On the link that camel posted, I have a post on page 7 which i'm going to quote verbatim now. And I am allowed to use my own intellectual property 
Here it is:
"I've kept my head out of this (for fear of being labelled a Camporeale basher again)
However, it is not hard to see where Camporeale could be being paid 620K this year.
If his last contract was for 4 years at 600K (when signed in 2000 - and was to last for 4 years i.e. 2001-2004. That equals a payment of $2.4 million. So in years 2001/02 he received 2 x 600K = $1.2 million of that $2.4 million.
However, because when Collins came into power end of 2002 and immediately told the players to take a pay cut, some had their contracts extended, in some cases because they had extended the terms of their contracts, in the short term, we had no choice but to pay some players peanuts in return for paying them in the future. It's like when a trust fund accidentally doesn't pay as much as it should under the terms of the trust deed, the beneficiary may say, ok, pay me less now, but I want the required payment and make up payments combined later.
If Camporeale then took a payment of 300K in 2003 (in order to keep up under the cap), then he could rightfully (due to contractual obligations) demand 900K over the next 1 year (2004) (contractually enforceable - the 900K remaining from the $1.2 million owed after 2002). However, say he then demanded he be paid $400K for 2005. If the club doesn't sign, then Camporeale can contractually (and enforceable in a court of law) claim 900K for 2004. So the club has no choice but to say, ok, you're worth $400K. Let's split $1.3 million over 2 years in order to reduce the impact on the salary cap.
So a new contract is redrawn (using clauses from the original contract which would state that after year 2003 he had been paid $1.5 million for 3 years - with $900K owing (due to terms of 2000 contract - the $2.4 million I have talked about). This new contract that covers 2004-2005 - would state (or imply) that he would be signed for $400K in year 2005 but because we can't afford a 900K player in 2004, the payments would be split evenly between the years 2004-2005 for $1.3 million.
Divided evenly between 2 years, $1.3 million = $650K.
That is an entirely plausible scenario verbs. So over 5 years Camporeale has received $2.8 million (which is the same as 4 years @ 600K + 1 year at $400K) - Camporeale has therefore averaged $560K per year of his last contract and extension.
It also shows that due to his taking a 50% pay cut (and only paying him 300K) then we can afford him at $620K - even $650K.
It also shows that he's received an average $500K/year over the term of his contract and extension"
So the bottom line is, I think he's been paid an average 500K/year. It is completely implausible that he play for nothing for the contract extension year because he's contractually allowed to receive that money, that's Elliott's fault. Just like Kouta.
For those of you who think that he very selflessly took a massive pay cut in order to basically play a contract extension year for free, if you were contractually allowed to receive a certain amount of money from work and they asked you to work the next year basically for free, would you? No way.
If Camporeale had shown more on-field leadership, been less selfish on the field etc., then I could believe he took a pay cut because I think that on-field behaviour is fairly indicative of off-field attitude and character. White line fever is different; that's a personality thing and character and personality are two different things in my book.
If he was an on-field leader who didn't back chat to the umpires then I'd be more willing to accept that he might have played that extra year for free, but ask yourselves this question, would you do it if you had a legally enforceable contract to receive that much money, would you turn it down, on a purely pragmatic basis?
|
