Paying 100% of Total Player Payments allowed (including cap and all exemptions)

[Rocco Jones]

I think most of us agree that we have a list that makes us contenders for the next year at the very least. We have finished 3rd the last two seasons. This obviously means we have a pretty valuable list at the moment.

There have been a lot of negative comments against Lake, most of which I probably agree with. There is also a fair bit of fear about losing players such as Griffen and Cooney to the Gold Coast at the end of 2010.

We should except loyalty from our players but can we expect to get as many gun players as possible when we aren't paying them as much as we can? I know we pay 100% of the actual Salary Cap but we intentionally leave space in the promotional allowance component of the cap ($250k, correct me if I am wrong), so in affect, we are really not paying 100% of the cap. I believe there are also other exemption/s, one about injuries? Again correct me if I am wrong.

Is an extra $250-300k a year going to be the difference between survival and death? It is already difficult enough to keep a premiership winning list together when you're totally taking advantage of legal TPP but to expect to keep as best a list as you can when you aren't fully taking advantage of the cap is naive.

I really hope we don't jeopardise our changes to win a flag or two because we can to save $250k or so on TPP a season.

Not wanting to slam/blame the club here, just looking for informative discussion.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I think most of us agree that we have a list that makes us contenders for the next year at the very least. We have finished 3rd the last two seasons. This obviously means we have a pretty valuable list at the moment.

There have been a lot of negative comments against Lake, most of which I probably agree with. There is also a fair bit of fear about losing players such as Griffen and Cooney to the Gold Coast at the end of 2010.

We should except loyalty from our players but can we expect to get as many gun players as possible when we aren't paying them as much as we can? I know we pay 100% of the actual Salary Cap but we intentionally leave space in the promotional allowance component of the cap ($250k, correct me if I am wrong), so in affect, we are really not paying 100% of the cap. I believe there are also other exemption/s, one about injuries? Again correct me if I am wrong.

Is an extra $250-300k a year going to be the difference between survival and death? It is already difficult enough to keep a premiership winning list together when you're totally taking advantage of legal TPP but to expect to keep as best a list as you can when you aren't fully taking advantage of the cap is naive.

I really hope we don't jeopardise our changes to win a flag or two because we can to save $250k or so on TPP a season.

Not wanting to slam/blame the club here, just looking for informative discussion.

We were certainly well under last year for marketing (about $300K).

Clubs also have the option of pre-paying injury allowance of up to $250K - but only if you have room to do so, and this year we do - see above.


This has been a sore point for Rocket and - this is my opinion only - probably one of the issues he wanted sorted out before he re-signed.

If we paid every cent we could this year what would we do about Griffen and Cooney next year? Johnno is on the vets list so that won't free up too much, Aker will be on peanuts next year anyway.

Hudson and Hahn?

We may need to leave a bit of room this year or pay the penalty next year.

[Rocco Jones]

This has been a sore point for Rocket and - this is my opinion only - probably one of the issues he wanted sorted out before he re-signed.

If we paid every cent we could this year what would we do about Griffen and Cooney next year? Johnno is on the vets list so that won't free up too much, Aker will be on peanuts next year anyway.


I totally agree with leaving space in our TPP as part of a list management strategy but I am definitely against it if it is just to save money.

If we are going to get an elite list together that is going to spend a few years contending for the flag, we simply can't compromise the list's quality for the sake of $300k a year.

I really feel for Eade. We are very lucky to have a coach who is so behind the club's cause.

[Doc26]

Maybe it's just an isolated case with Brian and not necessarily across the board. At face value it appears Geelong have managed their list brilliantly or moreso their players have opted for Team success over maximising their personal financial wealth. I think this is why it is important we dont succumb to unreasonable individual demands, hopefully mitigating a chain reaction. Maybe Geelong and the Lions were simply anomalies. It would appear that a criteria that has evolved for Premiership success is for the playing group to make financial sacrifices to get there. Maybe we really are not ready yet for this success as shown with Brian and even Andrejs. Wonder what will happen with Geelong's list when one of them breaks the pattern eg GAJ requesting to match the GC offer

[boydogs]

The difference between what we could pay and what we are paying is what, one average player? I definitely think we should pay as much as we are allowed to, but I don't expect a monumental improvement in the list by doing this


If we paid every cent we could this year what would we do about Griffen and Cooney next year?

Johnno, Eagle and Aker (if still there) to retire, Hahn and Hudson to retire or go on the vets list. GC will probably take someone, whether it is Griffen, Cooney or another player, and compensate with draft picks which will give us more room

[Rocco Jones]

Maybe it's just an isolated case with Brian and not necessarily across the board.

I really shouldn't have mentioned Lake, I didn't bring it up because of him. Even if we signed him for less than he rejected, I still would have a massive issue with us compromising the quality of our list to avoid paying 100% of TPP.

