Carlton Supporters Club

Well our best ruck and second best defender have walked out and our best forward wants to.
2026 is not looking good.

Annus horribilis-
No it's not an ugly bum, it's Latin for "Horrible year".

Apart from maybe 2002, can we think of another year that matches the challenges this one has thrown up.
We thought last year was bad , but this one was a whole new level.

Starting with season ending injuries to a couple of key players (one a star recruit) through to some unfortunate departures at the finish,  this one has been a shocker on and off the field.

Surely next year must see a change of luck.

Quote from: Lods – on August 28, 2025, 12:39:25 pm

Annus horribilis-
No it's not an ugly bum, it's Latin for "Horrible year".

Apart from maybe 2002, can we think of another year that matches the challenges this one has thrown up.
We thought last year was bad , but this one was a whole new level.

Starting with season ending injuries to a couple of key players (one a star recruit) through to some unfortunate departures at the finish,  this one has been a shocker on and off the field.

Surely next year must see a change of luck.

I think we've had worse years inbetween 2025 and 2002.

I think our standards have increased over that time so it feels like its a lot worse than it is.

Thats not to say there haven't been issues, but every year you get a couple season ending injuries...

Quote from: kruddler – on August 28, 2025, 02:08:37 pm

I think we've had worse years inbetween 2025 and 2002.

I think our standards have increased over that time so it feels like its a lot worse than it is.

Thats not to say there haven't been issues, but every year you get a couple season ending injuries...

I reckon that we overachieved in 2023 but that's our benchmark now.

He was actually better than Weitering but missing that much footy I just couldn't give him the number 1 spot.

A poster on one of the Facebook pages has outlined some of the major issues of the season.
In brief...

-Pick 3 Jagga Smith, does ACL Totally ruined our attempt at injecting pace and run into our midfield. The only positive was that it gave the lad a chance to develop his body for 2026.
-Newman out for the year Probably the 2nd worst thing to happen, as it robbed us of his leadership, his ability to good players done and his decision making. Hopefully, he can come back in 2026 as good as ever.
-Kemp out for the year When he was finally showing what we wanted, :(
-Lose unexpectedly to Richmond in Round 1 That was like a knife in the heart, to lead by so much and to fall over against this bunch of babies.
-President sends a ‘dick pick’ and ends up resigning Embarassing. Hopefully his replacement will end up like Ian Rice and reign over our return to glory.
-Lose a number of games after leading early.
-Miss finals and don't have first or second pick We made a bold move to get Jagga, which was cruelled before he could show what he could do. The consequences of our downfall, alas, are dire. I don't think our recruiters could guess that was going to happen, but it certainly made us pay a much higher price than we should have.
-E Hollands and Harry have mental Health issues. Elijah’s future is uncertain Again, these two could not be foreseen, and they cost us dearly. Hopefully, we can move on from these and get them going strongly in 2026.
-Harry O'Farrell has best game, Does ACL the following week
-Jack Martin kicks 6 in a game, and Matt Kennedy has a very good year Disappointing, but not as lethal as some of the other disasters. As for Martin, he has yet to prove that he is any more durable.
-TDK leaves Not good. :(
-Curnow wants to leave A disaster.
-Silvagni goes to defence and is playing great football... until he gets injured
-Then Silvagni announces he is leaving for darker pastures One of the real lowlights of 2025.
-AFL hints at changing father son rule the year we have a top prospect in Cody Walker Unacceptable! We simply cannot allow this to occur!
….and injuries continue to impact heavily on the season. You cannot win many games with half of your best lineup not on the park.
Anything else?

You think it's been bad?
I think it qualified. ;)

Quote from: madbluboy – on August 28, 2025, 01:14:32 pm

He was actually better than Weitering but missing that much footy I just couldn't give him the number 1 spot.

Sorry, but I think that's fanboy talk, the surname and history at work again.

Weitering was clearly our best defender, even our own forum voting indicates that, based on the full season I wouldn't have even rated SoJ ahead of Haynes. At very best he's 3rd place, but if he's ahead of others it's borderline at best.

Quote from: LP – on August 28, 2025, 07:53:46 pm

Sorry, but I think that's fanboy talk, the surname and history at work again.

Weitering was clearly our best defender, even our own forum voting indicates that, based on the full season I wouldn't have even rated SoJ ahead of Haynes. At very best he's 3rd place, but if he's ahead of others it's borderline at best.

Champion data.

It can sometimes even work to the detriment of the son (or daughter) if your Dad is in charge of an important aspect like list managing as they might be harder on you to deflect criticism.

@Lods...
The conflict was somewhat made up by liddle who got his feelings hurt when he tried to do his own recruitingnof his Richmond mates and sos shot him down.

Other than that I think it could be 'put in a good word for me' that Jack was burdened with.

Honestly, I think the biggest issue is something nobody has suggested yet.

Stephen may have voiced his thoughts on what the club should be doing and what he would do if he was still there.

I expect it to be something like Stephen saying to Jack....
- No way they should be letting go of a-grade talent like martin
- No way they should trade out Mr consistent Kennedy.
- One of the biggest holes they have could be fixed by getting Dan Houston and they let him walk to the pies.
- they've recruited too many small.forwards when they could've got....that guy.

Ultimately a lot.of what he said comes true, jack sees this and loses faith in Austin and co to build a list properly and jumps ship before it sinks further.

@Lods...
The conflict was somewhat made up by liddle who got his feelings hurt when he tried to do his own recruitingnof his Richmond mates and sos shot him down.

Other than that I think it could be 'put in a good word for me' that Jack was burdened with.

Honestly, I think the biggest issue is something nobody has suggested yet.

Stephen may have voiced his thoughts on what the club should be doing and what he would do if he was still there.

I expect it to be something like Stephen saying to Jack....
- No way they should be letting go of a-grade talent like martin
- No way they should trade out Mr consistent Kennedy.
- One of the biggest holes they have could be fixed by getting Dan Houston and they let him walk to the pies.
- they've recruited too many small.forwards when they could've got....that guy.

Ultimately a lot.of what he said comes true, jack sees this and loses faith in Austin and co to build a list properly and jumps ship before it sinks further.

Always remember, no matter how bad things get they can always get worse.

Interesting looking at our own Jim Park voting.
Silvagni was in the votes most weeks he played, but there were a couple of weeks where he was right at the top of the votes for some very good jobs on dangerous key forwards.
So there's no doubt that while it lasted the experiment was working.

One of the things that often gets people a bit confused is that SOS's 'conflict of interest' over his kids was never about favouritism for his boys.
It's not hard to be professional about that type of thing.
I can even believe SOS probably did take himself out of decisions to pick the boys up.
It can sometimes even work to the detriment of the son (or daughter) if your Dad is in charge of an important aspect like list managing as they might be harder on you to deflect criticism.

No, the issue has always been how that coach or List-man deals with the other players in the side.
How would it feel if your Dad was making career ending decisions about your close friends and team-mates
I'm guessing that over the years Jack would probably have heard "You're Dad is a fKn prick" more than once.
Even as list manager for another side where he's plucking quality players from your side it would be more than uncomfortable.
I can understand that as being a situation Jack would have found difficult to deal with over his career.
It's possibly caused conflict with other players and coaches.
He may have even overheard conversations about his dad that upset him.
Was it a big factor in his decision?
I think that is a much better reason for leaving than "I'm looking for a bit of success"

Quote from: Lods – on August 29, 2025, 06:45:15 am

Interesting looking at our own Jim Park voting.
Silvagni was in the votes most weeks he played, but there were a couple of weeks where he was right at the top of the votes for some very good jobs on dangerous key forwards.
So there's no doubt that while it lasted the experiment was working.

One of the things that often gets people a bit confused is that SOS's 'conflict of interest' over his kids was never about favouritism for his boys.
It's not hard to be professional about that type of thing.
I can even believe SOS probably did take himself out of decisions to pick the boys up.
It can sometimes even work to the detriment of the son (or daughter) if your Dad is in charge of an important aspect like list managing as they might be harder on you to deflect criticism.

No, the issue has always been how that coach or List-man deals with the other players in the side.
How would it feel if your Dad was making career ending decisions about your close friends and team-mates
I'm guessing that over the years Jack would probably have heard "You're Dad is a fKn prick" more than once.
Even as list manager for another side where he's plucking quality players from your side it would be more than uncomfortable.
I can understand that as being a situation Jack would have found difficult to deal with over his career.
It's possibly caused conflict with other players and coaches.
He may have even overheard conversations about his dad that upset him.
Was it a big factor in his decision?
I think that is a much better reason for leaving than "I'm looking for a bit of success"

If Jack ends up at St Kilda then I think you could put that argument to rest.

Quote from: Lods – on August 29, 2025, 06:45:15 am

Interesting looking at our own Jim Park voting.
Silvagni was in the votes most weeks he played, but there were a couple of weeks where he was right at the top of the votes for some very good jobs on dangerous key forwards.
So there's no doubt that while it lasted the experiment was working.

One of the things that often gets people a bit confused is that SOS's 'conflict of interest' over his kids was never about favouritism for his boys.
It's not hard to be professional about that type of thing.
I can even believe SOS probably did take himself out of decisions to pick the boys up.
It can sometimes even work to the detriment of the son (or daughter) if your Dad is in charge of an important aspect like list managing as they might be harder on you to deflect criticism.

No, the issue has always been how that coach or List-man deals with the other players in the side.
How would it feel if your Dad was making career ending decisions about your close friends and team-mates
I'm guessing that over the years Jack would probably have heard "You're Dad is a fKn prick" more than once.
Even as list manager for another side where he's plucking quality players from your side it would be more than uncomfortable.
I can understand that as being a situation Jack would have found difficult to deal with over his career.
It's possibly caused conflict with other players and coaches.
He may have even overheard conversations about his dad that upset him.
Was it a big factor in his decision?
I think that is a much better reason for leaving than "I'm looking for a bit of success"

If Jack ends up at St Kilda then I think you could put that argument to rest.

what was that again about a lack of recruiting of alternative key position players?  Would it be that potentially we'd recruit an upgrade for Jack?

SOS is just doing his job. If you barracked for StKilda you would be happy.

SOS is just doing his job. If you barracked for StKilda you would be happy.

SOS is just doing his job. If you barracked for StKilda you would be happy.

SOS is just doing his job. If you barracked for StKilda you would be happy.

He isnt bad at his job, but Im not sure how chuffed I would be with him, and I think had he not been a silvagni we would likely label him a bit of a failure.

Quote from: kruddler – on August 29, 2025, 07:27:44 am

@Lods...
The conflict was somewhat made up by liddle who got his feelings hurt when he tried to do his own recruitingnof his Richmond mates and sos shot him down.

Other than that I think it could be 'put in a good word for me' that Jack was burdened with.

Honestly, I think the biggest issue is something nobody has suggested yet.

Stephen may have voiced his thoughts on what the club should be doing and what he would do if he was still there.

I expect it to be something like Stephen saying to Jack....
- No way they should be letting go of a-grade talent like martin
- No way they should trade out Mr consistent Kennedy.
- One of the biggest holes they have could be fixed by getting Dan Houston and they let him walk to the pies.
- they've recruited too many small.forwards when they could've got....that guy.

Ultimately a lot.of what he said comes true, jack sees this and loses faith in Austin and co to build a list properly and jumps ship before it sinks further.

what was that again about a lack of recruiting of alternative key position players?  Would it be that potentially we'd recruit an upgrade for Jack?

Quote from: madbluboy – on August 29, 2025, 10:24:59 am

SOS is just doing his job. If you barracked for StKilda you would be happy.

Im not sure about that.

Distancing myself from the SOS favourite son at Carlton argument:

1.  Only got the job as he was mates with Ross Lyon.
2.  For all his work at GWS, they only came good once he left.
3.  Brought a bunch of Ex GWS players he drafted to Carlton and they were all pretty ordinary.
4.  Is repeating the pattern of bringing across players he drafted despite paying less for them than he did on draft day.  Would Jack Carroll, Paddy Dow get a game anywhere else?  I suppose they are low risk high reward.  Liam Stocker goes ok. 
5.  Is reaching for players and paying a high price i.e.  Tom De Koning.  What has he done to earn such a price tag (recruiting free agents is good business regardless as it costs you nothing but salary cap).
6.  Is looking after his son and paying him overs for the contract. 

He isnt bad at his job, but Im not sure how chuffed I would be with him, and I think had he not been a silvagni we would likely label him a bit of a failure.

Quote from: Thryleon – on August 29, 2025, 10:37:35 am

Im not sure about that.

Distancing myself from the SOS favourite son at Carlton argument:

1.  Only got the job as he was mates with Ross Lyon.
2.  For all his work at GWS, they only came good once he left.
3.  Brought a bunch of Ex GWS players he drafted to Carlton and they were all pretty ordinary.
4.  Is repeating the pattern of bringing across players he drafted despite paying less for them than he did on draft day.  Would Jack Carroll, Paddy Dow get a game anywhere else?  I suppose they are low risk high reward.  Liam Stocker goes ok. 
5.  Is reaching for players and paying a high price i.e.  Tom De Koning.  What has he done to earn such a price tag (recruiting free agents is good business regardless as it costs you nothing but salary cap).
6.  Is looking after his son and paying him overs for the contract. 

He isnt bad at his job, but Im not sure how chuffed I would be with him, and I think had he not been a silvagni we would likely label him a bit of a failure.

He will make big moves. He will make things happen.

Thing is judging on his St. Kilda return thus far you would have to put the jury out.

The coach over there isn't a big Carlton fan either having been spurned and asked to go through a process.
Dinners must be fun as they air their grievances and plot their revenge :D

Swapping out picks to get Blaine Boekhorst Whiley and Jaschke.... Couple of guns there...NOT.  That one will live in the "what a f up file" forever.

The coach over there isn't a big Carlton fan either having been spurned and asked to go through a process.
Dinners must be fun as they air their grievances and plot their revenge :D

Swapping out picks to get Blaine Boekhorst Whiley and Jaschke.... Couple of guns there...NOT.  That one will live in the "what a f up file" forever.

I reckon Ross Lyon would have a 'hate' list as long as your arm.  He just strikes me as the type of guy who is so convinced he knows all the answers, he treats everyone who disagrees with contempt.  I am certainly not disappointed that we haven't spent the last 3 years watching a Lyon-based game plan.  He certainly hasn't done the Saints fans any favours, watching them play is almost a chore.

Quote from: Lods – on August 29, 2025, 01:00:14 pm

The coach over there isn't a big Carlton fan either having been spurned and asked to go through a process.
Dinners must be fun as they air their grievances and plot their revenge :D

I reckon Ross Lyon would have a 'hate' list as long as your arm.  He just strikes me as the type of guy who is so convinced he knows all the answers, he treats everyone who disagrees with contempt.  I am certainly not disappointed that we haven't spent the last 3 years watching a Lyon-based game plan.  He certainly hasn't done the Saints fans any favours, watching them play is almost a chore.

Quote from: kruddler – on August 29, 2025, 12:13:51 pm

He will make big moves. He will make things happen.

What are all the big moves he has made at the saints apart from possibly this year?

He would do better if he removed the gigantic pole he has stuck up his ar5e.

How come 17 other teams don't have the same war chest?

Quote from: tonyo – on August 29, 2025, 01:26:50 pm

I reckon Ross Lyon would have a 'hate' list as long as your arm.  He just strikes me as the type of guy who is so convinced he knows all the answers, he treats everyone who disagrees with contempt.  I am certainly not disappointed that we haven't spent the last 3 years watching a Lyon-based game plan.  He certainly hasn't done the Saints fans any favours, watching them play is almost a chore.

We both won the same amount of games this season.

Maybe, and just a maybe, our 2025 is Richmond's 2016. We know what happened after that.

I find it very hard to believe that Ross Lyon or Steve Silvagni are making any decisions based on revenge. If that's true, the St Kilda fans should absolutely revolt and demand they both be sacked. Appalling lack of professionalism, if true.

Quote from: PaulP – on August 29, 2025, 01:52:00 pm

I find it very hard to believe that Ross Lyon or Steve Silvagni are making any decisions based on revenge. If that's true, the St Kilda fans should absolutely revolt and demand they both be sacked. Appalling lack of professionalism, if true.

Ill bet my left one they are.

But of course if you are there, then there is always the possibility of a Bradbury moment.

