Transfer Talk, Rumours and Speculation

[Dylan]

Well they added this now

Despite no media release. SST confirm that a left footed central defender will leave Perth Glory FC and sign with a Melbourne based Club.

Id say that the player's agent is the one who is a host

[jw1739]

Well they added this now

Despite no media release. SST confirm that a left footed central defender will leave Perth Glory FC and sign with a Melbourne based Club.

Id say that the player's agent is the one who is a host

Confess my ignorance - what, in this context, is a "host"?

[Dylan]

Well they added this now

Despite no media release. SST confirm that a left footed central defender will leave Perth Glory FC and sign with a Melbourne based Club.

Id say that the player's agent is the one who is a host

Confess my ignorance - what, in this context, is a "host"?

Its a radio show so he is basically one guy on the show and he is a player agent

[Dylan]

This from sebastian hasset

Good news for @PerthGloryFC today with Scott @ScottJamieson signing on for two more years. Also allowed Jack Clisby to find a new home.

[AaronAV11]

Someone make a jack clisby thread. We've got him

[thisphantomfortress]

Someone make a jack clisby thread. We've got him

 

He's under 30 and can play left back, can't be true.

[Deeming]

 

Someone make a jack clisby thread. We've got him

 

He's under 30 and can play left back, can't be true.

 

To be used as a striker?

[stewmac]

Someone make a jack clisby thread. We've got him

 

He's under 30 and can play left back, can't be true.

To be used as a striker?

Can't be any worse striker than we have now tho ! Think he b great addition tho at lb

[Red or Dead]

First January Transfer Window signing confirmed: Jack Clisby from Perth.

 

Left Back position: filled (Jack Clisby)

Right Back position: pending (Franjic?)

Goalkeeper position: pending (Birighitti?)

Second striker pos: pending (Babalj?)

[SF33]

With Clisby signing through to the end of next year, a thought popped into my head: are A-League clubs able to front/back-load player contracts, like AFL teams are? I don't know the exact rules of how the AFL contracts work in this regard, but it really seems like a pretty clear, obvious and yet legal way to circumvent the salary cap in a given year, which is what the expansion clubs did with their big name signings (paying the likes of Gary Ablett and Tom Scully a salary approaching $2 million when the Suns and GWS were starting out and had all their concessions, but bringing their salary back in to a more market-value range towards the end of the contracts, when some of their draft picks like Swallow and Cameron were demanding big bucks to stay) and it's how Hawthorn seems to be able to sign another James Frawley, Ben McEvoy or Brian Lake every other year.

 

Personally, I think it's an absolute bullshit loophole that would be quite simple to close (e.g. a player's annual salary for the duration of his contract can never fall below 80% or exceed 120% of the mean annual salary), but I'm just wondering if something similar could be used to our advantage, with regards to signing a player that we'd be pretty confident would be quality in our side, like Franjic? Pay him sweet FA for this half year, but have him sign through to the end of next year and 'look after him' when a lot of the dead wood has been cleared out? And if it could be done for Franjic, presumably it could also work for a visa.

Edited January 16, 2015 by SF33

[heart_fan10]

Best thing about this is Garuccio can finally be played in his proper position as a left winger

If franjic ends up signing it would be huge

[mattyh001]

With Clisby signing through to the end of next year, a thought popped into my head: are A-League clubs able to front/back-load player contracts, like AFL teams are? I don't know the exact rules of how the AFL contracts work in this regard, but it really seems like a pretty clear, obvious and yet legal way to circumvent the salary cap in a given year, which is what the expansion clubs did with their big name signings (paying the likes of Gary Ablett and Tom Scully a salary approaching $2 million when the Suns and GWS were starting out and had all their concessions, but bringing their salary back in to a more market-value range towards the end of the contracts, when some of their draft picks like Swallow and Cameron were demanding big bucks to stay) and it's how Hawthorn seems to be able to sign another James Frawley, Ben McEvoy or Brian Lake every other year.

 

Personally, I think it's an absolute bullshit loophole that would be quite simple to close (e.g. a player's annual salary for the duration of his contract can never fall below 80% or exceed 120% of the mean annual salary), but I'm just wondering if something similar could be used to our advantage, with regards to signing a player that we'd be pretty confident would be quality in our side, like Franjic? Pay him sweet FA for this half year, but have him sign through to the end of next year and 'look after him' when a lot of the dead wood has been cleared out? And if it could be done for Franjic, presumably it could also work for a visa.

 

 

would think that a club could.  FFA being FFA might want to run the pencil crunchers over it but as long as it fits in with current player EBA i cant see why they would give a shit.  both parties have agreed to it after all (again provided the EBA isnt being breached so that the player doesnt end up getting fucked over). 

