Salary Cap Squeeze - 2014

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

Usually clubs face salary cap issues when trying to fit in all their players under the cap and resort to 3rd party deals or brown paper bags to try and cover the difference. I think next year MFC will face a salary cap squeeze of a different sort; I just cannot fathom how we will possibly meet the 95% minimum cap requirements.

Davey and Sylvia are out the door, so you would assume there is close to $1M in cap room there - or close to 10%.

At a guess I would break down our players into the following brackets (guesses in parentheses);

>$401K - Clark ($600-$800K), Dawes ($450-$600K), Frawley ($500K), N. Jones ($500K) = roughly $2.4M

$250-$400K - Watts ($400K), Trengove ($400K), Dunn ($280K), Garland ($350K), Grimes ($350K), Howe ($350K), Jamar ($350K), Tapscott ($300K) = roughly $2.8M

$150K-$249K - Byrnes, McKenzie, Blease, Strauss, Pedersen, McDonald, Nicholson, Gawn = roughly $1.6M

<$149K - Toumpas, Viney, Evans, Kent, Barry, Jetta, Spencer, Taggert, Bail, M. Jones, Terlich, Fitzpatrick = roughly $1.2M

Rookie - Magner, Stark, Clisby = roughly $200K

These guesses equate to about $8.2M - add in about 8 new players on minimum contracts (maybe one or two like Cross on higher contracts) and that's another roughly $800K so $9M.

Granted I'm probably off with some of those but I think it's a pretty fair assessment. Next year the salary cap is about $10-$11M if I'm not mistaken and I struggle to see us getting any massive recruits who will eat up a large chunk of our cap, so you can add about 8 or so more "minimum wage" rookies on there. I know we can restructure contracts to front and back-end them but seriously, how in god's name are we going to meet the minimum cap requirements considering we've probably already front-ended a lot of these over the last few years anyway?

We really need to throw stupid money around at mid-level players to not only entice them to the club but also to try and meet our minimum cap requirements. Everyone thought it was an issue that we couldn't pay 100% of the cap but I think the real issue is we don't have the cattle to justify paying 95% of the cap.

What do you guys think? Maybe I'm way off with my figures and structuring of contracts, but surely we should have a big chunk of cap room to throw at an senior midfielder something which appears we either aren't doing or can't do. If anyone wants to correct my guesses please go at it and I can edit the OP to reflect it.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Dr. Gonzo

[Scipio 5,868]

I think you're underestimating what some of the middle to lower tier players are getting paid (often undeservingly).

I know for a fact that Tapscott is getting paid quite a bit more than what you are allowing for him there.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

I think you're underestimating what some of the middle to lower tier players are getting paid (often undeservingly).

I know for a fact that Tapscott is getting paid quite a bit more than what you are allowing for him there.

If Tapscott is on more than $250K then that helps explain why we are so crap.

[Scipio 5,868]

If Tapscott is on more than $250K then that helps explain why we are so crap.

He is and yep, but I suppose they have to pay someone!

[old dee 22,843]

He is and yep, but I suppose they have to pay someone!

Please don't use that line, I know the reality of the salary cap

but it sticks in my gut that we are paying Tapscott and others more than 250k to satisfy our salary cap requirements.

It is just monumentally wrong.

Players union crap, how do they justify it?

[KingSlayer33 170]

Massive pity that Hogan will be on the scaled fee that just drafted players are fixed on then. Otherwise you could bump him to $400k pretty easily based on some of those guesses.

[The Song Formerly Known As 6,479]

Pay N. Jones more MFC, please.

[old dee 22,843]

Pay N. Jones more MFC, please.

Yes Tapscott's salary to Jones would be way better value.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

Massive pity that Hogan will be on the scaled fee that just drafted players are fixed on then. Otherwise you could bump him to $400k pretty easily based on some of those guesses.

He doesn't have to be. If he signs a new four year deal we can up his wages.

I actually like that we have a bit of room to move in the salary cap at the moment. We'll need that cash to attract the A-grade mid we hope to snare.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

He doesn't have to be. If he signs a new four year deal we can up his wages.

I actually like that we have a bit of room to move in the salary cap at the moment. We'll need that cash to attract the A-grade mid we hope to snare.