The Bulldogs are a terrific example of that ... and we could have been in 2023  ::)

Maybe, and just a maybe, our 2025 is Richmond's 2016. We know what happened after that.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/richmond-tigers-end-of-season-report-card/news-story/89e0df08d704a6a6f56af49b9305e153

Quote from: kruddler – on August 29, 2025, 01:37:07 pm

How come 17 other teams don't have the same war chest?

Good question!  The TPP rules don’t allow clubs to bank enough savings to cover the largesse SOS is piling on Nas, TDK and whoever else he fancies.  Front- and back-loaded contracts won’t do it either.

There will have to be significant cost cutting, or an AFL blind eye, if St Kilda’s books are to balance.

Despite the reported dinner where players allegedly agreed to take haircuts, managers will be looking for greener fields.

Quote from: DJC – on August 29, 2025, 02:00:29 pm

Good question!  The TPP rules don’t allow clubs to bank enough savings to cover the largesse SOS is piling on Nas, TDK and whoever else he fancies.  Front- and back-loaded contracts won’t do it either.

There will have to be significant cost cutting, or an AFL blind eye, if St Kilda’s books are to balance.

Despite the reported dinner where players allegedly agreed to take haircuts, managers will be looking for greener fields.

I'm no mathematician but something doesn't quite add up

Quote from: LoveNavy – on August 29, 2025, 09:54:31 pm

I'm no mathematician but something doesn't quite add up

IMO, its actually legit.

How many A-graders do the saints have?
How many solid veterans on big coin to they have?
Front load contracts, bank cash every year.
Eventually you've gotta use it.....and oh are they using it.

Rumours had it that TDK gets a 2mil signing bonus up front....and less later.
That ties in with having a war chest you need to spend it before you lose it.

They're spending has to be legitimate...for the moment.
They've essentially got a neon sign and flashing lights saying "Check our Salary Cap, we're spending some outrageous amounts"

While it may be right for the present, as DJC says it will be a challenge in the future.
Good luck signing NWM at the end of his current contract.

Their planning seems to be based on a flag in a year or two...or bust.
Which is kind of the opposite to the "sustained success that SOS preached while he was with us.
That's what Ross would be after before he walks away...that elusive "Premiership coach" tag.

Quote from: kruddler – on August 29, 2025, 10:39:05 pm

IMO, its actually legit.

How many A-graders do the saints have?
How many solid veterans on big coin to they have?
Front load contracts, bank cash every year.
Eventually you've gotta use it.....and oh are they using it.

Rumours had it that TDK gets a 2mil signing bonus up front....and less later.
That ties in with having a war chest you need to spend it before you lose it.

Teams can underspend 5% of their TPP and carry it forward.  Is there any evidence that St Kilda had an underspend this season?  We’ll find out early next year.

Regardless of whether they do have savings, and whether TDK, will get an extra $200K next season, they still have to pay close to $4M to two players in 2027.  That’s more than 20% of their TPP on two players.  Even if most of their players were on the minimum, that’s going to be a challenge.

They're spending has to be legitimate...for the moment.
They've essentially got a neon sign and flashing lights saying "Check our Salary Cap, we're spending some outrageous amounts"

While it may be right for the present, as DJC says it will be a challenge in the future.
Good luck signing NWM at the end of his current contract.

Their planning seems to be based on a flag in a year or two...or bust.
Which is kind of the opposite to the "sustained success that SOS preached while he was with us.
That's what Ross would be after before he walks away...that elusive "Premiership coach" tag.

I listed a few players that would be on overs.

Wilkie
King
Steele
Higgins
Hill
Sinclair
Marshall
Butler
Jones

In terms of front loading they shelled out big bucks for Jake Carlisle way back when and regularly have attracted players over across the journey.

Not sure how much front loading you can achieve when you've thrown money at players repeatedly but I suppose it tracks.

Every player from another club would be on overs.  That doesnt mean their current spend isnt warranted.  Its just not a pittance some make out.

Clubs that make finals get extra bonuses in their cap.  Saints haven't featured more than once in recent years. 

Even the spuds get overs to change clubs. Are the bulldogs paying mccrae or is he on peanuts too?

We're only under the cap because TdK and Jack have $#@ed off and the contracts of overpaid spuds like McG have run out and they're they're being shifted onto smaller biccies commensurate with their output. We also drafted a lot of kids last year and other than Haynes didn't trade in. Other blokes were/are being let go once contracts end....Fantasia, Owies, Cincotta etc etc
I agree with Thry, none of sniffers players listed are on base payments, even at the mooted 800 K for Hill and King ("cheap rates"  supposedly) there's no way the average across the playing group gives them this huge buffer in the cap.  No way.  The math ain't mathing.
That's why they want to ditch Steele (on big coin) and screw Windhager.  It's bluffing with a pair.

Steele is another with a big front ended contract, on peanuts now...Saints have upped their offer to Windhagar and he looks like staying.

Quote from: Thryleon – on August 30, 2025, 09:06:49 am

I listed a few players that would be on overs.

Wilkie
King
Steele
Higgins
Hill
Sinclair
Marshall
Butler
Jones

In terms of front loading they shelled out big bucks for Jake Carlisle way back when and regularly have attracted players over across the journey.

Not sure how much front loading you can achieve when you've thrown money at players repeatedly but I suppose it tracks.

Every player from another club would be on overs.  That doesnt mean their current spend isnt warranted.  Its just not a pittance some make out.

Clubs that make finals get extra bonuses in their cap.  Saints haven't featured more than once in recent years. 

Even the spuds get overs to change clubs. Are the bulldogs paying mccrae or is he on peanuts too?

Carlisle retired 4 years ago, what the hell has that got to do with anything now??

Wilkie is on about what we are offering jack which is why he's in the craps.
Ditto Steele.
King is signed up for the next 7 years and you get that at a huge discount.
Marshall is on less than half what tdk is getting which is why he'll leave.

Despite all of that, none come close to the contracts of any of the players i mentioned from us....and yhe others you list are on less again.

So how can we be under the cap, with 2mil to spend and they not be able to pay the same?

Quote from: kruddler – on August 30, 2025, 09:36:43 am

Carlisle retired 4 years ago, what the hell has that got to do with anything now??

Wilkie is on about what we are offering jack which is why he's in the craps.
Ditto Steele.
King is signed up for the next 7 years and you get that at a huge discount.
Marshall is on less than half what tdk is getting which is why he'll leave.

Despite all of that, none come close to the contracts of any of the players i mentioned from us....and yhe others you list are on less again.

So how can we be under the cap, with 2mil to spend and they not be able to pay the same?

jeez mate, its not hard to work out.  They've paid big for him, and they had their current players wouldnt be on peanuts.

Quote from: Thryleon – on August 30, 2025, 12:14:56 pm

jeez mate, its not hard to work out.  They've paid big for him, and they had their current players wouldnt be on peanuts.

So you reject the logical explanation and lean towards the conspiracy theory as the most likely explanation?

Yeah, nah.

Quote from: Lods – on August 30, 2025, 06:47:38 am

They're spending has to be legitimate...for the moment.
They've essentially got a neon sign and flashing lights saying "Check our Salary Cap, we're spending some outrageous amounts"

While it may be right for the present, as DJC says it will be a challenge in the future.
Good luck signing NWM at the end of his current contract.

Their planning seems to be based on a flag in a year or two...or bust.
Which is kind of the opposite to the "sustained success that SOS preached while he was with us.
That's what Ross would be after before he walks away...that elusive "Premiership coach" tag.

They can forget about keeping NWM after his 2 years. Ross is throwing a Hail Mary trying to buy a premiership before he hands over to Boris.

I think some here would be shocked at how little the bulk of players make.

Quote from: DJC – on August 30, 2025, 12:49:04 am

Teams can underspend 5% of their TPP and carry it forward.  Is there any evidence that St Kilda had an underspend this season?  We’ll find out early next year.

Regardless of whether they do have savings, and whether TDK, will get an extra $200K next season, they still have to pay close to $4M to two players in 2027.  That’s more than 20% of their TPP on two players.  Even if most of their players were on the minimum, that’s going to be a challenge.

I understand how much they are paying in the future, but you need to look at the now and the past first.

We have cripps Charlie harry weiters....some might throw in McGovern, Saad, Williams and cerra.....and then you have tdk. All on huge money to varying degrees.

Do the same thing with the saints. I doubt you'll come up with half that list and even then, it's not to the same extent.
Who are they paying....Marshall? Hill??
Anyone else??

They wouldve been front loading and banking for a few years now. All planning towards this moment.

We saw it with sos while he was with us. Year on year we were throwing cash around. We never could get the players to commit though. He's solved that problem.

Quote from: kruddler – on August 30, 2025, 07:16:48 am

I understand how much they are paying in the future, but you need to look at the now and the past first.

We have cripps Charlie harry weiters....some might throw in McGovern, Saad, Williams and cerra.....and then you have tdk. All on huge money to varying degrees.

Do the same thing with the saints. I doubt you'll come up with half that list and even then, it's not to the same extent.
Who are they paying....Marshall? Hill??
Anyone else??

They wouldve been front loading and banking for a few years now. All planning towards this moment.

We saw it with sos while he was with us. Year on year we were throwing cash around. We never could get the players to commit though. He's solved that problem.

That's all well and good but clubs must spend at least 95% of their TPP.  If the Saints had an underspend this year. they must still have forked out at least $16.8M.  Next season's TPP is rolled in with an increase of the soft cap but it's set at $18.4M for 2027 so, split the difference and go with $18M. That goes up to $18.9M if they did have a 5% underspend.  With Nas and TDK raking in at least $3.8M, they've only got $15.1M to pay the other 40 odd players.  Take out $800K for Leek Aleer and possibly another $800K for Silvagni, and that drops their available budget to $13.5M.  That's around $350K each and Steele, Hill, King, Sinclair, Wilkie and Marshall all get considerably more than that.  Haircuts and frontloading doesn't get you from $16.8M down to $15.1M or lower and they will be pushing players out the door.

I'm not saying that they can't afford to pay players next season but it's not sustainable and they won't be able retain their young talent.

Quote from: DJC – on August 30, 2025, 05:11:10 pm

That's all well and good but clubs must spend at least 95% of their TPP.  If the Saints had an underspend this year. they must still have forked out at least $16.8M.  Next season's TPP is rolled in with an increase of the soft cap but it's set at $18.4M for 2027 so, split the difference and go with $18M. That goes up to $18.9M if they did have a 5% underspend.  With Nas and TDK raking in at least $3.8M, they've only got $15.1M to pay the other 40 odd players.  Take out $800K for Leek Aleer and possibly another $800K for Silvagni, and that drops their available budget to $13.5M.  That's around $350K each and Steele, Hill, King, Sinclair, Wilkie and Marshall all get considerably more than that.  Haircuts and frontloading doesn't get you from $16.8M down to $15.1M or lower and they will be pushing players out the door.

I'm not saying that they can't afford to pay players next season but it's not sustainable and they won't be able retain their young talent.

By my maths, when you take away 5.45M from the TPP for TDK (1.85M), NWM (2M), SOS(0.8M) and Alir (0.8M), , it leaves an average of around 300K for the other 41 players. Enjoy the carnage Saints.

Quote from: kruddler – on August 30, 2025, 07:16:48 am

I understand how much they are paying in the future, but you need to look at the now and the past first.

We have cripps Charlie harry weiters....some might throw in McGovern, Saad, Williams and cerra.....and then you have tdk. All on huge money to varying degrees.

Do the same thing with the saints. I doubt you'll come up with half that list and even then, it's not to the same extent.
Who are they paying....Marshall? Hill??
Anyone else??

They wouldve been front loading and banking for a few years now. All planning towards this moment.

We saw it with sos while he was with us. Year on year we were throwing cash around. We never could get the players to commit though. He's solved that problem.

That's all well and good but clubs must spend at least 95% of their TPP.  If the Saints had an underspend this year. they must still have forked out at least $16.8M.  Next season's TPP is rolled in with an increase of the soft cap but it's set at $18.4M for 2027 so, split the difference and go with $18M. That goes up to $18.9M if they did have a 5% underspend.  With Nas and TDK raking in at least $3.8M, they've only got $15.1M to pay the other 40 odd players.  Take out $800K for Leek Aleer and possibly another $800K for Silvagni, and that drops their available budget to $13.5M.  That's around $350K each and Steele, Hill, King, Sinclair, Wilkie and Marshall all get considerably more than that.  Haircuts and frontloading doesn't get you from $16.8M down to $15.1M or lower and they will be pushing players out the door.

I'm not saying that they can't afford to pay players next season but it's not sustainable and they won't be able retain their young talent.

If they had 1 year to work all this out, you are correct...now let's say they were I understand the cap a year ago. They use the war chest to 'pay un advance' some players....front loading contracts.

So if you are under the salary cap, year on year, you can save more and more cash because you keep front loading contracts and paying in advance.

So yeah, what you say works for 1 year; but sos has been at it for a few years and that's how you get extra over and above the traditionally overspend allowance.

Quote from: kruddler – on August 30, 2025, 08:54:12 pm

If they had 1 year to work all this out, you are correct...now let's say they were I understand the cap a year ago. They use the war chest to 'pay un advance' some players....front loading contracts.

So if you are under the salary cap, year on year, you can save more and more cash because you keep front loading contracts and paying in advance.

So yeah, what you say works for 1 year; but sos has been at it for a few years and that's how you get extra over and above the traditionally overspend allowance.

First of all, St Kilda spent $2M more on “football expenses” in 2024 than they did in 2023.  Their TPP is part of those expenses but their annual report doesn’t give any details.  However, if they increased overall expenditure by $2M, it’s reasonable to assume that they didn’t underspend their TPP.

If they have been systematically underspending by 5% and using the savings to “top up” their TPP each season, all that means is that they’re paying slightly less than the TPP each season and there’s no “war chest”.

5% of the 2025 TPP is $900K and that doesn’t go far when you’re shelling out $3.8M for two players.

A TPP underspend is not a magic pudding.

However, what i am saying is this....
95% in year 1, means 5% extra, but take 5% of year 2 and pay it in advance, so you pay 100% of the cap this year.
90% in year 2, means 10% extra, but take 10% of year 3 and pay it in advance, so you pay 100% of the cap this year.
85% in year 3, means 15% extra, but take 15% from year 4 and pay it in advance, so you pay 100% of the cap this year.
80% in year 4, means 20% extra. Lets go shopping!

Quote from: kruddler – on August 31, 2025, 10:55:57 am

However, what i am saying is this....
95% in year 1, means 5% extra, but take 5% of year 2 and pay it in advance, so you pay 100% of the cap this year.
90% in year 2, means 10% extra, but take 10% of year 3 and pay it in advance, so you pay 100% of the cap this year.
85% in year 3, means 15% extra, but take 15% from year 4 and pay it in advance, so you pay 100% of the cap this year.
80% in year 4, means 20% extra. Lets go shopping!

What are you shopping for, magic pudding?

I'm starting to understand why so many clubs end up in strife! :o

Tom Lynch highest paid player in the AFL this year. Over 1.5 mil.

[Cmon mate, its not that hard.

Lets say the saints salary cap all things considered is 95% year on year (it may be even less - before you jump up and down about minimums, follow the train of thought first)

95% in year 1, means 5% extra
95% in year 2, means 5% extra
95% in year 3, means 5% extra
95% in year 4, means 5% extra
At most, you can use 10% in a war chest after banking 2 years of 95% extra.
so what you say (in isolation) is correct.

However, what i am saying is this....
95% in year 1, means 5% extra, but take 5% of year 2 and pay it in advance, so you pay 100% of the cap this year.
90% in year 2, means 10% extra, but take 10% of year 3 and pay it in advance, so you pay 100% of the cap this year.
85% in year 3, means 15% extra, but take 15% from year 4 and pay it in advance, so you pay 100% of the cap this year.
80% in year 4, means 20% extra. Lets go shopping!

Same amounts of money year on year, just distributing it differently so they have a larger than normal war chest to go shopping with.

Now, if they were under 95% of it to begin with, then they can bank even more simply bring forward more payments.
Also worth noting the cap increases each year, so even with paying it forward, you actually get more than the extra 5% each year when you take into account cap increases on top of that.

Now, i don't care to argue %'s. I'm just showing you proof of concept.
FWIW, if you disagree that this is possible, i urge you to trawl through youtube. There was a video on this about 10 years ago from Cameron Schwab (??) who was in charge of the dees at the time saying this is what clubs can/will do.

