List Mgmt. 2025 List Mismanagement and Trading

Remove this Banner Ad

AFC979810 said:
The Salary for Burgess and Schoenberg for 2025 has already been paid? Surely not.
Click to expand...

The money is guaranteed both in terms of salary and cap space.

We could cut Burgess from our list, however we still have to pay him out his full contact value and his salary is still counted in our salary cap.
 
relapse said:
The money is guaranteed both in terms of salary and cap space.

We could cut Burgess from our list, however we still have to pay him out his full contact value and his salary is still counted in our salary cap.
Click to expand...

Surely not the case. There are incentives which are part of the Cap.

You could cut Burgess - freeing up a list space - and then change around existing salaries to accommodate room for a new player.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

FR0GGY said:
Yeah and it worked for Richmond, what if it doesn’t work, it hasn’t worked for Sydney for two attempts.
Click to expand...

Well shit - Ruckman wasn't the issue for Sydney.

There are a million other things that need to work before we worry about our ruckman.

FR0GGY said:
Maybe they are the exception not the rule? How many sides went in with a stable ruck?
Click to expand...

We have a pretty stable ruckman. Has played 84 of the 90 possible games across the last 4 seasons.

FR0GGY said:
Geelong, Melbourne.
west coast and Brisbane would have, but for injury, collingwoods had been there awhile.
Click to expand...

I am all for getting a stable ruck. Just not investing much into it. Happy with a ROB level ruckman.
 
AFC979810 said:
Well shit - Ruckman wasn't the issue for Sydney.

There are a million other things that need to work before we worry about our ruckman.



We have a pretty stable ruckman. Has played 84 of the 90 possible games across the last 4 seasons.



I am all for getting a stable ruck. Just not investing much into it. Happy with a ROB level ruckman.
Click to expand...
Not sure there’s many calling for a heavy investment into one though.
 
Carmo said:
Talent watchers, what is the ruckman talent like for this forthcoming years draft?
Click to expand...
Cooper Duff-Tytler looks the best pure ruck at this point. Louis Emmett a very competitive ruck/forward looks a ripper but recruiters may see him as more a KPF.

If we get a LTI l,d have a serious look at Rebels ruck Flynn Penry in the MSD or his teammate ruck/forward Floyd Burmeister who is an absolute athletic beast with top end speed and a massive leap...would be a project though as he's very raw and needs to pack on more size and muscle. Has basically concentrated on athletics until this year where he was a high level high jumper.

Burmeister did get a National Combine invite so recruiters like a lot about him but probably needing time and patience passed him over this time but you'd think they'll have him closely monitored for the future.
 
AFC979810 said:
Interesting.

If the salary cap is at $14.7 million. That makes a list average of 367k. You would think that players like Burgess would be on a fair bit less than the average?




Yes you can. You can shuffle the cap - the good teams do it. Kick the can down the road.



The Salary for Burgess and Schoenberg for 2025 has already been paid? Surely not.
Click to expand...

Yes, Burgess would be on a below average salary, but nowhere near the AFL minimum salary.

As for the rest, you have clearly misunderstood the points I was making, either accidentally or deliberately (it's always hard to tell with you).

The point is that they would have already brought future payments for many players forward to 2024, freeing up future salary cap space, allowing them to make offers which ANB/Cumming/Peatling were unable to refuse.

The payments brought forward have already been paid. You can't shift payments which have already been made into future salary caps. Yes, you can renegotiate the timing of future payments, but you can't shift payments that have already been made into future caps.

Our salary cap planning would have been all about bringing future payments forward, freeing up space for attracting new players. By the time the Cook/Smith/Berry chickens came home to roost, and the need to payout Burgess arose, the 2024 money was all spent and the salary cap reached.

On SM-X205 using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
I think our depth is starting to look pretty good:

FORWARDS
FF: Darcy Fogarty - Riley Thilthorpe - Alex Neal Bullen
HF: Josh Rachele - Taylor Walker - Ben Keays

Depth: Luke Pedlar, Dan Curtin, Brayden Cook, Toby Murray, Chris Burgess

MIDFIELDERS
C : Jordan Dawson - Matthew Crouch - Jake Soligo
1st R: Riley O'Brien - James Peatling -
Izak Rankine

Depth: Sid Draper, Lachie Sholl, Zac Taylor, Charlie Edwards, Billy Dowling, Harry Schoenberg, Keiran Strachan, Sam Berry

DEFENDERS
HB: Isaac Cumming - Mark Keane - Mitch Hinge
FB: Max Michalanney - Nick Murray - Josh Worrell

Depth: Chayce Jones, Luke Nankervis, Rory Laird, Jordon Butts, Wayne Milera, Oscar Ryan, Hugh Bond, James Borlase, Brodie Smith
 
Last edited:
Big Dub said:
Vader Is this true?

