Clubs allowed to ‘salary dump’ in a major change to AFL trade rules

Clubs allowed to ‘salary dump’ in a major change to AFL trade rules

The AFL has made a major shift in player trading this year, officially allowing clubs to “salary dump”, or trade out players on big contracts for minimal draft return.

Such deals would previously have been blocked by the AFL. The change will allow clubs to more easily get a player’s contract off their books to ease the strain on their salary caps.

The AFL is in the process of informing all clubs of the change in policy which will see clubs able to trade out players on large contracts for minimal draft pick return as long as the other clubs takes over the player’s contract.

Clubs also have the option to do things like bundling an attractive early draft pick with a highly paid player in a trade for just a lowly pick as a way of getting the player’s salary off the books.

As one AFL club recruiter put it: there would barely be an AFL club that isn’t paying a portion of the salary of a former player to play at another club.

Collingwood orchestrated the most famous salary dump under existing AFL rules, in the trade period fire sale at the end of 2020 that saw senior player Adam Treloar traded to the Western Bulldogs for a relatively insufficient draft pick and Collingwood contributing a portion of his salary, and Jaidyn Stephenson traded to North.

The change will allow clubs with a large amount of salary cap space but few draft picks - North Melbourne this year, for example - to use their salary cap space as a tool to effectively buy themselves a draft pick. That is, to get a good draft pick you have to take the expensive player.

The AFL would previously have seen this as an unfair trade and blocked it, but now recognise the value to clubs in getting a player’s salary off the books.

The AFL’s changes acknowledge that how clubs manage their salary cap is as important to their chances of success on the field as trading in players or getting high draft picks.

The effect will be that clubs will have greater flexibility to trade players who are on big contracts and not forced to take years to try to address salary cap problems.

Gold Coast has midfielder Brayden Fiorini on a significant contract next year, but he has been squeezed out of the Suns’ young and talented midfield. He has had discussions with several clubs, including Collingwood, about a move and could be available in exchange for an insignificant draft pick, provided the recipient club takes over his contract.

Players are often eager to leave clubs once they find themselves out of favour in a developing team or once new players come in and are preferred ahead of them - Tom Mitchell at Hawthorn for instance - but find the options to move blocked because clubs will not give up quality picks to get players on big money deals.

In these cases, the new club would most likely renegotiate new contract terms for the player, spreading the contract payment out over a longer period.

Massive change at late notice. Does the AFL feel they need to get this done for a couple of the teams?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

Massive change at late notice. Does the AFL feel they need to get this done for a couple of the teams?

---

Perhaps trying to give North some additional assistance, although it will probably benefit the clubs doing the salary dump more.

If one assumes JJ (previously on $500k) & Dunkley (rumours $650,000 offered to him) go, plus Lobb is refused to trade (say a restructured deal to $500k no longer needed), plus others on ok money (Schache, Martin) also go.

That could mean we are sitting on a huge mountain of cash.

I still love you Gil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldogtragic

If one assumes JJ (previously on $500k) & Dunkley (rumours $650,000 offered to him) go, plus Lobb is refused to trade (say a restructured deal to $500k no longer needed), plus others on ok money (Schache, Martin) also go.

That could mean we are sitting on a huge mountain of cash.

I still love you Gil.

---

It's seeming more likely that JJ stays BT (on a reduced deal) as the interest party in Gold Coast convinced Ben Long to request a trade instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axe Man

It's seeming more likely that JJ stays BT (on a reduced deal) as the interest party in Gold Coast convinced Ben Long to request a trade instead.

---

Even still, if we have a huge space in our cap this year, the timing of this change offers Sam Power some new trade opportunities.

Strange timing though as Gary says.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldogtragic

If one assumes JJ (previously on $500k) & Dunkley (rumours $650,000 offered to him) go, plus Lobb is refused to trade (say a restructured deal to $500k no longer needed), plus others on ok money (Schache, Martin) also go.

That could mean we are sitting on a huge mountain of cash.

I still love you Gil.

---

We could certainly be cashed up but it also provides an opportunity to restructure some contracts so that we have cap space going forward. With the new salary cap dumping options clubs will be able to trade contracted players that much easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

We could certainly be cashed up but it also provides an opportunity to restructure some contracts so that we have cap space going forward. With the new salary cap dumping options clubs will be able to trade contracted players that much easier.

---

Who’s currently under the pump? I assume Collingwood & GCS are looking at this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldogtragic

Who’s currently under the pump? I assume Collingwood & GCS are looking at this.

---

GWS also are under massive pressure.

Carlton also might be under the pump with a few players coming out of contract next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldogtragic

Who’s currently under the pump? I assume Collingwood & GCS are looking at this.

---

Freo have some salary cap issues, North and I think maybe GWS have a lot of space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azabob

GWS also are under massive pressure.

Carlton also might be under the pump with a few players coming out of contract next year.

---

GWS under pressure? They lose players every 2 months :)

Thats a big surprise to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldogtragic

Who’s currently under the pump? I assume Collingwood & GCS are looking at this.

---

It opens up opportunities for a lot of the strong clubs to either clear the decks or bring in some talent without impacting the cap.

Not sure who it might assist the most but Geelong, Collingwood and GWS might have the levers to exploit this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GVGjr

It opens up opportunities for a lot of the strong clubs to either clear the decks or bring in some talent without impacting the cap.

Not sure who it might assist the most but Geelong, Collingwood and GWS might have the levers to exploit this.

---

It opens up opportunities for clubs all round. Could completely change what Grundy is worth immediately as he has a really bad contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azabob

GWS also are under massive pressure.

Carlton also might be under the pump with a few players coming out of contract next year.

---

There was some talk Carlton could look to offload Zac Williams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bulldogtragic

If one assumes JJ (previously on $500k) & Dunkley (rumours $650,000 offered to him) go, plus Lobb is refused to trade (say a restructured deal to $500k no longer needed), plus others on ok money (Schache, Martin) also go.

That could mean we are sitting on a huge mountain of cash.

I still love you Gil.

---

I love you man.

It feels like everything is back to normal with you here and your insights.

Edit: oh and Rocket Science and the photoshops. We're getting the band back together.