So, there is no magic pudding, nobody says there was, but there is pretty simple manipulations that are open to every club which mean what the saints are doing are well within what is possible before you go down the rabbit hole into conspiracy theories.

As i said earlier, why Tigers, North and West Coast are not doing the same i don't understand. With the talent they have (and more importantly, where the age of that talent it) they should be building huge war chests by doing similar to what i described above.

Quote from: kruddler – on August 31, 2025, 10:55:57 am

[Cmon mate, its not that hard.

Lets say the saints salary cap all things considered is 95% year on year (it may be even less - before you jump up and down about minimums, follow the train of thought first)

95% in year 1, means 5% extra
95% in year 2, means 5% extra
95% in year 3, means 5% extra
95% in year 4, means 5% extra
At most, you can use 10% in a war chest after banking 2 years of 95% extra.
so what you say (in isolation) is correct.

However, what i am saying is this....
95% in year 1, means 5% extra, but take 5% of year 2 and pay it in advance, so you pay 100% of the cap this year.
90% in year 2, means 10% extra, but take 10% of year 3 and pay it in advance, so you pay 100% of the cap this year.
85% in year 3, means 15% extra, but take 15% from year 4 and pay it in advance, so you pay 100% of the cap this year.
80% in year 4, means 20% extra. Lets go shopping!

Same amounts of money year on year, just distributing it differently so they have a larger than normal war chest to go shopping with.

Now, if they were under 95% of it to begin with, then they can bank even more simply bring forward more payments.
Also worth noting the cap increases each year, so even with paying it forward, you actually get more than the extra 5% each year when you take into account cap increases on top of that.

Now, i don't care to argue %'s. I'm just showing you proof of concept.
FWIW, if you disagree that this is possible, i urge you to trawl through youtube. There was a video on this about 10 years ago from Cameron Schwab (??) who was in charge of the dees at the time saying this is what clubs can/will do.

So, there is no magic pudding, nobody says there was, but there is pretty simple manipulations that are open to every club which mean what the saints are doing are well within what is possible before you go down the rabbit hole into conspiracy theories.

As i said earlier, why Tigers, North and West Coast are not doing the same i don't understand. With the talent they have (and more importantly, where the age of that talent it) they should be building huge war chests by doing similar to what i described above.

It's not hard if you read Item 6.3(f) and (g) of the CBA:

(f) The permitted amount of overspend will be tied to the level of underspend in the relevant preceding periods. For example, if a Club was $500,000 below the combined Total Player Payments and Additional Services Agreements limit in 2022, and paid 100% of the Combined Limit in 2023, 2024 and 2025, the Club would be entitled to spend $500,000 above the Combined Limit in 2026. If a $500,000 overspend was not made in 2026, the Club has lost the right to overspend in 2027.

(g) It is agreed that the overspend amount is to be capped at a maximum of 105% of the Combined Limit in any given year. 

In other words, clubs can only overspend up to 5% of the TPP in any season and only if they have an underspend in any of the four preceding seasons.  Regardless of how many seasons St Kilda may have spent only 95% of their TPP (and their annual reports suggest zero), the most they could pay their players in 2026 is $18M + 5% = $18.9M.  On their current list, that's $15.1M between 42 players, and a sizeable chunk of that will go on Steele, Hill, King, Sinclair, Wilkie and Marshall, as well as the recruits SOS is after.

Despite what Cameron Schwab may have said on YouTube, Item 6.3 of the CBA is pretty clear ... and each club's auditors are required to ensure that player payments comply with the TPP rules.

Tom Lynch highest paid player in the AFL this year. Over 1.5 mil.

Quote from: DJC – on August 31, 2025, 12:43:05 pm

It's not hard if you read Item 6.3(f) and (g) of the CBA:

(f) The permitted amount of overspend will be tied to the level of underspend in the relevant preceding periods. For example, if a Club was $500,000 below the combined Total Player Payments and Additional Services Agreements limit in 2022, and paid 100% of the Combined Limit in 2023, 2024 and 2025, the Club would be entitled to spend $500,000 above the Combined Limit in 2026. If a $500,000 overspend was not made in 2026, the Club has lost the right to overspend in 2027.

(g) It is agreed that the overspend amount is to be capped at a maximum of 105% of the Combined Limit in any given year. 

In other words, clubs can only overspend up to 5% of the TPP in any season and only if they have an underspend in any of the four preceding seasons.  Regardless of how many seasons St Kilda may have spent only 95% of their TPP (and their annual reports suggest zero), the most they could pay their players in 2026 is $18M + 5% = $18.9M.  On their current list, that's $15.1M between 42 players, and a sizeable chunk of that will go on Steele, Hill, King, Sinclair, Wilkie and Marshall, as well as the recruits SOS is after.

Despite what Cameron Schwab may have said on YouTube, Item 6.3 of the CBA is pretty clear ... and each club's auditors are required to ensure that player payments comply with the TPP rules.

One more time to make the point as clear as can be.

By 'bringing forward' payments, i'm talking about restructuring contracts or front loading new contracts. I'm not talking about anything dodgy.

All of that is well within the rules.

Hey Cripps, instead of 1mil this year and 1 mil next, can we give you 1.5mil this year and 500k next year? It means we can bring in Adam Cerra next year.

Thats all it takes.

We did it with Jack Martin. We'll pay you 4mil over 4 years or whatever it was. Oh btw, we need to make that 1.5-2mil in the first year in order to get you to carlton so nobody else can match the bid.

THAT is what i'm talking about.
THAT is 100% legal.
THAT is all it takes.
THAT is why the saints have so much money to kick around.

Quote from: kruddler – on August 31, 2025, 01:22:13 pm

One more time to make the point as clear as can be.

By 'bringing forward' payments, i'm talking about restructuring contracts or front loading new contracts. I'm not talking about anything dodgy.

All of that is well within the rules.

Hey Cripps, instead of 1mil this year and 1 mil next, can we give you 1.5mil this year and 500k next year? It means we can bring in Adam Cerra next year.

Thats all it takes.

We did it with Jack Martin. We'll pay you 4mil over 4 years or whatever it was. Oh btw, we need to make that 1.5-2mil in the first year in order to get you to carlton so nobody else can match the bid.

THAT is what i'm talking about.
THAT is 100% legal.
THAT is all it takes.
THAT is why the saints have so much money to kick around.

So, you're conceding that the AFL's TPP rules mean that:

(a) you can't use 10% in a war chest, and

(b) you can't pay forward 5% of one year's TPP, and so on until you have a 20% war chest?

Front-loading and back-loading contracts provides flexibility, particularly if you're about to lose your underspend.  However, players still have to get the minimum specified by the CBA.  We do know that there's a limited (but growing) number of players who have such large contracts to make the amounts freed up by front- or back-loading enough to contribute significantly to another contract.  Steele, Hill, King, Sinclair, Wilkie and Marshall were the biggest earners at St Kilda in 2025.  Front-loading their contracts is not going to free up enough money to pay Nas and TDK, even if they were willing to do so.

St Kilda will have many players on minimum chips for at least the next two seasons, and no capacity to meet demands for pay rises by well performing youngsters.  It's likely to be the same scenario that Collingwood got themselves into when they had to shed Grundy and Treloar ... and I suspect that Collingwood is run just a tad better than St Kilda.

It has to be possible...otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

The only gap theyve got is the money they were going to spend on battle.

He left, theyve given nasiah a massive pay increase, odds are they're paying him a lot this year probably accounting for his money moving forward.

If they ended up bringing forward other  payments too, that means they might be already in over spend to attract ghe players this off season.  Next year how they juggle their money is different again, but we have heard of a sign on bonus for TDK.  2 million in his first year.

I dont think people are saying things aren't possible.   I think people are watching with intrigue about their salary cap, and where this goes moving forward. 

Then they're wondering how weve managed things so badly that we haven't been able to achieve similar.

I.e.  jsos going.  McGovern missing his extension.  Tdk going and docherty retiring.

None of thise would have banked early cash.  We shed a boat anchor of salary last season and replaced with kids to go with it.  None of it makes sense really.

Quote from: DJC – on August 31, 2025, 03:17:08 pm

So, you're conceding that the AFL's TPP rules mean that:

(a) you can't use 10% in a war chest, and

(b) you can't pay forward 5% of one year's TPP, and so on until you have a 20% war chest?

Front-loading and back-loading contracts provides flexibility, particularly if you're about to lose your underspend.  However, players still have to get the minimum specified by the CBA.  We do know that there's a limited (but growing) number of players who have such large contracts to make the amounts freed up by front- or back-loading enough to contribute significantly to another contract.  Steele, Hill, King, Sinclair, Wilkie and Marshall were the biggest earners at St Kilda in 2025.  Front-loading their contracts is not going to free up enough money to pay Nas and TDK, even if they were willing to do so.

St Kilda will have many players on minimum chips for at least the next two seasons, and no capacity to meet demands for pay rises by well performing youngsters.  It's likely to be the same scenario that Collingwood got themselves into when they had to shed Grundy and Treloar ... and I suspect that Collingwood is run just a tad better than St Kilda.

Answer me this.

How are st. kilda paying these players the money reported?

I've provided exactly how i think its done, which you disagree with based on.....nothing? (re red).

All i can see is people spouting conspiracy theories and saying its not possible.
It is possible. I showed you its possible. There is a guy who used to do the job saying its possible.......but apparantly its not possible?!?

Quote from: kruddler – on August 31, 2025, 03:27:46 pm

Answer me this.

How are st. kilda paying these players the money reported?

I've provided exactly how i think its done, which you disagree with based on.....nothing? (re red).

All i can see is people spouting conspiracy theories and saying its not possible.
It is possible. I showed you its possible. There is a guy who used to do the job saying its possible.......but apparantly its not possible?!?

The AFL would be asking them to please explain if they were to exceed their 2026 TPP, so it has to be possible.  Of course, they have only just started their delistings and they will probably be encouraging their UFAs to find new homes.  I have now found a statement from St Kilda that they were only going to pay 95% of the TPP this season.  That gives them an extra $885K for 2026 but that's it.

I've said all along that it's not sustainable.  One year, possibly two, and they will have to be letting players go or begging them to accept minimum chips and hoping the youngsters don't qualify for performance incentives.

Quote from: madbluboy – on August 31, 2025, 11:23:36 am

Tom Lynch highest paid player in the AFL this year. Over 1.5 mil.

God, what a waste of money!
May it continue on Punt Rd!

Quote from: DJC – on August 31, 2025, 06:20:42 pm

The AFL would be asking them to please explain if they were to exceed their 2026 TPP, so it has to be possible.  Of course, they have only just started their delistings and they will probably be encouraging their UFAs to find new homes.  I have now found a statement from St Kilda that they were only going to pay 95% of the TPP this season.  That gives them an extra $885K for 2026 but that's it.

I've said all along that it's not sustainable.  One year, possibly two, and they will have to be letting players go or begging them to accept minimum chips and hoping the youngsters don't qualify for performance incentives.

I'm done.

You've completely ignored what i've said before.

Quote from: Thryleon – on August 31, 2025, 04:05:21 pm

The only gap theyve got is the money they were going to spend on battle.

He left, theyve given nasiah a massive pay increase, odds are they're paying him a lot this year probably accounting for his money moving forward.

If they ended up bringing forward other  payments too, that means they might be already in over spend to attract ghe players this off season.  Next year how they juggle their money is different again, but we have heard of a sign on bonus for TDK.  2 million in his first year.

I dont think people are saying things aren't possible.   I think people are watching with intrigue about their salary cap, and where this goes moving forward. 

Then they're wondering how weve managed things so badly that we haven't been able to achieve similar.

I.e.  jsos going.  McGovern missing his extension.  Tdk going and docherty retiring.

None of thise would have banked early cash.  We shed a boat anchor of salary last season and replaced with kids to go with it.  None of it makes sense really.

Speak for yourself.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Not sure what you're getting at with players leaving = we have no cap space.

We were able to offer TDK+Jack close to 2mil. Them leaving means we have that 2mil to pay elsewhere.
Charlie goes, and we are 'worst case' 2.5mil to throw around, potentially up to 3mil.
Cap increase on top of that which may or may not be taken into account could net you 4mil quite easily.
If having 2mil - 4mil available to spend in an offseason is managing poorly, then i don't know what to say.

re Gov......by us not playing him for a game, that stops his trigger. That trigger would most likely be a trigger on BIG coin. So if we decide to sign him on a fresh deal next year, it'd be on less than what his trigger would be. If he wants more, then he can walk too and we have even more cash to throw around.

If we can't find someone to spend that on this off-season, then we give Walsh an early extension and heavily front load his contract paying him his existing 2025 salary, and perhaps 2 mil on top of that as a 'bonus' for signing on long term for 'less' money year on year later.
To explain that a bit better. Say he's on 500k a year. His current contract ends after 2026. Lets say we give him another contract, which adds 4 years to his 1 year already. We say we'll keep you at 500k a year over those extra 4 years, but we'll give you a 2mil bonus this year, on top of your existing 500k salary. (2.5mil). What we've essentially done is sign him for 1mil.year for 4 years, but are only paying him 500k for those 4 years and paying him extra now, while we have money to burn. Thats how you build up money long term like the saints have done.

Quote from: kruddler – on August 31, 2025, 04:23:25 pm

Speak for yourself.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Not sure what you're getting at with players leaving = we have no cap space.

We were able to offer TDK+Jack close to 2mil. Them leaving means we have that 2mil to pay elsewhere.
Charlie goes, and we are 'worst case' 2.5mil to throw around, potentially up to 3mil.
Cap increase on top of that which may or may not be taken into account could net you 4mil quite easily.
If having 2mil - 4mil available to spend in an offseason is managing poorly, then i don't know what to say.

re Gov......by us not playing him for a game, that stops his trigger. That trigger would most likely be a trigger on BIG coin. So if we decide to sign him on a fresh deal next year, it'd be on less than what his trigger would be. If he wants more, then he can walk too and we have even more cash to throw around.

If we can't find someone to spend that on this off-season, then we give Walsh an early extension and heavily front load his contract paying him his existing 2025 salary, and perhaps 2 mil on top of that as a 'bonus' for signing on long term for 'less' money year on year later.
To explain that a bit better. Say he's on 500k a year. His current contract ends after 2026. Lets say we give him another contract, which adds 4 years to his 1 year already. We say we'll keep you at 500k a year over those extra 4 years, but we'll give you a 2mil bonus this year, on top of your existing 500k salary. (2.5mil). What we've essentially done is sign him for 1mil.year for 4 years, but are only paying him 500k for those 4 years and paying him extra now, while we have money to burn. Thats how you build up money long term like the saints have done.

Your cognitive ability needs work.

Not sure how you quote a post and miss the point so badly.

If we have 2.5 million dollars worth of TPP walking out the door, and we already shed mature ages last year in Kennedy and owies and martin.   Where are we spending our money?

Its not a mutually exclusive point regarding the saints.

Not sure how you confused that so badly, but im going to say you have your back up because you want to make me look bad.  When you misquote like this though, it backfires and makes you look silly.

Quote from: kruddler – on August 31, 2025, 07:10:29 pm

I'm done.

You've completely ignored what i've said before.

No, you have completely ignored the CBA requirements that I quoted and they comprehensively undermine your assertions about building “war chests”

It’s all well and good to come up with fanciful contract scenarios but the real world is different.  Footballers, and their managers, want to maximise their earnings and claim their fair share of the TPP pie.  Two players monopolising 20% of the TPP is not sustainable.

Quote from: Thryleon – on August 31, 2025, 09:05:17 pm

Your cognitive ability needs work.

Not sure how you quote a post and miss the point so badly.

If we have 2.5 million dollars worth of TPP walking out the door, and we already shed mature ages last year in Kennedy and owies and martin.   Where are we spending our money?

Its not a mutually exclusive point regarding the saints.

Not sure how you confused that so badly, but im going to say you have your back up because you want to make me look bad.  When you misquote like this though, it backfires and makes you look silly.

I've covered this already.

Curnow
McKay
Cripps
Weitering.
There 4 players, a dual brownlow medallist and 3 Coleman medallist between them.

Where is the comparisons on st kildas list?

Looking at big money signings of the past throw in Gov saad, Martin, cerra as well.

What have they got....Wilkie?  We got Haynes an equivalent.

Our top end talent embarrasses theirs.

Quote from: DJC – on August 31, 2025, 09:00:04 pm

No, you have completely ignored the CBA requirements that I quoted and they comprehensively undermine your assertions about building “war chests”

It’s all well and good to come up with fanciful contract scenarios but the real world is different.  Footballers, and their managers, want to maximise their earnings and claim their fair share of the TPP pie.  Two players monopolising 20% of the TPP is not sustainable.

I never said it was sustainable. I just said it's possible and pointed out the how and the why.

If my players know the answer and outs of.my clubs TPP structure the  I've failed as a list manager.
Mushrooms, the lot of them. Keep them in the dark.

Fanciful contracts? That's real world negotiations. It's been publicised by our club and plenty of others, as well as the media.
Your interpretations of the rules completely ignore the intricacies of contract negotiations.

Forget about the nomenclature of war chests and paying in advance. Over the life of each individual contract a player will receive the amount agreed upon. When and where you do this in that contract can be done on a contract by contract basis. Your refusal to acknowledge this is stopping you from seeing how simple it is to do in real life.

Sos literally did the same thing with us. Year on year we had a war chest to lure talent. Sheil, coniglio papley and it never came. Do you think we just let that money go? Or do you think we tweaked our contracts, front loading new ones, to make sure we could do it again the next year?

Quote from: kruddler – on August 31, 2025, 09:14:17 pm

I've covered this already.

Curnow
McKay
Cripps
Weitering.
There 4 players, a dual brownlow medallist and 3 Coleman medallist between them.

Where is the comparisons on st kildas list?

Looking at big money signings of the past throw in Gov saad, Martin, cerra as well.

What have they got....Wilkie?  We got Haynes an equivalent.

Our top end talent embarrasses theirs.

why are you still comparing to st kilda.  I even said last time im not interested in where they're spending.  This topic isnt solely about that.


You've fixated on him walking.  How are we in such direction straights by contrast is the point im making.  Why wouldn't we stretch for tdk.  Or jsos, and still hell bent on trading Charlie?

If we do are we paying him next year?

Quote from: kruddler – on August 31, 2025, 09:23:36 pm

I never said it was sustainable. I just said it's possible and pointed out the how and the why.

If my players know the answer and outs of.my clubs TPP structure the  I've failed as a list manager.
Mushrooms, the lot of them. Keep them in the dark.

Fanciful contracts? That's real world negotiations. It's been publicised by our club and plenty of others, as well as the media.
Your interpretations of the rules completely ignore the intricacies of contract negotiations.

Forget about the nomenclature of war chests and paying in advance. Over the life of each individual contract a player will receive the amount agreed upon. When and where you do this in that contract can be done on a contract by contract basis. Your refusal to acknowledge this is stopping you from seeing how simple it is to do in real life.

Sos literally did the same thing with us. Year on year we had a war chest to lure talent. Sheil, coniglio papley and it never came. Do you think we just let that money go? Or do you think we tweaked our contracts, front loading new ones, to make sure we could do it again the next year?

Sometimes you’re right, often you’re wrong, and you’re very wrong this time.

Go back and read the CBA.

One of list management’s challenges is maintaining sufficient flexibility in player payments to pay for recruits and retain players you want to keep. Front- and back-loading contracts is a part of that process, as is carrying forward a TPP underspend.  Then there’s delisting and trading players, as well as moving players to and from the rookie list.  That’s how clubs deal with contingencies like trades and free agent opportunities and fails.

There is a TPP 'bill' every year. We are simply paying some of that bill before it is due, while we have some.extra cash.

Quote from: kruddler – on September 01, 2025, 01:59:41 am

There is a TPP 'bill' every year. We are simply paying some of that bill before it is due, while we have some.extra cash.

You do realise it can't possibly work like that, if the system worked like your simplification then for creative accounts payments would be on the never never.

The complication missing is the payment average, I suspect it's still in place, that is over a fixed interval your averages have to work out. I think it use to be either 3 or 5 years. I know clubs wanted it gone, they claimed it was too hard to manage, but without it payments have no temporal limit which is not feasible.

Honestly, i can't understand why people are struggling with this concept.

The fundamental question that sits at the top of any position on these issues IMO is whether stability and unity breed success or whether success breeds stability and unity. Some years back I would've probably thought the latter, but with the passing of time I think the former is closer to the truth.

Quote from: kruddler – on September 01, 2025, 12:55:47 pm

Honestly, i can't understand why people are struggling with this concept.

I think they understand @kruddler , the problem seems to be your example is missing the rolling average, I'm assuming here it still is a thing.

When the rolling average is included a club can't bank as much as fans think, or for as long as fans think, it is too easy to quickly end up outside the TPP limits and be subjected to an investigation and fine.

I get why clubs do not want the rolling average, but I also get why the AFL does want it in place to stop the system being gamed.

Contract terms are not the same, but the AFL did simplify this by making the termination date the same, without that it would be gamed and impossible to police.

Clubs have to fill the voids to maintain both the total and average in the correct range, it's not as simple as it seems.

“Hey Crippa Marshy!  We’ve borked our TPP again.  How do you feel about deferring $500K from next season’s pay until the final year of your contract?”

“Sorry Wrighty SOS, no can do.  Mon Mrs Marshall wants a new car and Matty has his heart set on an infinity pool.  Ask Weiters Wilks… on second thoughts, you’d better ask Harry Steeley.  You already have?  Looks like you’ll have to cut a few blokes.”

You're wasting your time Krud.

What's the relationship between the payment date and a contracts TPP allocation?

Do you think at the midpoint of a contract you can vary payments, shift funds from one year to another?

If so, why then would any club get fined, they could just move the surplus to a previous or future year?

Why were the previous teams fined? Because they were deliberately keeping stuff from the AFL.

Quote from: kruddler – on September 01, 2025, 04:36:57 pm

Why were the previous teams fined? Because they were deliberately keeping stuff from the AFL.

I think you missed the point.

If clubs can be so flexible as you claim, there would be nothing needed to hide, they can just change the timing of payments and the problem goes away entirely.

I'm mean, you would have to be a dickhead to hide something that would be no longer a problem just with the swipe of a pen. ;D

The reason they get stung, is because your suggestion is not possible under the rules.

People make mistakes. Just like you are now.

If its not possible, prove it. Find me the clause in the CBA that says its not possible. Bet you can't.

Quote from: kruddler – on September 01, 2025, 05:00:27 pm

People make mistakes. Just like you are now.

If its not possible, prove it. Find me the clause in the CBA that says its not possible. Bet you can't.

You've just talked about clubs getting fined while proposing a scheme that would eliminate clubs being fined.

You've talked yourself into the corner, you do this all the time and just keep digging.

We do not even need to look at the rules in detail, because your logic is all wrong.

btw., I didn't do this to you, you did it to yourself.

A restructured AFL contract is a contract modified by mutual agreement between a club and a player, often to adjust the contract's terms for financial or player career reasons, such as adding a player option clause or changing salary payments. This process allows flexibility within the salary cap and can provide long-term security for players or free up funds for clubs. For instance, a player might restructure a contract to move salary forward or delay it, or a club might offer an extension with a player option to retain a star player.

Examples of Restructured Contracts
Player Options:
Port Adelaide used player options in the deals for Zak Butters and Miles Bergman, allowing them to opt in or out of contract extensions, offering both parties flexibility.

Long-Term Deals:
Kysaiah Pickett signed a historic nine-year deal with Melbourne, extending his contract until 2034.

Trigger Clauses:
A player might remove a trigger clause to benefit the club, as Dale Thomas did by removing a clause in his contract that would have activated a fifth year based on games played.

Mutual Agreement:
In a broader sense, clubs can also restructure contracts to deal with unforeseen events, such as Alex Rance's retirement, which allowed the Richmond club to redistribute the money from his remaining contract for future player deals.

Reasons for Restructuring

Salary Cap Management:
Clubs may restructure contracts to fit their salary cap, either by deferring payments or trading a player's remaining contract to another club.

Player Security:
A player might restructure a contract to secure their future with a long-term deal, or include a player option to offer flexibility if their career takes an unexpected turn.

Flexibility for Clubs:
Clubs can restructure deals to adapt to changing financial situations or to retain star players.

