So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

[bulldogtragic]

1. The salary cap is about $10,000,000. We've been paying 95% for "years and years and years" (Peter Gordon today). That means $500,000 a year we have banked. Assuming it's 4 years, then we have banked $2,000,000 by not over paying fringe players in the bad years. By running lean, and Gryphone walking away from us paying his full years wage, we've not paid Tom Boyd yet in net terms. $200,000 last year & $1,500,000 this year (allegedly) then we've paid him $1,700,000 of our $2,000,000 in the bank (over years). So he's not really impacted the actual cap in the severe way some are screaming about. So that brings his salary impact for future years to around $670,000.

2. The salary cap could rise by between $450,000 & $550,000 for the next CBA terms of 5 years. If that gets taken off Tom's contract, then Tom Boyd costs us as little as $120,000 a year if the cap rise offsets his wage. Thats the equivalent of a mid range first year draftee impact. As Dwayne says, 'that's crazy good'.

3. Stew Crameri is to be paid by Essendon, and we've been allowed to use half his years wage, circa $180,000, to front end players (i.e. Boyd, which would bring his contract to $80,000 a year, equivalent to a rookie) or bank it to use on re-signing other players and/or throw it at a free agent player to bump up any trade offer, say Michael Hurley.

That's around $4,500,000 to $5,000,000 we've been quietly factoring in to our player contracts. Any wonder we can keep re-signing every young gun to long term deals and be "very active this trade period" (Peter Gordon today). Journos with their feigned outrage and crocodile tears have just been schooled on TPP excellence and exposed for the ignorant frauds they are. Now watch for the confused digging in or the embarssed back peddling.

[Bornadog]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

Well thought out BT.

Now factor in to take the Bont and Stringer to $1 million each per year.

[Mofra]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

Cheers BT but I'm not sure the past year's 95% cap baking works like that (2015 would, other previous years have some sort of reducible loading applied).

[bulldogtragic]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

Cheers BT but I'm not sure the past year's 95% cap baking works like that (2015 would, other previous years have some sort of reducible loading applied).

Happy to be corrected on that. I understood that the banking can be used to a maximum 105% of TPP, so it gets spread evenly (I.e. 4 years at 95% equals 4 years at 105%). That aside, it's still going to be a very large sum plus with the cap rising and Crameri's wages sitting outside the cap still count for a lot of dollars.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

Well thought out BT.

Now factor in to take the Bont and Stringer to $1 million each per year.

Well if we are to believe Tom Boyd costs the cap a million a year, and now in net terms he wont then there's a million free. Say Bonts & Jake are on $500,000. Then the aforementioned million gets split to both, and then they both are paid a million each.

[Axe Man]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

Happy to be corrected on that. I understood that the banking can be used to a maximum 105% of TPP, so it gets spread evenly (I.e. 4 years at 95% equals 4 years at 105%). That aside, it's still going to be a very large sum plus with the cap rising and Crameri's wages sitting outside the cap still count for a lot of dollars.

This is from an article last year:

TRADE period will have extra impetus this season, with at least nine AFL clubs understood to be in a position to spend above the salary cap because of the AFL's new Total Player Payments (TPP) banking system.

The new rule allows clubs who have spent under 100 per cent of the cap in the past two seasons to spend up to a maximum of five per cent over it in 2016.

Clubs can pay over the salary cap an equivalent amount to what they may have underspent in 2013 and 2014, if they can afford to do so and want to introduce flexibility in the way they manage their player payments.

So it sounds like you can only go back 2 or 3 seasons for the banked amount?

[Axe Man]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

Found some more info:

The introduction of a new TPP banking mechanism that allows clubs to spend over 100 per cent of the TPP and ASA limits (combined limit), if in any of the preceding two years the club spent below 100 per cent of the combined limit.

The permitted amount of overspend is commensurate with the level of underspend in the relevant preceding period.

For instance, if a club was $500k below the combined limit in 2015, it can spend up to $500k over the combined limits across 2016 and 2017

The overspend amount in any given year permits a club to spend up to a maximum of 105 per cent of the combined limit in that year.

This mechanism is effective from season 2015 (as such any underspends in 2013 and/or 2014 can be recovered in 2015)

[bulldogtragic]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

Found some more info:

So over the Boyd period for instance. So we recovered as much as $1,000,000 last year (from 2013 & 2014. And another $500,000 this year (from 2015), for a $1,500,000 total. That's $1,500,000 and also a total of $2,000,000 to $2,500,000 in cap increases over the upcoming CBA. $180,000 or more from Stew's salary not being included.

That's between $3,680,000 and $4,180,000 over the (95%) cap as it stood when we started the seven years of Boyd's contract. That's 60-70% of his entire contract cost found from sources outside the standard cap at the time of his recruitment. Doesn't seem like an overly irresponsible contract.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

I'm sorry BT, but the facts don't fit with the flavour of the story and thus, need not be referenced.

The media jumping up and down is great - every player we extend, FA we target and trade we make is really going to challenge the narrative. Looking forward to the confused looks and allegations we've cheated the cap.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

double post.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

I'm sorry BT, but the facts don't fit with the flavour of the story and thus, need not be referenced.

The media jumping up and down is great - every player we extend, FA we target and trade we make is really going to challenge the narrative. Looking forward to the confused looks and allegations we've cheated the cap.

So you're an Einstein rationalist then: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts".

Fair enough, he was a pretty smart guy. Not sure he'd get his head around the Boyd contract though. Some things are too difficult for humans to comprehend.

The way I understand an economic argument on the Boyd deal is like a parliamentary budget (which is probably wrong, numbers aren't my strong suit!!). We make a promise of $6M over 7 years, and the opposition say how will you fund it? We say we have a minimum banking credit from 2013-2015 of $1.5M to claim in 2015 & 2016. We have savings of at least $180,000 in 2016. We have new revenue coming in 2016 for 2017-2021 of $2.6M. So we have approximately $4.3M budgeted on paper alone. We will pay $200,000 in 2015 & $1.5M in 2016 for $1.7M. - For a total of $6M all allocated by the end of 2016 and free to pursue other opportunities as we wish.

[bulldogtragic]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

As per the news article today, read in conjunction with the story behind this thread. We could have as much as $1,500,000 banked in salary cap savings ready to spend this year on a player as we were still under the cap this year. Plus Crameri's wage getting banked. Plus the EBA will be signed off which could be another $500,000 or more a year increase. That's ball park $2,300,000 we could spend next year, less any salary increases given to players who also got a premiership cash bonus from the AFL.

We can literally go shopping for whomever we want, provided we can satisfy the trade. What a master stroke from the club to have this opportunity available if we want to use it.

[1eyedog]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

Is there a way of continually banking this for when our premiership A and B graders come out of contract?

[bulldogtragic]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

Is there a way of continually banking this for when our premiership A and B graders come out of contract?

Banking is use it or lose it at the two year mark. We need to front end some contracts, or go grab a Fyffe or Heeney.

[EasternWest]

Re: So here is why WBFC are smarter than journos & talk back nuffies.

Banking is use it or lose it at the two year mark. We need to front end some contracts, or go grab a Fyffe or Heeney.

I would love Heeney. He looks like rolled gold.