Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 44

Thread: Callum Mills signs on for 5 more years.

  1. #13
    Yes !!!!

  2. #14
    No mention of the pay amount for Mills. I wonder whether there was any "loyalty discount"?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Aprilbr View Post
    No mention of the pay amount for Mills. I wonder whether there was any "loyalty discount"?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I thought he's the intern

  4. #16
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    6,096
    Mills actually has a contract expiring a year after Buddy's, wow that is a long time into the future!

    This club has done a remarkable job to resign every key player to a loooong term contract. Shows we are a happy place to be for players. Only Jones to go, Aliir next year from memory and doubt either of those are going anywhere.

  5. #17
    On the veteran's list
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Swans Heartland
    Posts
    2,228
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    Mills actually has a contract expiring a year after Buddy's, wow that is a long time into the future!

    This club has done a remarkable job to resign every key player to a loooong term contract. Shows we are a happy place to be for players. Only Jones to go, Aliir next year from memory and doubt either of those are going anywhere.
    Reid's the next most important one.
    Those who have the greatest power to hurt us are those we love.

  6. #18
    I'm really curious how they structure the $$ value of a contract for a player who has played 1 year of footy, 7 years into the future with the salary cap still not precisely known. Would the $$ be partly based on games played? For that matter, what other sorts of 'performance incentives' is it possible to build into contracts? Does anyone have any idea?

  7. #19
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    482
    Love it, one season in and committed for an additional 5! Normally you see young players signing 2 year extensions, great faith from the club and fantastic that Mills is happy to be locked in for that length of time.

    You would think the length of the contract is such that it will be heavily back ended to get us through the next couple of Bud/Tippo large salary years. Would be very interesting to see the numbers though

  8. #20
    The swans have said this is the future ladies and gents !!!!

    Such a great strategy for anyone who wants to be part of it !!!

    Get on board

  9. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Cat View Post
    Reid's the next most important one.
    The ball is in his court. He will have to have a breakout year to get a contract as ( quite rightly ) a lot of our money has gone on retention of players that have performed. He is now old enough to show us what he can do. He could be the X factor up forward or back in defense . Hope he does have a great year because if he does the Swans are going to be very tough to beat.

  10. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodspirit View Post
    I'm really curious how they structure the $$ value of a contract for a player who has played 1 year of footy, 7 years into the future with the salary cap still not precisely known. Would the $$ be partly based on games played? For that matter, what other sorts of 'performance incentives' is it possible to build into contracts? Does anyone have any idea?
    I'd say the club has, correctly in my opinion, viewed Callum as a locked in elite 200+ gamer and his deal will largely reflect this.

    Like all long term deals it comes with risk but, without knowing any details of the deal, I suspect this is a very smart bit of business for the Swans. We will pay him very good money but if he develops like they believe then he will look a bargain. Callum, for his part, gets the security of a big money deal very early in his career that probably sees him own a house outright in Sydney by his 25th birthday.

    All players get match payments regardless of their base contract, per the last CBA it is $3,605 per game. I think any other incentives are at club discretion but they need to fall within the Salary Cap TPP.

    Re Callum's deal, and again I am just speculating, I think it may well be quite different in structure to that offered to Isaac but similar in total value. The Swans are big on paying their stars what they are worth but in return they expect their players to be happy with what they sign. My understanding is that as first rounders Isaac and Callum would have had three year deals but those deals are pretty basic under the CBA - $63,460, $3,605 per match and a bonus payment of up to $10,080 depending on the number of matches played for a first year player (Page 65 of the CBA for those that care). Second year it rises to a max of $96,685 base and $5,225 per match with the rates based on how many games were played in year 1

    So Callum would have been up for being paid about $200,000 this year anyway and Isaac would have earned roughly that last season. I think we'd all agree that is under market rates for them.

