Kudos to Cam Schwab for telling Gary March to keep his nose out of the MFC's business. The only reason Richmond are worried about losing their top draft picks is because they are well aware that the RFC aren't going to contending in finals for a while.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/march-backed-on-young-talent-20100525-wb2x.html

I have full confidence that Tim Harrington and Chris Connolly will keep those required players and clear out any dead wood to make way for the next generation. Just like members are returning to this club which is rising from a long winter hibernation, so too will our players realise that the MFC is on the verge of something.

Kudos to Cam Schwab for telling Gary March to keep his nose out of the MFC's business. The only reason Richmond are worried about losing their top draft picks is because they are well aware that the RFC aren't going to contending in finals for a while.

http://www.theage.co...00525-wb2x.html

I have full confidence that Tim Harrington and Chris Connolly will keep those required players and clear out any dead wood to make way for the next generation. Just like members are returning to this club which is rising from a long winter hibernation, so too will our players realise that the MFC is on the verge of something.

I cant view that link from work can you please post full article. It sounds juicy!!

I'm a fan of Cameron Schwab but he has a conflict of interest here.

At least we all know the MFC won't complain if Scully or Watts head up to GWS as Schwabby helped make the rules and must stand by them. Will be interesting if it happens, hopefully it won't though eh?

Edited May 26, 201015 yr by Harcourt

I was listening to MMM when March was on and he kept on throwing Melbourne players names up and it was kind of pissing me off. Many may recall earlier in the year we found out that we are paying the full amount on our salary cap this year by front ending the contracts so that in the future when GWS and GS17 start trying to poach our players we have some room to move, very smart forward thinking by Schwab and Co. March is (rightly) concerned because Richmond are in a world of trouble and will likely not be going anywhere for a good while, whereas for every one step backwards we've taken this year we've taken two steps forward.

I'm not all that worried.

Bravo Cameron and Tim....

the bleating that is coming from March indicates Richmond have stuffed up yet again.

Did they offer Martin a longer contract when signed? Have they got room to pay him under the salary cap in the coming years? Or have they spent money on Simmons, Cousins etc this year, and have offered Deledio, Tambling, Cotchin etc more next year in lieu,so leaving them with no room for anyone else?

As Cameron implied....we know the rules, and have worked, planned and managed our contracts accordingly.

As 21 year old myself, I know that being offered money to change ships in my respected field is a big thing to think about. Hopefully the thought of the transition to a different state would be too overwhelming for the dollar signs. Lets just pray all our new boys bond a massive chemistry over the years to come in which they can set their sights on a premiership at Melbourne in the future.

Everyone has been stating we have the best young talent to work with, hopefully we can keep them all.

I'm a fan of Cameron Schwab but he has a conflict of interest here.

At least we all know the MFC won't complain if Scully or Watts head up to GWS as Schwabby helped make the rules and must stand by them. Will be interesting if it happens, hopefully it won't though eh?

Well no CEO can complain because they all agreed to them just the same.

Schwab didn't make these rules on his own.

Bravo Cameron and Tim....

the bleating that is coming from March indicates Richmond have stuffed up yet again.

Did they offer Martin a longer contract when signed? Have they got room to pay him under the salary cap in the coming years? Or have they spent money on Simmons, Cousins etc this year, and have offered Deledio, Tambling, Cotchin etc more next year in lieu,so leaving them with no room for anyone else?

As Cameron implied....we know the rules, and have worked, planned and managed our contracts accordingly.

I find it amazing some of the clubs saying they haven't yet discussed the issue of player retention with the new teams coming in!

Forward planning much?

Failure to plan ahead is planning to fail.

I was listening to MMM when March was on and he kept on throwing Melbourne players names up and it was kind of pissing me off. Many may recall earlier in the year we found out that we are paying the full amount on our salary cap this year by front ending the contracts so that in the future when GWS and GS17 start trying to poach our players we have some room to move, very smart forward thinking by Schwab and Co. March is (rightly) concerned because Richmond are in a world of trouble and will likely not be going anywhere for a good while, whereas for every one step backwards we've taken this year we've taken two steps forward.

I'm not all that worried.

I'm also not worried but I just want to clarify something.

We are frontloading contracts to make the 92.5% minimum of the cap, we are not paying the full $7.5m cap or whatever it is.

