Talking Carlton Index Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington Lochie O'Brien Kerryn Harrington CFC Home CFC Membership CFC Shop CFC Fixture Blueseum
It is currently Wed Jul 09, 2025 9:22 am

All times are UTC + 10 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:09 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:44 am
Posts: 3136
CarltonClem wrote:
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?


Cluck

I couldnt recall that thread however would actually like to thank you for the effort put into that post :)

However, I do have a few issues with it
1. You assume campo's initial contract was 600k/year for 4 years. This is contentious (length), and more than likely to be at the upper end of pay estimations.
2. The actual salary cap (feel free to correct me)
Below are the actual figures for TPP for the period of 2002-2006 taken directly from the AFLPA website (ie FACT)
1999 - 4.25 mill
2000 - 4.75 mill
2001 - 5.185 mill
2002 - 5.5625 mill
2003 - 5.9375 mill
2004 - 6.115 mill
2005 - 6.3 mill
2006 - 6.3 mill

Over the same period of time, the base payment for 1st year players is as listed (again from AFLPA website)
1999 - 30k
2000 - 31k
2001 - 32k
2003 - 43k
2004 - 50k
2005 - 51.5k
2006 - 51.5k

To put the above figures into context.
From 1999 - 2005, the TPP increased by 148%. Over the same period the minium player payment increased by 172%. THe primary list dropped from 40 players in 2000 to 38 in 2001.

The key element of this are that the clubs knew exactly how much the TPP and base payments were going to change in advance due to CBAs covering 1998-2003 (1999-2003 seasons) and subsequently 2003-2008 (2004-2008 seasons).

Backloading of contracts became commonplace because the 1998-2003 CBA dictated TPP to increase by 140% between 1999 and 2003 seasons.

So, if we take these FACTS into account, I think it is highly unlikely that campo was signed up for 4X600k in 2000. Reasoning? Firstly, basic accounting - Terms of 600+600+600+600 on a contract does not take advantage of the 125% increase in TPP over the time frame involved (2000-2003 rather than 1999-2003). Secondly, it fails to acknowledge that number of quality players that were expected to retire within this time frame (which you would expect to have been highly paid ie future room).

Now for the speculative bits...
Also, I presume you would be suggesting kouta and whitnall's contracts have been similarly structured (initially by elliot) and restructured by collo. Given the figures bandied about, would that suggest that both kouta and lance were on 600k each in 2001 as well? (given that both were clearly superior players to campo in the 1999-2001 era when they were resigned).

Those 3 make it 1.8mill, and together with SOS, braddles, lappin (300k each conservatively) equates to 2.7 mill in 2001. That suggests that 6 players accounted for 52% of our TPP in 2001 :shock: - what makes it even more astounding is that those figures exclude other players that one would be expected to be highly paid in beaumont, allan (coming off all australian), ratten at say another 300k each? - that brings it up to 3.6mill or 69+% of the TPP for 10 players :shock: :shock: :shock: - I'm pretty sure I've missed a few players as well (brown, christou, manton etc).

Obviously I've taken a few liberties with the latter part of the discussion when calculating the player payments but I think it illustrates the point fairly well.

Do u still think your 600kX4 years initial contract is accurate?

Btw, I'm not challenging the fact that campo is overpaid this season (as a result of a backloaded contract). What I am challenging is the manner in which the statements are being made

Synbad wrote:
I think the challenge is really on you , BM and others to tell us exactly what Campo is on.


For the record, I'd speculate that campo would have been signed up to no more than 400-450k/season in 2000 (or whenever it was). The contract would have been heavily backloaded to account for the expected retirements of bradley, silvagni (amongst others) to keep under the TPP. However, as a result of team needs, these players were retained for a lot longer than expected. This would have made it extremely difficult to fit into the TPP as contracts were already signed (for younger players) and the need to properly reward/renumerate club champions) ie there is no way SOS/bradley would agree to play whilst being paid under 100k. The consequence of all this has been the breaches in TPP.

So synbad, I've stated what I think campo was on (as opposed to this year exclusively). I think I've mounted a very reasonable arguement as to why he could not have been on much more than that. Perhaps you will be prepared to do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:16 pm 
Offline
Bert Deacon

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:29 pm
Posts: 534
Chicken,

You have gone into so much detail yet you have not mentioned the Veterans list. So of those players were veteran list players.
If you had mentioned the veterans list I was going to consider you a rooster and not a chicken. Alas, you will remain a chicken.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:20 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:44 am
Posts: 3136
Ockham's Razor wrote:
Camelboy, in response to your question "who really cares" some people obviously care.

Some of us take exception to other supporters constantly deriding our players with completly fabricated bullsh*t about $ & contracts...

Perhaps it is time to take a stand and put the acid on those who constantly belittle players who our club has deemed worthy to respresnt it.



Thats the only reason why I post nowadays - actual football discussion, or any discussion for that matter (as opposed to ranting) seems to be a lot art on TC and other CFC boards nowadays


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:34 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 7507
Location: Within the Tao except when I am here.
An the other thing that gets me is that while Synbad states that I have to prove what Campo is on, it is not me that is making the claims that they are on 650 000. I always thought that if one made a claim then it was up to one to prove thier claim, not the other way around.

