Some clubs are lobbying to ensure that when a club are 'paid' to take player as a 'salary dump' they take the player's existing contract $ into their sal cap even tho they enter a different contract with that player which spreads that contract over more years.

imv this is essential to stop the Cats fiasco where they get Bowes and pick 7 but effectively do not take on his contract.  The idea of the 'salary dump' was assumed to help bottom of the ladder clubs that would have the cap space.

There is absolutely no reason why the AFL didn't ensure that Geelong booked the whole of Bowes GCS contract into their TPP.  If a club doesn't have the cap space they should not be putting in for a 'sal dump' trade.   Mega fail by the AFL. 

#freekickgeelong.

Edited October 13, 20223 yr by Lucifers Hero

All contracts should be guaranteed and not able to be altered for the life of the contract. It shouldn’t even be able to be extended until a window for extension with 18 mths - 6 months to go. 

This should be a small part of the move to a better structure for payments and the cap.

I think when you bring a contracted player in via trade you shouldn't be able to re-structure their contract straight away. Maybe a 12 month time frame it has to stay as is. Geelong have totally rorted this situation. 

Posted this last week:

On 10/7/2022 at 2:20 PM,  ChaserJ said: 

‘This is very much at the heart of the problem. The AFL have stuffed the equalisation economy with all of the assistance GC received over multiple years (I’ll call it ‘pick-flation’).

Theyve had so much draft pick stimulus pumped in, the value of a high pick has just diminished and created a salary cap squeeze in order to retain these highly rated players. Because they’ve taken on too much of that water, so they’re unloading and it’s the well run and well off clubs catching all of the overflow. Even when helping lift the poorer clubs up, the stronger clubs end up benefitting. It’s why equalisation measures are cooked.

In order to maintain some integrity of the cap, AFL should have limited the capacity of contractsmoothing for clubs taking on salary dump contracts. E.g. Geelong should take on the full 850 for a two year period, but permitted to negotiate a friendlier extension that only triggers when the original contract has been fulfilled. The measure of when a trade constitutes a ‘dump’ could  be measured by the other incentives involved in the trade (I.e. an objectively one sided deal). Funny that Ned Guy is in the role that l’d see assessing this function at the AFL. No wonder dumps were waved through this year.

Allowing clubs inheriting the dumped contract and smooth straight away feels like a rort.’

And now this from the Age online last night:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-consider-tweaks-for-the-salary-dump-20221013-p5bpmv.html

Smarter people than me get paid a lot of money to look after this area, why could this not have been built into the process before approving the one sided salary dump deals? It was completely predictable.