It means we have even more room to move in a few years time but can also mean that are youngsters will be on inflated contracts which might be an issue down the track.

Edited May 26, 201015 yr by rpfc

I'm also not worried but I just want to clarify something.

We are frontloading contracts to make the 92.5% minimum of the cap, we are not paying the full $7.5m cap or whatever it is.

It means we have even more room to move in a few years time but can also mean that are youngsters will be on inflated contracts which might be an issue down the track.

This is my understanding.

Newspaper articles have been written to mislead us with their wording, but we still have a lot of room to play with and are not paying the full cap to kids with no scope for them to improve their earnings.

I'm also not worried but I just want to clarify something.

We are frontloading contracts to make the 92.5% minimum of the cap, we are not paying the full $7.5m cap or whatever it is.

It means we have even more room to move in a few years time but can also mean that are youngsters will be on inflated contracts which might be an issue down the track.

Rp, I could be wrong and be corrected on this, but it was my understanding they were moving back out to 100% of the Cap to assist in front loading contracts for those up for renewal. I don't yet have a link on this to support this.

Cameron Schwab is part of the committee devising the rules so he would agree with them. I have sympathy for Richmond and March - Martin comes from NSW and apparently has been offered stupendoeus money - if we were in the news similarly the bleating here would be off the dial. All power to Tim Harrington to sign our players up as he did with Chip recently - but just remember EVERY player on our list except Chip and Aaron Davey is vulnerable to GC and GWS uncontracted player poaching. GC have 2010 and GWS have 2 years 2011 and 2012, my understanding based on us giving maximum 2 or 3 year contracts, is that no-one apart from Chip and Aaron is contracted beyond 2012.

Rp, I could be wrong and be corrected on this, but it was my understanding they were moving back out to 100% of the Cap to assist in front loading contracts for those up for renewal. I don't yet have a link on this to support this.

I think he's right.

I'll try to find the article where I read it.

Actually, from memory, I think CS mentioned it in one of his whiteboard wednesdays.

Edited May 26, 201015 yr by Keyser Söze

paid in full 100%

Pay now, play later

paid in full 100%

Pay now, play later

This is what I was talking about in regards to poor articles that twist the truth.

I'm fairly certain that in one of CS's recent Whiteboard Wednesdays he has clearly stated we are current only paying 92.5% of the cap.

If I had the time I'd watch through them to make sure.

Right now I don't.

This is what I was talking about in regards to poor articles that twist the truth.

I'm fairly certain that in one of CS's recent Whiteboard Wednesdays he has clearly stated we are current only paying 92.5% of the cap.

If I had the time I'd watch through them to make sure.

Right now I don't.

No, CS whiteboard wednesday definitely confirmed we are paying 100% of the cap this season. There is no doubt on that issue!

However, we are only paying 100% of the cap because of HUGE amounts of forward payments spread across many players. The front loaded contracts are a win-win for both club and player. If a player is going to get $1.5m over 3 years, obviously getting $1m in the first season and 250k in the second and third season, is better than getting 500k each season. Even the most non-finance person understands that it is better to get money early rather than later because the money can be reinvested and earn even more money. Obviously from the clubs perspective, we have to pay the salary cap each season regardless, so we may as well pay as much as we can this season while our youngsters are still on base salaries, leaving huge amount of space to sign up those youngsters when/if they become stars. I'm pretty sure Aaron Davey, who signed a 3 or 4 years deal recently, is having most of his contract paid this season.

I would image that is 'real' terms, we are probably only paying 85% of the cap.

This is what I was talking about in regards to poor articles that twist the truth.

I'm fairly certain that in one of CS's recent Whiteboard Wednesdays he has clearly stated we are current only paying 92.5% of the cap.

If I had the time I'd watch through them to make sure.

Right now I don't.

That article was March 23rd. We're up to week 11 of Whiteboard Wednesday's. Schwabby may have produced alot of those prior to March 23rd. But hey, I'm just guessing. He may well have been on the money at that particular time.

Summary of all the Whiteboard Wed's up to and incl. Week 10. - thanks to CIP from O'logy.

Click on forum, you will see it as a "sticky" third from top.

God Richmond are pathetic

Correct Sylivinator. Front ending is a win for the club, the player and the filthy player agents. Money in the pocket now is way better than money in the pocket later.