That's the whole question though - who? Who can we convince to come to the Demons, no one wants to come. We've freed up space for FA and to "build a war chest" and have been front-ending contracts to create space but we've got all this money to wave around and no one wants to take it it seems.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

That's the whole question though - who? Who can we convince to come to the Demons, no one wants to come. We've freed up space for FA and to "build a war chest" and have been front-ending contracts to create space but we've got all this money to wave around and no one wants to take it it seems.

Again, the club is letting nothing leak, but I won't be at all surprised if we pull something out in the next three weeks.

Also on the Hogan front, the AFL has now approved Franklin's deal, so we could in theory offer him a 15 year deal right now and be done with it.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

Again, the club is letting nothing leak, but I won't be at all surprised if we pull something out in the next three weeks.

Also on the Hogan front, the AFL has now approved Franklin's deal, so we could in theory offer him a 15 year deal right now and be done with it.

Yeah so could everyone else - including Freo or WCE...

And on the "A-Grade mid" I'd love to be proven wrong, but I just don't see it - at all.

[whatwhat say what 18,882]

we need to sign chip up on a big deal this year to encompass 2014-2019.

problem solvered.

[deanox 8,562]

This thread sums up one of the things I've been banging on about for a few weeks. The salary cap floor hurts the poor teams. They have to meet it which means money is tied up in low value high cost assets and contracts. The Clubs then didn't have available cap space to throw around to buy high cost high value assets like free agents.

It hurts the cash poor and onfield poor teams even more; they can't afford to pay 100% of the cap so the have less wiggle room to buy players.

[whatwhat say what 18,882]

excellent point deanox.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

Yeah so could everyone else - including Freo or WCE...

And on the "A-Grade mid" I'd love to be proven wrong, but I just don't see it - at all.

And in two years he'd be free to take up one of those offers if he can get a trade together that we will go for. Otherwise it's back o the draft and best of luck to him.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

This thread sums up one of the things I've been banging on about for a few weeks. The salary cap floor hurts the poor teams. They have to meet it which means money is tied up in low value high cost assets and contracts. The Clubs then didn't have available cap space to throw around to buy high cost high value assets like free agents.

It hurts the cash poor and onfield poor teams even more; they can't afford to pay 100% of the cap so the have less wiggle room to buy players.

I agree but there has to be a happy medium. You don't want to see clubs paying only 75% of the cap and getting smashed every week just so they can pocket the extra couple of million and turn a profit/break even.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

On a related issue I also think its time the AFL began disclosing the figures on players contracts. The list management/salary cap side of footy is a huge issue these days and we as members/shareholders have the right to know how our clubs are investing the money and how they are managing their contracts (front/back ending them).

[Undeeterred 2,839]

The salary cap should flat out be funded by the league and that way there's no incentive to avoid paying it out. If you can only find $9 mil, then so be it, the league pockets the difference.

That would sort it out.

I agree with OP and deanox - we must have bazillions to play with, but equally we only need to get slightly better and we'll have a crunch. Wait til Jack Viney gets on here and finds out Tapscott is on a fortune...

[rpfc 27,431]

Salary floors are coming in now (the NBA have introduced one this season). We had one because Fitzroy was staying alive on 70% of the cap and doing nothing.

As for our squeeze - it is more of a stretch, and Schwab ingenious answer was to frontloading contracts each year rather than over pay. I am yet to hear an argument for a better solution.

Edited October 8, 2013 by rpfc

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

I don't mind the front/back ending of contracts and think it's a pretty clever strategy. The problem I was trying to convey in the OP was more about how we could possibly meet the minimum cap requirements next year considering the make-up of our list (a couple of highly paid players and a whole lot of rookies/unproven young players). Especially considering you would assume some contracts have already been heavily front-ended (Clark & Dawes for starters) I just can't see how 1) we don't have stupid money to throw at out of contract players to entice them across and 2) we can restructure the contracts further to meet the minimum cap.

I like Undeeterred's suggestion above that would "deter" clubs from hoarding their cap space so they don't lose millions of dollars but allow them to pay their list it's true value. There would have to be some kinks ironed out but overall I think it's smarter than saying Melbourne has to pay it's list roughly the same as Hawthorn, Freo, Geelong and Sydney.

I was discussing this with my cousin the other day and specifically around the front/back ending of contracts. He said it's a good idea in theory but it's been discussed by Bill Simmons on his BS Report podcast before in regards to NBA teams mainly I think and the problem with it is that clubs create all this future cap space and then are unable to lure any "big money" players across - they then have to spend that cap anyway and end up overpaying average to above average players more money than they're worth. I think we may have done this with Dawes and fear it could become an issue for us in the next few years. In a way I don't mind it though as it is kind of contradicted by my earlier point about throwing stupid money at players just to be able to entice them to the club. If we have to overpay players to come here then it could be worth it if we are successful in luring them - think of it as a "signing on" bonus.

[ucanchoose 1,803]

Salary floors are coming in now (the NBA have introduced one this season). We had one because Fitzroy was staying alive on 70% of the cap and doing nothing.

As for our squeeze - it is more of a stretch, and Schwab ingenious answer was to frontloading contracts each year rather than over pay. I am yet to hear an argument for a better solution.

The NBA salary cap floor is meaningless. If you don't spend to the cap, it's just divided amongst the players on your roster. It does nothing.

[rpfc 27,431]

The NBA salary cap floor is meaningless. If you don't spend to the cap, it's just divided amongst the players on your roster. It does nothing.

Well, their variant may be worth a look here however that does mean that players are on inflated salaries.

[deanox 8,562]

The same here: if you don't spend 95% you pay the rest to the afl and they divide it amongst your list.

I'd like to see the following changes:

-The next CBA negotiated with respect to the current floor, and the "max" salary cap increased so that cubs can pay for little as 90% but players still get the negotiate amount

-The AFL fund 100% of the cap to remove the incentive.

If the floor is not acceptable to the players, all clubs "under payments" should be collected and divided amongst all players, including rookies and draftees, AFL wide, not just that club. That way players at one club aren't over paid with respect to other clubs.

Edited October 8, 2013 by deanox

[ickey_11 145]

Usually clubs face salary cap issues when trying to fit in all their players under the cap and resort to 3rd party deals or brown paper bags to try and cover the difference. I think next year MFC will face a salary cap squeeze of a different sort; I just cannot fathom how we will possibly meet the 95% minimum cap requirements.

Davey and Sylvia are out the door, so you would assume there is close to $1M in cap room there - or close to 10%.

At a guess I would break down our players into the following brackets (guesses in parentheses);

>$401K - Clark ($600-$800K), Dawes ($450-$600K), Frawley ($500K), N. Jones ($500K) = roughly $2.4M

$250-$400K - Watts ($400K), Trengove ($400K), Dunn ($280K), Garland ($350K), Grimes ($350K), Howe ($350K), Jamar ($350K), Tapscott ($300K) = roughly $2.8M

$150K-$249K - Byrnes, McKenzie, Blease, Strauss, Pedersen, McDonald, Nicholson, Gawn = roughly $1.6M

<$149K - Toumpas, Viney, Evans, Kent, Barry, Jetta, Spencer, Taggert, Bail, M. Jones, Terlich, Fitzpatrick = roughly $1.2M

Rookie - Magner, Stark, Clisby = roughly $200K

These guesses equate to about $8.2M - add in about 8 new players on minimum contracts (maybe one or two like Cross on higher contracts) and that's another roughly $800K so $9M.

Granted I'm probably off with some of those but I think it's a pretty fair assessment. Next year the salary cap is about $10-$11M if I'm not mistaken and I struggle to see us getting any massive recruits who will eat up a large chunk of our cap, so you can add about 8 or so more "minimum wage" rookies on there. I know we can restructure contracts to front and back-end them but seriously, how in god's name are we going to meet the minimum cap requirements considering we've probably already front-ended a lot of these over the last few years anyway?

We really need to throw stupid money around at mid-level players to not only entice them to the club but also to try and meet our minimum cap requirements. Everyone thought it was an issue that we couldn't pay 100% of the cap but I think the real issue is we don't have the cattle to justify paying 95% of the cap.

What do you guys think? Maybe I'm way off with my figures and structuring of contracts, but surely we should have a big chunk of cap room to throw at an senior midfielder something which appears we either aren't doing or can't do. If anyone wants to correct my guesses please go at it and I can edit the OP to reflect it.

Melbourne have front loaded the Clark, Dawes, Trengove (& probably others) contracts. So there will be a lot more room in the cap in years to come.

Edited October 9, 2013 by ickey_11