Jump to content

Wait for this to be rorted!

george_on_the_outer
george_on_the_outer
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

Talk that Collingwood are working out a settlement to rid them of Beams and clear up cap space for this year and next. Apparently this could free up $1.5m

  • Quote
    •  
    22 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

    Talk that Collingwood are working out a settlement to rid them of Beams and clear up cap space for this year and next. Apparently this could free up $1.5m

    Is it any different to the Lamumba situation, where we were denied any 'get out'?

  • Quote
    18 minutes ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

    Is it any different to the Lamumba situation, where we were denied any 'get out'?

    Yes, our president doesn't have a radio show where he can s*** all over the AFL management if he doesn't get his way.

  • Quote
    • Like 3
     
    41 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

    Yes, our president doesn't have a radio show where he can s*** all over the AFL management if he doesn't get his way.

    Hah-hah! Another slice of accuracy from MR!

  • Quote

    AFL also later clarified that the contract of any free agent move must be paid out in full even if the player retired, this doesn't apply to any other contracts, it started with buddy but now applies to all free agents 

    Edited by Garbo

  • Quote

    Still don’t see the issue.

    We paid out Colin Garland when both parties agreed to terms.

  • Quote
    21 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

    Still don’t see the issue.

    We paid out Colin Garland when both parties agreed to terms.

    Did he free up $1.5m space?

  • Quote
    17 minutes ago, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

    Still don’t see the issue.

    We paid out Colin Garland when both parties agreed to terms.

    I think the difference is that while there is a formula for paying out injured players as to how much goes into which salary cap it gets murky with long term contracts such as Franklin. Not sure about Beams but it is a discretionary exercise for the AFL.

    Rance was of course different. Whatever he was paid went into the salary cap. May have been some discussion over amounts into different year's caps

  • Quote
    •  
    3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

    Will the Salary Cap survive this issue, long term?

    I must be dumb - I still cannot see the rort here.

    If player A has 2 years left on his contract at $500K per year. He retires and club pay him out $250K for this year.

    Surely the club has the right to add $250K to their payment purse this year and $500K next year?

    Could someone please explain the issue here? As I said, I must be dumb

  • Quote

    8 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

    Did he free up $1.5m space?

    Was he due to be paid 1.5m?

    6 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

    I think the difference is that while there is a formula for paying out injured players as to how much goes into which salary cap it gets murky with long term contracts such as Franklin. Not sure about Beams but it is a discretionary exercise for the AFL.

    Rance was of course different. Whatever he was paid went into the salary cap. May have been some discussion over amounts into different year's caps

    The issue with free agents - most particularly restricted free agents - is that you could offer them a huge contract with no intention of ever paying it so their existing team doesn't match it. So for cap purposes that amount has to be locked in to stop that loop hole. 

    To pay someone out in different years they have to stay on the list (main or rookie). You can't just kick money to future years without holding a list spot. Someone like Rance retiring on his own accord will have the contract changed for the year in which they retired and that should be it. Rance has a list spot for this year, he's settled on an amount to get paid for his 2 months or so work, maybe with some extra for being a loyal servant and that's done. Beams is likely more complicated because he seems to have physical and mental issues as well as possibly concerns over behaviour, but if they reach a settlement to pay him less to not play then that's fine.

    5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

    Will the Salary Cap survive this issue, long term?

    Yes. It's called a salary cap, if players are retiring and agreeing to part ways with money owed (in return for retiring) then they are giving up salary. Logical that the cap reflects what players have agreed to settle for rather than hold clubs to a salary that will never be paid.

  • Quote
    7 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

    I must be dumb - I still cannot see the rort here.

    If player A has 2 years left on his contract at $500K per year. He retires and club pay him out $250K for this year.

    Surely the club has the right to add $250K to their payment purse this year and $500K next year?