(Sorry, seems like a thing now that you have to explain this - and not a go at you latinoheat )
Click to expand...
To be fair, Vader has explained this more than a dozen times.

You need to have room in your 2024 salary cap to fit the entire 2025 salary of a player you're cutting.

If this is possible, it would be because you haven't front loaded any payments to allow for future caproom, the kind of room that allows you to sign mature free agents and trade targets.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

AFC979810 said:
Surely not the case. There are incentives which are part of the Cap.

You could cut Burgess - freeing up a list space - and then change around existing salaries to accommodate room for a new player.
Click to expand...
The Collective Bargaining Agreement dictates that the player's base and a certain number of match payments need to be paid out as a termination lump sum payment when a player is delisted.

The AFL Rules document dictates that the termination lump sum payment needs to be included in the salary cap in the year of the delisting.

Essentially, his 2025 salary would need to be included in our 2024 salary cap.

The problem with this is that the 2024 cap is already full, as a result of players being paid and future payments brought forward to create space in our salary caps for future years.

On SM-X205 using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Vader said:
The Collective Bargaining Agreement dictates that the player's base and a certain number of match payments need to be paid out as a termination lump sum payment when a player is delisted.

The AFL Rules document dictates that the termination lump sum payment needs to be included in the salary cap in the year of the delisting.

Essentially, his 2025 salary would need to be included in our 2024 salary cap.

The problem with this is that the 2024 cap is already full, as a result of players being paid and future payments brought forward to create space in our salary caps for future years.

On SM-X205 using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
I feel like Scorpus needs to pin this post.
 
Mostyn said:
I'm happy for that.

I'm not hoping the kid doesn't succeed - I'm more saying that players at pick 53 rarely become game changers.
Click to expand...
The old, passionate Kristof would get angry if the club wasted a late pick on a mascot
 
Vader said:
The Collective Bargaining Agreement dictates that the player's base and a certain number of match payments need to be paid out as a termination lump sum payment when a player is delisted.

The AFL Rules document dictates that the termination lump sum payment needs to be included in the salary cap in the year of the delisting.

Essentially, his 2025 salary would need to be included in our 2024 salary cap.

The problem with this is that the 2024 cap is already full, as a result of players being paid and future payments brought forward to create space in our salary caps for future years.

On SM-X205 using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...

We still have the ability to pay anywhere from 95 to 105% of the $15.8 million salary cap, depending on how we've structured it.

Unless we are forced into a 95% salary cap this year from a huge overspend in previous years, there would have been some flexibility.

A 2% swing (let's say 102% spend in 2024 and 98% in 2025) is $320k which should be more than enough to pay out one of our lowest contracts. And noting that we are forced to pay that total amount in 2025 anyway if they stay on the list, so the only thing changing is moving from a 100%-100% spend to accommodate that contract over two years, to 102%-98% to accommodate that in 1 year.

The only reason we wouldn't be able to do that is if we've forced ourselves into a position of zero cap flexibility due to overspending in prior years. Maybe that's the case, but our list has certainly not deserved it and there's little advantage to front loading to the degree it lowers our salary cap in future years. The fact we have recontracted or restructured contracts very early suggests it's more likely we are struggling to hit the salary floor then being hard up on the cap limit
 
Scorpus said:
We still have the ability to pay anywhere from 95 to 105% of the $15.8 million salary cap, depending on how we've structured it.

Unless we are forced into a 95% salary cap this year from a huge overspend in previous years, there would have been some flexibility.

A 2% swing (let's say 102% spend in 2024 and 98% in 2025) is $320k which should be more than enough to pay out one of our lowest contracts. And noting that we are forced to pay that total amount in 2025 anyway if they stay on the list, so the only thing changing is moving from a 100%-100% spend to accommodate that contract over two years, to 102%-98% to accommodate that in 1 year.

The only reason we wouldn't be able to do that is if we've forced ourselves into a position of zero cap flexibility due to overspending in prior years. Maybe that's the case, but our list has certainly not deserved it and there's little advantage to front loading to the degree it lowers our salary cap in future years.
Click to expand...

Just unpacking this - are you sure that you can exceed the salary cap to payout players you're delisting a year early? I'm not sure the AFLPA would be happy with that.

I just think there must be barriers to clubs doing this, because almost none do. It's not like it's just us - more clubs are moving contracted players onto the rookie list than aren't.

Most supporters want players cut a year early and new players added, but that feels exactly like something the AFLPA would do their best to prevent.
 
Scorpus said:
We still have the ability to pay anywhere from 95 to 105% of the $15.8 million salary cap, depending on how we've structured it.

Unless we are forced into a 95% salary cap this year from a huge overspend in previous years, there would have been some flexibility.

A 2% swing (let's say 102% spend in 2024 and 98% in 2025) is $320k which should be more than enough to pay out one of our lowest contracts. And noting that we are forced to pay that total amount in 2025 anyway if they stay on the list, so the only thing changing is moving from a 100%-100% spend to accommodate that contract over two years, to 102%-98% to accommodate that in 1 year.

The only reason we wouldn't be able to do that is if we've forced ourselves into a position of zero cap flexibility due to overspending in prior years. Maybe that's the case, but our list has certainly not deserved it and there's little advantage to front loading to the degree it lowers our salary cap in future years. The fact we have recontracted or restructured contracts very early suggests it's more likely we are struggling to hit the salary floor then being hard up on the cap limit
Click to expand...
I argued the same that we should have flexibility. Surely we haven’t gone to the 105% level YET

One question for you or Vader is how many years forward can you roll the underspend from only paying 95%?
 
Scorpus said:
We still have the ability to pay anywhere from 95 to 105% of the $15.8 million salary cap, depending on how we've structured it.

Unless we are forced into a 95% salary cap this year from a huge overspend in previous years, there would have been some flexibility.

A 2% swing (let's say 102% spend in 2024 and 98% in 2025) is $320k which should be more than enough to pay out one of our lowest contracts. And noting that we are forced to pay that total amount in 2025 anyway if they stay on the list, so the only thing changing is moving from a 100%-100% spend to accommodate that contract over two years, to 102%-98% to accommodate that in 1 year.

The only reason we wouldn't be able to do that is if we've forced ourselves into a position of zero cap flexibility due to overspending in prior years. Maybe that's the case, but our list has certainly not deserved it and there's little advantage to front loading to the degree it lowers our salary cap in future years. The fact we have recontracted or restructured contracts very early suggests it's more likely we are struggling to hit the salary floor then being hard up on the cap limit
Click to expand...
I'm suggesting we pushed as much of our 2025 & 2026 salary as we could into our 2024 cap, creating space for the offers we made to ANB/Cumming/Peatling.

I agree that we would probably have been closer towards the 95% based on the 2024 salaries alone - but we would probably be very close to (or over) the 100% once the salaries brought forward were added to the total.

This left us no wriggle room when the Berry/Smith/Cook chickens came home to roost, leaving us unable to payout Burgess or Schoenberg.
 
Mostyn said:
I'm happy for that.

I'm not hoping the kid doesn't succeed - I'm more saying that players at pick 53 rarely become game changers.
Click to expand...
It probably happens a lot more with rucks that go late/rookie/MSD than most other roles, and maybe not gamechangers but way way above average ruckmen and many decent lead rucks like the current Tristan Xerri, Lloyd Meek, Jordan Sweet and ***Sam Draper :p and let's not forget Reilly O'Brien :p

Dean Cox #28 Rookie Draft
Aaron Sandilands #33 Rookie Draft
Jarrod Witts #67 National Draft
Rowan Marshall #10 Rookie Draft
Oscar McInerny #37 Rookie Draft
Shane Mumford #67 National Draft
Stefan Martin #3 Preseason Draft
Sam Jacobs #1 Rookie Draft
Darren Jolly #31 Rookie Draft
 
Mutineer said:
It probably happens a lot more with rucks that go late/rookie/MSD than most other roles, and maybe not gamechangers but way way above average ruckmen and many decent lead rucks like the current Tristan Xerri, Lloyd Meek, Jordan Sweet and ***Sam Draper and let's not forget Reilly O'Brien

Dean Cox #28 Rookie Draft
Aaron Sandilands #33 Rookie Draft
Jarrod Witts #67 National Draft
Rowan Marshall #10 Rookie Draft
Oscar McInerny #37 Rookie Draft
Shane Mumford #67 National Draft
Stefan Martin #3 Preseason Draft
Sam Jacobs #1 Rookie Draft
Darren Jolly #31 Rookie Draft
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's fair.

It's certainly the spot to look to get a ruckman, absolutely.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2025 List Mismanagement and Trading

Similar threads

Cleric
List Mgmt. Operation - Get Dyson Sharp 2025.
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
adelaidecrows
adelaidecrows
1990crow
  • Locked
  • Poll
List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading
400 401 402 403 404
Replies
10K
Views
511K
Vader
Vader
1990crow
List Mgmt. 2024 List Mismanagement and Trading Part 2
150 151 152 153 154
Replies
4K
Views
120K
PeterSalt
P
1990crow
  • Poll
Prediction Biggest Improver 2025
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Jeffcrowe
J
Thrillthorpe7
Training 2025 Pre-Season
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
305
Views
20K
GreyCrow
GreyCrow
Kane McGoodwin
Prediction 2025 Most Important Player
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
Golumless
Golumless
119others
2025 Draw - hoping for MUCH softer
20 21 22 23 24
Replies
580
Views
17K
Dirty Bird
Dirty Bird

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top