He's probably a run of the mill $600 a year mid. But if they've bailed him up part way through his contract n asked him to help them out of salary cap problems by only accepting $ 300 a year n promised to compensate him the lost shekels by back paying him the $300 a year on top of his next $600 a year contract. That's only fair and reasonable, doesn't make him a $900 a year superstar player. They're only repaying him the money they already owe him.
Similar *smile* happened to Koutafisheads years back n he was pilloried by plenty for being on a million dollar contract at the end of his career, but it was only a shitload of money owed that the club had short paid him in previous years.
Yes, I don't know why people keep ignoring this, it is common knowledge. Treloar was not on $900k because that was what he was valued at, he was on $900k because they back ended his contract.
I'd like to see them try to back end another contract "for the good of the club", I suspect they will be told where to go in no uncertain terms.
CEO now coming out via a statement to members today that “salary cap” strain played a role in their decisions this week and without the change “we would be unable to actively pursue free agency options”.
Unable to actively pursue free agents? More like unable to avoid sanctions for breaching the salary cap.
Part of the issue here is that I suspect every club back ends contracts with the assumption that the salary cap will creep up over time. Trouble is COVID threw everyone a googly and I reckon every club is looking at how they can fit all the players in at the moment. There's going to be some more players on rookie lists for a few years after this.
Collingwood did stuff this up more than most. Although the Treloar deal was at a reasonable rate given the back ending of the payments, paying someone like Cox $500k is just stupid. But, they were less than a kick off winning a flag. We all know how hard that is, so sometimes you take the risk, but you still have to get your figures right.
DS