The Potential Trading Of McMahon

[Tigers_06]

Yeah, effectivley only sacrafice around 60-80k in the salary cap (total player payments, nothing to do with anything else) to get rid of McMahon for good and get a promising youngster in to take his place who actually has a shot at making it. Not to mention the amount of space freed up with retirements and de-listments this year. That would be a huge mistake....: geez some people are just so stupid.... :rofl

Lets say we're right on the 92.5% minimum we have to pay, remember, Deledio, Foley, Cousins and a few others have been signed on new contracts, while Nahas is a chance to get a new deal as well if he gets elevated. That would take up some of the slack we gained by Brown, Coughlan, Johnson & Bowden(only 50% of his contract counted) being moved on, we are also going to take upto 8 picks in the draft which will take up another substantial chunk of the cap.

Paying McMahon out and getting in a kid for minimum wage plus match payments could end up costing us another $100k. That money has to come from somewhere. The club would have budgeted for a certain amount of money to be allocated for the salary cap. So in effect we then have to take money from another dept and use that to fund the payment. That might mean the difference between an extra 2 scouts or a better assistant coach.

So you see its not as simple as lets get rid of McMahon and get another kid. I would rather keep McMahon for another year and use that extra $60-100k on other areas as any money you don't spend on the cap can be used anywhere you want, than pay him out just to make a few people on internet forums happy.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Lets say we're right on the 92.5% minimum we have to pay, remember, Deledio, Foley, Cousins and a few others have been signed on new contracts, while Nahas is a chance to get a new deal as well if he gets elevated. That would take up some of the slack we gained by Brown, Coughlan, Johnson & Bowden(only 50% of his contract counted) being moved on, we are also going to take upto 8 picks in the draft which will take up another substantial chunk of the cap.

Paying McMahon out and getting in a kid for minimum wage plus match payments could end up costing us another $100k. That money has to come from somewhere. The club would have budgeted for a certain amount of money to be allocated for the salary cap. So in effect we then have to take money from another dept and use that to fund the payment. That might mean the difference between an extra 2 scouts or a better assistant coach.

So you see its not as simple as lets get rid of McMahon and get another kid. I would rather keep McMahon for another year and use that extra $60-100k on other areas as any money you don't spend on the cap can be used anywhere you want, than pay him out just to make a few people on internet forums happy.

Now Now Tiger.Your too stupid according to Barnzy to post something logical. :hihi :hihi

 

[Barnzy]

Now Now Tiger.Your too stupid according to Barnzy to post something logical. :hihi :hihi

No, that's only you.

 

[Barnzy]

Lets say we're right on the 92.5% minimum we have to pay, remember, Deledio, Foley, Cousins and a few others have been signed on new contracts, while Nahas is a chance to get a new deal as well if he gets elevated. That would take up some of the slack we gained by Brown, Coughlan, Johnson & Bowden(only 50% of his contract counted) being moved on, we are also going to take upto 8 picks in the draft which will take up another substantial chunk of the cap.

Paying McMahon out and getting in a kid for minimum wage plus match payments could end up costing us another $100k. That money has to come from somewhere. The club would have budgeted for a certain amount of money to be allocated for the salary cap. So in effect we then have to take money from another dept and use that to fund the payment. That might mean the difference between an extra 2 scouts or a better assistant coach.

So you see its not as simple as lets get rid of McMahon and get another kid. I would rather keep McMahon for another year and use that extra $60-100k on other areas as any money you don't spend on the cap can be used anywhere you want, than pay him out just to make a few people on internet forums happy.

A well written response. I didn't know that the money not spent on the cap can go to other areas, thought it was just player payments. If so, I was wrong and I apolgize to where/who I said that was not the case. Of course it's not that simple as you say but all we would be losing is 60k-100k to get rid of him, the 300k is being paid out no matter what unless he walks. I would still rather sacrafice that money to get rid of him and get a new kid in. I would really like to see our cap figures for this year because I think we should have a fair bit of room to work with no matter all the variables that come into play.

