The Age is reporting that Richmond and Rance have come to an agreement to pay out part of his salary that he would have otherwise been paid.

One-sixth of quite a bit: Alex Rance leaves $1.4 million on the table

The result is that Richmond now have buckets of $$$'s available under the salary cap for this year and next.

If this is allowed by the AFL, then you can be sure that Sydney and Collingwood will exploit the same avenue for their 10 and 7 year signings, when they can't make it to the end of their contracts!

44 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

The Age is reporting that Richmond and Rance have come to an agreement to pay out part of his salary that he would have otherwise been paid.

One-sixth of quite a bit: Alex Rance leaves $1.4 million on the table

The result is that Richmond now have buckets of $$$'s available under the salary cap for this year and next.

If this is allowed by the AFL, then you can be sure that Sydney and Collingwood will exploit the same avenue for their 10 and 7 year signings, when they can't make it to the end of their contracts!

Very smart business! Shame we have no million dollar babies to take advantage of it.

It surprising that he will be paid anything really given that he effectively walked away from it.

I don't have a huge problem with this, given that Rance will not be getting the full value of his contract.

What I would have a problem with is if Buddy walked away, insisted he be paid out the full ten years value and the AFL let that payment happen outside the salary cap.  But I don't think that's what's happening here.

39 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

It surprising that he will be paid anything really given that he effectively walked away from it.

I don't have a huge problem with this, given that Rance will not be getting the full value of his contract.

What I would have a problem with is if Buddy walked away, insisted he be paid out the full ten years value and the AFL let that payment happen outside the salary cap.  But I don't think that's what's happening here.

If his contract were back-end loaded, I could understand that he may have accrued payments that need to be paid out at the conclusion of his time as a player, whether it occurs at the expected end of the contract or earlier. 

2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

The Age is reporting that Richmond and Rance have come to an agreement to pay out part of his salary that he would have otherwise been paid.

One-sixth of quite a bit: Alex Rance leaves $1.4 million on the table

The result is that Richmond now have buckets of $$$'s available under the salary cap for this year and next.

If this is allowed by the AFL, then you can be sure that Sydney and Collingwood will exploit the same avenue for their 10 and 7 year signings, when they can't make it to the end of their contracts!

My understanding is that a player retiring has the full contract amount in the salary cap.

It would be a major change if it Richmond was allowed to circumvent that.  Rort city comes to mind.

A matter worthy of scrutiny and observation. This will test the 'colours' of the AFL, itself. 

2 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

If this is allowed by the AFL, then you can be sure that Sydney and Collingwood will exploit the same avenue for their 10 and 7 year signings, when they can't make it to the end of their contracts!

It's a near guarantee that the AFL will find a way to let Sydney off the hook with the remainder of Buddy's contract.  And if they're not in the finals when he retires, it's an absolute guarantee.

Which of course sets the precedent.

 

13 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

My understanding is that a player retiring has the full contract amount in the salary cap.

It would be a major change if it Richmond was allowed to circumvent that.  Rort city comes to mind.

Ohhhh geee, but don't we want to see the best clubs at their best? No-one wants to see the top clubs crippled by pointless salary cap restrictions like this, do they? Especially the premiers. They've got DUSTY, Jack, little Rioli, Captain Cotch ... what a shame if those players don't get to play in their best possible team just because of the retirement of a true champion of the game ...

(read this in your best McAvaney or Darcy voice)

I’m not too sure what the ‘rort’ is.
 

If a club parts with a player before the contract ends and the player takes a lower exit fee then the club should be able to use any savings back into its salary cap. 

39 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

I’m not too sure what the ‘rort’ is.
 

If a club parts with a player before the contract ends and the player takes a lower exit fee then the club should be able to use any savings back into its salary cap. 

"Crikey! Buddy's just retired and the mil we still owe him is stuck on our salary cap!"

"Don't worry about it. We'll pay him out 50 grand and after Gil's signed off on it, we'll make him game day ambassador to the coterie group on 950 grand. Easy."

13 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

"Crikey! Buddy's just retired and the mil we still owe him is stuck on our salary cap!"

"Don't worry about it. We'll pay him out 50 grand and after Gil's signed off on it, we'll make him game day ambassador to the coterie group on 950 grand. Easy."

It makes you wonder doesnt it.

Gee wilikons.

Rance  has broken the contract why do they have to pay $1?

4 minutes ago, old dee said:

Rance  has broken the contract why do they have to pay $1?

I suspect as earlier mentioned it might have been backloaded.

Interesting though... Gary Ablett's contract at the Suns was reportedly front loaded but no mention of him having to repay for that last season.

Seems that it may only work one way unless the contracts are getting more specific about these eventualities.