How to Restructure a Contract
- A club and player must mutually agree to change the contract terms.
- The restructuring process must not involve unilateral options to extend the contract.
- A Player Option clause can be incorporated into a contract to offer long-term flexibility.

Save yourself some time and just ask AI.

I suppose AI is in on the conspiracy theory too?

Quote from: kruddler – on September 01, 2025, 05:56:44 pm

Save yourself some time and just ask AI.

I suppose AI is in on the conspiracy theory too?

AI should peruse the CBA before it responds.

There is one reference to "restructure" in  the CBA and that is about having "revised Standard Playing Contract templates in operation by 1 November 2023."

Of course contracts can be varied, but not willy nilly.  Assuming that players will simply agree to their club's request to postpone or bring forward payments is naive.

Quote from: DJC – on September 01, 2025, 06:13:39 pm

AI should peruse the CBA before it responds.

There is one reference to "restructure" in  the CBA and that is about having "revised Standard Playing Contract templates in operation by 1 November 2023."

Of course contracts can be varied, but not willy nilly.  Assuming that players will simply agree to their club's request to postpone or bring forward payments is naive.

You might want to tell your mate that.

I never assumed anything. I said it was possible and easy enough to do.
Of course a player needs to approve, that goes without saying.
If you explain to the player why you want to do it, i'm sure there wouldn't be a whole lot who say NO.
Even then, you don't have to do it to everyone.
If its done right, nobody even has to know that you're doing it. Simply front load contracts from the get-go rather than restructure contracts.

Quote from: kruddler – on September 01, 2025, 08:25:31 pm

You might want to tell your mate that.

I never assumed anything. I said it was possible and easy enough to do.
Of course a player needs to approve, that goes without saying.
If you explain to the player why you want to do it, i'm sure there wouldn't be a whole lot who say NO.
Even then, you don't have to do it to everyone.
If its done right, nobody even has to know that you're doing it. Simply front load contracts from the get-go rather than restructure contracts.

Of course contracts are front- or back-loaded to ease TPP pressures but you certainly don’t front-load all contracts.  Nick Haynes’ GWS contract was back-loaded to fit in with when they had extra TPP capacity.

The bottom line is that it’s fanciful to think that St Kilda is able to spend 20% of its TPP on two players because x number of players agreed to contract variations.

Quote from: DJC – on September 01, 2025, 09:04:46 pm

Of course contracts are front- or back-loaded to ease TPP pressures but you certainly don’t front-load all contracts.  Nick Haynes’ GWS contract was back-loaded to fit in with when they had extra TPP capacity.

The bottom line is that it’s fanciful to think that St Kilda is able to spend 20% of its TPP on two players because x number of players agreed to contract variations.

If x is 1 that makes it fanciful?
You almost got out of the hole, now you wanna start digging again.

You're almost there. I never said players had to agree to contract negotiations, i never said all contracts are front loaded. I provided examples of how it can be done, legally and within the rules. You've agreed to all of this, but still call it fanciful....why??

Sos has been at the club for long enough to have done this over years. He did the same exact thing with us.

It's also been said elsewhere (montagna) that some.clubs were caught by surprise a little bit with the amount the salary cap went up. It's not all of this and none of that. It's a combination of everything.

A little bit of more cap space than you bidgeted for.
A little bit of front loading contracts.
A little bit of signing players for less than you thought originally.
A little bit of renegotiating existing contracts.
A little bit of extra ASA allowances
A little bit of not taking a full compliment of players you are entitled to take via msd etc.

With a bit of luck and a lot of good management, it's easy to do. I'm not sure why more clubs fail to do this and why sos is the only one that manages to do relatively easily, and semi regularly.

So after all this internecine argument Saint Kilda get to pay 20% over the cap next year? Don't see how this is going to cover what they're supposedly bringing in, but whatever, it's their funeral and if they illegally exceed the TPP I expect the club to be wound up. No fines. No "I'm sorry".  Closed down in disgrace.

Im confident that Nasiah is getting the majority of his contract now.

I shared that exerpt they wrote about Battle when he left the Saints.

They didnt attract anyone of quality which means had he signed on at a fairly sizable contract lets say 1 million this season, that would likely account for an underspend.  If it was more of that, they can very much start paying Nasiah his 2 million per season now.  Thats all well and good for him and the club, but TDK will eventually become a boat anchor weighing down on the list as his team mates start wondering, where is my mega pay deal (particularly if he isnt as durable).

Quote from: Thryleon – on September 02, 2025, 05:21:34 pm

Im confident that Nasiah is getting the majority of his contract now.

I shared that exerpt they wrote about Battle when he left the Saints.

They didnt attract anyone of quality which means had he signed on at a fairly sizable contract lets say 1 million this season, that would likely account for an underspend.  If it was more of that, they can very much start paying Nasiah his 2 million per season now.  Thats all well and good for him and the club, but TDK will eventually become a boat anchor weighing down on the list as his team mates start wondering, where is my mega pay deal (particularly if he isnt as durable).

Was reported TDK is getting a 2mil 'signing bonus' up front. That would be a good 'trick' to fill some cap space quickly and save yourself some $'s long term.

I suspect him and NAS have front ended contracts to fill the gap in salary cap SOS created, and anyone else coming in will help flesh out the cap later on.

Quote from: kruddler – on September 02, 2025, 05:34:57 pm

Was reported TDK is getting a 2mil 'signing bonus' up front. That would be a good 'trick' to fill some cap space quickly and save yourself some $'s long term.

I suspect him and NAS have front ended contracts to fill the gap in salary cap SOS created, and anyone else coming in will help flesh out the cap later on.

This attribution to sos is false. 

Why has he created a gap in their cap? 

Im curious.  There's a lot of SOS did this going on, but I reckon you'd have a hard time finding his salary dumps.  Battle left.  Thats the gap.

Hey brother and sister Baggers, my charity has Patty Kinnersley as our key note speaker in the next couple of weeks at our MENtal Brekky held at St Pats Ballarat. Any pertinent questions my fellow Baggers?

Hey brother and sister Baggers, my charity has Patty Kinnersley as our key note speaker in the next couple of weeks at our MENtal Brekky held at St Pats Ballarat. Any pertinent questions my fellow Baggers?

Hey brother and sister Baggers, my charity has Patty Kinnersley as our key note speaker in the next couple of weeks at our MENtal Brekky held at St Pats Ballarat. Any pertinent questions my fellow Baggers?

Charlie.  Hes an enigma.  Always has been, always will be.  Suspect he doesnt take footy too seriously (hell, probably doesnt take life seriously).  Was a super athlete capable of turning and winning games.

How do you think Cox would go with that Cookie?

Quote from: bratblue – on October 16, 2025, 01:49:20 pm

How do you think Cox would go with that Cookie?

I don’t think Cox is one to cop any crap BBlue.
Charlie will find no doubt that expectations on him are very high ! He is an expensive acquisition and will definitely be expected to perform.

Quote from: bratblue – on October 16, 2025, 01:49:20 pm

How do you think Cox would go with that Cookie?

I don’t think Cox is one to cop any crap BBlue.
Charlie will find no doubt that expectations on him are very high ! He is an expensive acquisition and will definitely be expected to perform.

Quote from: cookie2 – on October 16, 2025, 02:16:22 pm

I don’t think Cox is one to cop any crap BBlue.
Charlie will find no doubt that expectations on him are very high ! He is an expensive acquisition and will definitely be expected to perform.

He has some big shoes to fill..The Wiz, Plugger, Big Bad Barry and Buddy....Swans have a very good kicking midfield plus a unique home ground so id expect him to have to deliver 50-70 goals next season to satisfy the Swans faithful.

Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on October 16, 2025, 02:57:48 pm

He has some big shoes to fill..The Wiz, Plugger, Big Bad Barry and Buddy....Swans have a very good kicking midfield plus a unique home ground so id expect him to have to deliver 50-70 goals next season to satisfy the Swans faithful.

Nobody ever mentions Kurt Tippets shoes.

Quote from: kruddler – on October 16, 2025, 03:17:08 pm

Nobody ever mentions Kurt Tippets shoes.

Kurt is University educated and runs a property development business somewhere, probably didnt need to rely totally on his footy skills, though he did have one good year at the Swans didnt he?
Charlies alternatives to football or when retired might not be as productive as Kurt's...