Carlton Supporters Club

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.

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).