God Richmond are pathetic

We need good management to prosper but it's the icing on a cake of good luck. If our 2009 had been our 2007 - Neale Daniher's last year we would be in at least as much shiite as Richmond are. They've been dealt a cruel hand - somebody was going to be and it's their misfortune to be down at this time. Melbourne, Carlton, Hawthorn, Footscray, St.Kilda have all had their down cycles. Richmond has a tragic recent history, much of it their own making, but it's hard to find more tragic than no flag for 50 years like the Dogs, Saints and Demons.

The cap is $7.95m in 2010.

I'm staggered we have found enough talent to find homes for almost $8m. And a direct quote from Harrington or Schwab would not go amiss...

Frontloading is a much better scenario than spreading money around our young talent and inflating their wages but I am yet to be convinced of the virtues of paying almost 100% rather than just getting to 92.5% - a number we wouldn't get to in real terms.

I argued going after a big name to soak up some of the funds so that we don't inflate players wages. I still believe the frontloading is a 'kick down the road' solution and I hope it doesn't lead to complications with agents/players confused over the worth of a player; a player getting X suddenly gets a third of X, and then a fifth of X...

But what am I thinking...

Player agents are god's children - they would never lead anyone astray...

The cap is $7.95m in 2010.

I'm staggered we have found enough talent to find homes for almost $8m. And a direct quote from Harrington or Schwab would not go amiss...

So am I..

Frontloading is a much better scenario than spreading money around our young talent and inflating their wages but I am yet to be convinced of the virtues of paying almost 100% rather than just getting to 92.5% - a number we wouldn't get to in real terms.

I argued going after a big name to soak up some of the funds so that we don't inflate players wages. I still believe the frontloading is a 'kick down the road' solution and I hope it doesn't lead to complications with agents/players confused over the worth of a player; a player getting X suddenly gets a third of X, and then a fifth of X...

But what am I thinking...

I agree. Player agents see the big picture...$$$. We could still get a big name if need be, and you may be right that it may lead to complications further down the track. I can only imagine the likes of GC & GWS and their increased salary caps which will be brought back in line over time to that of the other clubs, will cause a ripple effect on a player(s) worth.

Your thinking has merit.

Harrington's relationship with player agents...hopefully they can work reasonably together quite well. If our leadership group can be as close and of the same understanding to that of Geelong's over it's successful time (ie. keeping them within the cap for success as a group), that can only be a good outcome for both player(s) and club.

The cap is $7.95m in 2010.

I'm staggered we have found enough talent to find homes for almost $8m. And a direct quote from Harrington or Schwab would not go amiss...

Frontloading is a much better scenario than spreading money around our young talent and inflating their wages but I am yet to be convinced of the virtues of paying almost 100% rather than just getting to 92.5% - a number we wouldn't get to in real terms.

I argued going after a big name to soak up some of the funds so that we don't inflate players wages. I still believe the frontloading is a 'kick down the road' solution and I hope it doesn't lead to complications with agents/players confused over the worth of a player; a player getting X suddenly gets a third of X, and then a fifth of X...

But what am I thinking...

Player agents are god's children - they would never lead anyone astray...

i agree that it could cause comlications down the track. the compensation for an uncontracted player poached by one of the new teams or by free agency, takes into account how much that player earned during that year and where they fit in the pecking order of player payments at the club. by paying less in the last years it may affect that equation that determines compensation.

also i may give the impression to these player agents that when they do come out of their contracts, there is tacks of room to move and drive up their prices.

The cap is $7.95m in 2010.

I'm staggered we have found enough talent to find homes for almost $8m. And a direct quote from Harrington or Schwab would not go amiss...

Not hard. Just pay Davey, Sylvia, Bate, Green, Bruce, Moloney, Grimes most of their contract this year and you'd go very close to 100%. It is my belief this is exactly what we are doing although I'm not sure which of the players we are doing it with.

However the only real way to keep the players is to build a club where loyalty, integrity and team success is more important than money. GC and GWS have warchests that they WILL spend and we have some serious talent. In all likelihood they will make a play for one or more of our players. Sheedy would love to pinch some of our talent.

Personally I'd rather play for Collingwood than some souless entity extracted from the anus of the AFL Commission, but that's me.

If one of our players does leave I'll Boo him until my throat hurts.

Edited May 26, 201015 yr by Roost It