Watch the tigers chase degoey or Moore with that money, even petracca would be of interest 

Contracts mean absolutely nothing now

It is at best a bargaining tool

Surplus money back in a clubs Salary Cap is complete madness

The end of the Salary Cap...

3 hours ago, bandicoot said:

I’m not too sure what the ‘rort’ is.
 

If a club parts with a player before the contract ends and the player takes a lower exit fee then the club should be able to use any savings back into its salary cap. 

But Richmond can now pay extra to other players on their list who would otherwise be pushed out by the salary cap, thus keeping their list intact. 

Or they can go chasing other players in the mid-season draft that they couldn't because of salary cap pressure, if they have a spot caused through injury..

As @bandicoot says, I don't think Richmond is rorting on this occasion,  Rance screwed them over.

But @Mazer Rackham has shown how this could be used as a precedent for other clubs to rort in future.

Get Rance!

Is that a euphemism?

2 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

As @bandicoot says, I don't think Richmond is rorting on this occasion,  Rance screwed them over.

But @Mazer Rackham has shown how this could be used as a precedent for other clubs to rort in future.

Yes. Richmond are not at fault here at all, they are merely maximizing their situation. But if they succeed all Clubs will want the same opportunities going forward. 
 

AFL integrity is at stake....

5 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

"Crikey! Buddy's just retired and the mil we still owe him is stuck on our salary cap!"

"Don't worry about it. We'll pay him out 50 grand and after Gil's signed off on it, we'll make him game day ambassador to the coterie group on 950 grand. Easy."

Promise a fortune over 8 years to blow away any other clubs in the hunt for a 26 year old star, but then use the money on other players when he retires at 31.

Edited February 6, 20205 yr by Moonshadow

8 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

What I would have a problem with is if Buddy walked away, insisted he be paid out the full ten years value and the AFL let that payment happen outside the salary cap.  But I don't think that's what's happening here.

This can't happen. Fitzpatrick was so hysterical about Buddy going to Swans when he wanted him to go to his team GWS that he threw the book at the Swans without any justification or authority. Banned them from trading any players in to the Club for 2 or possibly even 3 years. Literally made the Board members each personally sign an agreement acknowledging that if Buddy retired before the end of his contract and walked away all of his remaining salary would stay in the salary cap even if he didn't get paid. 

He's obviously playing this year, so the most it will be relevant to is the last two years and at this stage he certainly looks likely to play on for at least next season. I read at the time that hiis contract was shaped so that the first 3 years were $750k the middle 3 years were something like $1.4m, $1.6m, $1.5m and the remaining 3 back at $750k. It matched the total amount offered by GWS but over 9 years not 6. They had Goodes and Tippett and a few other expensive players on the list when he started so couldn't offer the $1.5m a year Hawks offered but just for 3 years and GWS for 6.

3 hours ago, It's Time said:

This can't happen. Fitzpatrick was so hysterical about Buddy going to Swans when he wanted him to go to his team GWS that he threw the book at the Swans without any justification or authority. Banned them from trading any players in to the Club for 2 or possibly even 3 years. Literally made the Board members each personally sign an agreement acknowledging that if Buddy retired before the end of his contract and walked away all of his remaining salary would stay in the salary cap even if he didn't get paid. 

He's obviously playing this year, so the most it will be relevant to is the last two years and at this stage he certainly looks likely to play on for at least next season. I read at the time that hiis contract was shaped so that the first 3 years were $750k the middle 3 years were something like $1.4m, $1.6m, $1.5m and the remaining 3 back at $750k. It matched the total amount offered by GWS but over 9 years not 6. They had Goodes and Tippett and a few other expensive players on the list when he started so couldn't offer the $1.5m a year Hawks offered but just for 3 years and GWS for 6.

True.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/afl-clears-buddys-10m-move/news-story/0c7a141bcd96ed14358b98de4f4168e7

 

8 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

"Crikey! Buddy's just retired and the mil we still owe him is stuck on our salary cap!"

"Don't worry about it. We'll pay him out 50 grand and after Gil's signed off on it, we'll make him game day ambassador to the coterie group on 950 grand. Easy."

I thought players signed as free agents or restricted free agents, if they retired early, contract remains as part of salary cap.

 

Rance is a different case.

 

more likely though, I am wrong

6 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

But Richmond can now pay extra to other players on their list who would otherwise be pushed out by the salary cap, thus keeping their list intact. 

Or they can go chasing other players in the mid-season draft that they couldn't because of salary cap pressure, if they have a spot caused through injury..

Or they can restructure some contracts to front load them into this year giving them a war chest to splurge in October.

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Or they can restructure some contracts to front load them into this year giving them a war chest to splurge in October.

How does JDG look in yellow and black?