    I think that Isaac's new deal could well have been on "basic wages" for the first three years with the new five year deal kicking in next year. I wouldn't be surprised if Callum's deal starts now, with years 2 and 3 also upgraded as a result of have certainly about the new salary cap and the cash freed up by letting Tom go. I would expect Isaac is on about $650,000 per year with his five deal (plus maybe $100,000 - 150,000 from an ASA) and Callum would be on the same but it may well be $500,000 a year from years 2-8 with renegotiated years 2 - 3 whereas Isaac's is over years 4-8 with unders in years 2 and 3.

    Re talk of a loyalty discount, I think good players can usually always get more elsewhere. Some I guess are more mercenary than others but I would have thought that Isaac and Callum would have been pretty easy re-signs. They'd have a manager and he'd know what is fair, plus I'm sure players talk amongst themselves to a degree as well. As long as the deals were in the ball park that is the main thing, but I do think we are at the stage now in Sydney where the off field and after career stuff is another big selling point in terms of re-signing local boys. I mean if they want to stay in Sydney then the planning of a career after football really needs to take place in a Sydney environment doesn't it. Having said that I do think Zak could be a harder sell but again you's hope with Tom off the wages bill that frees up that little bit extra and I can tell you that after what I've seen of him I'd have him on the list in place of Tom any day

    I'm also glad that they don't come off contract the same year.
    Last edited by Mug Punter; 16th March 2017 at 04:16 PM.

  11. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by The Big Cat View Post
    Reid's the next most important one.
    I'm not anti-Reid at all but Zak would be my priority right now.

    Reid I fear the decision will largely be made for us. I think that whatever happens this year that he will be offered up cash as a restricted free agent well in excess of what we can offer. Two clubs come to mind, two Melbourne clubs that should be well in the premiership window for the next five years - St Kilda and Western Bulldogs.

    Ultimately we'll be constrained by what we can offer Sam in a way that those clubs may not, especially St Kilda who have been quietly stockpiling their salary cap from all reports. In the end I guess it just depends on how happy Sam is at the Swans and the degree to which he is motivated by money. I can't speak for him of course but I'd think anything that equates to an extra $100,000 a year in the hand would be very very hard to knock back, especially if over a five year deal.

  12. #24
    Thanks for your thoughts, MP. From what you're saying (and I guess this is consistent with what we know about Tom Boyd's and other deals) they do pretty much have to decide now what they think he deserves over the whole next 7 years and so does Cal and his manager - which is tough. I think you're right that there is a bit of a win each way - he gets a healthy contract locked in for him for a long time and irrespective of injury and we get perhaps better rates because we are committing so big and so early.

    I'm not too worried about our salary cap. By all accounts it seems that the TPP will increase by more than was anticipated (I've read about $2m p.a.) and that will create more space to pay our players even than offloading Titch. In addition, we have the 4th youngest list which must make it a lot easier to squeeze in our several marquee players. We have made smart investments in a few players e.g. we signed up Rampe up for 4 years before he was all Australian and must have got a good value contract. On the other hand, all the other clubs will get the same increase in TPP and some of them most certainly will have more room to move than we do and will be able to offer larger contracts - but their advantage is diluted by the increase in the TPP. So it's more a question of whether we want Reid and Jones and whether they want to stay. I think it is most likely that we will recontract both of them and I hope that is what we do.

    From a player's point of view, I think the best time to sign a new contract is early in the new salary cap regime. Conversely, from the club's point of view it is great doing it before the increase is known (by now it must be almost there so this applies less to Cal's deal). Whereas we have managed most of our long signings (Buddy, Hanners, Parker, Heeney, Rampe - but not Tippo and Reid) before this has fully kicked in. While some allowance has been made for it the increase in salary cap, as I mentioned, seems likely to be greater than anticipated (especially helps with Buddy's contract). Over the duration of the current broadcast rights agreement the TPP won't jump up suddenly as it has this year but will just increase gradually - so I think the club has managed that very well indeed. The next big spike in player salaries, assuming there is one, is most likely to happen after the expiry of the current broadcast rights deal.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO