Demons cut Valenti and Buckley

[titan_uranus 23,131]

The rule seems strange. Clubs with 6 long-serving players have 50 to choose from - 38 plus 6 vets plus 6 rookies. Clubs with young lists - no vets - only have 44 to choose from. We have 46. What is the justification for that?

Oops, sorry, that's a typo. Was meant to write 2 veterans. But 1858 cleared that up.

[hoopla 418]

The Veterans list contains 2 players maximum.

For season 2009 our list breakdown was:

6 Rookie List | 38 senior List | 2 Veterans List Giving a logical total of 46 - now that each club has been granted 2 extra rookie spots this will change to give us a potential 48 in 2010.

Thank you for this comprehensive explanation.

46 is logical - why then does Hawthorn have 48? Is there something about the published lists, I am not interpreting correctly?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...55/default.aspx

[1858 265]

Thank you for this comprehensive explanation.

46 is logical - why then does Hawthorn have 48? Is there something about the published lists, I am not interpreting correctly?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tab...55/default.aspx

NP

46 is logical for us because we have 2 players who are on the veterans list (well if Bruce isn't yet you'd expect him to be) and we have no other additions.

Because we have 2 veterans then we can only have 6 rookies.

Again, from afldraftinfo:

"Clubs may list upto 8 rookies minus the number of players on the veterans list (i.e. 1 player on the veterans list = maximum 7 rookies allowed, 2 players on the veterans list = maximum 6 rookies allowed)."

ATM Hawthorn have 1 "Outside Veteran" which means 39 total senior spots + 7 regular rookie spots = 46.

Now the descrepancy that you have brought up is (I beleive) related to NSW Scholarship rookies, as you will note on your link it stipulates a Scholarship Elevation for Johnston. Every club can have up to 6 scholarship listed players (Melbourne currently have just 1 - Ted Strudwick) and Hawthorn prior to the recent elevation of Johnston had 6.

If you go to afldraftinfo and read up on them you will see how they work and how many each club has.

Take Hawthorn for example, if you go to their site and look at their rookie listed players there are 6 yet in the link you have added there are 7 which includes the recent transfer of Michael Johnston. Going by Hawthorn's rookie list details, Will Sierakowski also was a NSW Scholarship kid elevated to their rookie list.

To cut a long(er) story short I think that scholarship elevated rookies may not take up a regular rookie spot so I hasten to guess this is why Hawthorn have 9 rookie spots in total ie 7 regular + 2 scholarship elevations.

I am sure there are many dees posters who would be able to confirm this one way or the other. Either way, afldraftinfo.com is pretty handy and can be relied on unlike wiki.

________________________

Now, on another note, I am going to do a Demonland search for Ted Strudwick to see if anyone knows anything about him.

Edited October 31, 2009 by 1858

[rpfc 27,673]

1858 - Very well explained, just one addendum - when a player is placed on the VL they can be moved back to the PL but will remain a Veteran and therefore a club will change from 50% saving to 33% saving.

So:

rpfc $900k - 450 outisde

1858 $600k - 300 outside

= $750 outside with 2 Vets placed on the VL.

To:

rpfc $900k - 300 outside

1858 $600k - 200 outside

hoopla $450 - 150 outside

= $650 outside with 3 vets and 2 placed on the VL.

I have the CBA on my computer.

There really isn't an incentive to name more Vets than the two on the VL, unless the third Vet is on stupid money.

Basically, the proportion of a salary outside the cap depends on the amount of Vets at a club.

[1858 265]

1858 - Very well explained, just one addendum - when a player is placed on the VL they can be moved back to the PL but will remain a Veteran and therefore a club will change from 50% saving to 33% saving.

So:

rpfc $900k - 450 outisde

1858 $600k - 300 outside

= $750 outside with 2 Vets placed on the VL.

To:

rpfc $900k - 300 outside

1858 $600k - 200 outside

hoopla $450 - 150 outside

= $650 outside with 3 vets and 2 placed on the VL.

I have the CBA on my computer.

There really isn't an incentive to name more Vets than the two on the VL, unless the third Vet is on stupid money.

Basically, the proportion of a salary outside the cap depends on the amount of Vets at a club.

