Bazza is off to ...

[Cardinal]

The underlining assumption of this thread is that Hall is still a Champion player who could walk into a top team like the Doggies and magically win them a Flag.I talk to supporters of other teams and they see him quite differently.They see a player past his prime,a potential liability who in 2006 went missing on the biggest stage and most important match of the year.He certainly didn't win the Swans a flag in 2006 and has been a disruptive influence since.None of them want him and have the same attitude many Swans supporters have towards Lovett except Lovett has more upside than Hall.I therefore feel a lot of this discussion is redundant and Hall might be very lucky to find a home.

Most other clubs' supporters think the Swans are crap, dour have a poor list and will be bottoming out for the next 10 years. They also think we jagged 2005 out of our arses with some very unlikely final wins.

Then again there is no doubt that Bazza has not been the same since the 2006 loss.

[hammo]

DST can you explain how re-signing Hall at his market price and then trading him is any different to slapping a high price on an out of contract player and legitimately taking him in nthe pre season draft?

The AFL might not allow it in the future, but it is a loop hole in place now and we can exploit it then yes why not.

As far as I can see, there is nothing stopping the Swand sitting down with Hall and the Doggies and offering to contract Hall for another year to then off load him to the Dogs for a specific player swap and us throwing in some cash to pay for Hall's contract at the Dogs.

It's out there, but could benefit both of us, as we are looking for a draft pick or young player and have spare cap room and the Dogs a key forward but no cap room for a full Hall contract.

It has been done in the past with deals like Stafford and Richmond to enable a deal but protect salary cap space and the only thing different here is that Hall would need to sign a new contract before being traded.

DST

If Lake walked out on the Dogs and then ended up in Sydney via the PSD, knowing that we have the cap room and cash to pay him would leave a sour taste in a lot of people mouths regarding the club.

We have worked hard to earn the respect of the football world, no need to throw it all away for a cheap night out on the Lake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DST

[caj23]

Really? How about the retirements this year of Barry Hall, Michael O'Loughlin, Leo Barry, Jared Crouch, Tadhg Kennelly and Nic Fosdike, plus the fact that this money comes from the AFL, not the club (which is why we have to spend 92.5% of it, to prevent us hoarding it).

Huh????

I'm not sure you fully understand the concept.

The club pays the players not the AFL. The salary cap is simply a limit placed on the amount a club can spend on its list to ensure that the haves (e.g. Collingwood) don't dominate the competition over the havenots (e.g. Kangaroos).

The Swans operations are run as a normal business and I think if you check the Annual Reports for the last couple of years we have been making some pretty hefty losses. We certainly aren't in a position to be hoarding bucketloads of spare cash

Yes we will make some savings as a result of departures of those players, but you might also note that we only took a couple of rookies last year as a result of cashflow issues and this year we may wish to take the full complement.

Anyway, Barry Hall is not going to be re-contracted so he can be traded for a higher value so you might as well give up on this scenario as it's simply not going to happen

[laughingnome]

Huh????

I'm not sure you fully understand the concept.

The club pays the players not the AFL. The salary cap is simply a limit placed on the amount a club can spend on its list to ensure that the haves (e.g. Collingwood) don't dominate the competition over the havenots (e.g. Kangaroos).

In short, no.

In order to guarantee that every club can afford to pay their players the AFL distributes $7,693,750 (2009) to each of the 16 clubs - 123 million dollars in total - to spend on their playing list. This is done so that clubs which may be cash-strapped don't forfiet talent to protect the bottom line. Mant clubs in the NSL suffered from this problem and eventually killed the competition, and this is what the AFL endevours to avoid through all of these equality programs.

Because the AFL hands out the money, there is a minimum amount clubs must also spend on their playing lists, currently 92.5% or $7,116,718.75 (referred to as a salary floor). This prevents clubs hoarding the AFL's money into their own coffers, again sacrificing on field talent for off-field finances.

Nominated rookies and veteran players (veteran: over 30 and played at least 10 years at the club) have a 50% exemption in the cap. Sydney also enjoys a 5% exemption (down from 15% since 2003) as a cost-of-living allowance.


If you don't believe some or any of this you can read the AFLPA's Collective Bargaining Agreement for 2007 - 2011 and see for yourself.

[caj23]

In short, no.

In order to guarantee that every club can afford to pay their players the AFL distributes $7,693,750 (2009) to each of the 16 clubs - 123 million dollars in total - to spend on their playing list. This is done so that clubs which may be cash-strapped don't forfiet talent to protect the bottom line. Mant clubs in the NSL suffered from this problem and eventually killed the competition, and this is what the AFL endevours to avoid through all of these equality programs.

Because the AFL hands out the money, there is a minimum amount clubs must also spend on their playing lists, currently 92.5% or $7,116,718.75 (referred to as a salary floor). This prevents clubs hoarding the AFL's money into their own coffers, again sacrificing on field talent for off-field finances.

Nominated rookies and veteran players (veteran: over 30 and played at least 10 years at the club) have a 50% exemption in the cap. Sydney also enjoys a 5% exemption (down from 15% since 2003) as a cost-of-living allowance.


If you don't believe some or any of this you can read the AFLPA's Collective Bargaining Agreement for 2007 - 2011 and see for yourself.

Ok so if a club is struggling then theoretically they will pay the 92.5% if possible and keep the balance of $538,562 to pay for other operating costs

I doubt we will hit 100% of the cap in 2010, but I'm pretty sure the club would see it as a priority to use the surplus in other areas as opposed to pissing it away on a player who will be playing for an opposition club.

If he was already contracted for next year then that may be an option (and has been previously in cases such as Daffy and Rawlings), but since he isn't then it is a ridiculous suggestion.

[Plugger46]

The underlining assumption of this thread is that Hall is still a Champion player who could walk into a top team like the Doggies and magically win them a Flag.I talk to supporters of other teams and they see him quite differently.They see a player past his prime,a potential liability who in 2006 went missing on the biggest stage and most important match of the year.He certainly didn't win the Swans a flag in 2006 and has been a disruptive influence since.None of them want him and have the same attitude many Swans supporters have towards Lovett except Lovett has more upside than Hall.I therefore feel a lot of this discussion is redundant and Hall might be very lucky to find a home.

I've heard the complete opposite. I reckon there's about 1 in 5 'Dogs supporters who don't want Hall.

[BSA5]

Ok so if a club is struggling then theoretically they will pay the 92.5% if possible and keep the balance of $538,562 to pay for other operating costs

I doubt we will hit 100% of the cap in 2010, but I'm pretty sure the club would see it as a priority to use the surplus in other areas as opposed to pissing it away on a player who will be playing for an opposition club.

If he was already contracted for next year then that may be an option (and has been previously in cases such as Daffy and Rawlings), but since he isn't then it is a ridiculous suggestion.

But with so many senior players going, unless we've signed guys like Vespa, Bird, Jack, Grundy and White to ridiculously good deals, we'll probably need some help getting over the 92.5% anyway.

I really don't see what's so hard to imagine about the Swans contributing a certain amount to Hall's salary, in exchange for the Dogs giving us a better pick. I'm not sure if the Dogs need it. But if they do, then I reckon the Swans would be mad not to take it (within reason, I wouldn't want us paying his entire contract for one pick upgrade, for example, that would just be ridiculous).

[reigning premier]

And when Hall hits a bloke next season the Swans will be liable as his employer.

Sorry but this suggestion is ridiculous. We should only pay for players who actually play for us. The club won't even consider this scenario for a minute.

Anyway, where is the evidence that it is even possible? This is a debate based on a hypothetical and highly improbable scenario.

Also, people here are concerned about the Swans' reputation if we take players in the pre season draft instead of trading. How exactly would this form of cheating play with the other clubs?

Please don't start a "Duty of care" argument again.....

[ScottH]

According to Rocket himself, they haven't spoked to Hall, but now their season is over they will start chatting with him and his manager to see where he is at, physically, and mentally.

[AnnieH]

According to Rocket himself, they haven't spoked to Hall, but now their season is over they will start chatting with him and his manager to see where he is at, physically, and mentally.

Blind Barry is Rocket's love child.

[DST]

DST can you explain how re-signing Hall at his market price and then trading him is any different to slapping a high price on an out of contract player and legitimately taking him in nthe pre season draft?

Very happy to Hammo.

In short, we wil be assisting us, Hall and the club that wants him in this type of deal.

Under the other scenario, we would be ripping a club off if we induced their player to name their price and used the PSD as a weapon to get him.

A deal for Hall like the above, would only enhance our reputation in the market place as to a club willing to help all parties when trading.

DST

[AnnieH]

Very happy to Hammo.

In short, we wil be assisting us, Hall and the club that wants him in this type of deal.

Under the other scenario, we would be ripping a club off if we induced their player to name their price and used the PSD as a weapon to get him.

A deal for Hall like the above, would only enhance our reputation in the market place as to a club willing to help all parties when trading.

DST

Sorry.
Which club is willing to help all parties when trading????
It's every man for himself.

[liz]

Very happy to Hammo.

In short, we wil be assisting us, Hall and the club that wants him in this type of deal.

Under the other scenario, we would be ripping a club off if we induced their player to name their price and used the PSD as a weapon to get him.

A deal for Hall like the above, would only enhance our reputation in the market place as to a club willing to help all parties when trading.

DST

Except it smells pretty fishy.

Think about taking things a step further. Two clubs could work in tandem with each other to "manage" their salary caps in counter-cycles, allowing one to compete (unfairly) for premierships and the other to rebuild, then vice versa.

My guess is that the AFL would prefer that clubs never paid salaries of players on other lists - it compromises the whole idea of a salary cap. But given the trading process is already completely constipated, disallowing this practice totally would make it almost impossible for players to change clubs. Most players are only on two or three year contracts though - so in all likelihood these arrangements exist for only a year most of the time.

For the Swans to re-contract Barry given all that's happened, and then ship him off to the Bulldogs while continuing to pay him certainly reeks of buying draft picks and even if technically allowed, certainly seems like cheating.

[DST]

Except it smells pretty fishy.

Think about taking things a step further. Two clubs could work in tandem with each other to "manage" their salary caps in counter-cycles, allowing one to compete (unfairly) for premierships and the other to rebuild, then vice versa.

My guess is that the AFL would prefer that clubs never paid salaries of players on other lists - it compromises the whole idea of a salary cap. But given the trading process is already completely constipated, disallowing this practice totally would make it almost impossible for players to change clubs. Most players are only on two or three year contracts though - so in all likelihood these arrangements exist for only a year most of the time.

For the Swans to re-contract Barry given all that's happened, and then ship him off to the Bulldogs while continuing to pay him certainly reeks of buying draft picks and even if technically allowed, certainly seems like cheating.

I know it looks fishy and the AFL will probably close it down once it happens.

But at this stage it's legal and an area the club could use to get a deal for Hall at the Doggies and improve our draft or player position than a straight deal for Hall with salary implications for the Dogs.

DST

[DST]

Sorry.
Which club is willing to help all parties when trading????
It's every man for himself.

We have been in the past and I am sure the club would like to think of itself as helping all parties out when trading players, not just trying to get one over like Whorethorn.

Ultimately means that all clubs will trade with us come trade time in good faith and increases our ability to get deals done.

DST