As I have stated before the only time that Campo's wage has been reported as being $600 000 was in the final year of a signifcantly back ended contract three years ago and before Collo re-negoitated the then existing contracts.

There are two things that mitigate against the $600 000 being claimed as Campo's wage this year.

1. The contracts that were re-negoitated by Collo were extended for an extra year. At no extra cost to the club

2. There is no way Collo would have agreed to the terms as being claimed by Synbad. A simple study of Collos hard nosed business dealing and the financial situation the club was in at the time is evidence of this. Collo at the time was quite prepared to fight the players if he did not get what he wanted.

_________________
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty" -Winston Churchill

L.M 35-06


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 1:52 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:44 am
Posts: 3136
jbee wrote:
Chicken,

You have gone into so much detail yet you have not mentioned the Veterans list. So of those players were veteran list players.
If you had mentioned the veterans list I was going to consider you a rooster and not a chicken. Alas, you will remain a chicken.


cluck

I didnt mention the veterans list for a reason. The actual impact of the veterans list on TPP isnt that great (unless the players are paid a LOT). During the period in question, veterans list was 2 players ONLY and 50% of the salary went in. At a guess - SOS/bradley would have been the veterans and at 300k each (guessed wage), the club saves 300k (to account for say ratten's salary in the scenario I proposed). Alternatively that can be rephrased as the club can pay 300k above the salary cap

The impact of the veterans list has only been substantial in subsequent years where contracts are backloaded and TPP has increased (ie with kouta/campo) - IF they are on the 800k and 600k respectively, that saves the club 700k - so the impact is a lot bigger (the saving changes if u add more players to veterans list). However, given the minimal impact of the veterans list on the TPP during the time period under discussion (99-01 when campo/kouta/whitnall etc were re-signed) I didnt want to talk too much about its impact in 1999-2001 (when the contract was signed).
EDIT - I'm also not certain that campo's contract would have qualified him to vet's list in the final year of the INITIAL contract

However, the veterans list is relevant for the contracts IF we accept that their contracts were heavily backloaded (something that synbad/CC do not seem to accept atm). The veterans list would have actually enticed clubs to backload contracts of middle age players such that the MAJORITY of their contract was paid in the final year or two (where the savings would be the greatest). Particularly given the increases in TPP in future years (as dictated by the CBA).


Also, to elaborate more on campo's contract. If we assume CC is correct in stating 4 years (despite evidence to the contrary from verbs) and that he averaged 400k/year (my figure which I think would have been reasonable at the time of contract signing). Then it may have been structured somewhere along these lines

2001 - 200k
2002 - 250k
2003 - 450k*
2004 - 700k*
*points in time where players might be expected to retire and TPP increases substantially. Of course, the above is all speculation - but I think its based on some very reasonable assumptions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:10 pm 
Offline
Rod Ashman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 10:58 am
Posts: 2143
I guess I am can handle what happens either way with Campo…. But I would prefer him to leave.

At the end of the day, we all know that Campo has to live with his conscience. If in 10 years time he can look a Carlton supporter/player in the eyes and say – “I gave it all to the Blues and believe I added to the culture of the club.â€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:16 pm 
Offline
Bert Deacon

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:29 pm
Posts: 534
So chicken what you are telling me is that you are guessing like Synbad :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:27 pm 
Offline
Horrie Clover
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 12:28 pm
Posts: 390
Location: Melbourne
CS wrote:
Two universal constants folks:

1) Synbad & BlueMark aggressively exchanging views.
2) Debate over Campo's worth.


And a third, the Universal Gas Constant.


R = 8.314


What!

No-one else was answering the original question so why should I? :wink:

_________________
Newest Baby Blue Member
Tom Cameron - Born 20/03/10


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 2:58 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:01 pm
Posts: 34556
Location: The Brown Wedge
Click below for the reason why Campo and the club agreed to a lucrative deal. You reckon Port wouldn't have been offering everything they had to bring him home?

http://www.footywire.com/fw/web/ft_matc ... s?mid=1143

Check out Fevs stats :D


Last edited by The Duke on Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:01 pm 
Offline
Robert Walls

Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:44 am
Posts: 3136
jbee wrote:
So chicken what you are telling me is that you are guessing like Synbad :?


cluck

Have you bothered to read carefully and think about it before posting? Whereever possible I have stated facts. What 'guesses' I have made are based upon facts from which reasonable statements have been drawn. Where I have had to speculate on things I have clearly stated that to be the case - either immediately before or after the subject matter. The reason why I do this is so that people can read the post, consider the contents (and context) before forming their own opinions. I also provide people the option of disagreeing with me and actually request they state reasons for doing so in order to promote healthy discussion.

