:blush: my badQuote:
Originally Posted by Nou Camp
Printable View
:blush: my badQuote:
Originally Posted by Nou Camp
We have to sign 20-23 players on full A-League contracts. Of those 20-23, 3 must be 20 years old or younger as of 31 December.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeterpool
Vujica and Alessi are both u20 but we need one more.
Not to be confused with the optional 3 x Pro-NYL contracts (like Lundy last year). The contracts are min wage, 2 years in length and the player must be no older than 20 (by 31 December) in the second year.
Pro NYL players are contracted to the club, unlike regular NYL who are considered amateur and can leave any time.
Like all NYL players, pro NYL can play and train with the HAL squad. On paper they are part of the NYL squad.
According to the Herald and un-named FFA source.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty
And no Kokko is 22.
I asked Lawrie a week ago 2 questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeterpool
1. Do we need to sign another u20?
He answered "yes we do"
I followed up with
2. How can we sign Kokko, u20 and Chinese player with 21/23 contracted at the time.
No response
For mine he doesn't answer because the ball is in play here and Miller confirms it. They are trying to offload a player/s as the first option, then if not looking for a loophole like Brennan to mature age rookie.
In the grand scheme of things it won't really matter if we are allowed to rort this. I mean they just changed the guest rules for 1 player. They have been changing the rules for years at the behest of SFC and Victory.
I think it's clear to all who Miller is looking to move out. If it was easy, we'd be rid of Brennan, Pavicevic and Cooper - rightly or wrongly.
this.Quote:
Originally Posted by borat
And....
cooper, brennan and Pav may find themselves a tidy little cash contract in china I reckon
So he was a salary capped player last season, and moves to the rookie position this season.Quote:
Originally Posted by borat
I don't see the problem.
He probably could have been a rookie player last season too, but the club needed to make up the 20 player quota.
This season it's more beneficial for him to be in the rookie position, which technically his contract would allow (signed as a rookie).
There are so many ways to rort this cap if you need to that it should be run by the ATO.
I think the point is he can't be considered a rookie when he was a contracted senior player last season. It kind of defeats the main qualifier of the rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerny
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by leftrightout
You need to be an amateur for the previous 18 months. The point of the mature age rookie was to encourage clubs to not ignore the NPL and sign the best performing players. It's meant for your Luke Remmington/Kale Bradbury's.
Not to shuffle your decks to sign a Chinese development player.
Who cares how we manage it. If it happens, it happens. God knows other clubs get all kinds of rule changes just for them, so let's just be happy if something goes for us.
We did sign the "best performing" NPL player - he was lorded as the new Gareth BaleQuote:
Originally Posted by borat
the rules are so flexible it beyond a joke, its just nice to see that we might finally be using some of the flexibility
Because I think it's short sighted to cynically fill the Mature Age Rookie position and ignore the NPL. IMO it will damage our relationship at a time when it's already rocky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
If the club want a player to leave they should pay them out. Not rort the salary cap.
Ha true. 2nd best player in Tassie.Quote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
So your actually advocating that we don't take advantage and exploit the rules as we see fit??Quote:
Originally Posted by borat
It's not a rort if it's in the rules.
Paying someone out eats into the cap and limits the ability of the club to invest in the team.
If you pay him out say 55k and replace him the new player essentially costs you their wage plus the bloke you sacked. So a 75k new player costs you 130k of cap space.
You'd be better off moving Brennan out from under the cap and using that 130k to get a 130k player.
The "rort" isn't being used to ignore the local NPL, it's being used to spend money more wisely in the squad.
Brennan if not gone sooner will not be here next year and the club can go back to ignoring the local NPL without any fuss.
Its not in the rules, thats exactly what I am saying. And rorting the salary cap, no matter how minor, is not something we should be particularly proud of. If this was SFC or WSW we would be spewing that they can bend the rules whenever they like. And they do it a damn sight better than we can.Quote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
If we don't want to pay out 55k (would be now 41-46k after 3 months) players then we shouldn't stupidly be signing them to 2 year contracts in the first place. We shouldn't be signing your Clut's and Hoole's if we don't have enough squad places. Its 46k and we are owned by a multi millionaire. Its nothing to do with salary cap space or 130k when we haven't used either marquee position. We are being tightarse over 46k and being dodgy in the process.
If thats infact what does happen, as I doubt it will, or that the FFA will actually approve it despite what "unamed FFA official" may or may not have said. I mean why is Miller openly talking about moving players on before the season even starts if everything was peachy and we had the squad spot available. Why wouldn't McKinna just come out and say it, why would the FFA official be unnamed. Just announce at the next press conference that Brennan has been moved to the MA Rookie if everything is above board.
The FFA statement at the time said
http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/...j1vyywqy5lcn3gQuote:
Clubs can pay a Mature Age Rookie outside the Salary Cap to encourage talented players in the National Premier Leagues. This player must be over the age of 21, not played in a fully professional competition for the last 18 months and last played football in Australia. This player must be paid at least the Minimum Salary
Anyway lets see how this plays out over the next 2 weeks
Lie Cheat Steal
That should be the clubs motto
Whatever it takes.
