This.
A lot of out of contract players are going to be hit with "You're practically on the scrap heap, we've overpaid you for a few years now, if you want this contract take it, if not, you're delisted".
Clearing money shouldn't be a problem.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Naitanui a likely target for GWS
- Thread starter swingdog
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
This.
A lot of out of contract players are going to be hit with "You're practically on the scrap heap, we've overpaid you for a few years now, if you want this contract take it, if not, you're delisted".
Clearing money shouldn't be a problem.
Read the article. They tried re-signing him last year. So, most of your rant is useless.
Geoffe_Miles
Team Captain
- Jun 15, 2010
- 496
- 0
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Read the article. They tried re-signing him last year. So, most of your rant is useless.
I have no idea what your point is here. So what that they tried to resign him? How is that relevant to the discussion? And why do you think they couldn't re-sign him? Maybe because they didn't offer him enough money because there isn't enough money in the cap? Your whole argument is based on an assumption that you have made that we have been front loading contracts and therefore will have lots of money in the cap going forward and therefore there is no problem. You have no logic or evidence to support that assumption. You are assuming it because it is what you want to believe and therefore it makes you feel comfortable. That is the problem that you and many others on here have with their arguments - they assume best case scenarios for everything, imagine that everything is the way they want it to be and anybody who points out that they are making best case scenario assumptions and taking it as fact is "negative" and "going on a rant". If anything, the evidence we can see is that they have not been front loading. They cut Houlihan over cap issues last week at the last minute fo rlist lodgements. If they had been front loading for years, as you keep assuming, they would not have needed to do that. The money to keep him would be there now.
Contracts and salary caps are something you should think of as a zero sum game. For every dollar you pay somebody overs at some stage in the short-medium term future you can are going to have pay somebody else unders to square the transaction. And if you pay lots of people overs over a considerable period of time then there is a fair chance it is going to cost you a player(s) in the future. You just wont have the money to keep them. These ridiculous contracts we have done with old, injured and underperfoming players will cost us something in the future. You can't give so many overly generous contracts and think it won't cost you something.
I would suggest he didn't re-sign because there is no chance we won't chase his signature and it allows him another season to improve his value. Simple. Why would a player re-sign now when he could wait a year and his value would increase substantially? Particularly when the GWS media suggests they are chasing him.
Jones, Hansen, Lynch and Nicoski are out of contract next season, Glass and Cox will join the veterans list and the salary cap is rising by about 250K. Even if we have back loaded contracts, all evidence suggests we should have plenty of free dollars.
Which mightn't have any relevance considering the cap increases and contracts expiring.
They cut Houlihan because they needed the list spot to keep Stevenson. They would have cut Hansen instead but with 300K already added into this years cap from Stenglein as well as rookie payments, they likely didn't have the space. No team has any more then 590K to play with at any time and that is a best case scenario. I'd suggest sitting your salary on the bottom margin is nigh on impossible.
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
The same desperate situation that sees us wanting to put him back onto our list?
"We'd still like to try and get him back on our list … definitely as a rookie, if not back on the senior list," Worsfold said. "That depends on various things, but at this stage we'll try and re-rookie Tim."
Wonder what we would get back in exchange for NicNat, top 5 pick maybe?
What did Geelong get for Ablett?
Now you are just guessing too to align with your point of view, so it is a bit rich to accuse me of it. I don't think we are paying over for too many players, bar Kerr and Hansen. Most others are probably on the right money. Sure we shouldn't have Hansen on the list, but hindsight is 20/20. Most Eagles supporters had him as one of our most important players in 07 and he got his new contract in early 08, so it may have made sense then. 3 years seems a bit high, but for a person that was considered one of our most important players, it made sense.
Since we have so many players that are being overpaid. Why don't you point out what players are overpaid and how much they are being paid? Or are you just guessing???
My point was they were making moves a year ago to re-sign him to avoid this situation, not doing nothing as you incorrectly claimed. We would do that by re-juggling everyone else's pay (ie, not front loading as much), however we need to do that at the beginning of the season, towards the end everyone has already been paid out. Remember, we also looked at bringing in some established players in the past few trade periods. There is no way we could afford that if they were truly near the cap.
We didn't cut Hoolihan over cap issues. We needed a spot on the list for Stevenson and cut Hoolihan because it was cheaper than cutting Hansen. We would have more room in the cap if we cut neither, but we could only afford to cut Hoolihan. My understanding is that if he goes back on the list, there will be no loss though. We will only have to pay something out if he does not get picked up by us or someone else. Hansen on the other hand would definitely not be picked up, so we would have to pay him out. Which we could not afford to do anyway.
The middle and end of the first rounds from memory.
- Banned
- #61
With only two players likely to continue to be kept on the Veterans List, WC could make massive salary cap room by trading/retiring Embley at the end of 2011 and trading/retiring Glass at the end of 2012. Or by paying out Glass at the end of 2011 and have it the 2012 cap, if possible.
2 of the Eagles big 4 earners have to go. I'd suggest Glass and Embley over Cox and Kerr. The abilities of Glass and Embley is in decline and WC have youngsters ready to fill those 2 positions.
If Royal Eagle is correct regarding Embley and Glass being retired off, this may be what WC had in mind, which will go a ways into solving the cap issue and retaining required players.
WC can Veteran List Kerr next year which will save them a truck load in cap space also.
2 of the Eagles big 4 earners have to go. I'd suggest Glass and Embley over Cox and Kerr. The abilities of Glass and Embley is in decline and WC have youngsters ready to fill those 2 positions.
If Royal Eagle is correct regarding Embley and Glass being retired off, this may be what WC had in mind, which will go a ways into solving the cap issue and retaining required players.
WC can Veteran List Kerr next year which will save them a truck load in cap space also.
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
Kerr isn't eligible until 2013 for Veteran status - so sacking 2 of cox, embley or glass isn't going to make much diffence in that regard.
I think you'll find the second compensatory pick is of the type following their first round draft pick in the year they use it. Sure this year it has to be used at the end of the first round but if they finished say 10th in 2012 and used it then their first rounder would be pick 9 and their compensation pick would be pick 10.
If we lose nicnat and he has a decent year next year it would have to be tier 1 compensation. He was pick 2 in the 2008 draft and has at the very least improved on that since then. So if we were to say lose nicnat and get tier 1 compensation we'd be looking at pick having 3 first rounders in 2012. Picks 11,15 and 16 with pick 11 (middle of first round compensation) and pick 16 (round 1 compensatory pick).
- Banned
- #64
I haven't looked at the Veterans List rules, so could you please explain to me why Kerr has to wait so long in comparison to Cox, who was drafted in the same year?
Cox is older as he was a mature aged recruit. IIRC you have to be 29 when the year starts??? so Kerr will be eligible in 2013.
- Banned
- #66
Good onya BB. Thanks to FS, as well.
No worries. Also once again IIRC you can have up to 5 players on the veterans list however the discount that their wages contribute to the salary cap decreases after the first two. If there are two its obviously 50% while if there are three I think it drops to around 33.33% and so on until theres no discount.
just read the article and did not realise how screwed we are. If we lose Naita and Lecca to GWS because of our list management i may just go Taxi Driver crazy.
The West Coast board meeting would resemble this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWshPH_jsjQ&feature=related
Bazza just said that GWS are poised to make a big money offer for Nic... IMO he would be close to there #1 man. Considering his looks, X factor and he was born in Western Sydney apaprently.
*scared*
Must also reiterate what I would consider doing to the WC board:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWshPH_jsjQ&feature=related
"Dont run, DONT RUN" hehe lo
*scared*
Must also reiterate what I would consider doing to the WC board:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWshPH_jsjQ&feature=related
"Dont run, DONT RUN" hehe lo
- Mar 20, 2007
- 29,825
- 27,929
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Would suck, especially if we are short changed under the AFL's compensation pick idea
I reckon if it came to it, we could match $800k especially with the increases in salary caps each year. Its just a matter of how highly we rate the bloke.
Why wasn't he locked away during the year, the writing re: GWS was on the wall early in the year...
- Jun 2, 2006
- 4,519
- 2,959
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Charlton FC
He is unproven and therefore a risk... they would be stupid to make him their prime target.
However they will target him... any recruiter worth their salt would. It will bump up his price big time, though.
- Aug 12, 2010
- 623
- 258
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Because he's not going to throw away leverage which he can use to increase his salary by extending his contract before a potential offer from GWS.
- Status