 

then again it is the FFA ....

Edited January 16, 2015 by mattyh001

[NewConvert]

With Clisby signing through to the end of next year, a thought popped into my head: are A-League clubs able to front/back-load player contracts, like AFL teams are? I don't know the exact rules of how the AFL contracts work in this regard, but it really seems like a pretty clear, obvious and yet legal way to circumvent the salary cap in a given year, which is what the expansion clubs did with their big name signings (paying the likes of Gary Ablett and Tom Scully a salary approaching $2 million when the Suns and GWS were starting out and had all their concessions, but bringing their salary back in to a more market-value range towards the end of the contracts, when some of their draft picks like Swallow and Cameron were demanding big bucks to stay) and it's how Hawthorn seems to be able to sign another James Frawley, Ben McEvoy or Brian Lake every other year.

 

Personally, I think it's an absolute bullshit loophole that would be quite simple to close (e.g. a player's annual salary for the duration of his contract can never fall below 80% or exceed 120% of the mean annual salary), but I'm just wondering if something similar could be used to our advantage, with regards to signing a player that we'd be pretty confident would be quality in our side, like Franjic? Pay him sweet FA for this half year, but have him sign through to the end of next year and 'look after him' when a lot of the dead wood has been cleared out? And if it could be done for Franjic, presumably it could also work for a visa.

You can't exceed the AFL salary cap for any given year. How the club forks out the dollars is irrelevant as long as the total does not exceed the salary cap for that year. So for example with Sydney and Buddy Franklin whose contract is backloaded the Swans took an estimate of what the salary cap would be 9 years hence and factored that in plus that other players will be earning less. It could well mean that by Buddy's final year the team will be crap because they can only pay the youth level wages but that is their gamble. TBH they will go cap in hand to the AFL to sort out that mess.

Ditto with regards to the FFA contracts.

[Murfy1]

The latest on Birighitti:

 

 By James Gardiner

 

Jan. 16, 2015

 

[…]

 

Apart from Flores and Gallaway, David Carney and Mark Birighitti have also been strongly linked to moves during the window.

 

[…]

 

Birighitti, a member of the Socceroos train-on squad for last year’s World Cup, has not played since being usurped by Ben Kennedy in round seven and is understood to be desperate for a transfer to get game time.

 

‘‘When you are a goalkeeper it is obviously harder because there is only one spot,’’ Stubbins said.

 

‘‘I have not had a conversation with Mark.

 

‘‘If there is anything out there that people are whispering about, I’m not aware of it.’’

 

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2822430/tinks-jets-in-but-no-big-signings-on-radar/

 

 

Stubbins is understandably trying to play down the prospect of more Jets players leaving. 24 hours ago Stubbins said there was nothing to speculation about David Carney leaving the Jets, and today he confessed that Sydney FC have indeed tried to sign him. I'm rather sure Stubbins was also pretty much denying that there was an issue with Flores recently, and we all know what happened with him, leaving the Jets this week.

[Dylan]

I do feel sorry for the jets. Id much rather see this happen to the visitors. Where id say most of us would gladly pull up a chair to watch.

[n i k o]

This is definitely not good for the league, we need every club to have strong backing both from its owners and supporters

[SF33]

 

With Clisby signing through to the end of next year, a thought popped into my head: are A-League clubs able to front/back-load player contracts, like AFL teams are? I don't know the exact rules of how the AFL contracts work in this regard, but it really seems like a pretty clear, obvious and yet legal way to circumvent the salary cap in a given year, which is what the expansion clubs did with their big name signings (paying the likes of Gary Ablett and Tom Scully a salary approaching $2 million when the Suns and GWS were starting out and had all their concessions, but bringing their salary back in to a more market-value range towards the end of the contracts, when some of their draft picks like Swallow and Cameron were demanding big bucks to stay) and it's how Hawthorn seems to be able to sign another James Frawley, Ben McEvoy or Brian Lake every other year.

 

Personally, I think it's an absolute bullshit loophole that would be quite simple to close (e.g. a player's annual salary for the duration of his contract can never fall below 80% or exceed 120% of the mean annual salary), but I'm just wondering if something similar could be used to our advantage, with regards to signing a player that we'd be pretty confident would be quality in our side, like Franjic? Pay him sweet FA for this half year, but have him sign through to the end of next year and 'look after him' when a lot of the dead wood has been cleared out? And if it could be done for Franjic, presumably it could also work for a visa.

You can't exceed the AFL salary cap for any given year. How the club forks out the dollars is irrelevant as long as the total does not exceed the salary cap for that year. So for example with Sydney and Buddy Franklin whose contract is backloaded the Swans took an estimate of what the salary cap would be 9 years hence and factored that in plus that other players will be earning less. It could well mean that by Buddy's final year the team will be crap because they can only pay the youth level wages but that is their gamble. TBH they will go cap in hand to the AFL to sort out that mess.

Ditto with regards to the FFA contracts.

 

 

I guess it depends on how much the salary cap increases over the next decade in the AFL. As an example, the total amount allowed in 2015 will be about double what it was in 2001. So, if we assume that Franklin is still playing at the end of his contract (a pretty significant 'if') and the salary cap continues to increase at that rate, his salary might not actually seem that crazy, simply because it won't be that far out of whack with what he's making right now, when taken as a percentage of the club's TPP.

 

To get this back to Melbourne City: so we're confident that as long as any players we sign agree to deals that extend beyond this season, we can pay them, say 15% of the total amount for the remaining half season and 85% in 2015-16? In that case, I don't see the salary cap being much of an issue at all, considering the end of season clean-out we're undoubtedly going to have.

[Murfy1]

To get this back to Melbourne City: so we're confident that as long as any players we sign agree to deals that extend beyond this season, we can pay them, say 15% of the total amount for the remaining half season and 85% in 2015-16? In that case, I don't see the salary cap being much of an issue at all, considering the end of season clean-out we're undoubtedly going to have.

 

I've actually never heard of a proven instance of an A-League contract being back-loaded. So I don't think players can easily be signed by offering them substantially more money in future seasons. Also, there's a minimum wage per season of $50,000.  

 

Also, even if back-loading was technically possible, it would be risky offering substantially more wages, especially to multiple players, because there will still be a salary cap in future seasons. And given that the salary cap has barely increased at all over the past 2 years, it would be foolhardy to offer lots of players more money in future seasons, as there simply may not be more money to give.

 

And anyway because there's a salary cap, of about $2.5 million (divided between 20 players), there's only so many ways to slice the pie, so if multiple players get big paychecks next season, the club will need to sign multiple cheap players to offset those big wages.

 

And then there's the question: if a player is really that good, and deserving of big wages, why would he be happy to accept playing for peanuts, $50,000 or so, for one season?

 

 

So IMO I think there's a reason why there aren't really well known cases of back-loading contracts, because it either can't be done or it isn't feasible. If it could be done, I believe it would be a well known phenomenon that effectively all clubs use, and that isn't case so I don't think it's an option.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Murfy1

[Tonyboozeadams]

To get this back to Melbourne City: so we're confident that as long as any players we sign agree to deals that extend beyond this season, we can pay them, say 15% of the total amount for the remaining half season and 85% in 2015-16? In that case, I don't see the salary cap being much of an issue at all, considering the end of season clean-out we're undoubtedly going to have.

I've actually never heard of a proven instance of an A-League contract being back-loaded. So I don't think players can easily be signed by offering them substantially more money in future seasons. Also, there's a minimum wage per season of $50,000.

Also, even if back-loading was technically possible, it would be risky offering substantially more wages, especially to multiple players, because there will still be a salary cap in future seasons. And given that the salary cap has barely increased at all over the past 2 years, it would be foolhardy to offer lots of players more money in future seasons, as there simply may not be more money to give.

And anyway because there's a salary cap, of about $2.5 million (divided between 20 players), there's only so many ways to slice the pie, so if multiple players get big paychecks next season, the club will need to sign multiple cheap players to offset those big wages.

And then there's the question: if a player is really that good, and deserving of big wages, why would he be happy to accept playing for peanuts, $50,000 or so, for one season?

So IMO I think there's a reason why there aren't really well known cases of back-loading contracts, because it either can't be done or it isn't feasible. If it could be done, I believe it would be a well known phenomenon that effectively all clubs use, and that isn't case so I don't think it's an option.

Exactly murf. The reason afl gets away with it is because there aren't opportunities for players to go to other leagues

[SF33]

 

To get this back to Melbourne City: so we're confident that as long as any players we sign agree to deals that extend beyond this season, we can pay them, say 15% of the total amount for the remaining half season and 85% in 2015-16? In that case, I don't see the salary cap being much of an issue at all, considering the end of season clean-out we're undoubtedly going to have.

 

I've actually never heard of a proven instance of an A-League contract being back-loaded. So I don't think players can easily be signed by offering them substantially more money in future seasons. Also, there's a minimum wage per season of $50,000.  

 

Also, even if back-loading was technically possible, it would be risky offering substantially more wages, especially to multiple players, because there will still be a salary cap in future seasons. And given that the salary cap has barely increased at all over the past 2 years, it would be foolhardy to offer lots of players more money in future seasons, as there simply may not be more money to give.

 

And anyway because there's a salary cap, of about $2.5 million (divided between 20 players), there's only so many ways to slice the pie, so if multiple players get big paychecks next season, the club will need to sign multiple cheap players to offset those big wages.

 

And then there's the question: if a player is really that good, and deserving of big wages, why would he be happy to accept playing for peanuts, $50,000 or so, for one season?

 

 

So IMO I think there's a reason why there aren't really well known cases of back-loading contracts, because it either can't be done or it isn't feasible. If it could be done, I believe it would be a well known phenomenon that effectively all clubs use, and that isn't case so I don't think it's an option.

 

 

Not saying we should employ it as a strategy en masse (assuming, as you've said, that it could possibly be done), but it would seem to me to be a solution to the question of how we could possibly fit a player like Franjic in, when we were apparently already pretty close to the limit and have only lost Kalmar from the books since then. I think with a guy like Franjic, you'd back him in to earn whatever we paid him next year and you could potentially do the same with a last visa player. I think we're in a position to do that, considering just how many players we'd be expecting to part ways with next year, including guys that would be on relatively good money, like Duff and Wielaert.

 

I think a player that has been a professional for several years and wouldn't be struggling for a quid would be concerned with two things: the length of the contract and the total amount he'd be getting over that time. If someone like Franjic agreed to a deal from now until the end of the 2015/16 season for, say 350k all up, I'm not sure that he'd really care if it was sliced up 33.3/66.6 (as it logically would be), 25/75 or 10/90, as long as it's enough to live on in the short-term and he gets it all by the time the contract ends. If Franjic was given 50k of the hypothetical 350k (the equivalent of about 14.3%) for playing the remainder of the season, I don't think that would put him in the poor house.

 

Plus, of course, I would assume that if the minimum salary for a player is 50k per season, the minimum salary for a player signing now until the end of the season would be roughly 25k. Wouldn't it?

[malloy]

To get this back to Melbourne City: so we're confident that as long as any players we sign agree to deals that extend beyond this season, we can pay them, say 15% of the total amount for the remaining half season and 85% in 2015-16? In that case, I don't see the salary cap being much of an issue at all, considering the end of season clean-out we're undoubtedly going to have.

I've actually never heard of a proven instance of an A-League contract being back-loaded. So I don't think players can easily be signed by offering them substantially more money in future seasons. Also, there's a minimum wage per season of $50,000.

Also, even if back-loading was technically possible, it would be risky offering substantially more wages, especially to multiple players, because there will still be a salary cap in future seasons. And given that the salary cap has barely increased at all over the past 2 years, it would be foolhardy to offer lots of players more money in future seasons, as there simply may not be more money to give.

And anyway because there's a salary cap, of about $2.5 million (divided between 20 players), there's only so many ways to slice the pie, so if multiple players get big paychecks next season, the club will need to sign multiple cheap players to offset those big wages.

And then there's the question: if a player is really that good, and deserving of big wages, why would he be happy to accept playing for peanuts, $50,000 or so, for one season?

So IMO I think there's a reason why there aren't really well known cases of back-loading contracts, because it either can't be done or it isn't feasible. If it could be done, I believe it would be a well known phenomenon that effectively all clubs use, and that isn't case so I don't think it's an option. The best way to implement it imo would be a three year contract for three marquees. (Essentially 6 players with the two Marquee spots).

Over three years you would bring in 3 big marquees who have significant wages in their first year (outside cap) then drop to a reasonable amount 180k or so for the next two years (inside cap). So then in the second year a new player is signed who is marquee for that year with a similar wage structure. In the third year the same occurs. In fourth year the first guy can be re-signed for another 3 years front loaded or a new marquee brought in.

Season 1.

Player 1 - $5M (outside cap)

Season 2.

Player 1 - $180K (inside cap)

Player 2 - $5M (outside cap)

Season 3.

Player 1 - $180k (inside cap)

Player 2 - $180k (inside cap)

Player 3 - $5M (outside cap)

Season 4.

Player 1 or 4 - $5M (outside cap)

Player 2 - $180k (inside cap)

Player 3 - $180k (inside cap)

And so on...

The obvious flaws is that I believe FFA have to approve the marquee and that if the player flops then we have paid a shitload to them for it, though it could be a benefit as CFGs pockets are deep so the first year payment is insignificant and if we wanted to pay out their contract in 2nd season it wouldnt affect the cap as much or it would be easy to convince them to move onto another club (presumably overseas) where they would earn more than the 180k per year.

A strategy like this, if implemented correctly, would allow us two have 6 top class (A-League standards) "marquee" players each season.

Edited January 16, 2015 by malloy

[bt50]

That's assuming the player doesn't take advantage of the generous first year contract and force a move in the second year too. It's easy to say the club can block it, but things like that create disharmony in the playing group, particularly if it gets into the media.

