St Kilda TPP lowest in the league

[FQF]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... zqpu5.html

Makes us very well placed to pounce on free agents when we need them most.

[Life Long Saint]

St Kilda's reduction in player payments is such that the club will reach the mandatory 95 per cent minimum only by ''pre-paying'' some players - advancing them money from their 2015 contracts during this year.

I don't get this rule where a club has to pay 95% of the cap.
It runs the risk of overpaying players and falsely inflating their "value". I reckon Richmond did that with Martin when he tried to get a better offer in the marketplace last season and came up well short of his expectation.
If we only have 90% of the cap in players then so be it and that's what we should pay.

[FQF]

Well we get around it by forwarding 2015 payments to meat the cap. That way we aren't inflating any value, just front loading. This further allows for even more room down the track.

[matrix]

i agree with LLS
who gives a flying fish what percent you pay to players of the total you have
afl just make things so friggin complicated

[Dr Spaceman]

Well we get around it by forwarding 2015 payments to meat the cap.

Could you please stop seeing our players as just pieces of meat!

They are all someone's son, husband, partner, father etc etc

[Life Long Saint]

Well we get around it by forwarding 2015 payments to meat the cap.

Could you please stop seeing our players as just pieces of meat!

They are all someone's son, husband, partner, father etc etc

Well I am pretty sure that it's better than how Melbourne supporters see their players...as vegetables.

[karnaby]

Well we get around it by forwarding 2015 payments to meat the cap. That way we aren't inflating any value, just front loading. This further allows for even more room down the track.

Yep, I agree completely.

It's not as if this is the only dopey rule in the afl. All the club has to do is find a way to use it to our advantage, ie put some away for when we need it.

[Old Mate]

We are really setting ourselves up nicely for a crack at free agency in a couple of years. Dangerfield or Sloane in a Saints jumper?

[FQF]

The development of the core players is still far more important than free agents. Just look at Judd and Carlton.
But yes, we could potentially pursue two top-notch free agents, and we may begin informal discussions with certain targets as early as next year to ensure that those who we want are not tied up in contracts.

[SemperFidelis]

The development of the core players is still far more important than free agents. Just look at Judd and Carlton.
But yes, we could potentially pursue two top-notch free agents, and we may begin informal discussions with certain targets as early as next year to ensure that those who we want are not tied up in contracts.

I thought it was interesting that Pelchen's message was that we're not all that interested in loading up on free agents. Whether he's playing possum or not, it's at least good to have flexibility either way ... and I'd still love Dangerfield!

[Old Mate]

The development of the core players is still far more important than free agents. Just look at Judd and Carlton.
But yes, we could potentially pursue two top-notch free agents, and we may begin informal discussions with certain targets as early as next year to ensure that those who we want are not tied up in contracts.

I thought it was interesting that Pelchen's message was that we're not all that interested in loading up on free agents. Whether he's playing possum or not, it's at least good to have flexibility either way ... and I'd still love Dangerfield!

Not interested yet. Dangerfield becomes a FA next year along with guys like Beams, Cotchin and Sloane over the next 2 years.

[SemperFidelis]

Not interested yet. Dangerfield becomes a FA next year along with guys like Beams, Cotchin and Sloane over the next 2 years.

And 18 months is a bloody long time in footy!

[GrumpyOne]

It won't stay the lowest for long. As our younger group start hitting their straps they will become targets for other clubs. We will have to pay them more to keep them. Good tactic to keep a % up our sleeve should that happen next year.

[lloyd21]

Rather Stkilda chase uncontracted young player's offering them more opportunity and slightly more $ to come home

Kristian Jaksch & Lachie Plowman & Tim Membrey are 3 that come to mind

[tweedaletomanning]

The development of the core players is still far more important than free agents. Just look at Judd and Carlton.
But yes, we could potentially pursue two top-notch free agents, and we may begin informal discussions with certain targets as early as next year to ensure that those who we want are not tied up in contracts.

I thought it was interesting that Pelchen's message was that we're not all that interested in loading up on free agents. Whether he's playing possum or not, it's at least good to have flexibility either way ... and I'd still love Dangerfield!

Not interested yet. Dangerfield becomes a FA next year along with guys like Beams, Cotchin and Sloane over the next 2 years.

Beams is the one!

Is getting VERY underpaid ATM from memory.

( unless there is some shifty business going on at the filth)

[bergholt]

I don't get this rule where a club has to pay 95% of the cap.
It runs the risk of overpaying players and falsely inflating their "value". I reckon Richmond did that with Martin when he tried to get a better offer in the marketplace last season and came up well short of his expectation.
If we only have 90% of the cap in players then so be it and that's what we should pay.

I think the Players' Association pushed for that rule years ago to make sure their members would always be getting good cash.

[plugger66]

I don't get this rule where a club has to pay 95% of the cap.
It runs the risk of overpaying players and falsely inflating their "value". I reckon Richmond did that with Martin when he tried to get a better offer in the marketplace last season and came up well short of his expectation.
If we only have 90% of the cap in players then so be it and that's what we should pay.

I think the Players' Association pushed for that rule years ago to make sure their members would always be getting good cash.

Yep they pushed for it when fitzroy were paying 75% and it then went to 92.5% and now 95%. it makes sense because some clubs would just go completely low and then attack like there is no tomorrow especially the bigger clubs when they were going down. They could afford a a couple years at the bottom and pay 70% and then recruit all the stars and then people would be saying there should be a minimum SC payment.

[Life Long Saint]

Yep they pushed for it when fitzroy were paying 75% and it then went to 92.5% and now 95%. it makes sense because some clubs would just go completely low and then attack like there is no tomorrow especially the bigger clubs when they were going down. They could afford a a couple years at the bottom and pay 70% and then recruit all the stars and then people would be saying there should be a minimum SC payment.

Two things have happened since your example of Fitzroy paying 75% of the cap.
1. Fitzroy are no longer in existence.
2. Free Agency has been introduced. Players will simply go elsewhere if they're not being paid their worth.

It is clear that our list, as it stands, is not worth 95% of the cap. So we shouldn't have to falsely inflate payments or bring payments forward to make it. The fact that we can do that and publicise it shows that the rule is silly.

[plugger66]

Yep they pushed for it when fitzroy were paying 75% and it then went to 92.5% and now 95%. it makes sense because some clubs would just go completely low and then attack like there is no tomorrow especially the bigger clubs when they were going down. They could afford a a couple years at the bottom and pay 70% and then recruit all the stars and then people would be saying there should be a minimum SC payment.

Two things have happened since your example of Fitzroy paying 75% of the cap.
1. Fitzroy are no longer in existence.
2. Free Agency has been introduced. Players will simply go elsewhere if they're not being paid their worth.

It is clear that our list, as it stands, is not worth 95% of the cap. So we shouldn't have to falsely inflate payments or bring payments forward to make it. The fact that we can do that and publicise it shows that the rule is silly.

But we dont want FA yet and if it was allowed to get back to any figure could you imagine a club who doesnt lose members when down for example the pies thinking well we cant win the flag for a few years so lets drop to 70% and then get 10 FA. FA is exactly the reason you need a minimum figure. Dont get the Fitzroy leaving thing. I was pointing out why it changed.

Obviously we arent worth 95% but a smart club will use it to their advantage.

[Hallalj#3]

I think the main advantage to paying only 95% isnt so we can get a big fish, its being able to keep your players when their value goes up.. Thats the main reason Port were able to keep all their players also North Melbourne haven't lost any of there young players and only now they're paying 100% becuase they feel they've entered there window. So our plan is to rebuild through the Draft this will allow us to keep our list together. It's the right way to go.

[Life Long Saint]

Yep they pushed for it when fitzroy were paying 75% and it then went to 92.5% and now 95%. it makes sense because some clubs would just go completely low and then attack like there is no tomorrow especially the bigger clubs when they were going down. They could afford a a couple years at the bottom and pay 70% and then recruit all the stars and then people would be saying there should be a minimum SC payment.

Two things have happened since your example of Fitzroy paying 75% of the cap.
1. Fitzroy are no longer in existence.
2. Free Agency has been introduced. Players will simply go elsewhere if they're not being paid their worth.

It is clear that our list, as it stands, is not worth 95% of the cap. So we shouldn't have to falsely inflate payments or bring payments forward to make it. The fact that we can do that and publicise it shows that the rule is silly.

