider at the least Yze, White and Neitz are gone plus we don't have to pay any more of TJ's salary.

[Hannabal 4]

Over the last 5 years what the hell was going on with our list management?

I think it reflects the fact that after consecutive finals series from 04-06 we, as a club, overrated our list and retained too many players that were on good coin for too long, ie Bizzell, Ward, Godfrey. Not to mention Pickett's Super.

We thought we were at 11pm when in fact we were at 3am.

[Whispering_Jack 30,140]

And let's not forget that we were paying some of Travis' wages this year as well.

Fact is that with our young list it would be irresponsible for us to be shelling out the same amount of pay to players as a club with a list like Geelong's.

As time goes on and our young blokes develop and mature and the team starts achieving some success, we will have the room to increase our player payments without straining our salary cap position. It makes sense to me that we should be stating our rebuilding phase at 92.5% rather than waste a lot of $'s chasing high priced recruits that don't fit in with our plans to develop a team of the future.

The other problem we've encountered over the past two years has been injury payments. There's not a great lot you can do about that other than employ the best fitness staff. I'm sure that must be high on the club's list of priorities.

[H_T 3,047]

I think it reflects the fact that after consecutive finals series from 04-06 we, as a club, overrated our list and retained too many players that were on good coin for too long, ie Bizzell, Ward, Godfrey. Not to mention Pickett's Super.

We thought we were at 11pm when in fact we were at 3am.

Couldn't agree more....now I'll go for a lie down

[Mono 455]

I'm pretty sure there was a bit of carry-on about Yze's latest (and finishing) contract - a fair bit was incentive based, so we might not have been shelling out as many $'s there as folks think this yr. They might just have got that one right.

[Demons 32 235]

Players should be paid on merit. I'd be surpised if Green took a cut. He's one of the few who deserves his $$s.

He is and thats why I said I don't think they will ask. Just saying he seems like he loves the club and would if he was asked.

[Deeoldfart 8,033]

..................................................... Stynes would not mind this piece IMO.

Look, we will be at 92.5%, or lower if we request like the Kangas did, with or without the demands of the AFL.

The AFL should tell us that if you are rebuilding, your wage bill should reflect that. Fair enough.

Exactly rpfc!

[DemonDave 1,089]

Unless posters on here are player-managers of all said players, then they really have no idea and can only guess what players are on, so please, don't say 'Player x is on $x' as if its fact. Its purely speculation, an educated guess at best.

But it is fair to say we will have the capacity to save a fair bit of coin quite easily with the experienced players that are going to be moved on at years end.

Does the club therefore have the capacity to offer Robbie Warnock the kind of big money being bandied around in the papers? It'd be doubtful.

Do they pay out the last year of Nathan Carrolls contract to free up a spot on the list?

Interesting times ahead for the list managers.

[Tigers Dayz 2]

Can someone please explain to me why there is a minimum spend percentage in the salary cap. eg; 92.5% ?

I never really understood the logic behind this.

[Rogue 585]

Can someone please explain to me why there is a minimum spend percentage in the salary cap. eg; 92.5% ?

I never really understood the logic behind this.

Brief answer -

The players have agreed to a salary cap which limits their earnings, so they thus want a floor - a minimum the players will get.

The AFL also wants teams to be spending at the floor, because the point of capping player salaries is to make a relatively even competition - if there was no floor and teams were paying significantly less than the cap, it wouldn't be even.

The value of having a relatively even comp is accepted by stakeholders (AFL, Clubs, players) for obvious reasons - interest would be significantly less if only a few power Clubs could win it each year (and thus revenue from attendance and broadcasting, etc etc).