Carlton Supporters Club

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?