[Doc26]

I really shouldn't have mentioned Lake, I didn't bring it up because of him. Even if we signed him for less than he rejected, I still would have a massive issue with us compromising the quality of our list to avoid paying 100% of TPP.

I've always assumed we're not paying to 100% TPP because of the club's perilous financial position.

If we were in a healthy financial position why wouldn't we pay 100% TPP to avoid compromising list quality. Maybe it is down to list management. Unfortunately debt reduction is also necessary which Campbell Rose is responsible for. We just don't have sustainable top end corporate financial support to match it yet with the stronger clubs. Was only at last minute we were fortunate to squeeze Mission Foods (Gruma) from the Dees as a major sponsor. Outside Mission the well was dry.

Stating the bleeding obvious but the poorer clubs will always be at a disadvantage from those with sustainable corporate backing and a large membership base. There is no doubt that there is a lot of creativity done behind doors from the stronger clubs to get around the limited TPP. Almost strangely, Visy / Carlton did stick its neck out with the Judd ambassadorial role under the guise of transparency. Maybe Juddy couldn't live with an under the table deal or that the Blues were still paranoid after losing drafts through salary cap rorting.

[Sockeye Salmon]

The difference between what we could pay and what we are paying is what, one average player? I definitely think we should pay as much as we are allowed to, but I don't expect a monumental improvement in the list by doing this



Johnno, Eagle and Aker (if still there) to retire, Hahn and Hudson to retire or go on the vets list. GC will probably take someone, whether it is Griffen, Cooney or another player, and compensate with draft picks which will give us more room

Johhno, Eagle and Aker will hardly free up any space at all. Two are veterans and the other on basic wages.

Hahn won't be old enough for the vets list and Hudson will never qualify for it.

What if a young bloke - say Reid or Wood - jumps up next year and has a really good season? We'll have to u the ante if we want to keep him. What if Harbrow, Ward and Picken have really good years?

[Dry Rot]

In the last decade, there was the old line about the Lions and now the Cats about how their players sacrificed their wages to stay together and win flags. True for the lions and quite possibly the Cats.

But what about now?

There are sides that have massive cap space now because of retirements (eg Swans) or they have tanked and mostly have spuds (Dees) and then in successive seasons we have Gold Coast and the West Sydney Demons* with massive draft pick and cap concessions.


*I'm ****ing tired of the Bulldogs always being brought up as the relocated western Sydney team. Some of you might think I'd like that (close to me) but no - when I bonded with the Dogs, I then learnt about our rich Melbourne history. The Dees have tanked for a few years - relocate those hopeless pricks!

[boydogs]

Johhno, Eagle and Aker will hardly free up any space at all. Two are veterans and the other on basic wages.

Would still help a little I would have thought


Hahn won't be old enough for the vets list and Hudson will never qualify for it.

Sorry thought Hahn was a year older and forgot about the time on the list requirement. They may retire though


What if a young bloke - say Reid or Wood - jumps up next year and has a really good season? We'll have to u the ante if we want to keep him. What if Harbrow, Ward and Picken have really good years?

Perhaps we will be able to sign some of the more senior players on lesser contracts. The GC 'trade' could make quite a bit room if they pick one of our best and thus help here as well

I would rather pay all we can and be forced into trade at the end of 2010 if the above does not help than under pay when we are a serious flag chance to leave room for the following year

[LostDoggy]

In reference to the Lions and the Cats sacrificing their wages, I think it's a lot easier to convince a playing group to do this when they have won a premiership, and therefore know they have a list which is good enough. It might not be as easy trying to convince someone to take a pay cut under the hope that a premiership is around the corner.

[LostDoggy]

Prudent finacial management dictates that we maintain a gap between total player payments and the maximum allowable

As suggested earlier, if something out of the ordinary arises eg Picken wins the Brownlow or an opportunity emerges to recruit a gun disgruntled player, we need to have something in reserve.

[Go_Dogs]

Prudent finacial management dictates that we maintain a gap between total player payments and the maximum allowable

As suggested earlier, if something out of the ordinary arises eg Picken wins the Brownlow or an opportunity emerges to recruit a gun disgruntled player, we need to have something in reserve.

Agreed.

Although having an excess of around $500K isn't really going to significantly change things either.

[Mofra]

If Lake signs, he will still have effectively signed for less than his market value.
Higgins is an obvious case of signing for less than his market worth.
Shaggy could have probably eeked out a few more dollars with a move West by all accounts.
Aker is taking a paycut to stay, and Barry will play for less this year than last by all accounts too.

Every club has guys who sign for less than their market value (perhaps excepting Melbourne, they have salary cap problems at the opposite end of the scale). We're fortunate that we signed quite a few up this year.