Yeah, I showed the itemisations on the previous post (to the last - if that makes sense) but you are right, I hardly see the point in having more than 2 veterans either.

Are you 100% sure that a VL player can just go back to the PL withouth being delisted and re-recruited? I would have thought that a PL nominated veteran could be "un-nominated" but I think the rules are pretty rigid once a player actually goes on to the VL.

I see you are on a front loaded contract btw , as for hoopla I think 450k is a over the odds - I know we need to make the cap floor but that is too much considering I took a cut for the team. :D

Edited November 1, 2009 by 1858

[hoopla 418]

I have the CBA on my computer.

There really isn't an incentive to name more Vets than the two on the VL, unless the third Vet is on stupid money.

Thanks for the info - and thanks to 1858 who writes very clearly for someone who's over 150 years old.

The arrangement encourages clubs to retain expensive veterans who might otherwise be de-listed simply because of salary cap pressures. It's just one of the compromises designed to counter the push for free agency

Word has it that Melbourne is about $500k below its salary cap minimum - so that ( if we don't get someone like Ball) we are going to have to front-load several contracts

Presumably players on a two year contract who might normally expect to get $200 in year 1 and $300 in Year 2 will get, say, $350 in Year 1 and $150 in Year 2. Players will therefore be rewarded for anticipated future performance before they have actually delivered on their immediate goals. Over the course of a long season those in the second year of their contract may find themselves carrying players in the first year of their contracts who are actually taking home more money than they are.

I guess there will always be anomalies in contract relativities - but this additional complication is one that will require very careful management. Is there any way under the CBA that the club can claw back front end payments that prove excessive?

Edited November 1, 2009 by hoopla

[Mono 454]

.......

Word has it that Melbourne is about $500k below its salary cap minimum - so that ( if we don't get someone like Ball) we are going to have to front-load several contracts

.....

Taking Bruce & McDonald off the vet list will fix up a fair bit of the $500k. And give us 2 more rookies.

Ed: Just realised, it would take our main list back to 38 ie only 3 picks

Edited November 1, 2009 by Mono

[1858 265]

Taking Bruce & McDonald off the vet list will fix up a fair bit of the $500k. And give us 2 more rookies.

But we don't have space for them in the regular 38 unless we only want to use 3 draft picks.

[hoopla 418]

Taking Bruce & McDonald off the vet list will fix up a fair bit of the $500k. And give us 2 more rookies.

Ed: Just realised, it would take our main list back to 38 ie only 3 picks

So we're back to the ' less than ideal'prospect of forward loaded contracts then ( or Luke Ball!)?

[waynewussell 4,223]

Is it possible to place NEWTON on the rookie list?

[w00dy 146]

So we're back to the ' less than ideal'prospect of forward loaded contracts then ( or Luke Ball!)?

why is forward loading contracts less than ideal? it's a great situation for the club to be in, as it allows the club some flexibility in it's payments structure, when chasing a player such as luke ball...

[beelzebub 22,703]

why is forward loading contracts less than ideal? it's a great situation for the club to be in, as it allows the club some flexibility in it's payments structure, when chasing a player such as luke ball...

I tend to also think that at the moment it could serve Melbourne well to have soem cap freedom when we will need it in a few years time instead of trying to squeeze all in and some needing to take cuts and consider other fields etc

[rpfc 27,673]

Front loading can be less than ideal if you do not fill the hole in the cap soon.

If it is pushed into 2011, then there has to be a player or players placed on large contracts to fill the 'cap gap.'

If you do not find said player or players then you must front-load more contracts - creating a problem.

If you have had to 'front-load' the same players contract twice by throwing out the original contract and front-loading a new one in the second year you will have effectively inflated his wage.

Because that is essentially what front-loading does - it momentarily inflates salaries. If you don't quickly rectify the inflation, you may have $500k of 'overpayment' in a few years time, and it may push out a very good player.

Example (and I used this example some months ago): Morton on $500k over 2 years. $350k in 2010 and $150k in 2011.

But if we are to front-load his contract again to reach the minimum in 2011 we will have to throw out his $150k and give him, say, $600k over 2011/2012 with $400k in 2011.

Therefore, Morton would have been paid, effectively, $750k over 2010 and 2011 when we only wanted to pay him $500k.

Troublesome.

(Granted that is worst case scenario, and a little hard to follow. Apologies.)

[beelzebub 22,703]

In the hypothetical of ball ...if you do the deal that is possibly a realistic return over 3 years but loaded up front then neither he nor the club are out of pocket. Its advantageous to teh club to cover the filip. No particular reason it would inflate any one else remuneration at all.

[rpfc 27,673]

In the hypothetical of ball ...if you do the deal that is possibly a realistic return over 3 years but loaded up front then neither he nor the club are out of pocket. Its advantageous to teh club to cover the filip. No particular reason it would inflate any one else remuneration at all.

If you're replying to me, that is exactly what I am saying.

Ball would be a godsend in that respect.

Maybe even Bradshaw but that is less than ideal.

MacDonald possibly could be put on a large contract.

Basically, I am saying that I would prefer to overpay a 25+ year old so that we don't have this inflation problem with a number of our younger players.

[waynewussell 4,223]

I'm going to try this again on this thread rather than starting a new one...

Is it possible to place NEWTON on the rookie list?

[rpfc 27,673]

I'm going to try this again on this thread rather than starting a new one...

Is it possible to place NEWTON on the rookie list?

No.

We would have to pay him out, let him go through all the drafts, and then make the daft decision to pick him up in the Rookie Draft.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I'm going to try this again on this thread rather than starting a new one...

Is it possible to place NEWTON on the rookie list?

I think it is possible given that the rules re rookies and AFL experience. Provided the player agrees then it can be done with Newton or any other experienced player who we do not think will get game time in 2010. We would still be liable for his contracted salary but then the player would not be "list clogging". For example (not necessarily real life but..) rookie Newton and re contract one of Batram, Cheney or TMac who would have otherwise been cut.

[beelzebub 22,703]

If you're replying to me, that is exactly what I am saying.

Ball would be a godsend in that respect.

Maybe even Bradshaw but that is less than ideal.

MacDonald possibly could be put on a large contract.

Basically, I am saying that I would prefer to overpay a 25+ year old so that we don't have this inflation problem with a number of our younger players.

yep

[beelzebub 22,703]

Newton is contracted for 2010..thats about the long and short of it. You could rookie him if he fell out of contract..but he hasnt

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Newton is contracted for 2010..thats about the long and short of it. You could rookie him if he fell out of contract..but he hasnt

If the player consents to going on the rookie list as a possible option to being paid out of his existing contract, he could be put on the rookie list.

[rpfc 27,673]

If the player consents to going on the rookie list as a possible option to being paid out of his existing contract, he could be put on the rookie list.

That would be the dumbest thing I could think of for Newton to go and do.

If he decides to allow his contract to end in 09 he will go and play somewhere else.

But it's all moot because he is not going to agree to throw out his contract.

We have him next year, or we pay him out.

[beelzebub 22,703]

If the player consents to going on the rookie list as a possible option to being paid out of his existing contract, he could be put on the rookie list.

why on earth would we pay him out and keep him are we that flush ? If we pay him out its to be rid of him. If not we'll just wait the year. Or he may even start playing footy...sillier things have happened

[Darren Cuthbertson 0]

Thanks for the info - and thanks to 1858 who writes very clearly for someone who's over 150 years old.

The arrangement encourages clubs to retain expensive veterans who might otherwise be de-listed simply because of salary cap pressures. It's just one of the compromises designed to counter the push for free agency

Word has it that Melbourne is about $500k below its salary cap minimum - so that ( if we don't get someone like Ball) we are going to have to front-load several contracts

Presumably players on a two year contract who might normally expect to get $200 in year 1 and $300 in Year 2 will get, say, $350 in Year 1 and $150 in Year 2. Players will therefore be rewarded for anticipated future performance before they have actually delivered on their immediate goals. Over the course of a long season those in the second year of their contract may find themselves carrying players in the first year of their contracts who are actually taking home more money than they are.

I guess there will always be anomalies in contract relativities - but this additional complication is one that will require very careful management. Is there any way under the CBA that the club can claw back front end payments that prove excessive?

You expert Hoopla!

Where did you get your source re Melbourne's salary cap room? You haven't got an arrangement like some others where you just slice 10% off the top for you to keep?

[Guest Deefence]

T-Mac is contracted, FYI.