In contrast synbad's posts on campo's contract tend to be rants draw upon emotion (as opposed to CC). The numbers quoted for contracts have varied substantially over the course of the past few months with no explanation given. There appears to be no evidence to back up synbad's claims other than media reports speculating on contract figures (which also vary from month to month). Synbad does not tell u when he is guessing numbers, rather he encourages to masses to take it as gospel. He does not promote discussion - people who disagree are often referred to as being unable to see the big picture, belittled and/or drowned by sarcastic jibes/responses.

SO your telling me you cant tell the difference between the two? :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Campo
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:14 pm 
Offline
Rod McGregor

Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 3:21 pm
Posts: 195
Sure Campo's been hopeless for most of this year, but have people already forgotten how well he played in 2003 and 2004? In those two years he played some of the best, most consistent football of his career.
In answer to Synbad's question about Campo taking games by the nuts,
you only have to go back to the game against Adelaide at AAMI Stadium last year. Most people remember Fevola's bag of 7, including the match winning goal, but Campo played possibly his best ever game that day.
He was also BOG against Geelong at OO early last year.
I'm not trying to say that he's worth the big money that he allegedly receives, so by all means, bag him for that. But don't try and tell me that he's never been any good since 2000, just because he's on target to play one bad year in a row! He also seems to be carrying a pretty serious knee injury which has slowed him down considerably. Pagan has defended Camporeale for this very reason. Does this make Pagan a softcock?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Campo
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:24 pm 
Offline
Bruce Doull
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 12:01 pm
Posts: 34556
Location: The Brown Wedge
Hackenschmidt wrote:
He also seems to be carrying a pretty serious knee injury which has slowed him down considerably. Pagan has defended Camporeale for this very reason. Does this make Pagan a softcock?


Brereton said on SEN a while back that he heard Campo had an injury and with out giving too much away said he was amazed he was able to play like he has. Now, I know Brereton is a absolute tool but one thing is for sure, he knows his trade and I'd take THAT as gospel.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:29 pm 
Offline
Ken Hunter
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:32 am
Posts: 10627
He is playing with a back/hip injury.
The guy can hardly bend over to pick anything up, yet gets his injection and out he goes every week to support his mates.
For god sake people hang your heads.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:33 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 7507
Location: Within the Tao except when I am here.
Tried to raise it before Duke and Surrey and got howled down for it.

For some when it comes to Campo, it knives out.

And agree some should hang thier heads in this matter.

_________________
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty" -Winston Churchill

L.M 35-06


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:34 pm 
Offline
Alex Jesaulenko
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:00 pm
Posts: 24655
Location: Kaloyasena
If this is true, fair enough however given since about round 5 its been pretty clear that our season has been shot, he should or the club should have declared him an LTI get him rested and sorted out, to ensure better and more valuable game time for a long term replacement such as a Kade Simpson.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 4:37 pm 
Offline
Craig Bradley
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 8:39 am
Posts: 7507
Location: Within the Tao except when I am here.
AGRO wrote:
If this is true, fair enough however given since about round 5 its been pretty clear that our season has been shot, he should or the club should have declared him an LTI get him rested and sorted out, to ensure better and more valuable game time for a long term replacement such as a Kade Simpson.


See.

_________________
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty" -Winston Churchill

L.M 35-06


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 9:36 pm 
Offline
Stephen Kernahan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 9:47 am
Posts: 18288
Location: talkingcarlton.com
Well, what is it? Back/hip/knee/ankle/calf/head?

I've heard them all sprouted throughout the media and the forums, but nothing from the club.

So what is it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 9:50 pm 
Offline
Harry Vallence

Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:59 am
Posts: 1971
Heart.













Only joking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:36 pm 
Offline
Ken Hands
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 12:01 pm
Posts: 437
Location: The Pratt Stand
Synbad wrote:

If Campo Kouta want help.. get a pay cut and let us bring in aplayer to help them....!!!

..they dont want to get paid REALISTIC wages??? Well .. they dont need help they need to get flogged week in week out.. and anyone who supports them deserves everything we cop!!!.. unfortunately the rest of us have to bear it too... at least i get my kicks out of sticking it up them..!!!

Sure theyre my scapegoats.. but they warrant the criticism if theyre collecting long term fat contracts and dont play like it....



Now you're getting stuck into Kouta! Why don't you have a go at SOS, Braddles and Sticks while you're at it. And don't stop there, there's always Jonno, Jezza and Big Nick if you get really bored.

_________________
Number 17 - come on down!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:49 pm 
Offline
Mike Fitzpatrick

Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:26 pm
Posts: 4719
Location: Parliament House, Canberra
Chicko, as unbelievable as it sounds, that's why Collo was completely staggered when he asked the players for pay cuts because we were way over the cap.

That's probably why the figures actually do stack up. Collo wouldn't have asked for pay cuts if we weren't that far over the cap and his asking the top 10 players to take cuts was needed.

That's why the Elliott defenders have no defence.

Your scenario re: backloaded contracts is good, even if the average is lowered to 450K/year, can anyone honestly say he's been worth it? I think that's the main point of contention. Even if his contract has been backloaded, his average salary has been way higher than what he has delivered.

_________________
"A good composer does not initiate. He steals."

- Igor Stravinsky


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC + 10 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group