by Big Phil » Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:00 pm
by SimonH » Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:08 pm
Hi TimmiesChin, you seem pretty well informed even if you don't have an official role with the PAFC, and I'm sure you wouldn't do a Burtenshaw-style ducking of tricky questions. We know about the rules of max $ per game ($400 league, $100 reserves). Despite beenreal's protestations, there can't be anyone in South Australia who believes that a player the quality of Raikiwasa—or for that matter anyone who was a regular league selection for the Magpies in 2013—would sign up to play for $400 per league match and not a cent more.TimmiesChin wrote:... Port will try to use the cap and max $ per game as per the rules set down to retain players that fill this need, but obviously this will be restrictive, and as has already seen, will result in top end players (ie Beard) to look elsewhere for opportunities.
...
by Grahaml » Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:25 pm
by beenreal » Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:28 pm
daysofourlives wrote:TimmiesChin wrote:daysofourlives wrote:This wasnt really my point beeny, very selective answer there which totally avoiids the main issue which is standard for you.
Why should the SANFL clubs pay a transfer fee for players that you cant give an opportunity to and are not required by the Power??
Are the clubs that stupid?? I'l answer that myself, yes they fricken are, well 6 of them are.
Just another handout to the Power from the SANFL commission.
Nah Days,
Port has opportunities for a number of players. At least an entire reserves side, plus between half a dozen to a dozen in a league side depending on AFL injuries. Port will try to use the cap and max $ per game as per the rules set down to retain players that fill this need, but obviously this will be restrictive, and as has already seen, will result in top end players (ie Beard) to look elsewhere for opportunities.
In fact, one could argue, that the opportunities available at the magpies will not be too dis-similar to that at other clubs, but that the number of opportunities will be reduced.
Already bottom end players (36-50) can go for free, and top end players (1-35) can go at half the going rate, so we are not talking about sheep stations here.
Why should the SANFL clubs pay a transfer fee for players that you cant give an opportunity to and are not required by the Power??
By definition, players not required by the power must in turn be listed by the power, and will all be playing at the magpies, but I assume you were talking about non AFL listed players.
Just another handout to the Power from the SANFL commission.
Not sure you can call it a handout, its a transaction between clubs. Players not getting opportunities at SANFL level switch clubs all the time - with associated transfer fees.
Can't argue with Port people that still see their club as Magpies and Power, let us know when the penny drops, we can then resume this discussion.
by TimmiesChin » Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:30 pm
daysofourlives wrote:TimmiesChin wrote:daysofourlives wrote:This wasnt really my point beeny, very selective answer there which totally avoiids the main issue which is standard for you.
Why should the SANFL clubs pay a transfer fee for players that you cant give an opportunity to and are not required by the Power??
Are the clubs that stupid?? I'l answer that myself, yes they fricken are, well 6 of them are.
Just another handout to the Power from the SANFL commission.
Nah Days,
Port has opportunities for a number of players. At least an entire reserves side, plus between half a dozen to a dozen in a league side depending on AFL injuries. Port will try to use the cap and max $ per game as per the rules set down to retain players that fill this need, but obviously this will be restrictive, and as has already seen, will result in top end players (ie Beard) to look elsewhere for opportunities.
In fact, one could argue, that the opportunities available at the magpies will not be too dis-similar to that at other clubs, but that the number of opportunities will be reduced.
Already bottom end players (36-50) can go for free, and top end players (1-35) can go at half the going rate, so we are not talking about sheep stations here.
Why should the SANFL clubs pay a transfer fee for players that you cant give an opportunity to and are not required by the Power??
By definition, players not required by the power must in turn be listed by the power, and will all be playing at the magpies, but I assume you were talking about non AFL listed players.
Just another handout to the Power from the SANFL commission.
Not sure you can call it a handout, its a transaction between clubs. Players not getting opportunities at SANFL level switch clubs all the time - with associated transfer fees.
Can't argue with Port people that still see their club as Magpies and Power, let us know when the penny drops, we can then resume this discussion.
by SDK » Tue Nov 19, 2013 8:05 pm
by TimmiesChin » Tue Nov 19, 2013 8:22 pm
SimonH wrote:Hi TimmiesChin, you seem pretty well informed even if you don't have an official role with the PAFC, and I'm sure you wouldn't do a Burtenshaw-style ducking of tricky questions. We know about the rules of max $ per game ($400 league, $100 reserves). Despite beenreal's protestations, there can't be anyone in South Australia who believes that a player the quality of Raikiwasa—or for that matter anyone who was a regular league selection for the Magpies in 2013—would sign up to play for $400 per league match and not a cent more.TimmiesChin wrote:... Port will try to use the cap and max $ per game as per the rules set down to retain players that fill this need, but obviously this will be restrictive, and as has already seen, will result in top end players (ie Beard) to look elsewhere for opportunities.
...
So, you mention 'the cap... as per the rules'. Do you know the answer to these questions?:
1. What is the cap applying to players contracted to play for the Port Adelaide Magpies side in the SANFL?
2. What are the rules as to how much Port Adelaide can play its SANFL-contracted players as a baseline/guaranteed minimum contract figure?
Thanks.
by daysofourlives » Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:11 pm
by The Dark Knight » Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:21 pm
daysofourlives wrote:Whats the latest on Summerton?
by Big Phil » Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:39 pm
The Dark Knight wrote:daysofourlives wrote:Whats the latest on Summerton?
My brother told me he trained last night in their first night of preseason training.
by Bounce of the ball » Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:48 pm
Big Phil wrote:The Dark Knight wrote:daysofourlives wrote:Whats the latest on Summerton?
My brother told me he trained last night in their first night of preseason training.
Yep. There was a picture on Port's FaceBook page last night from their first pre-training meeting with Budda Hocking...
Summertime can be spotted front and square in one pic...
by The Sleeping Giant » Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:56 pm
SDK wrote:Hope he is worth the money he is asking for but ....... good onya Bays we need a Glenelg up and about for the health of the SANFL.
by Big Phil » Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:01 pm
Bounce of the ball wrote:Big Phil wrote:The Dark Knight wrote:daysofourlives wrote:Whats the latest on Summerton?
My brother told me he trained last night in their first night of preseason training.
Yep. There was a picture on Port's FaceBook page last night from their first pre-training meeting with Budda Hocking...
Summerton can be spotted front and square in one pic...
Interesting. Is there a name for this disorder ? Stalking much.
by The Dark Knight » Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:19 pm
TimmiesChin wrote:I don't think anyone expected the entire league side to walk.
by TimmiesChin » Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:21 pm
The Dark Knight wrote:TimmiesChin wrote:I don't think anyone expected the entire league side to walk.
What?? you really think that?? If you thought that they weren't going to walk then you are seriously delusional.
by Jackal » Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:23 pm
by The Dark Knight » Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:34 pm
TimmiesChin wrote:The Dark Knight wrote:TimmiesChin wrote:I don't think anyone expected the entire league side to walk.
What?? you really think that?? If you thought that they weren't going to walk then you are seriously delusional.
Two/three haven't as a minimum, so no not really.
by SimonH » Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:35 pm
Thanks TC. #2 in your list is certainly potentially big. Even a menial full-time job is worth at least $32k/year these days ($622 pw is the minimum wage, but of course most workers are on significantly more), so the promise of work will dwarf what an average SANFL player can be paid from footy alone. For a small minority of players, #6 ("if you play well for us in the SANFL in 2014, we'll rookie you for 2015") could be a motivator, but a moment's mature reflection would reveal that AFL clubs don't rookie players for sentimental reasons, and so if you're playing well enough to be rookied by PAFC you could well be picked up by one of 17 other clubs too—regardless of where you're playing your SANFL league footy!TimmiesChin wrote:I only know what I read here, so know nothing g you don't.
I reckon the rules regarding $ per game is all a page or so back in this thread. Think it was $400 for league and $100 for sanfl. these are the rules I was referring to.
Because I'm not in the loop I can't answer the rest other than to offer some reasons ... in no order:
1. loyalty .... occasionally players become so used to a place they can't leave.