Pro's and con's to the approach obviously.

[Falastur]

 

To get this back to Melbourne City: so we're confident that as long as any players we sign agree to deals that extend beyond this season, we can pay them, say 15% of the total amount for the remaining half season and 85% in 2015-16? In that case, I don't see the salary cap being much of an issue at all, considering the end of season clean-out we're undoubtedly going to have.

 

I've actually never heard of a proven instance of an A-League contract being back-loaded. So I don't think players can easily be signed by offering them substantially more money in future seasons. Also, there's a minimum wage per season of $50,000.  

 

Also, even if back-loading was technically possible, it would be risky offering substantially more wages, especially to multiple players, because there will still be a salary cap in future seasons. And given that the salary cap has barely increased at all over the past 2 years, it would be foolhardy to offer lots of players more money in future seasons, as there simply may not be more money to give.

 

And anyway because there's a salary cap, of about $2.5 million (divided between 20 players), there's only so many ways to slice the pie, so if multiple players get big paychecks next season, the club will need to sign multiple cheap players to offset those big wages.

 

And then there's the question: if a player is really that good, and deserving of big wages, why would he be happy to accept playing for peanuts, $50,000 or so, for one season?

 

 

So IMO I think there's a reason why there aren't really well known cases of back-loading contracts, because it either can't be done or it isn't feasible. If it could be done, I believe it would be a well known phenomenon that effectively all clubs use, and that isn't case so I don't think it's an option.

 

 

Agreed. I've seen various instances of people suggesting backloading (or frontloading) contracts in order to beat various financial regulations, across a number of clubs in different areas. Not once have I ever heard or read anything about any player ever actually having a backloaded contract. Backloading seems to be one of those little tricks that people will suggest which sound good on paper but have no merit in real life. In particular, I suspect for most players the biggest hurdle to agreeing a backloaded contract is that any football agent worth his salt would react immediately to such an offer by going "my client is utterly unwilling to accept playing for peanuts even if it comes with a proviso that he will receive substantially more in future. We aren't willing to continue these discussions until you're willing to offer a sensible amount".

 

I just don't think any player anywhere would accept a backloaded contract when he could instead argue for a flat rate. I mean, how many people on this forum would agree to their salary being halved for one year in return for it being increased by 50% on the current value for the next year? Having the suddenly salary boost in a year's time would feel nice and all, but it's not worth the potential issues you give yourself for the first year, not least stuff like "what if my employer doesn't want me in a year's time?"

Edited January 17, 2015 by Falastur

[jw1739]

I'd be very surprised if anyone could do this under FFA regulations. As I understand it FFA has an agreement with Professional Footballers Australia that all players will be signed - and registered - under standard contracts and be paid at least the minimum wage.

 

if we think back to Vince Grella, he was reported as being happy to sign for Heart for no wages until he could prove that he was fit to play for the club. However, that was not permitted by FFA. He was required to sign a standard contract and receive the minimum wage. He then bought a corporate box (or something like that) out of his own pocket so that effectively he was still playing at nil expense to the club - Munn is on record as explaining all this.

 

There are a lot of risks for both clubs and players in both frontloading and backloading and I cannot see FFA allowing such contracts at any stage.

[SF33]

 

 

To get this back to Melbourne City: so we're confident that as long as any players we sign agree to deals that extend beyond this season, we can pay them, say 15% of the total amount for the remaining half season and 85% in 2015-16? In that case, I don't see the salary cap being much of an issue at all, considering the end of season clean-out we're undoubtedly going to have.

 

I've actually never heard of a proven instance of an A-League contract being back-loaded. So I don't think players can easily be signed by offering them substantially more money in future seasons. Also, there's a minimum wage per season of $50,000.  

 

Also, even if back-loading was technically possible, it would be risky offering substantially more wages, especially to multiple players, because there will still be a salary cap in future seasons. And given that the salary cap has barely increased at all over the past 2 years, it would be foolhardy to offer lots of players more money in future seasons, as there simply may not be more money to give.

 

And anyway because there's a salary cap, of about $2.5 million (divided between 20 players), there's only so many ways to slice the pie, so if multiple players get big paychecks next season, the club will need to sign multiple cheap players to offset those big wages.

 

And then there's the question: if a player is really that good, and deserving of big wages, why would he be happy to accept playing for peanuts, $50,000 or so, for one season?

 

 

So IMO I think there's a reason why there aren't really well known cases of back-loading contracts, because it either can't be done or it isn't feasible. If it could be done, I believe it would be a well known phenomenon that effectively all clubs use, and that isn't case so I don't think it's an option.