    Could someone please explain the issue here? As I said, I must be dumb

    You watch Clubs will back end a final contract to an older player, and extra cap will be available for the following year. 
    the Power Clubs will rort this black and Blue

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    6 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

     

    Yes. It's called a salary cap, if players are retiring and agreeing to part ways with money owed (in return for retiring) then they are giving up salary. Logical that the cap reflects what players have agreed to settle for rather than hold clubs to a salary that will never be paid.

    You are missing the point. 
    Clubs will be writing ✍️ contracts for older players with this scenario as the Template. 

  • Quote

    That was my point DS. 

    The Pies poach a star on big coin back ended, but when it turns sour they aim to ditch the player so as to use the coin elsewhere.

    I would prefer the AFL not agree to this as it clearly favours larger clubs

  • Quote
    10 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

    That was my point DS. 

    The Pies poach a star on big coin back ended, but when it turns sour they aim to ditch the player so as to use the coin elsewhere.

    I would prefer the AFL not agree to this as it clearly favours larger clubs

    Careful rorting could create a huge war chest for clubs, if this goes through, look out. 
    Anyone over 28-29 will be on huge back ended coin

  • Quote

    1 hour ago, Neil Crompton said:

    I must be dumb - I still cannot see the rort here.

    If player A has 2 years left on his contract at $500K per year. He retires and club pay him out $250K for this year.

    Surely the club has the right to add $250K to their payment purse this year and $500K next year?

    Could someone please explain the issue here? As I said, I must be dumb

    The rort:

    "How are we going to lure de Goey from the Pies? They're offering him 5 mil over 6 years. And WCE are offering 6 mil over 7. We can't match that."

    "We'll offer 12 mil over 8 years. His management won't be able to sign fast enough."

    "Sure, but we can't afford that!"

    "No, but we can afford 4 mil over 8 years. We'll back end the 12 mil, and when he's old and useless we'll pay out half a mil and won't have to wear the rest on our salary cap."

     

    ---

    If "player A" is Alex Neal-Bullen, no one is going to upset at us getting an extra 250K back on our cap. People will get upset when "player A" is a star player that clubs will throw ridiculous money at without having to live with the consequences.

  • Quote
    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
    12 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

    The rort:

    "How are we going to lure de Goey from the Pies? They're offering him 5 mil over 6 years. And WCE are offering 6 mil over 7. We can't match that."

    "We'll offer 12 mil over 8 years. His management won't be able to sign fast enough."

    "Sure, but we can't afford that!"

    "No, but we can afford 4 mil over 8 years. We'll back end the 12 mil, and when he's old and useless we'll pay out half a mil and won't have to wear the rest on our salary cap."

     

    ---

    If "player A" is Alex Neal-Bullen, no one is going to upset at us getting an extra 250K back on our cap. People will get upset when "player A" is a star player that clubs will throw ridiculous money at without having to live with the consequences.

    Absolutely. It will become the new standard in writing contracts. 
    suprised it has taken this long to become an issue 

  • Quote
    1 hour ago, Moonshadow said:

    Did he free up $1.5m space?

    Again, that's irrelevant.

    Free agents are a different case and, as has already been clarified, Sydney is not allowed to pay out Franklyn's contract early and his entire salary will be included in the cap.

    This is simple list management - if a players wants to quit or the club wants them out, you pay them out.  I imagine if KK succumbs to his concussion injuries this year and decides to retire, do you honestly expect our club to pay out the remaining years of his contract in full or would you want to see a reduced settlement??

    Jumping at shadows.

  • Quote
    30 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

    The rort:

    "How are we going to lure de Goey from the Pies? They're offering him 5 mil over 6 years. And WCE are offering 6 mil over 7. We can't match that."

    "We'll offer 12 mil over 8 years. His management won't be able to sign fast enough."

    "Sure, but we can't afford that!"

    "No, but we can afford 4 mil over 8 years. We'll back end the 12 mil, and when he's old and useless we'll pay out half a mil and won't have to wear the rest on our salary cap."

     

    ---

    If "player A" is Alex Neal-Bullen, no one is going to upset at us getting an extra 250K back on our cap. People will get upset when "player A" is a star player that clubs will throw ridiculous money at without having to live with the consequences.

    Free agent contracts are locked in to the cap to stop that situation happening.

    Your example is also missing about 7.5 million dollars worth of money! 

    Players can only get paid what goes in the cap, so whilst managers might agree to longer term deals like Buddy's and some back-loading of pay to join a good club (like Tom Lynch's) they aren't going to sign deals that will pay their clients peanuts and see them retire with huge sums of money unpaid.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

    You are missing the point. 
    Clubs will be writing ✍️ contracts for older players with this scenario as the Template. 

    Go offer Max Gawn a new contract extension at 500k a year for 5 years and then 1.5 million a year when he's 33. His manager will laugh in your face.

    Players aren't going to defer their payments until they are older and likely to retire any more than any of us would if our bosses suddenly wanted to pay us half as much now and the rest if we still are up to working at 70.

  • Quote

    16 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

    Go offer Max Gawn a new contract extension at 500k a year for 5 years and then 1.5 million a year when he's 33. His manager will laugh in your face.

    Players aren't going to defer their payments until they are older and likely to retire any more than any of us would if our bosses suddenly wanted to pay us half as much now and the rest if we still are up to working at 70.

    They will do it. Contracts will be longer

    Year 1 Front loaded and then progressively Back ended for a “Final” contract  some players will see the contract through, they win, but most won’t

     

     

  • Quote

    The AFL has set a precedent already in these situations that the contract still counts towards the salary cap.  It would be a stretch, even for them, to not at least count his entire salary for this year.  After that becomes more debatable. 

  • Quote
    • Like 1

    Does anyone seriously think the AFL will hold the Swans to all of Buddy's contract if he retires early? Of course they say they will, but as we know, Gil is a fluid fella when it comes to rules.

  • Quote
    •  
    6 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

    The rort:

    "How are we going to lure de Goey from the Pies? They're offering him 5 mil over 6 years. And WCE are offering 6 mil over 7. We can't match that."

    "We'll offer 12 mil over 8 years. His management won't be able to sign fast enough."

    "Sure, but we can't afford that!"

    "No, but we can afford 4 mil over 8 years. We'll back end the 12 mil, and when he's old and useless we'll pay out half a mil and won't have to wear the rest on our salary cap."

    Your scenario on page 1 was feasible but this is fantasy land. If I'm the player I demand you pay me the money when I'm old and useless.  It's a contract, I'm fine with spending 3 years in the rehab group on full pay.  You can delist me but you have to pay me out the full whack.

  • Quote
    • Like 1
    15 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

    Your scenario on page 1 was feasible but this is fantasy land. If I'm the player I demand you pay me the money when I'm old and useless.  It's a contract, I'm fine with spending 3 years in the rehab group on full pay.  You can delist me but you have to pay me out the full whack.

    ... or promise me an assistant coaching role or set me up with a good job outside of football, which won't come from the salary cap.

  • Quote

    • Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

    Guest
    Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
    Reply to this topic...
    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • PREVIEW: Brisbane

      And just like that, we’re Narrm again. Even though the annual AFL Sir Doug Nicholls Round which commemorates the contributions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture to our game has been a welcome addition to our calendar for ten years, more lately it has been a portent of tough times ahead for we beleaguered Narrm supporters. Ever since the club broke through for its historic 2021 premiership, this has become a troubling time of the year for the club. For example, it all began when Melbourne rebranded itself as Narrm across the two rounds of the Sir Doug Nicholls Round to become the first club to adopt an Indigenous club name especially for the occasion. It won its first outing under the brand against lowly North Melbourne to go to 10 wins and no losses but not without a struggle or a major injury to  star winger Ed Langdon who broke his ribs and missed several weeks. In the following week, still as Narrm, the team’s 17 game winning streak came to an end at the hands of the Dockers. That came along with more injuries, a plague that remained with them for the remainder of the season until, beset by injuries, the Dees were eliminated from the finals in straight sets. It was even worse last year, when Narrm inexplicably lowered its colours in Perth to the Waalit Marawar Eagles. Oh, the shame of it all! At least this year, if there is a corner to turn around, it has to be in the direction of something better. To that end, I produced a special pre-game chant in the local Narrm language - “nam mi:wi winnamun katjil prolin ambi ngamar thamelin amb” which roughly translated is “every heart beats true for the red and the blue.” >y belief is that if all of the Narrm faithful recite it long enough, then it might prove to be the only way to beat the Brisbane Lions at the Gabba on Sunday. The Lions are coming off a disappointing draw at Marvel Stadium against a North Melbourne team that lacks the ability and know how to win games (except when playing Melbourne). Brisbane are, however, a different kettle of fish at home and have very few positional weaknesses. They are a midfield powerhouse, strong in defence and have plenty of forward options, particularly their small and medium sized players, to kick a winning score this week after the sting of last week’s below par performance.

      • 5 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Hawthorn

      There was a time during the current Melbourne cycle that goes back to before the premiership when the club was the toughest to beat in the fourth quarter. The Demons were not only hard to beat at any time but it was virtually impossible to get the better them when scores were close at three quarter time. It was only three or four years ago but they were fit, strong and resilient in body and mind. Sadly, those days are over. This has been the case since the club fell off its pedestal about 12 months ago after it beat Geelong and then lost to Carlton. In both instances, Melbourne put together strong, stirring final quarters, one that resulted in victory, the other, in defeat. Since then, the drop off has been dramatic to the point where it can neither pull off victory in close matches, nor can it even go down in defeat  gallantly.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Footscray

      At twenty-four minutes into the third term of the game between the Casey Demons and Footscray VFL at Whitten Oval, the visitors were coasting. They were winning all over the ground, had the ascendancy in the ruck battles and held a 26 point lead on a day perfect for football. What could go wrong? Everything. The Bulldogs moved into overdrive in the last five minutes of the term and booted three straight goals to reduce the margin to a highly retrievable eight points at the last break. Bouyed by that effort, their confidence was on a high level during the interval and they ran all over the despondent Demons and kicked another five goals to lead by a comfortable margin of four goals deep into the final term before Paddy Cross kicked a couple of too late goals for a despondent Casey. A testament to their lack of pressure in the latter stages of the game was the fact that Footscray’s last ten scoring shots were nine goals and one rushed behind. Things might have been different for the Demons who went into the game after last week’s bye with 12 AFL listed players. Blake Howes was held over for the AFL game but two others, Jack Billings and Taj Woewodin (not officially listed as injured) were also missing and they could have been handy at the end. Another mystery of the current VFL system.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Brisbane

      The Demons head back out on the road in Round 10 when they travel to Queensland to take on the reigning Premiers and the top of the table Lions who look very formidable. Can the Dees cause a massive upset? Who comes in and who goes out?

      • 136 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • PODCAST: Hawthorn

      The Demonland Podcast will air LIVE on Monday, 12th May @ 8:00pm. Join Binman, George & I as we dissect the Demons loss to the Hawks. Your questions and comments are a huge part of our podcast so please post anything you want to ask or say below and we'll give you a shout out on the show. If you would like to leave us a voicemail please call 03 9016 3666 and don't worry no body answers so you don't have to talk to a human.

        • Clap
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 52 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Hawthorn

      Wayward kicking for goal, dump kicks inside 50 and some baffling umpiring all contributed to the Dees not getting out to an an early lead that may have impacted the result. At the end of the day the Demons were just not good enough and let the Hawks run away with their first win against the Demons in 7 years.

        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 376 replies
      Demonland
      Demonland
    View All