Fully agree. My first thoughts initially were how far down the pecking order is he really viewed at AFC Bournemouth? For him to be loaned out he’s definitely not in the top 3.
I hope it works out for AP because as you said a move to another European team is definitely not happening now with seasons kicking off next weekend.
Very disappointing that he’s gonna be back in the A League however. I seriously hope the Olympics didn’t change their view on him either considering the move was discussed post Olympics. YoungHeartHM
Ryan
In the replies to this comment Vince clarifies that based on conversations he's had it is a reasonable possibility that the fa won't change the rule.
The Phoenix also note the rule hasn't changed in their press release.
Heads will roll in Auckland if Football Australia keep the status quo.
They've strong-armed the Caceres Rule review process by making this announcement, and the FA will not want to appear soft or pushovers on the matter - Especially when it's not even an Australian club at the heart of it.
Would be terrible for Alex and his ability to move elsewhere as well. I'm not across all the ins and outs of the rules, but with European leagues having kicked off, or about to kickoff their seasons, it would make a move to another club more problematic than it needs to be.
YoungHeartHM
Ryan
In the replies to this comment Vince clarifies that based on conversations he's had it is a reasonable possibility that the fa won't change the rule.
The Phoenix also note the rule hasn't changed in their press release.
Heads will roll in Auckland if Football Australia keep the status quo.
They've strong-armed the Caceres Rule review process by making this announcement, and the FA will not want to appear soft or pushovers on the matter - Especially when it's not even an Australian club at the heart of it.
Would be terrible for Alex and his ability to move elsewhere as well. I'm not across all the ins and outs of the rules, but with European leagues having kicked off, or about to kickoff their seasons, it would make a move to another club more problematic than it needs to be.
I'd like to know the names of the clubs that are asking for the rule to be reviewed and why on earth would anyone but City or the Knights want that to happen?
I'd like to know the names of the clubs that are asking for the rule to be reviewed and why on earth would anyone but City or the Knights want that to happen?
In Domey's press conference he was talking about how its important for the league to be able to have transfers between A-League clubs - so maybe some clubs are more seeing it as adjusting the rules to allow transfers meaning the Caceres clause becomes almost irrelevant as you know longer have try use underhand tactics to get a guy that is under contract from one A-League club to another
I don't really know, just spitballing because otherwise what benefit is it to clubs not named AFC and Melb City
Can someone clarify something for me please as am too lazy to look into it. Are players that are loaned into the A-League restricted to the salary cap i.e. if a player has x salary and is loaned to a small feeder club, with an agreement that said feeder club would cover only 40% of the players salary while the parent club covers the rest, is the Cap hit for the full salary or just the percentage that the smaller club is paying? - hope this makes sense
they brought in some rules regarding loans into the AL and how to work out impact to salary cap after Troisi and Rogic were loaned to Victory with next to no cost Victory or its salary cap (parent clubs paying the salaries).
Can someone clarify something for me please as am too lazy to look into it. Are players that are loaned into the A-League restricted to the salary cap i.e. if a player has x salary and is loaned to a small feeder club, with an agreement that said feeder club would cover only 40% of the players salary while the parent club covers the rest, is the Cap hit for the full salary or just the percentage that the smaller club is paying? - hope this makes sense
That is one of the issues that hasn't yet been resolved. The only way this works is if it is full salary. But the networked clubs won't want that. They want to be able to rort the system.
Can someone clarify something for me please as am too lazy to look into it. Are players that are loaned into the A-League restricted to the salary cap i.e. if a player has x salary and is loaned to a small feeder club, with an agreement that said feeder club would cover only 40% of the players salary while the parent club covers the rest, is the Cap hit for the full salary or just the percentage that the smaller club is paying? - hope this makes sense
I would imagine that whatever the portion of his salary that AFC have to pay is what is considered as being under the cap. So if the agreed loan has Bournmouth fuunding 80% of his salary then AFC's cap would be impacted by 20%.
Thats what the rule is intending stop in the first placetheprof
Joey Johns
Can someone clarify something for me please as am too lazy to look into it. Are players that are loaned into the A-League restricted to the salary cap i.e. if a player has x salary and is loaned to a small feeder club, with an agreement that said feeder club would cover only 40% of the players salary while the parent club covers the rest, is the Cap hit for the full salary or just the percentage that the smaller club is paying? - hope this makes sense
I would imagine that whatever the portion of his salary that AFC have to pay is what is considered as being under the cap. So if the agreed loan has Bournmouth fuunding 80% of his salary then AFC's cap would be impacted by 20%.
Paulsen, fresh off an Olympic campaign with the Oly Whites, said he was “excited” to be home.
“I’m a hometown Aucklander and being here with my family, I can’t wait to get started,” Paulsen said.
“I obviously hold Wellington Phoenix close to my heart and I love them to bits, but at the same time I’m here to play and that’s my job.
“I wanted to go to the Olympics as a Bournemouth player, and I felt like I had a good Olympics. Then we organised the next plan of action for me.
“That’s when we discussed Auckland was a good opportunity for me to get some more gametime, compete and obviously win as well.”
The Australian Professional Leagues have since confirmed the ‘Caceres Clause’ is being reviewed after gaining support from every club across the A-League to amend it, paving the way for Auckland to sign Paulsen on loan.
However, the APL still requires Football Australia approval, ruling Paulsen ineligible to take the field for Auckland in the A-League despite being officially unveiled as the Black Knights’ latest recruit ahead of their inaugural season.
Auckland rushed to announce Paulsen on Friday morning ahead of the team’s pre-season trip to Australia, where he is expected to take the field in friendlies against Newcastle Jets, Western Sydney Wanderers and Macarthur.
“It’s a pretty hard one to keep under the lid if he’s playing in a pre-season game, which he has approval to do,” Auckland chief executive Nick Becker said.
“The time to get this ratified by the FA didn’t work with our pre-season preparations. We’re a new team and we’re running as fast as we can to October 19, which is our first game and we can’t wait three weeks to have a player ratified alongside a whole bunch of rules. We need to get on with what we’re doing.
“All the clubs have agreed and in terms of an APL decision, this has been made. The FA will consider whether every club agrees to it – and the answer is yes. Then they will consider whether there is an integrity issue but I’d say the integrity issue is having the Caceres Clause in there.”
Becker insisted Auckland were not part of Bournemouth’s initial negotiations with the Phoenix, other than to recommend him as a potential signing for the Premier League club.
He said Paulsen’s salary – a figure approved by the APL – would fall inside Auckland’s salary cap.
“It’s perfectly normal for a player like Alex to have a loan out in his career path. Lots of young players such for big clubs, Premier League clubs in other leagues, and this is no different,” Becker added.
“The only difference here is he gets to go out on loan to a club within the group which is beneficial for the parent club in Bournemouth as they can monitor his playing time a lot more closely than if he was at a club where they didn’t have such a relationship with.”
Been thinking about this a little, trying to nut down the exact thing that annoys us.
Would we be angry if:
A) AFC had signed him directly from us for a 1 to 1.5 million fee?
B) If the possibility of a transfer back to Auckland was raised when the initial deal to Bournemouth was done?
C) If the transfer to the A league was to a different side?
D) If it had been a transfer to City and a loan back to City?
This is kind of interesting. Also if there’s any truth to the idea that they’ve watched the Olympics and this has dropped his stock, that also emphasises striking while the irons hot. He looked good playing out from the back with a team that could do that. That wasn’t happening with a jumble of players against the USA and France.
Who knows how this new team in Auckland will go or even how the Nix with an older Payne and Wootton and no Surman might go? Any of these things might have made him look much worse as a transfer prospect.
Our anger is partly because with him and Ben Old sold to top leagues we really believed in ourselves and our system. The loan undercuts the theory that he’d got there so quickly on merit. It also has never been suggested as a possible outcome so we feel like AFC are cheating the system. We’d just been getting a bit comfortable with them signing a bunch of kiwis, playing at Keith Hay and then this is a stark reminder of the power and wealth Auckland have at their disposal
I don't normally write longer posts and I haven't read over it so it might just be a jumbled mess of thoughts but here's my take:
I think the bit that annoys me is what's to stop this happening again?.. Is this not why the rule was implemented in the first place? If so why is it being lifted to allow it to happen now? And if not then what the fudge was the point in the first place?
Manchester or Bournemouth buying the leagues best players and then loaning them straight back to Melbourne or Auckland respectively. Surely this is cancerous to the competitiveness of the league?
Would be an entirely different story is he'd gone on loan in Europe, been decidedly average and then Bournemouth go right let's send him back to New Zealand and see if this is salvagable.
Feels somewhat demoralising as a fan of a club that's built an academy system of over the course of 10+ years just to have some rich American come in buy his way to the top - but that's modern football i guess.
I also think Martin has a really good point about this loan undercutting our idea that Old and Paulsen got to top 5 clubs solely on the merit of the season they've just had with the phoenix. Though I do think their situations differ wildly in the sense that Old was always far more likely to make a notable first team contribution at ASSE than Paulsen was at bournemouth.
I'd like to know the names of the clubs that are asking for the rule to be reviewed and why on earth would anyone but City or the Knights want that to happen?
I get the feeling the Nix want it so they can sell their players yet get them back on loan "wages free". I'm sure if PAFC offered Ben back under that guise the Nix would take him in a second.
Supporter world's best and worst football teams: Waikato/WaiBop, Kingz, Knights, Phoenix, The Argyle, The Whites & the All Whites
I'd like to know the names of the clubs that are asking for the rule to be reviewed and why on earth would anyone but City or the Knights want that to happen?
I get the feeling the Nix want it so they can sell their players yet get them back on loan "wages free". I'm sure if PAFC offered Ben back under that guise the Nix would take him in a second.
the nix could always do that and in fact asked Bournemouth if that was a possibility. The Caceres clause didn't stop a team selling a player and getting them loaned back, it happens all the time.
The AFC CEO said that Paulsen's wages would easily fit within the salary cap... either he is Marquee or perhaps his initial wages aren't very big at all...
Super conspiracy here, but if Bournemouth/ACFC knew what they were doing, it's highly plausible his wages in year one of his contract are absolutely normal, then they start going up the following year.
Kind of wonder how happy he is with this move himself. Plenty of comments about 'keen to be home and be a part of a new project' and whatever... How much of that is keeping his new employers happy and being a team player? Surely he wanted to have a good crack at europe after last season and you'd have to be a bit gutted being back where you started
Kind of wonder how happy he is with this move himself. Plenty of comments about 'keen to be home and be a part of a new project' and whatever... How much of that is keeping his new employers happy and being a team player? Surely he wanted to have a good crack at europe after last season and you'd have to be a bit gutted being back where you started
Give the cherries a couple more games like this mornings one and he could have been a chance to get a start. If he was in England. I wonder if there is a recall clause in the loan agreement?
If and when the rule change is approved by FA, Paulsen can then be registered as an A-League player.
Auckland FC chief executive Nick Becker said following the announcement of Paulsen’s loan deal that the A-League clubs collectively agreed the league had outgrown the need for a rule like the Caceres Clause.
“We’ve been talking about it collectively as a league for months now, ever since the end of last season. Every single club agreed that it’s not the right rule for us where we are now and it’s going to be taken out.”
Wellington were quick to respond to the announcement and Phoenix general manager David Dometold media on that same day they would be seeking clarification on the move, posing the question as to how Auckland FC could announce the signing of Paulsen before that clause was changed.
“I’m not actually against him playing for Auckland – that’s not the issue for us. It’s the fact that the regulations haven’t been finished in time before the announcement was made, and let’s just be clear he actually at the moment cannot play for Auckland.”
Fairly standard behaviour I'd think? Sign AP who has plenty of upside potential, bring a starter in on loan while chelski presumably continue paying the majority of his wages
"The phased approach will operate in two stages where, effective immediately, the clause will be amended to allow transfers involving clubs with common ownership but implementing “guardrails” by limiting the number of multi-club transfers/loans to two such players on loan at any one time"
Changes ahead of the 2025/26 season...... except the bit that suits our rich mate that one can change now in the stupidest way possible.
I still can't fathom why Alex himself and or Bournemouth think he is going to progress forward by coming back to the A League. They could have loaned him to a club in Scotland, in England (League 1 or 2) or in Europe for the experience. I really don't think this is a good move at all for anyone involved. It is holding him back
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
And the new rules mean his full Bournemouth wages count as part of the salary cap, right? Which means it doesn’t help from that perspective either. Or do Auckland have a salary cap exemption as an expansion club?
And the new rules mean his full Bournemouth wages count as part of the salary cap, right? Which means it doesn’t help from that perspective either. Or do Auckland have a salary cap exemption as an expansion club?
Used to be full of official marquee exemptions. And then the only cheating that got discovered was when the cheats reported it. Vaguely recalling Keogh at Perth. So there’s probably a fair bit going on. Some fan leveled salary cap work around against Rudan and WSW but I never heard anything further about that.
And the new rules mean his full Bournemouth wages count as part of the salary cap, right? Which means it doesn’t help from that perspective either. Or do Auckland have a salary cap exemption as an expansion club?
I don't think its ever been confirmed publicly but these were the suggest rule changes regarding loans & the salary cap after the Victory abused a loan loophole to sign Tom Rogic and James Troisi.
The amount included in the salary cap would be the higher of:
a) the actual amount paid by the Club in relation to that Player (including amounts paid to the parent club and amounts paid directly to that Player); and b) 50% of that Player's Salary with the parent club.
And the new rules mean his full Bournemouth wages count as part of the salary cap, right? Which means it doesn’t help from that perspective either. Or do Auckland have a salary cap exemption as an expansion club?
Used to be full of official marquee exemptions. And then the only cheating that got discovered was when the cheats reported it. Vaguely recalling Keogh at Perth. So there’s probably a fair bit going on. Some fan leveled salary cap work around against Rudan and WSW but I never heard anything further about that.
Wasn't Keogh getting supplemented with his daughter or wife's name on their payroll but wasn't really??
Proud to have attended the first 175 Consecutive "Home" Wellington Phoenix "A League" Games !!
And the new rules mean his full Bournemouth wages count as part of the salary cap, right? Which means it doesn’t help from that perspective either. Or do Auckland have a salary cap exemption as an expansion club?
Used to be full of official marquee exemptions. And then the only cheating that got discovered was when the cheats reported it. Vaguely recalling Keogh at Perth. So there’s probably a fair bit going on. Some fan leveled salary cap work around against Rudan and WSW but I never heard anything further about that.
Wasn't Keogh getting supplemented with his daughter or wife's name on their payroll but wasn't really??
His wife worked for the club and was paid an amount higher than that position usually would pay iirc.
