Salary Cap Issues

Number 5 · Post: # 1147765Post **Number 5** » Thu 22 Sep 2011 6:12pm

I don't post much, but have been reading this forum for many years.
Personally, I don't care too much that Ro$$ has gone.
We're better off without his poor match day tactics and poor trading history. Onward and upwards.

My concern is our salary cap. There have been media reports saying we are in a bit of bother with our salary cap. How is this so?

In recent years, we lost Ball and haven't replaced him with anyone good.
We had money to pay Lovett but that never eventuated.
I know we have a plethora of players of the big buck$, but in light of the Ball & Lovett stuff ups, surely we can't be at 100% now!

What would we have done if Lovett did actually stay on the list?

remboy · Post: # 1147780Post **remboy** » Thu 22 Sep 2011 6:34pm

We still had to pay Lovett out but that only impacted one year. I'm also a bit puzzled re our SC position as the general consensus among media scribes seems to be that we are paying 100% and yet in the interview with RL in the Age yesterday he mentioned that there was room in the cap, hence his desire to pursue Mitch Clark.
Can't both be right.

gringo · Post: # 1147783Post **gringo** » Thu 22 Sep 2011 6:37pm

They should be able to move Roo to the VL by now shouldn't they.

Con Gorozidis · Thu 22 Sep 2011 6:43pm

mixed reports.
if u read the lyon interview in the west australian (in answer to a question about going after mitch clarke) lyon says that the saints had a fair bit of room in their cap and he was going to go after mitch clarke for the saints.

so not sure the truth.

surely post lovett and ball we have some room?

St Ick · Post: # 1148011Post **St Ick** » Thu 22 Sep 2011 9:41pm

remboy wrote:We still had to pay Lovett out but that only impacted one year. I'm also a bit puzzled re our SC position as the general consensus among media scribes seems to be that we are paying 100% and yet in the interview with RL in the Age yesterday he mentioned that there was room in the cap, hence his desire to pursue Mitch Clark.
Can't both be right.

What reason would RL have to lie about the salary cap? I'd definitely believe his story over an assumption in the media. Sounds like little more than a semi educated guess to give a bit more ooomph to a negative story about St Kilda's doom and gloom. [/b]

Bernard Shakey · Thu 22 Sep 2011 10:03pm

St Ick wrote:
remboy wrote:We still had to pay Lovett out but that only impacted one year. I'm also a bit puzzled re our SC position as the general consensus among media scribes seems to be that we are paying 100% and yet in the interview with RL in the Age yesterday he mentioned that there was room in the cap, hence his desire to pursue Mitch Clark.
Can't both be right.
What reason would RL have to lie about the salary cap? I'd definitely believe his story over an assumption in the media. Sounds like little more than a semi educated guess to give a bit more ooomph to a negative story about St Kilda's doom and gloom. [/b]

Would you believe Ross has no idea about the salary cap. He was the coach not the list manager.

St Ick · Post: # 1148055Post **St Ick** » Thu 22 Sep 2011 10:10pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:
St Ick wrote:
remboy wrote:We still had to pay Lovett out but that only impacted one year. I'm also a bit puzzled re our SC position as the general consensus among media scribes seems to be that we are paying 100% and yet in the interview with RL in the Age yesterday he mentioned that there was room in the cap, hence his desire to pursue Mitch Clark.
Can't both be right.
What reason would RL have to lie about the salary cap? I'd definitely believe his story over an assumption in the media. Sounds like little more than a semi educated guess to give a bit more ooomph to a negative story about St Kilda's doom and gloom. [/b]
Would you believe Ross has no idea about the salary cap. He was the coach not the list manager.

No I would not believe Ross has no idea about the salary cap because he said in an interview we had cash to splash on a big fwd, yes, he was the coach, but he wouldn't talk $hit for the sake of it.

Con Gorozidis · Thu 22 Sep 2011 10:11pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:
St Ick wrote:
remboy wrote:We still had to pay Lovett out but that only impacted one year. I'm also a bit puzzled re our SC position as the general consensus among media scribes seems to be that we are paying 100% and yet in the interview with RL in the Age yesterday he mentioned that there was room in the cap, hence his desire to pursue Mitch Clark.
Can't both be right.
What reason would RL have to lie about the salary cap? I'd definitely believe his story over an assumption in the media. Sounds like little more than a semi educated guess to give a bit more ooomph to a negative story about St Kilda's doom and gloom. [/b]
Would you believe Ross has no idea about the salary cap. He was the coach not the list manager.

Ross did not say he reckoned we had room. He said he was told we did and we could go after mithc clarke. So I'm taking it as fact.

plugger66 · Thu 22 Sep 2011 10:13pm

Con Gorozidis wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:
St Ick wrote:
remboy wrote:We still had to pay Lovett out but that only impacted one year. I'm also a bit puzzled re our SC position as the general consensus among media scribes seems to be that we are paying 100% and yet in the interview with RL in the Age yesterday he mentioned that there was room in the cap, hence his desire to pursue Mitch Clark.
Can't both be right.
What reason would RL have to lie about the salary cap? I'd definitely believe his story over an assumption in the media. Sounds like little more than a semi educated guess to give a bit more ooomph to a negative story about St Kilda's doom and gloom. [/b]
Would you believe Ross has no idea about the salary cap. He was the coach not the list manager.
Ross did not say he reckoned we had room. He said he was told we did and we could go after mithc clarke. So I'm taking it as fact.

So you believe everything he says. hasnt sounded like that for the last 5 days. Or is it selective truth.

bobmurray · Thu 22 Sep 2011 10:14pm

St Ick wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:
St Ick wrote:
remboy wrote:We still had to pay Lovett out but that only impacted one year. I'm also a bit puzzled re our SC position as the general consensus among media scribes seems to be that we are paying 100% and yet in the interview with RL in the Age yesterday he mentioned that there was room in the cap, hence his desire to pursue Mitch Clark.
Can't both be right.
What reason would RL have to lie about the salary cap? I'd definitely believe his story over an assumption in the media. Sounds like little more than a semi educated guess to give a bit more ooomph to a negative story about St Kilda's doom and gloom. [/b]
Would you believe Ross has no idea about the salary cap. He was the coach not the list manager.
No I would not believe Ross has no idea about the salary cap because he said in an interview we had cash to splash on a big fwd, yes, he was the coach, but he wouldn't talk $hit for the sake of it.

I think that has been a point of debate since last Thursday...

Junction Oval · Thu 22 Sep 2011 10:17pm

If Collingwood and Geelong are managing ok, then why aren't we? We do not have the number of high profile players that they have ....... unless that is another management area that we have stuffed up !

To be on the veterans list a player must be 30, with 10 years at the Club. Rooey not there yet.

St Ick · Post: # 1148086Post **St Ick** » Thu 22 Sep 2011 10:31pm

bobmurray wrote:
St Ick wrote:
Bernard Shakey wrote:
St Ick wrote:
remboy wrote:We still had to pay Lovett out but that only impacted one year. I'm also a bit puzzled re our SC position as the general consensus among media scribes seems to be that we are paying 100% and yet in the interview with RL in the Age yesterday he mentioned that there was room in the cap, hence his desire to pursue Mitch Clark.
Can't both be right.
What reason would RL have to lie about the salary cap? I'd definitely believe his story over an assumption in the media. Sounds like little more than a semi educated guess to give a bit more ooomph to a negative story about St Kilda's doom and gloom. [/b]
Would you believe Ross has no idea about the salary cap. He was the coach not the list manager.
No I would not believe Ross has no idea about the salary cap because he said in an interview we had cash to splash on a big fwd, yes, he was the coach, but he wouldn't talk $hit for the sake of it.
I think that has been a point of debate since last Thursday...

He went behind the clubs and his managements back and walked from a contract, he had his reasons but when has he said anything that is untrue? Because of this I have lost a lot of respect for the man and I don't really like the man for this.

He has come out of this as a heartless, disloyal, ruthless prick, but he doesn't come across as someone who talks $hit, especially about something like a salary cap.

But, its just my opinion, and unless anyone personally knows about our salary cap, they have two options, believe the former coach who was on the inside, or believe the media scribes who write rubbish to bulk up their anti St kilda stories

stinger · Post: # 1148137Post **stinger** » Thu 22 Sep 2011 11:13pm

lovett's payout was included in this years salary cap....

SainterK · Post: # 1148138Post **SainterK** » Thu 22 Sep 2011 11:14pm

Who can go onto veterans 2012, if any?

bobmurray · Thu 22 Sep 2011 11:17pm

One of the Footy Show journo Bozo's is gonna give us all a scoop on The Saints salary cap.....should be riveting

borderbarry · Thu 22 Sep 2011 11:18pm

We would have to have some room on the Salary Cap surely now that Bakes, Gardiner and McQualter are all gone?

jays · Post: # 1148154Post **jays** » Thu 22 Sep 2011 11:35pm

lol footy show have no idea

St Ick · Post: # 1148162Post **St Ick** » Thu 22 Sep 2011 11:45pm

Who really knows, I suppose what Barrett said could make sense. Suppose the following has occurred;

- We could be at 100% this year.
- Next year senior players either retire or go onto veterans list
- Some players contracts could have been front ended, or back ended, who knows what each contract states
- Was Lovett included this year but not next?
- Barrett said we are aiming for a 92.5% usage of our salary cap next year
- Lyon said he was told there was room in the cap to get a big name forward such as Mitch Clark next year
- Someone in the media picked up on the fact we are at 100% this year and added it into a story to highlight the Saints woes and to add weight to a story involving getting rid of BJ to the Giants. Call it creative journalism...

Seems pretty believable to me, unless you'd just rather go down the Ross Lyon is a lying prick road.

degruch · Post: # 1148167Post **degruch** » Thu 22 Sep 2011 11:51pm

St Ick wrote:...unless you'd just rather go down the Ross Lyon is a lying prick road.

Well, he's a lying prick, that's a given, what he's lying about and what he's telling the truth about is anyone's guess. I can't see why he'd bullsh!t about room in our salary cap, unless he's trying to convince someone we've got extra cash up our sleeve - a bit obtuse.

BigMart · Post: # 1148169Post **BigMart** » Thu 22 Sep 2011 11:52pm

Its getting worse

What about footy first......no expense spared my arse...

Fri 23 Sep 2011 1:33am

This year's Salary Cap is $8.21m with an ASA component of $573,000.

I dont know 2012's cap BUT it will be higher - probably close to $8.5million.

If Saints have the ability to be 92.5% of Salary Cap (the minimum theya re allowed to have) that is $7,5942,500 which means ...

They have enough room to go for at least 1 gun player for $500,000+

True Blue Sainter · Fri 23 Sep 2011 1:54am

Junction Oval wrote:If Collingwood and Geelong are managing ok, then why aren't we? We do not have the number of high profile players that they have ....... unless that is another management area that we have stuffed up !

To be on the veterans list a player must be 30, with 10 years at the Club. Rooey not there yet.

Does he have to be over 30? What rubbish!! 10 years service should be the only rule

matrix · Post: # 1148259Post **matrix** » Fri 23 Sep 2011 7:45am

doesnt the vet list rules change next year?

Saints94 · Post: # 1148261Post **Saints94** » Fri 23 Sep 2011 7:52am

Did Barrett say anything about our coaching scenario??

SainterK · Post: # 1148344Post **SainterK** » Fri 23 Sep 2011 10:54am

Couldn't find anyone on the Lovett payout, and how long that will be under the salary cap. He was going to get 1.1 over 3 yrs, all it says is both parties settled on an undisclosed amount.

I'm still not sure if anyone knows who can go onto veterans salary next year?

I also reckon a few more delistings will happen, even if it's 2-3 guys on an avg of $250K, that will help ease it.