 

 

Agreed. I've seen various instances of people suggesting backloading (or frontloading) contracts in order to beat various financial regulations, across a number of clubs in different areas. Not once have I ever heard or read anything about any player ever actually having a backloaded contract. Backloading seems to be one of those little tricks that people will suggest which sound good on paper but have no merit in real life. In particular, I suspect for most players the biggest hurdle to agreeing a backloaded contract is that any football agent worth his salt would react immediately to such an offer by going "my client is utterly unwilling to accept playing for peanuts even if it comes with a proviso that he will receive substantially more in future. We aren't willing to continue these discussions until you're willing to offer a sensible amount".

 

I just don't think any player anywhere would accept a backloaded contract when he could instead argue for a flat rate. I mean, how many people on this forum would agree to their salary being halved for one year in return for it being increased by 50% on the current value for the next year? Having the suddenly salary boost in a year's time would feel nice and all, but it's not worth the potential issues you give yourself for the first year, not least stuff like "what if my employer doesn't want me in a year's time?"

 

 

1. Backloaded (or frontloaded) contracts don't just exist in the dominant league in Melbourne's sporting landscape (the AFL), they're absolutely routine. Not every player is on one, but I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if most AFL teams had 10-12 players in their squad of ~45 on some form of front/back-loaded contract.

 

2. The 'would you do it?' argument is a bit flawed, because even if a player like Franjic settled for for 50k for the first six months of an 18-month contract (and then took, say, 300k for the remaining 12 months), my guess is he'd still be earning a lot more over those first six months than most of the people on here. There isn't massive money in the A-League, compared to other sporting leagues around the world, but asking someone that would earn 400k over two years to split it 25/75 is pretty clearly not the same imposition as asking the same of a person that would earn 90k over the same period.

[NewConvert]

In the commercial world backloading contracts are quite normal. The difficulty for some business (and I would imagine players) would be cash flow. Hence large businesses accept these types of contracts because they can afford to dip into the capital markets to improve cash flows. These are the main reasons why there are only two infrastructure building companies in Victoria - they can directly tap the capital markets whereas their smaller competitors cannot. For a player like Franjic who may be building his financial security backloading may impact his current financial commitments whereas someone like Kewell it would not have made any difference. I doubt that there would be any major hurdles to have these types of contracts as long as the conditions meet or exceed the standard player contract, and the player is guaranteed his total contract payment. I wonder if Paartalau is on some type of backloaded contract because he got a four year contract which is highly unusual in the A-League.

[SF33]

In the commercial world backloading contracts are quite normal. The difficulty for some business (and I would imagine players) would be cash flow. Hence large businesses accept these types of contracts because they can afford to dip into the capital markets to improve cash flows. These are the main reasons why there are only two infrastructure building companies in Victoria - they can directly tap the capital markets whereas their smaller competitors cannot. For a player like Franjic who may be building his financial security backloading may impact his current financial commitments whereas someone like Kewell it would not have made any difference. I doubt that there would be any major hurdles to have these types of contracts as long as the conditions meet or exceed the standard player contract, and the player is guaranteed his total contract payment. I wonder if Paartalau is on some type of backloaded contract because he got a four year contract which is highly unusual in the A-League.

 

I was wondering the same too, actually. And also was wondering whether the reason we don't know about there being any creatively structured contracts in the A-League is because a) Most A-League supporters are coming from the huge Euro football leagues where they really couldn't care less how much a player is earning annually, as long as he's producing on the park; and b )You really need to dig for any A-League news, beyond the results on the weekend. Does anyone know anything about the details of Paartalu's contract, beyond the length of it? What about Mooy? Or Williams? Or Duff? I'm not sure the information is available, even for the bloodhounds on this forum (God bless them).

 

It's not like US sports: it's pretty much impossible to find out the annual salary of the vast majority of AFL players, let alone A-League players (where a couple of player salaries don't even count against the cap). And the general interest in finding out this information in the first place, in general, would be minimal compared to the AFL.

Edited January 17, 2015 by SF33

[Murfy1]

I'd say a decent amount of details get out with regards to A-League contracts. For example, we know that Mooy is on $300k a season for two seasons: "Aaron Mooy who accepted a $300,000-a-year offer from Heart to sign from Western Sydney" (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/football/heart-broken-by-lastplace-finish-so-mark-bresciano-josh-kennedy-are-marquee-targets/story-fnk6rldi-1226900132803).

 

But yes it is the case that more often then not the details of A-League contracts are unknown. I think there is a small tread towards more information getting released about contracts, for instance previously (in particular at Heart) the club would only normally say that player X "has signed a multi-year contract" or that player Y "has agreed to a contract extension", and it wasn't even known how long players were contracted for (this was the case when Germano, Kalmar and Dugandzic re-signed in April 2013).

 

 

On Ivan Franjic, it should be pointed out that if he joins Melbourne City it will be on a loan deal (as all reports have said), so there would be zero room for flexibility with regards to the contract that Franjic might sign with City. All of his significant wages from his Russian club would have to count towards the cap, so Franjic certainly couldn't be signed on the cheap ($50k or so) for this season.

 

And a first domino, a player leaving to free up cap space (like Williams), will have to fall first before Franjic can be signed, so right now Franjic signing is pretty hypothetical. I hope that the club manages to get Franjic, but it would require a lot of effort from both sides to sort out a deal, and right now a deal with Franjic is a bit far away. 

[NewConvert]

A year or two ago there was an article in The Age indicating the types of contracts that FFA players were on. The article compared Jeremy Walker (at that stage in his first season at the club) vs Del Piero. The article indicated the minimum conditions for a standard contract but not much else. As far as making the contract information public that would be rare as I would think that they would have confidentiality/privacy clauses. For example we know that Mooy's contract was reported in the MSM as being $300k per year but we don't know how this is broken down; for example if he played every match for 90 minutes he could get that amount but if he plays less then he gets less and so on.

[Luke]

Ramsay gone ?

[Dylan]

Ramsay gone ?

nope. you will still get to see his weird running action against wsw

[Harrison]

Not sure if this bloke has been mentioned, nor if we need another midfielder, but Server Djeparov is quality. He is 32 but would be a welcome addition.

http://m.couriermail.com.au/sport/football/asian-cup-2015-could-a-league-move-be-on-cards-for-uzbekistan-star-server-djeparov/story-fnqk652j-1227183982185?nk=f83e0ba607f90cef1cc48fc7ab2f103a

[Melburnian]

Not sure if this bloke has been mentioned, nor if we need another midfielder, but Server Djeparov is quality. He is 32 but would be a welcome addition.

http://m.couriermail.com.au/sport/football/asian-cup-2015-could-a-league-move-be-on-cards-for-uzbekistan-star-server-djeparov/story-fnqk652j-1227183982185?nk=f83e0ba607f90cef1cc48fc7ab2f103a

He is quality.

[mus-28]

Marquee quality unfortunately

[kun]

Marquee quality unfortunately

I'd have said the same about Duff.

[mattyh001]

FWIW Fox sports reported that Ben Kennedy has been re-signed by Newcastle until end of 2016/17 season.

Could imply many things but definitely states how happy they are with him, and thus Birighetti must be a fair way down the pecking order.

Could also be Newcastle tying up Kennedy with an expectation of letting Birighetti go once Kennedy signed on the dotted line

[Heart_fan]

Can easily see Birighetti sign for us next sesaon Redmayne would likely have to remain, meaning Velaphi will have to go at the end of the season. Pity as I see more in Tando than Redmayne but given the latter is contracted next season, theres not much that can be done there.

 

Williams seems to be staying, so no idea what that rumour was about. Pity though, as Franjic has no chance of coming to us without such a move. Even then though, its hard to see how Franjic could fit into the cap, as the loan would still incur significant salary cap space.

 

So many rumours going around at all clubs, but we will see in the next few days I guess what occurs.

 

.

[Tonyboozeadams]

At least tando has a chamce to get a contract at another a-league club. Way I see it, we are being to redders. It's like charity or sumfin

Edited January 19, 2015 by Tonyboozeadams

[Murfy1]

Q&A with Safuwan and the Singaporean FA on his time at Melbourne City:

 

MELBOURNE CITY STINT HAS MADE ME STRONGER MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY: SAFUWAN

 

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015

 

 

National defender Safuwan Baharudin recently went on a training stint with Australian club Melbourne City FC from 10-19 January during their tour of Abu Dhabi. The developmental opportunity which was arranged between MCFC and FAS also saw him playing in the A-League club’s two matches against Al Jazira and FC Dnipro. In an interview with fas.org.sg before his return to Singapore, the 23-year-old tells us what the experience has been like, and how he has benefited from it.

 

Q: How has the training stint with Melbourne City been?

 

S: It was a very good experience for me in Abu Dhabi. What I was exposed to has been quite different from the sort of training and football that I have been used to so far.  There was a lot of hard work every day. 

 

 

Q: How has the players and coaches’ reception to you been? Were the first couple of days tough for you? How so, and why? Who are you rooming with?

 

S: I was nervous during the first few days, that’s for sure. But that is always the case when you are away from people you know, and in a new environment. I am grateful and appreciative though that the Melbourne City coaches and players have been very friendly to me, and are always giving me pointers and advice on how to improve myself.  

 

During my stint, I roomed with Nicholas Symeoy, one of the players from the club's junior team. I feel that I have been mixing well with the team and I have been having conversations with every player and official here. 

 

(Editor’s note: Midfielder Nicholas Symeoy played for the Moreland Zebras in the Victoria Football Federation’s National Premier League 1 last year, and won the NPL 1 Rising Star Award)

 

 

Q: How has the training been? How different has it been from what you have been used to in Singapore? Do you feel that you have been able to compete with the bigger players in Melbourne’s squad? What sort of mental adjustments have you had to make?

 

S:Before I came here, I always knew that it was always going to be a different ball game here, and I was proven correct from Day One. 

The club plays a high-intensity passing game while the players are physically bigger and stronger. They are also able to hold on to the ball comfortably despite pressure on them. And despite their size, they are faster on and off the ball.

 

All this meant that I had to make changes to my mindset and my game from the start so as to show that I can compete with my teammates. I have had to be mentally strong, push myself to keep pace with them and not show any signs of discomfort or being out of place in training. I have been pushing myself every single training session here. In turn, I feel that I have grown in many ways as a player.

 

 

Q: How did you feel when you were selected for the club’s game against Al-Jazira? Were you nervous before the game? How did you think you performed?

 

S: To be very honest, I was shocked when I was named for the first 11. To then be able to complete almost 70 minutes of the game was another achievement for me.  

 

I wasn't nervous about the game but I was nervous about ensuring that I kept to the team's style of play and that I was always part of the team's shape. I was constantly watching myself to make sure that my positioning was always according to the coaches' tactical plans. 

 

I think I did pretty well for that game despite being with the team for only a few days before playing together. 

 

(Editor’s note: Al-Jazira won the match 2-0)

 

 

Q: What has the training schedule been like with Melbourne City in Abu Dhabi?

 

S: The daily schedule is pretty fixed. After breakfast, we head to the New York University campus for training, followed by lunch. After that, it's back to the hotel for some rest before gym or pool sessions in the evening. Dinner is always at 6.30pm sharp.

 

 

Q: How many matches did you play in the end? Have you been playing as a central defender, or did the club try you out in different positions.

 

S: The club played two games, against Al Jazira and FC Dnipro of the Ukraine. I played as a central defender against Al Jazira. After the game, the coach told he might try me out in different positions for the next game (against FC Dnipro).

 

We played Dnipro on Sunday. I was named as a reserve so you can imagine how pleasantly surprised I was when I was sent on to play after 15 minutes. I made sure I gave it my all, and I was very happy that I played for the rest of the game. I started out as a right-back but was later moved to centre-back. I was pleased with my performance; it was a good end to my training stint.

 

(Editor’s note: The game ended in a 1-1 draw.)

 

 

Q: What are some of the learning experiences you will take away from this developmental training stint? 

 

S: I have learnt so many things both on and off the pitch in my short stint here. 

 

For example, I have now experienced what it is like being away from an environment that I am familiar with and comfortable in, and from everybody I know, and having to work with a different set of players and coaches. I feel that this process of being out of my comfort zone has made me stronger mentally and physically. I have been motivated and determined to prove to others that I am able to compete with the players here and also able to adapt to them within a short period of time. 

 

At the end of the day, it is not just your footballing abilities that can bring you far, it's also about how disciplined you are off and on the pitch. 

 

Even something like getting used to a new diet has been a learning experience for me mentally. The food that I have been so used to back in Singapore – you don't get it here at the club. It's all pasta and steak and I have to be strict about my diet, no cheating on junk food! 

 

I've definitely learnt a lot from the players and coaches here, and hopefully I have done enough to make them keep me in their thoughts and on their radar.

 

 

Q: Any final thoughts?

 

S: It has been an honour for me to have had this opportunity to train with Melbourne City FC, one of the top clubs in Asia today, including several players who had participated in the FIFA World Cup. 

 

Having experienced this, and having learnt so much from the club's coaches, backroom staff and players, I now know how invaluable such stints are to the development of our players. It also makes me appreciate even more the FAS' investment and strong focus on youth development in recent years, and I am optimistic that over the next few years, more footballers will, like me, be given opportunities to train and play with top clubs in Asia and Europe.

 

I am grateful to City Football Group, Melbourne City FC, FAS President Zainudin Nordin, General Secretary Winston Lee and Council Member Mr Bambang Sugeng Kajairi for their support and all the efforts that they have put in to make this training stint possible.

 

http://www.fas.org.sg/news/melbourne-city-stint-has-made-me-stronger-mentally-physically-safuwan

[silva10]

Maybe he will be a summer signing as we have no visa slot for him this window