Rumours / Player Movement Discussions for 2014

[Big Phil]

Norwood's most recent Magarey Medallist, Matt Thomas, has been given permission from the AFL to train with Richmond...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-11-19/d ... ith-tigers

[SimonH]

... 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.
...

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.

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.

[Grahaml]

As much as beenreal is a deluded yes man to everything Port says and does, there ARE people who play for less than they can get. I KNOW people who turned down more money to play where their heart is. On top of that there have been many cases of people turning down a fair bit of money to play for nothing under the right circumstances. So your assertion that a league regular couldn't possibly be playing for only $400 a game is utter nonsense. The fact you not only can't accept this but think it's such lunacy that nobody could, just shows you have an incredibly limited understanding of other people.

[beenreal]

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.

It's the PAFC. People like you are fascinated by us. Much like your club which copied us.

[TimmiesChin]

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.

I don't see them separately, but the rules imposed on them wrt list makeup mean that like it or not, there will be two category of players on the list, power listed, and non power listed.

In fact seeing them as one entry is more justification for them receiving transfer fees.

[SDK]

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.

[TimmiesChin]

... 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.
...

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.

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.

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.

[daysofourlives]

Whats the latest on Summerton?

[The Dark Knight]

Whats the latest on Summerton?

My brother told me he trained last night in their first night of preseason training.

[Big Phil]

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...

[Bounce of the ball]

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...

Interesting. Is there a name for this disorder ? Stalking much.

[The Sleeping Giant]

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.

LOL.

[Big Phil]

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.

It's called looking at a photo and recognising a face. Didn't realise that was categorised as stalking...

Seems as though the minute I make a post, you jump in with some snide remark. Is there a name for that disorder, botb?

[The Dark Knight]

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.

[TimmiesChin]

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.

[Jackal]

Shane Tuck going to Goody Saints...what a surprise. Did his brothers coach make contact with him prior to his decision.

[The Dark Knight]

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.

Said to my brother I think Port has been very lucky to hang on to those like Bobby for example, no doubt they would of considered leaving when all their mates were. I wish good luck to them amd hope they're looked after staying loyal to Port after what has happened.

[SimonH]

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.

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!

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.

[Jim05]

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.

He is probably worth about the same as the 2 duds that have just left Glenelg.
So glad that Norwood didnt get him

[TimmiesChin]

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.

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!

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.

Yep point 2 and 6 may have got one or two over the line, and assuming a lot of others leave it means come top end sanfl reserve players this year walk into a good deal to fill up league spots.

I'd imagine if more than 4/5 league players hang around them ports done well.

Sorry... my reference to cap was basically $400*x players * y rounds, so just my terminology . ... basically the Max per player forces a cap by stealth. My understanding based on what I've read is it's a Max per player per week.... I think it would have been simpler to be a true cap.

I'd imagine more than just summerton would have been contracted for next year, makes no sense to have 90% of your list falling out of contract at once.

I won't go into all your points as we don't seem far apart, but I'd imagine most players have other jobs, I reckon I read the average wage is a little over 50k, so all the Footy earnings would come on top of that... tax rate is 32.5% over 37k, so take a third of all Footy income away. (As you say, even menial jobs are 32k pa ).