Isn't it stupid that Blake must be delisted and redrafted for the saints to be able to move him from veterans list to primary list. I wonder if any other clubs would take a punt on him. He was still playing good footy last season.
<blockquote>Quote from Matty_C on November 10, 2011, 09:37 Dawson goooooneski</blockquote> Sounds like Lyon gave him a Freo offer. They could do with him too. He will be a good fit at Freo. And it leaves Stk tall backmen a rarity.
Don't see y it would be stupid idea. He is wasted on our vets list as this way we put Milney onto it who is on much more then him. Only way for that to happen is to delist him & draft him back. Very smart move which helps out salary cap.
I dont know why St Kilda would keep someone like Blake on their list? He is a battler and they would be better off playing a kid instead of him. They need to start thinking longer term instead of playing guys like Blake.
What exactly would be the reason that there couldn't be multiple veterans on the veterans list at StK? I'm confused as to why they would need to minimise the number of veterans, which I thought was not capped at just one. Have I got this incorrect?
<blockquote>Quote from stkildathunda on November 10, 2011, 11:41 Don't see y it would be stupid idea. He is wasted on our vets list as this way we put Milney onto it who is on much more then him. Only way for that to happen is to delist him & draft him back. Very smart move which helps out salary cap. </blockquote> yeah i agree it is a smart move. I was commenting on the fact that the rules are stupid that it has to be done that way.
<blockquote>Quote from Jason on November 10, 2011, 12:58 What exactly would be the reason that there couldn't be multiple veterans on the veterans list at StK? I'm confused as to why they would need to minimise the number of veterans, which I thought was not capped at just one. Have I got this incorrect?</blockquote> Im confused about this too. I cant remember how many can be on veteran list. I do know that there have been changes made to the veteren list rules in recent times, but cant remember what. Pretty sure there is more than 1 spot per side though. maybe saints already have others too
from http://www.afl.com.au/development/aflexplained/about/tabid/13532/default.aspx#veteran <blockquote>Under AFL player rules, each club may nominate or list any number of what are called Veteran Player’s. In order to be eligible for classification as a Veteran a player must have been the age of 30 as at September 30 in the relevant AFL season and be on the primary list of the AFL club for at least 10 years or in the case of Port Adelaide since the inception of the club. From 2006 there is now no limit on the number of veteran players a club can list, as long as the player meets the required classification.</blockquote> is that right? why would they need to remove him from veteran list then... maybe they need to have a minimum ammount of players on primary list or something.
Ive just been reading through the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the AFL players. There is an important part that is left out of the details on the AFL site that I posted above. The % of the veterans pay that is excluded from the Total Player Payments depends on how many veteran listed players there are at the club. If there are more than 2, it begins to reduce. ie. 1 or 2 players on veterans list, then 50% is excluded; if there are 3 players, 33.33% of their wage is excluded; 4 players = 25%; 5 players = 20% and so on... They must have Milne and one other on the veterans list. and need their wages cut by 50% rather than all three players being cut by a third.
From what ive worked out you can have as many as you want BUT the more you have, the less per player goes outside the cap. So basically: 1 Vet- 100% outside cap 2 Vets - 50% per player outside 3 Vets - 33.33% per player outside 4 Vets - 25% per player outside I think thats how it works now. So your better off having your most expensive guys on there. With Lenny & Milney im guessing $500-$550K goes outside the cap. But you add Blake into calculations ($200K) then if my maths is correct only $400K would go outside....
StkThunda's lesson in writting succinctly: <blockquote>Quote from anthak on November 10, 2011, 15:50 Ive just been reading through the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the AFL players. There is an important part that is left out of the details on the AFL site that I posted above. The % of the veterans pay that is excluded from the Total Player Payments depends on how many veteran listed players there are at the club. If there are more than 2, it begins to reduce. ie. 1 or 2 players on veterans list, then 50% is excluded; if there are 3 players, 33.33% of their wage is excluded; 4 players = 25%; 5 players = 20% and so on... They must have Milne and one other on the veterans list. and need their wages cut by 50% rather than all three players being cut by a third.</blockquote> <blockquote>Quote from stkildathunda on November 10, 2011, 15:51 From what ive worked out you can have as many as you want BUT the more you have, the less per player goes outside the cap. So basically: 1 Vet- 100% outside cap 2 Vets - 50% per player outside 3 Vets - 33.33% per player outside 4 Vets - 25% per player outside I think thats how it works now. So your better off having your most expensive guys on there. With Lenny & Milney im guessing $500-$550K goes outside the cap. But you add Blake into calculations ($200K) then if my maths is correct only $400K would go outside.... </blockquote> Thanks for that. much better
although i just realised. theres one difference. I believe that even with only 1 vet, their wage is cut by 50% as it is when there are 2. ... and yes, I realise we were writting that other one at the same time. haha
Tom Simpkin will probably replace him, or at least get some games next year, i'd say one to watch for SC next year, with Dawson gone and getting 60 from less then 3 quarters in both of his matches, could be a good cheap reserves option?
I think it's stupid you can't just swap someone from mainlist to veterans and back outside the draft. Would be very happy if GWS took Blake because I think he'd be fairly important at St Kilda without Dawson and with Gwilt coming back from injury. Saints losing Blake as well would be undermanned in defence, and therefore less of a threat to opponents. Good news there. GWS he'd be useless at except as a battering ram but at least he'd get the testimonial money for a good honest career. GO GWS grab Blake