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
- 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
- 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.
Login
Register
FAQ