 

[Tigers_06]

A well written response. I didn't know that the money not spent on the cap can go to other areas, thought it was just player payments.

Thats the way I understand it. It might be wrong, but thinking about it, it would be like any business, if you have a certain amount to spend on an area of the business and come in under it you can use those funds in other areas of your business.

 

[Giardiasis]

What is the point of having a minimum salary cap level of 92.5% of the cap, if you can simply add in expenditure on other business items to make the lower limit?

What he was saying is that instead of spending 92.5% we would be spending say 94%. That 1.5% difference could go into other football areas.

 

[Tigerbob]

It's all part of budgets.

Clubs plan on spending a certain amount in all area's even Player Payments.

From some little whispers, we don't plan on spending too much more than the minimum for a rebuilding list. Have heard we have had to be creative to get to that minimum amount.

 

[GoodOne]

Trading him would be a massive bonus and we would come out in the green, paying him out only puts us in the red by 60-80k (rookies wage) and in terms of cap space and what's about to be freed up, that's just loose change.

You know that's not going to happen. When was the last occurrence in the AFL of this happening? Has it ever happened?

 

[Tiger74]

Trading him would be a massive bonus and we would come out in the green, paying him out only puts us in the red by 60-80k (rookies wage) and in terms of cap space and what's about to be freed up, that's just loose change.

we ain't rich enough that we can flush $80-100k yet

keep him on if we cannot trade

 

[Barnzy]

You know that's not going to happen. When was the last occurrence in the AFL of this happening? Has it ever happened?

When was the last time what happened? A player with a contract was cut?

 

[GoodOne]

When was the last time what happened? A player with a contract was cut?

Yes, a player was paid out a year of their contract and not played?

 

[Barnzy]

Yes, a player was paid out a year of their contract and not played?

It would've happened plenty of times but I doubt they would've been on 300k. Depends on how we are looking cap wise which obviously I don't know the figures for. I just want him gone, a Corrie type trade would be great, you only recieve a very late pick but another team takes him on. Then perhaps both pay half each of the salary. I wonder how much we were asked from the Saints (pick wise).

Either way, I doubt any team would want him on their list, regardless of if it was a good deal for them or not.

 

[GoodOne]

It would've happened plenty of times but I doubt they would've been on 300k.

Any examples? I don't know of any personally but my memory is fading.

 

[Barnzy]

Any examples? I don't know of any personally but my memory is fading.

We de-listed Rodan with a year to go IIRC. Freo de-listed Peterson with a year still to run. Other than that can't remember others. During this time of year though you hear of unknowns who get de-listed with a year still to run on their contract. I don't think it's that much of a rare occurance as you think but maybe my mind is just playing tricks on me.

 

[linuscambridge]

It would've happened plenty of times but I doubt they would've been on 300k. Depends on how we are looking cap wise which obviously I don't know the figures for. I just want him gone, a Corrie type trade would be great, you only recieve a very late pick but another team takes him on. Then perhaps both pay half each of the salary. I wonder how much we were asked from the Saints (pick wise).

Either way, I doubt any team would want him on their list, regardless of if it was a good deal for them or not.

Many would share your sentiment, but as has been said by Hardwick, there aint no room for sentiment in footy. That applys to keeping the old stars on the list for one year too many the same way as it does to getting rid of 16 duds in one fell swoop. No room for emotion either way.

Do you really think Hardwick is going to say "gee I hate that Mc Mahon, I don't care how much it costs, we have to get rid of him". More likely he is looking at the big picture of how to field a team for the next 2 years while completely rebuilding the list. If you do the sums of what most are advocating on PRE in regards to delisting, you would end up with about 28 players over the age of 20 on the list in 2 years time.

Hardwick has an embarassment of riches when it comes to players to delist this year, he really doesn't need one more spot on the list for a kid. If he wants he could throw another 4 or 5 names in the air and pick one to delist. More likely they will look for a trade and if it can't get done Mc Mahon will grace the yellow and black for one more year.

 

[Tigers_06]

It would've happened plenty of times but I doubt they would've been on 300k. Depends on how we are looking cap wise which obviously I don't know the figures for. I just want him gone, a Corrie type trade would be great, you only recieve a very late pick but another team takes him on. Then perhaps both pay half each of the salary. I wonder how much we were asked from the Saints (pick wise).

Either way, I doubt any team would want him on their list, regardless of if it was a good deal for them or not.

You've finally realised the problem with trying to trade him, we think he is crap and yet we expect another club to come along and take him. Best option is to keep him on board and see what happens. With all the kids coming in, it will be handy to have a few blokes around who have a bit of experience and can be there as the kids get tired later in the year.

 

[Barnzy]

Many would share your sentiment, but as has been said by Hardwick, there aint no room for sentiment in footy. That applys to keeping the old stars on the list for one year too many the same way as it does to getting rid of 16 duds in one fell swoop. No room for emotion either way.

Do you really think Hardwick is going to say "gee I hate that Mc Mahon, I don't care how much it costs, we have to get rid of him". More likely he is looking at the big picture of how to field a team for the next 2 years while completely rebuilding the list. If you do the sums of what most are advocating on PRE in regards to delisting, you would end up with about 28 players over the age of 20 on the list in 2 years time.

Hardwick has an embarassment of riches when it comes to players to delist this year, he really doesn't need one more spot on the list for a kid. If he wants he could throw another 4 or 5 names in the air and pick one to delist. More likely they will look for a trade and if it can't get done Mc Mahon will grace the yellow and black for one more year.

You mean the Red & Blue?

Those are the Coburg colours aren't they? ;D

 

[GoodOne]

We de-listed Rodan with a year to go IIRC. Freo de-listed Peterson with a year still to run. Other than that can't remember others. During this time of year though you hear of unknowns who get de-listed with a year still to run on their contract. I don't think it's that much of a rare occurance as you think but maybe my mind is just playing tricks on me.

I don't think Rodan was contracted and if so its not the situation I am talking about as he played for Port Adelaide the next year. Dont know of this Petersen at Freo. I don't think it is very common at all so I doubt if McMahon will be paid out by the Tigers and sit out a year of footy.

 

[YinnarTiger]

When was the last time what happened? A player with a contract was cut?

When Grant Thomas sacked Capuano about round 2 it was the equivalent of this. Don't know how much he was on??

 

[Ian4]

I havent answered coz I havent seen the question. Sorry. Can you ask me again?

you alluded to somewhere that you're a former player... care to lift the veil?

Meanwhile, St Kilda, which yesterday declared it would not be a big player in next week's player-exchange period, has gone cold on its mid-season interest in Richmond defender Jordan McMahon, who has another season left on a three-year contract.

*smile*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because McMahon is really going to earn that 300k next year squibbing it up in the 2's, amiright? :rofl

We have to pay him the 300k anyways we may aswell get rid of him now and get a kid on the list who has a shot of making it and who might heaven fobid be any good. Effectivley, having to pay only an extra 80-100k or so to get rid of a massive list clogger and replace him with a promising kid. Would think that's pretty good planning.

coburg 2's? but yeah, i agree

Yes but as I said salary cap isn't the issue here. We still have a big debt despite being on the right track to service it. I don't think it would be prudent to throw away $300,000 to get rid of a player who at worst would add depth and keep others honest.

I can't see any reason whatsoever that would justify such a waste of so much money.

because we might fall under the 92.5% if we don't.

i would also argue it's not very prudent to pay $300k on a dud, but we're stuck with him now. infact it might be more than $300k next year because he was rumoured to have signed a $1mil deal over 3 years... it might have been back ended.


Edit - don't avoid the swear filter