Looks like we can't even give them away!

[Sanecow]

I'm not going to be upset if Nicks stays with us! He still has some good footy in him! I suspect all three players have some decent games left, but the fact we are apparently willing to trade them makes me wonder if they have on-going injury concerns. We can only offload so many injury prone players before people catch on!

[pillowtalk]

Does anyone know how the whole salary cap/ trade thing works???

The three Sydney players would all be on a certain amount which would be ten times the amount a draft pick would get so does our club pay the difference or is their club given an extra allowance to compensate?

How does it work?

[liz]

Originally posted by pillowtalk
Does anyone know how the whole salary cap/ trade thing works???

The three Sydney players would all be on a certain amount which would be ten times the amount a draft pick would get so does our club pay the difference or is their club given an extra allowance to compensate?

How does it work?

If Carlton were to go for a trade like this, part of the negotiation would be how much they were willing to pay the players. To the extent that this was less than the amounts the players are currently contracted for, Sydney would be liable to pay the difference (and include it within their cap) unless the players concerned agreed to a cut.

[pillowtalk]

Thanks Lizz.

Although ... If Sydney are liable to pay the difference, it seems an awful lot of money to give away. Would the club really sacrifice that money just to get rid of the players? And I don't see the players willing to take a pay cut if they were being shafted.

Also, if the deal was done would that mean that the players didn't have a say in it? In a previous post it said that there needed to be 3 signatures, this team, the other team and the player but what happens if the player refuses to sign? What does the club to then?

I'm probably just confusing myself here ...

[liz]

If the players don't agree to the trade, they stay. You can't force a contracted player to agree to a trade they don't want (nor an uncontracted player, for that matter). But I can't believe the club would make an offer like this one without discussing it with the players concerned beforehand. If the bait is that they would have more senior opportunities than they are likely to get at
Sydney, it may be attractive to them.

[pillowtalk]

I'm slowly starting to get it ... But still a bit confused ...Because didn't Ryan Fitzgerald have no say in the matter? and didn't Melbourne trade Woewodin to Collingwood without his consent? I remember reading some bad press at how upset he was with them about being traded.

(sorry for being painful Lizz!)

[DST]

Originally posted by pillowtalk
Thanks Lizz.

Although ... If Sydney are liable to pay the difference, it seems an awful lot of money to give away. Would the club really sacrifice that money just to get rid of the players? And I don't see the players willing to take a pay cut if they were being shafted.

Also, if the deal was done would that mean that the players didn't have a say in it? In a previous post it said that there needed to be 3 signatures, this team, the other team and the player but what happens if the player refuses to sign? What does the club to then?

I'm probably just confusing myself here ...

First question, yes it is true Sydney would be paying the difference if the new contract with the club was less. With lists of 38 it means every player needs to be available to play and contribute during the year becuase of the limited resource.

In this case it looks like Sydney have deemed the price of paying some of the the likes of Seymour and Warfe at another club is worth it to free up spots to draft and develop some new players. It will also indicate a couple of players on the fringe such as Ablett, Stevens and Buckie are probably going to be persisted with for another year.

Second question, deal can only be done if all parties agree. But in the end would you stay at a club that didn't want you? That is why players like Woewoefull & Fitzi ultimately go in the end even if they were reluctant to do so. I can't see Warfe hanging around if the club has told him he won't play next year and another club like Carlton wants him.

DST

[Newbie]

Each contract might have an incentive component which would require the player to play game(s) to get. Without playing, the player would simply forfeit this amount.

By moving club with better prospect of playing, he would have a better chance to get this share of his contract.

IIRC, Craig Bolton nominated a base salary of 80K + 3K for each game he plays in the pre-season draft and this put Richmond off.

[BAM_BAM]

Originally posted by Newbie

IIRC, Craig Bolton nominated a base salary of 80K + 3K for each game he plays in the pre-season draft and this put Richmond off.

another great choice they made lol. Not that I'm complaining.

I think Peter Filandia had the same arrangement due to his ongoing injury worries, from what I understand he was only on match payments at the end or close to it.

[j s]

Re: Re: Looks like we can't even give them away!

Originally posted by Reggi
If we threw in a bag of donuts - that would clinch it.

Or maybe some wooden forks (to complete the set)