But we dont want FA yet and if it was allowed to get back to any figure could you imagine a club who doesnt lose members when down for example the pies thinking well we cant win the flag for a few years so lets drop to 70% and then get 10 FA. FA is exactly the reason you need a minimum figure. Dont get the Fitzroy leaving thing. I was pointing out why it changed.

Obviously we arent worth 95% but a smart club will use it to their advantage.

The Fitzroy leaving thing highlights that maybe the fact that they were paying 75% of the cap contributed to the reason why we don't see them play any more.
I am not following what is wrong with a club paying 70% of the cap in any given year and then getting free agents. In any given season they can only pay a maximum of 100% of the cap. They can't bank the 30% each year.
I agree that what we're doing is smart. Front load the contracts so they players will be on less money pa when we're ready to play finals next time so we can load up on some free agents.

[plugger66]

Two things have happened since your example of Fitzroy paying 75% of the cap.
1. Fitzroy are no longer in existence.
2. Free Agency has been introduced. Players will simply go elsewhere if they're not being paid their worth.

It is clear that our list, as it stands, is not worth 95% of the cap. So we shouldn't have to falsely inflate payments or bring payments forward to make it. The fact that we can do that and publicise it shows that the rule is silly.

But we dont want FA yet and if it was allowed to get back to any figure could you imagine a club who doesnt lose members when down for example the pies thinking well we cant win the flag for a few years so lets drop to 70% and then get 10 FA. FA is exactly the reason you need a minimum figure. Dont get the Fitzroy leaving thing. I was pointing out why it changed.

Obviously we arent worth 95% but a smart club will use it to their advantage.

The Fitzroy leaving thing highlights that maybe the fact that they were paying 75% of the cap contributed to the reason why we don't see them play any more.
I am not following what is wrong with a club paying 70% of the cap in any given year and then getting free agents. In any given season they can only pay a maximum of 100% of the cap. They can't bank the 30% each year.
I agree that what we're doing is smart. Front load the contracts so they players will be on less money pa when we're ready to play finals next time so we can load up on some free agents.

No they cant pay more than 100% in any given year but i would suggest if it was 70% one year it would be close to 70% the next year and maybe the year after so that gives you 30% to play with for 3 years. I think if they had that rule the bigger clubs would take more advantage of it because they know they will have the support even if they are down a many years. We wouldnt as shown by how poor our membership is after playing in a GF only 3 years ago.

[FQF]

By the time Riewoldt, Fisher and Hayes retire, we will have more room in our cap than we know what to do with.

[Life Long Saint]

No they cant pay more than 100% in any given year but i would suggest if it was 70% one year it would be close to 70% the next year and maybe the year after so that gives you 30% to play with for 3 years. I think if they had that rule the bigger clubs would take more advantage of it because they know they will have the support even if they are down a many years. We wouldnt as shown by how poor our membership is after playing in a GF only 3 years ago.

So what if they have 30% every year to play with? I'm not sure how a club can take advantage of that. The players that are there will go elsewhere if they believe they're not being paid enough. Either as delisted free agents of via the PSD.
In fact, the clubs are more likely to do what we are doing...paying some of next seasons money this season to free up cap for the next season. And, somehow, that is OK?

[Con Gorozidis]

St Kilda's reduction in player payments is such that the club will reach the mandatory 95 per cent minimum only by ''pre-paying'' some players - advancing them money from their 2015 contracts during this year.

I don't get this rule where a club has to pay 95% of the cap.
It runs the risk of overpaying players and falsely inflating their "value". I reckon Richmond did that with Martin when he tried to get a better offer in the marketplace last season and came up well short of his expectation.
If we only have 90% of the cap in players then so be it and that's what we should pay.

Totally agree - it seems like putting the cart before horse. I assume the reason is they dont want teams falling off the pace...
But with the draft and trade rules its almost impossible to recruit players anyway so i dont reckon it really helps with equalisation.
I think 90% would be far more reasonable.

I mean to think melbourne have been paying their players 95% of the cats this last decade - when they sure havent been performing at 95%.

just seems like some clubs are in a rut of mediority where they dont care because they are getting paid a mozza anyway and get paid the same whether they are rubbish or a gun.

a it of a joke to think guys like sylivia has earnt the same coin over his careers than a bartel.