An interesting article on this the-new-bargaining-tool-set-to-shape-trade-period.

There has been 'salary dumps' as part of player trades and the where the receiving club gives a lower pick than the player would otherwise be worth.

But it can go to a whole new level where a club pays for part of the salary for a player at another club.  Described thus:  "As an example, it could allow Essendon to use its salary cap room to pay $500,000 of Luke Parker's deal at Sydney in exchange for one of the Swans' first-round picks. It would alleviate any salary cap pressure faced at the Swans, make use of the Dons' money and also see them buy a pick".

Sounds simple but it looks like a way for a club to exceed their TPP and would most likely favour the better clubs to keep help their best players and are in contention.   So safeguards would need to be put in place.

Nonetheless, food for thought. 

 

8 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

An interesting article on this the-new-bargaining-tool-set-to-shape-trade-period.

There has been 'salary dumps' as part of player trades and the where the receiving club gives a lower pick than the player would otherwise be worth.

But it can go to a whole new level where a club pays for part of the salary for a player at another club.  Described thus:  "As an example, it could allow Essendon to use its salary cap room to pay $500,000 of Luke Parker's deal at Sydney in exchange for one of the Swans' first-round picks. It would alleviate any salary cap pressure faced at the Swans, make use of the Dons' money and also see them buy a pick".

Sounds simple but it looks like a way for a club to exceed their TPP and would most likely favour the better clubs to keep help their best players and are in contention.   So safeguards would need to be put in place.

Nonetheless, food for thought. 

Luci, in your example, what happens in the following year when the Dons no longer pay the Swans? Could the Swans then be forced into some sort of salary dump to cover commitments made with the Dons money in the previous year?

4 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

 

Luci, in your example, what happens in the following year when the Dons no longer pay the Swans? Could the Swans then be forced into some sort of salary dump to cover commitments made with the Dons money in the previous year?

The example was lifted from the article so not sure I have the answer.

I'm guessing the $500,000 in the example wouldn't necessarily be in the first year but could be spread over several years. 

Not a fan of the idea, too much manipulation of the salary cap. Even the current situations with Treloar and others don't sit exactly right with me

Sounds like you’d see the richer clubs buying more cap space to the detriment of the smaller clubs. Having said that, when you’re at the bottom of the ladder, you’d be reticent to pay the full cap allowance for inferior players, and the money coming in the door would actually be doubled by the cap space you’re not paying out...

I just worry it’d create a greater divide between the haves and have-nots.

sounds too much like money laundering. no good will come from it in the long run

 

During last year's Trade Period, some clubs enquired with the League about whether they could directly pay contracts of players who remain at other clubs in exchange for a draft pick.

Of all the dumb ideas the afl have considered this would absolutely take the cake. 

So much of the system - academy, father sons, Gold Coast and GWS existence - creates deals that benefit the 2 clubs doing the deal and screws the other 16.

This would be about the final straw for any integrity.

I think it makes sense for clubs rebuilding through the draft who don't have a list that warrants paying the full cap.  Teams like Essendon, North, Hawthorn and Adelaide could accelerate their build by buying in picks with excess cap.

Jeepers. You can do this? Wowee. Interesting, but dangerous.

Talk about opening a Pandora's box. Imagine one company paying another company's employee to get more tax breaks or something like that? 

Not sure, need to know more but it doesn't have a good sound to it.

afl.com.au writes an article about something that's already effectively been confirmed as being blocked by head office

good grief

I think as long as both clubs involved in the transaction benefit and no club exceeds the salary cap in their payment then there is no harm done.

Acknowledge that clubs in the window can trade draft picks for effectively an increased cap in return but it’s a slippery slope that when mismanaged can really hurt the club doing it. Just look at Collingwood now. 

5 minutes ago, A F said:

Jeepers. You can do this? Wowee. Interesting, but dangerous.

Not yet. 

The defacto version is the Treloar trade and the Grundy trade.  The difference to what is being discussed is their is no player attached to the trade.

Would this require balance sheets of clubs to be released to other clubs? Or would the club looking to partake just hand over $500K to another club in good faith?

It would seem to give clubs a better idea of what players at other clubs are earning as well. I may be missing something and possibly this information is now available everywhere for clubs but until someone jumps in with that kind of info this sounds gross. 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

This would be about the final straw for any integrity.

The AFL lost whatever integrity it had long ago DS. Under Gil’s watch it’s gotten even worse.

Im hoping Brendan Gale becomes the next AFL CEO, as he imo could really get the league back on track in this regard.

Edited September 12, 20222 yr by Demon Disciple

36 minutes ago, layzie said:

Would this require balance sheets of clubs to be released to other clubs? Or would the club looking to partake just hand over $500K to another club in good faith?

It would seem to give clubs a better idea of what players at other clubs are earning as well. I may be missing something and possibly this information is now available everywhere for clubs but until someone jumps in with that kind of info this sounds gross. 

No it wouldn't.  There must be some existing mechanism in place for Collingwood to currently pay $300k of Treloar's salary on behalf of the Dogs, this is just an extension of that.

This proposal doesn't increase the total salary cap across the league or introduce new draft picks that push other clubs back.  I think it has merit.  There is already the rule in place where a club has to use two 1st round picks over 4 years and that would apply to limit these transactions also.

Edited September 12, 20222 yr by old55

37 minutes ago, CYB said:

I think as long as both clubs involved in the transaction benefit and no club exceeds the salary cap in their payment then there is no harm done.

Acknowledge that clubs in the window can trade draft picks for effectively an increased cap in return but it’s a slippery slope that when mismanaged can really hurt the club doing it. Just look at Collingwood now. 

The clubs who can attract talent already have a huge advantage. 

Look at Geelong, look at Richmond buying a new midfield, even the pies got the cap well out of shape not helped by covid, and have already bought in Lipinski and Krueger last year and are now targeting McStay, Tom Mitchell and Bobby Hill.

If you effectively expand the salary cap limits by teams buying picks the big clubs will just keep shopping.

The other terrible thing this would do is encourage bad teams to sell the chance of improvement by bringing in mature players for more picks.

That further encourages the scorched earth rebuilds that the Dees tried for a decade, Carlton, St Kilda, Gold Coast’s entire existence, North Melbourne and so on. 

And at the other end the best teams get better.

The AFL should be doing everything they can to encourage an even spread of players from 24-30 at every club. That way you get a more even competition and more ladder variation each year. As it currently stands there’s usually 4-6 teams each year who physically just can not compete week in week out due to list profile.

This kind of move is just a disaster for the ‘any given Sunday’ nature of the league that we should and could have.

I can see it now.

Trade out your first round pick for some salary space and some 'points' picks.

Recruit a top 5 quality player under father-son or some other priority, using the points picks.

Recruit a free agent with the spare salary cap space.

See also; club established in the top 8 or top 4 is able to continually trade out their first pick for salary cap space which lets them continually recruit free agents who don't cost draft picks, are willing to take less pay for the chance at finals, and place minimal demand on the football dept soft cap.

The 'feeder club' cycle would be complete.

wowee. I wonder who / club proposed this idea. Maybe the Pies. 

In theory it helps as you could retain a "super' team without breaching your cap, just give away your picks for a few years and reap the benefits.  The "destination" clubs would love this. 

 

 

2 hours ago, old55 said:

No it wouldn't.  There must be some existing mechanism in place for Collingwood to currently pay $300k of Treloar's salary on behalf of the Dogs, this is just an extension of that.

This proposal doesn't increase the total salary cap across the league or introduce new draft picks that push other clubs back.  I think it has merit.  There is already the rule in place where a club has to use two 1st round picks over 4 years and that would apply to limit these transactions also.

Sounds most likely because if Essendon knew they were paying $500K of Luke Parker's contract it would give them more insight into would the overall financials and that just seems a bit off. 

22 minutes ago, layzie said:

Sounds most likely because if Essendon knew they were paying $500K of Luke Parker's contract it would give them more insight into would the overall financials and that just seems a bit off. 

Do the Dogs have more insight into Collingwood's financials?

It's not a silly idea. One of the bigger complaints by the lower clubs is that they have to pay X% of their salary cap even though their players may not be worth that much on the open market. This would allow those clubs to sell salary cap for say 2 or 3 years in return for picks to get first year high draft picks in on base contracts. When the base contract comes to an end they can then use the normal salary cap level to retain players.

It offers a potentially quicker way off the bottom. It also means bottom clubs would be far more likely to release older higher paid players as they get an off-setting benefit of selling salary cap space.

 

Maybe we should offer to pay all of Grundy’s salary in exchange for a fourth round draft pick.
 

Then the Pies free up more salary and we head into the draft with two first round draft picks.

Edited September 12, 20222 yr by Romey

11 minutes ago, Romey said:

Maybe we should offer to pay all of Grundy’s salary in exchange for a fourth round draft pick.
 

Then the Pies free up more salary and we head into the draft with two first round draft picks.

A fourth round draft pick??? I think you mean a first round pick don't you? That would make it a little more interesting.