by RustyCage » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:03 pm
by bennymacca » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:25 pm
Dutchy wrote:Grahaml wrote:cracka wrote:Does a players quoted contract include match payments or are they on top of what's reported.
eg when its quoted Eddie Betts is on $550k a year, are match payments on top of that or is that what he gets if he plays 22 games a year.
Would surely think that it is a base and that match payments are on top of that. With the rules on minimum spends it would be nigh on unworkable with the nature of injuries. Naitanui is supposedly on 1M, but not heard anyone saying his ACL will free up that cap space for West Coast to splash somewhere. I also suspect that if it was all in match payments then clubs would "overfill" with the expectation not every one of the top 22 highest paid players will play 22 games.
Also I don't see the AFLPA copping the idea that a blokes on 1M a season could lose $50k if he gets dropped or hurt.
From what I've read, it's a flat $3500 match payment to anyone from M. Eagles to L. Franklin. Which makes sense. Completely predictable and you can then also take those payments outside the cap since they'll be equal for every club.
Incorrect, most established players are on a set pay packet whether they play or not, they have additional bonuses based on position in B&F, Brownlow, Premiership etc but thats about as simple as it gets. ONly players getting match payments are the rookies and the 1-3 year players.
by Jim05 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:29 pm
Booney wrote:Booney wrote:Hartlett more likely to end up in a Melbourne club than on the Gold Coast, more likely again to not go anywhere.
by JK » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:33 pm
bennymacca wrote:Dutchy wrote:Grahaml wrote:cracka wrote:Does a players quoted contract include match payments or are they on top of what's reported.
eg when its quoted Eddie Betts is on $550k a year, are match payments on top of that or is that what he gets if he plays 22 games a year.
Would surely think that it is a base and that match payments are on top of that. With the rules on minimum spends it would be nigh on unworkable with the nature of injuries. Naitanui is supposedly on 1M, but not heard anyone saying his ACL will free up that cap space for West Coast to splash somewhere. I also suspect that if it was all in match payments then clubs would "overfill" with the expectation not every one of the top 22 highest paid players will play 22 games.
Also I don't see the AFLPA copping the idea that a blokes on 1M a season could lose $50k if he gets dropped or hurt.
From what I've read, it's a flat $3500 match payment to anyone from M. Eagles to L. Franklin. Which makes sense. Completely predictable and you can then also take those payments outside the cap since they'll be equal for every club.
Incorrect, most established players are on a set pay packet whether they play or not, they have additional bonuses based on position in B&F, Brownlow, Premiership etc but thats about as simple as it gets. ONly players getting match payments are the rookies and the 1-3 year players.
Some would have trigger clauses too so if they miss a whole season through injury they dont get paid as much
by Booney » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:34 pm
Jim05 wrote:Booney wrote:Booney wrote:Hartlett more likely to end up in a Melbourne club than on the Gold Coast, more likely again to not go anywhere.
On the money by the looks.
He requested a meeting with us on Tuesday I do know that much and by all accounts both parties were underwhelmed by the meeting. From our POV Port want too much for him and his contract is just too risky and high priced to consider
by Jim05 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:37 pm
Booney wrote:Jim05 wrote:Booney wrote:Booney wrote:Hartlett more likely to end up in a Melbourne club than on the Gold Coast, more likely again to not go anywhere.
On the money by the looks.
He requested a meeting with us on Tuesday I do know that much and by all accounts both parties were underwhelmed by the meeting. From our POV Port want too much for him and his contract is just too risky and high priced to consider
My mail is he never intended on going anywhere. He had the upper hand with the contract he had in place.
So who now is on the table given we have supposed salary cap issues?
by MW » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:38 pm
by Booney » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:44 pm
Jim05 wrote:Don't know why you would go to the trouble of meeting with up to 5 Melbourne clubs if you didn't have some thoughts of leaving.
Would think Wines would be the one who holds the most trade value and would easily get you a pick in the top 10 but he would be untouchable
by hawks21 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:55 pm
Booney wrote:Jim05 wrote:Don't know why you would go to the trouble of meeting with up to 5 Melbourne clubs if you didn't have some thoughts of leaving.
Would think Wines would be the one who holds the most trade value and would easily get you a pick in the top 10 but he would be untouchable
If you never never go, you never never know.
by Jim05 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:04 pm
by Booney » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:05 pm
hawks21 wrote:Booney wrote:Jim05 wrote:Don't know why you would go to the trouble of meeting with up to 5 Melbourne clubs if you didn't have some thoughts of leaving.
Would think Wines would be the one who holds the most trade value and would easily get you a pick in the top 10 but he would be untouchable
If you never never go, you never never know.
Would think no club was willing to offer/pay him his current contract and or give up a pick that would make Port happy.
Not handled great by Manager/Club IMO.
by MW » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:08 pm
Jim05 wrote:Crows have told Henderson he is not required
by bennymacca » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:38 pm
by Jim05 » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:38 pm
by daysofourlives » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:49 pm
Booney wrote:Jim05 wrote:Booney wrote:Booney wrote:Hartlett more likely to end up in a Melbourne club than on the Gold Coast, more likely again to not go anywhere.
On the money by the looks.
He requested a meeting with us on Tuesday I do know that much and by all accounts both parties were underwhelmed by the meeting. From our POV Port want too much for him and his contract is just too risky and high priced to consider
My mail is he never intended on going anywhere. He had the upper hand with the contract he had in place.
So who now is on the table given we have supposed salary cap issues?
by Booney » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:56 pm
by stan » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:59 pm
by stan » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:00 pm
daysofourlives wrote:Booney wrote:Jim05 wrote:Booney wrote:[quote="Booney"]Hartlett more likely to end up in a Melbourne club than on the Gold Coast, more likely again to not go anywhere.
On the money by the looks.
He requested a meeting with us on Tuesday I do know that much and by all accounts both parties were underwhelmed by the meeting. From our POV Port want too much for him and his contract is just too risky and high priced to consider
My mail is he never intended on going anywhere. He had the upper hand with the contract he had in place.
So who now is on the table given we have supposed salary cap issues?
by Grahaml » Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:03 pm
stan wrote:Broadbent also looks likely to stay. Probably Lobbe is the one you will be able to move on. Im not sure we would be in the running for him. I think we would maybe look at Minson as a back up with Giles until Lycett and the eventual return of Nic Nat.
by bennymacca » Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:34 pm
Grahaml wrote:stan wrote:Broadbent also looks likely to stay. Probably Lobbe is the one you will be able to move on. Im not sure we would be in the running for him. I think we would maybe look at Minson as a back up with Giles until Lycett and the eventual return of Nic Nat.
West Coast would be mad to pick up Lobbe. Might play every game next year, but then you'd be paying him a stonking amount to battle Lycett to be Naitanui's #2.
I think Lobbe is going to be another Hartlett. Paid too much, for too long for his ability and Port would need to take a big hit to overcome that.
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |