Wait for this to be rorted!

[Moonshadow 16,160]

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

[FireInTheBennelly 4,024]

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'?

[Mazer Rackham 14,969]

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.

[Deemania since 56 6,132]

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!

[Garbo 1,326]

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 February 15, 2020 by Garbo

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,154]

Still don’t see the issue.

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

[Moonshadow 16,160]

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?

[Diamond_Jim 11,736]

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

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

Will the Salary Cap survive this issue, long term?

[Neil Crompton 4,716]

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

[DeeSpencer 23,106]

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.

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

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

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

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. 

[Moonshadow 16,160]

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

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

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

[Mazer Rackham 14,969]

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.

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

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 

[TeamPlayedFine39 8,154]

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.

[DeeSpencer 23,106]

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.

[DeeSpencer 23,106]

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.

[Sir Why You Little 34,430]

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

 

 

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

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. 

[Moonshadow 16,160]

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.

[old55 21,258]

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.

[Moonshadow 16,160]

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.