I am all for us exploiting shit like this.
Let's hope it is just the start of these ****s being streetwise
Lawrie said he doesn't know what the club did last year.
Not sure how the current management can be responsible for having Brennan on the books.Quote:
Originally Posted by borat
If he isn't wanted they are responsible for keeping him on the books though.Quote:
Originally Posted by halo se7en
Their choice to keep an unwanted player and not free up a squad spot to bring someone in who is wanted because they won't pay him out or are unable to move him on
Do you not understand how the salary cap works? Even if we get rid of him, he is still "on the books". It's not like he's someone useful that another club would happily pick up so we can come to a mutual agreement without impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
I read last year, and was also mentioned on I think a FoxSports podcast, that "paying a player out" wasn't included in the salary cap.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
It definitely is. Otherwise clubs could just bin off players whenever they wanted. What's the point in a salary cap?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeterpool
Where did I blame current management?Quote:
Originally Posted by halo se7en
By doing it in the offseason you can offset the salary in the following season/s....or something like that. Doesn't matter anyway while we can free up plenty of salary whenever we need it by shifting players to marquee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
That's not right. We could pay Brennan the remainder of his contract right now and release him, freeing up a squad place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
Only limitation is managing your salary cap.
Member was right
The PFA could clarify this, surely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
The money is still "on the books" you goose. That's my point. If we have done our usual thing of overpaying players and have **** all left in the cap, having his $55k on the books means we don't have $55k of space to pay someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by borat
Have asked them and the FFA. I remember there was something in an article maybe last year about them definitely being part of the salary cap and it was something to do with WSW when they were trying to force Mullen and Saba out by making them train alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeterpool
its definitely in the cap, it's just clubs have the ability to push that back to the following seasons cap to make it easier to manage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeterpool
Regardless, I doubt we are using the full cap and allowances anyway. 200k home grown player allowance + 200k loyalty player allowance + 80k salary cap banking for Carney + whatever we were under the cap last year in Salary Cap banking. Then 2 spare marquee positions. It's only the owner not coughing up what is a meagre amount.
Show me any where the member said the money wasn't included in the cap???Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
So your "point" is that money spent is included in the salary cap........thanks for that. The world is a more knowledgeable place.
Well we have plenty of salary cap to spend, it's only an arbitrary budget placed upon the team by the owner that is holding us back. If we were somehow short 55k, which I doubt, you move Nordstrand or Kokko to marquee.
Can't beleive you are forcing me to defend the member either.....I feel dirty
Do we have any player that would satisfy the FFA's ever-changing criteria for a marquee though?Quote:
Originally Posted by borat
And we'd be better off moving our more expensive players outside the cap. Nobby and Kokko are not the highest paid, as far as I'm aware.
Ben Kennedy is on $650k a season + bonuses.:gent:Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfMan
The only player that need's FFA approval now for Marquee is the 3rd "GuEST pLAYER" Timmy Cahill rule. The other two are basically just 'designated players' does not matter who it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfMan
You didn't blame current management but you made a comment about how we shouldn't stupidly sign 55k players to 2 year contracts, which was a daft comment since current management had 0 to do with the decision to sign Brennan to a 2yr contract in the first place. Basically they're left to deal with a situation created before they arrived.Quote:
Originally Posted by borat
They should scrap the limit on foreign players and remove the salary cap. Because things at the Youth and Olympic level can't get any worse, and the national team itself is reliant upon a few ageing stars with pretty much nobody capable of filling the void when they retire.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Camel
Regulation has it's place but in this situation it's hard to justify.
And what do you say of our current management signing players, such as Hoole/Nabbout/Clut, then leaving themselves without the squad places available for an u20 & Visa? Maybe they just can't count hey.Quote:
Originally Posted by halo se7en
Is that the fault of past management or did they not know Brennan was signed for two years?
My point about signing Brennan for 2 years was that all clubs change coaches, CEO's and occasionally owners. Dealing with past decisions is common place, as is cutting unwanted players signed by previous managers/admin. If it's so vital to the success of the club to sign player x, when you don't have a squad position, you find a way to get it done. Our opposition seem to have no problems doing so.
Was just an example, although is a bit sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by WolfMan
Boogs I am guessing.
As i said it is the club who are responsible for him still being currently taking up one of our squad spots and they are the ones responsible for him still being hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
Whether they have to pay out his salary or not is irrelevant. They dont want him yet are doing nothing to change that. The choice to pay him out and free up a squad spot is there
They choose not to take it so despite Stubbins being responsible for signing him for 2 years it is Millertime whom is ALLOWING him to stay here for the second year collect his cash and take up a squad spot where the club could pay him out and free up a squad spot to use
Yeah, righto. Clearly Miller is the guy that holds the purse strings and permits spending outside the cap.
This place, ffs.