I haven't read the article so apologies if this is covered elsewhere BUT does this injury payment come under the salary cap?
Also, what is the minimum Total Player Payment? Is it 90% or 92.5% or something else altogether?
I haven't read the article so apologies if this is covered elsewhere BUT does this injury payment come under the salary cap?
Also, what is the minimum Total Player Payment? Is it 90% or 92.5% or something else altogether?
And the man who started it all, the Schneiderman . . . . .
A thread about Nick Davis and contracts on RWO? Good heavens.
*grabs popcorn and watches lobster and connolly fight it out*
Seriously if what stella says is correct I see no reason why Nick shouldn't get the payment. He was out for a while after getting injured in the ressies which pretty much ended his chances of ever getting back into the team even if he did have the application/desire to do so, which was pretty rotten luck however you look at it.
I should say reading over what I wrote previously I think I've probably made it sound more clear cut than it actually is, I believe there is still scope for a review of the specific injury (ongoing career impact) etc. which may also be a point of contention with it all.
One thing that may throw a spanner in the works is whether AFL Canberra is classified as being a fully fledged state body competition, and if so whether listed players receive a seperate match payment or not for it. If it is then he is entitled to up to 2 years of potential games (capped at 30) at that rate (approx $600, so about $18,000 if a state body and they receive seperate match payments)- however if it's either not a state body competition or the player's aren't paid a match payment for it then he is possibly entitled to the same number (capped at 30) at his contracted senior match payment rate; based on the minimum senior match payment for 2008 that'd be $2600 per game- so for 30 games it'd be $78k, however if they did opt to put hefty incentive components in Nick's pay and they offered him a relatively low base but a significantly increased senior match payment (which I believe they can do) then that figure could stack up pretty quickly.
I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time
I think you are allowed a certain amount of injury payments outside of the cap up to a threshold and then anything over is counted in the salary cap.
You would need to know how close we were to the injury payment threshold before knowing if any further payments would have an impact on the cap.
Basically a way to try and stop clubs from retiring players early due to injury and then paying outside of the cap for the rest of what thet ate owed.
In Nick's case, the dispute is over whether he is owed anything.
DST
"Looking forward to a rebuilt, new, fast and exciting Swans model in 2010"
EXCLUSIVE: THE Sydney Swans and their 2005 premiership hero Nick Davis are in a protracted and potentially explosive dispute relating to his parting with the club last year. Davis is seeking a financial settlement believed to be about $200,000.
Any payout would need to be recorded by the Swans in their salary cap.
Says in the article it would be included
The edge is not the limit, It's just the starting point...
If it needs to be in last year's salary cap, then we're even more screwed, as I doubt we left an extra $200,000 room there.
If it needs to be in the salary cap at all, it should be in next year's, so we can negotiate new contracts in a way that will let it fit. Otherwise we're being forced to breach salary cap rules. Is that fair?
Officially on the Reid and Sumner bandwagon!
Bookmarks