2. Non football employment ... ie club sourced job. (Obviously not in a Tom Zorich sports store: ) )
3. Mateship ... as per 1
4. Convenience ... close to home
5. Development .. access to AFL coaches
6. AFL visibility ... under the nose of AFL club.
6. Salary difference not that much.... ie, let's say he could get $1000 a game elsewhere, the difference of $600 a game in reality is bigger all when you take tax out. I know $600 a week for 20 weeks pre tax wouldn't have me thinking of changing jobs.
Ultimately, what I see happening is pretty much what I expected would, port went hard at a few league players it thought were a chance at staying..... and ended up with two of them. I don't think anyone expected the entire league side to walk.
by Jim05 » Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:51 pm
SDK wrote:Hope he is worth the money he is asking for but ....... good onya Bays we need a Glenelg up and about for the health of the SANFL.
by TimmiesChin » Tue Nov 19, 2013 10:53 pm
SimonH wrote:Thanks TC. #2 in your list is certainly potentially big. Even a menial full-time job is worth at least $32k/year these days ($622 pw is the minimum wage, but of course most workers are on significantly more), so the promise of work will dwarf what an average SANFL player can be paid from footy alone. For a small minority of players, #6 ("if you play well for us in the SANFL in 2014, we'll rookie you for 2015") could be a motivator, but a moment's mature reflection would reveal that AFL clubs don't rookie players for sentimental reasons, and so if you're playing well enough to be rookied by PAFC you could well be picked up by one of 17 other clubs too—regardless of where you're playing your SANFL league footy!TimmiesChin wrote:I only know what I read here, so know nothing g you don't.
I reckon the rules regarding $ per game is all a page or so back in this thread. Think it was $400 for league and $100 for sanfl. these are the rules I was referring to.
Because I'm not in the loop I can't answer the rest other than to offer some reasons ... in no order:
1. loyalty .... occasionally players become so used to a place they can't leave.
2. Non football employment ... ie club sourced job. (Obviously not in a Tom Zorich sports store: ) )
3. Mateship ... as per 1
4. Convenience ... close to home
5. Development .. access to AFL coaches
6. AFL visibility ... under the nose of AFL club.
6. Salary difference not that much.... ie, let's say he could get $1000 a game elsewhere, the difference of $600 a game in reality is bigger all when you take tax out. I know $600 a week for 20 weeks pre tax wouldn't have me thinking of changing jobs.
Ultimately, what I see happening is pretty much what I expected would, port went hard at a few league players it thought were a chance at staying..... and ended up with two of them. I don't think anyone expected the entire league side to walk.
Anyway, I found your reference to 'cap' in your original post interesting because a few factors make me think that we haven't been presented with the full financial story regarding the Crows 2nds and PAFC 2nds:
1. On the face of the published rules, there is no reference to any 'cap'. We simply don't know how much the Crows and Power are allowed as a 'net spend' on their SANFL-contracted players.
2. The Power are supposedly subject to generally the same conditions as the Crows. The Crows are entitled to contract one 'leadership player' (ex-Crows-list, minimum 28yoa, Ian Callinan in 2014), so why not the Power? And there is no published limit on what this 'leadership player' can be paid.
3. In an earlier post, a Port fan mentioned that Summerton was already contracted for 2014, so there was no question about him staying. And yet the published rules don't say, "anyone who's contracted can stick around and be paid as per the contract, even if it's massively more than $400 pw".
4. Given the way-below-market rate that can be paid per game, the logical way around it in order to remain competitive in the player market would be to guarantee to your top SANFL players, a flat fee regardless of how many games they play. In circumstances where the published rules don't say that such a practice is banned, unless there are some unpublished rules we don't know about, why wouldn't the Power pay their good SANFL-contracted players a base minimum payment/sign-on fee?
The problem is that no-one is being up-front about what the Crows and Power are and aren't allowed to do financially with their SANFL-contracted payments. We can't even have the debate about whether it's a level playing field, if we don't know all of the rules.
While some of the other things you mention will be a brake on some (mostly fringe) players departing, tax isn't an issue. The first $18,200 of anyone's earnings is tax-free. 18 rounds x $1000 = $18,000pa. Even after $18,200pa, it's only a 19% marginal rate until you get to the $37,000 level that very few SANFL players would (legitimately) exceed. At least as a result of their on-field exploits.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |