The new CBA gives all clubs a 20% increase in the sal cap - a massive windfall of about $2m p.a.  Clubs can go out and splurge on a few marquis players (or overpay players who they are desperate to keep/get). 

Not sure the AFLPA have really helped 95% of players - it just inflates the price of a handful players and makes it easier for clubs to get Free Agents in (but that is a separate subject).

How much money a club has to throw around next year depends on how many players have 'escalation' clauses in their contract.  North appear to want to spend it all this year on 2 players; St Kilda seem more likely to spend on a $1m player this year and a $1m player next year.  Others will spread it around a bit over the next two years. 

So how might this affect us?  My distant observations are:

• Our club has stated it will pay the market rate and not allow our player salary structure to get out of whack again.
• Jesse and others who have re-signed in the last year or two would have escalation clauses built into their contracts.  This would take up a decent part of the $2m over the next few years. 
• Mahoney has done a great job of 'insulating' us against this new CBA windfall as all our 'young guns' (except Salem) are signed up till 2018 or 2019.  This takes the urgency out of of scrambling to sign up players now.  On Salem - I wouldn't be surprised if he has a few offers on the table so hope he is signed up asap.  Other 'guns' would have offers but leaving would involve breaking contracts.
• The important one is the extra $2m makes it a lot easier to keep our 'young guns' in the sense of fulfilling their $ expectations prior to knowing their is a $2m windfall.  Some will get outrageous offers from other clubs.  Only time will tell whether they want to stick together.
• With Lumumba leaving we have an extra amount in our salary cap, say $2.5 to 'spend'.
• I wouldn't be surprised if contracts are being revisited as we speak to ensure we keep and reward players appropriately.

I think the club will keep the faith with players and reward them fairly according to the market.  If stories are believed we resisted throwing a bucket of cash at Prestia (wisely).  The truly elite (eg Hogan, Oliver) will get a premium. 

With PJ and Mahoney managing this, we are in good, steady hands with wise heads. 

Club has managed its cap very well to date under PJ. I suspect that will continue.

I think through all of this, poor old Josh Mahoney hasn't received the plaudits that maybe he should have.

I'm a big fan.

  On 31/05/2017 at 00:44, faultydet said:

I think through all of this, poor old Josh Mahoney hasn't received the plaudits that maybe he should have.

I'm a big fan.

Fully agree.  Also  big fan.

I suspect that after many years of off-field dramas the club would be quite happy for the 'back office' go quietly about its business and not get too much attention (if they do it would usually be for the wrong reasons).

I think Mahoney is being noticed by a few externally.  On FC a few weeks ago Caro referred to a club (I think Hawthorn) needing to improve its football management with someone good or 'who can grow into the role like Josh Mahoney has'. 

In a way I'm glad he flies under the public radar as he may get offers he can't refuse.  I would imagine PJ applies the same principle off field to 'pay the market' (+ premium where necessary). 

The AFLPA as the rep of players is a somewhat flawed body in that other than the minimum payment levels it has really just negotiated a wind fall for the big boys of the comp.

The flip side is the 90-95% minimum payment threshold. I see no reason why clubs cannot physically bank some of their money in the down years so they have more to pay the players in the up years. Like Leigh Matthews lamented about Brisbane a few years back why should they pay for mediocrity when teams like Hawthorn were paying the same. (Much the same for the MFC 3 plus years ago)

The posts above suggest we will be able to spread the love around. Sounds good but the reality is that the top three players at all clubs will be targeted by other clubs with the newly found money pot. We aren't the kind of club that can promise playing in front of blockbuster crowds so one can assume we will be paying close to top dollar to retain our players.

The players who will lose out are the 28 year old good players. Nathan Jones springs to mind. In the past he would be in the higher bands but the new reality may see the 22-25 guns being the noveau mega rich.

I am not sure who is the biggest winner out of the immediate uplift in the salary cap. A club like Sydney which has pressure on its cap? Or a club like St Kilda, who already had money to spend prior to the uplift? I guess it will help the clubs with salary cap pressures like Sydney more.

Hard to make a realistic judgement of how well we'll do out of the increase to the cap, without knowing finer details. Obviously the Saints and North have made it clear they are currently paying under 100% to bank funds to go even harder at trade targets. I don't know if it's been stated or even if there's an article, saying if we've done the same, paid 100% or even up to 105% over the last few years. 

Even if we did pay 100% (or more) then that might actually give us more to spend, if we were heavily front loading contracts in anticipation. 

I'm hoping that the likes of Viney who's got a longer contract and Jones and Lewis are all front ended, meaning that with Lumumba's contract as well we're in a very good position to either go after someone they think we need, or help retain Tracc, Oliver, Hogan, Salem, Hunt and Gawn etc who I anticipate might be on the receiving end of big offers when they come out of contract over the next few years. 

It seems the football world is slowly waking up to the fact that the beneficiaries of the $2m windfall are elite players, FA's and those with contract escalation clauses.  http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-cba-fears-many-players-could-miss-out-on-pay-bonanza-20170601-gwi19j.html

It doesn't make sense to me that some clubs 'have resisted putting escalation clauses' in player contracts.  Sure it helps the club but If good players don't keep up with the market they will look elsewhere and if the 'journeyman' players aren't looked after they will get left behind and perhaps feel exploited.  For reasons mentioned in the o.p I feel Mahoney and Co have this under control and will treat the whole group fairly ie stick to the 'pay in line with the market' policy.

This especially caught my eye: "...a senior football department figure at another Victorian club has privately queried whether the AFL Players' board – which includes...Rory Sloane and Patrick Dangerfield and club captains Phil Davis and Scott Pendlebury – contained a fair cross-section of players to ensure their interests were best looked after in pay talks."

A thinly veiled hint at some players feathering their own nest,perhaps!.  Its worth remembering that at least half the players in the AFL get less than $250k.  But really, it is up to the AFLPA to make sure ALL player's interests are protected.  I think they have failed badly on that one.

  On 30/05/2017 at 23:46, Lucifer's Hero said:

The new CBA gives all clubs a 20% increase in the sal cap - a massive windfall of about $2m p.a.  Clubs can go out and splurge on a few marquis players (or overpay players who they are desperate to keep/get). 

Not sure the AFLPA have really helped 95% of players - it just inflates the price of a handful players and makes it easier for clubs to get Free Agents in (but that is a separate subject).

How much money a club has to throw around next year depends on how many players have 'escalation' clauses in their contract.  North appear to want to spend it all this year on 2 players; St Kilda seem more likely to spend on a $1m player this year and a $1m player next year.  Others will spread it around a bit over the next two years. 

So how might this affect us?  My distant observations are:

• Our club has stated it will pay the market rate and not allow our player salary structure to get out of whack again.
• Jesse and others who have re-signed in the last year or two would have escalation clauses built into their contracts.  This would take up a decent part of the $2m over the next few years. 
• Mahoney has done a great job of 'insulating' us against this new CBA windfall as all our 'young guns' (except Salem) are signed up till 2018 or 2019.  This takes the urgency out of of scrambling to sign up players now.  On Salem - I wouldn't be surprised if he has a few offers on the table so hope he is signed up asap.  Other 'guns' would have offers but leaving would involve breaking contracts.
• The important one is the extra $2m makes it a lot easier to keep our 'young guns' in the sense of fulfilling their $ expectations prior to knowing their is a $2m windfall.  Some will get outrageous offers from other clubs.  Only time will tell whether they want to stick together.
• With Lumumba leaving we have an extra amount in our salary cap, say $2.5 to 'spend'.
• I wouldn't be surprised if contracts are being revisited as we speak to ensure we keep and reward players appropriately.

I think the club will keep the faith with players and reward them fairly according to the market.  If stories are believed we resisted throwing a bucket of cash at Prestia (wisely).  The truly elite (eg Hogan, Oliver) will get a premium. 

With PJ and Mahoney managing this, we are in good, steady hands with wise heads. 

While this is a sane and sound position, there is a flip side to it. Players generally are prepared to play for less for a club in premiership contention. So, if for example North were to get Kelly and Martin and pay them millions, perhaps other players would stay for less to possibly play in a flag. its a dangerous thing for a club our size or Norths size to fall into a middle of the road position. We're on the up I know....and I DO think its sound to take care of our future stars. But I understand the counter position and I have to admit that there is part of me that would love to land a big fish and announce ourselves as contenders. 

  On 01/06/2017 at 10:40, Wells 11 said:

While this is a sane and sound position, there is a flip side to it. Players generally are prepared to play for less for a club in premiership contention. So, if for example North were to get Kelly and Martin and pay them millions, perhaps other players would stay for less to possibly play in a flag. its a dangerous thing for a club our size or Norths size to fall into a middle of the road position. We're on the up I know....and I DO think its sound to take care of our future stars. But I understand the counter position and I have to admit that there is part of me that would love to land a big fish and announce ourselves as contenders. 

You need more than one big fish. You need a team of contributors and stars amongst them.

Geelong are not going to win a flag because they rely too heavily on two players. Bookmark it.

  On 01/06/2017 at 11:38, A F said:

You need more than one big fish. You need a team of contributors and stars amongst them.

Geelong are not going to win a flag because they rely too heavily on two players. Bookmark it.

Geelong as I've often said also don't have a game day coach.He's a yesterday thug with less game day talent than his twin and and was elevated to immortality by the best TEAM at the time.

They are both forever immortalised by their sportsmanship escorting a true legend of the game Nick Rievolt off the ground with " a shoulder "

Whilst Chris rides on the coattails of " Dangerfield /Selwood " Brad executes his exit plan.

Tonight gives us another opportunity to experience the home ground advantage, bias 3/3.

For what its worth I tip team Crows.