An extra $150k for an U-23 player...

An extra $150k for an U-23 player...

...how do we spend that ?

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23539363-5006068,00.html

Orange Boots

Aussie A-LEAGUE clubs have been given $150,000 each to spend on an Olyroo - Under 23 - to keep him at home.  http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0%2C22049%2C23539363-5006068%2C00.html 

A New Zealand Right Back who is Under-23... 

Bring back Spoonley

Just because we are allowed to spend the money, doesn't necessarily mean we have the money to spend.

Here's an interesting question, do we have to spend our $150K on a kiwi or can we use it on an aussie as well?

Could we for example use it for Troy Hearfield when his current contract is up for renewal (this on the assumption that he delivers the goods and we want to keep him).


Malky2008-04-15 12:06:39

Just because we are allowed to spend the money, doesn't mean we should spend the money.  We should be paying players what they are worth to us. 

This does gives us a shot at signing a top player and fitting him under the salary cap, but only if they will add something to the team.

I am not convinced that many teams will utilise this option the way it is designed just yet.  Not all of the A league teams have a marquee, and I don't see them spending extra money for a player unless they are very special.  I am not even convinced that this is good for the players in question, as they will arguably be developing better in Europe.  This seems to be more of a long term strategy to improve the quality of the A League.

The Phoenix don't even seem to be bothered about finding a Marquee (I hope they prove me wrong), I don't see why this will change much either.  Maybe in a couple of years Costa or someone else will be good enough to justify forking out a bit more cash to keep them around, but not yet.

If we can't find a Kiwi or Aussie U23 player who is good enough to fill this role, then we could fit one of our existing young players into this slot, which will free up more room in the salary cap, but that would only be necessary if we found another quality player or two who would push us over the cap.

The cynical might suggest that Sydney realise they have lost two centre-backs and have no cap left to sign a new one. 

So, all of a sudden the FFA (run by Frank Lowy) sets up a rule that allows Sydney (owned by Frank Lowy) to move Musialik or Bridge out of the cap, and Hey, Presto !

Of course, I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to believe that.

That depends on you definition of 'Next Season'...



V4 is the coming season.
Hard News2008-04-15 14:07:44

bigtobz2008-04-15 14:17:28

It is good for the Sydney and Melbourne's of the comp.  Not so good for Perth, CCM, Jets.  Fine for the Phoenix if Terry is willing to fork out.

There was something vaguely similar (I think the article touches on it) before. However, it wasn't very well received or something and nothing more come of it. Until this.

Often...I just make judicious use of the edit facility to cover it once I spot it (as in this case).

Maybe they should just expand the cap. With proper notice and consultation.

Try it like this then: You have an U23 player that you are paying $100K to but are worried that he's about to sod off to Europe. So you can now offer him an extra $150K with no effect on your salary cap. $250K for an U23 seems pretty good.

Lonegunmen2008-04-16 12:08:22

I don't know the specifics of the Jets salaries, but I suspect that they wouldn't have put enough money on the table to keep those players regardless

does anyone have an idea of players for phoenix

Yeah, because CCM is so poor

I think the conspiracy theories have some weight. Seems like more changing of the rules from Sydney to me.
valeo2008-04-15 16:01:29

I know Chris James is playing in Finland, but maybe next season (if he is still under 23) we could tempt him back to NZ with this new U-23 marquee.

Born : 04/07/1987

Cheers Hard News.  Chris James would be my choice for U-23 marquee.

I don't think this rule is going to be of any real use to the nix as I understand it

1: We have 3 'under 23' players. It is generally accepted that they get little game time so why sign a 4th
2: Signing a 4th player takes up another squad position
3: Now that this is in the open I would suggest that if an u23 player turned up at the club, there could well be a few other players who contribute more but earn less that are a little grumpy about that. Way to disrupt team harmony.
4: I don't think there are any kids u23 of NZ nationality that are worth anything close to that. When you figure that Sydney offered our next big thing *cough* Brockie 60k and the knights were only offering 45k, I would suggest that most of these players could be picked up for considerably less that 150k
Agent 472008-04-15 16:16:06

Now theoretically could we use this as a way to extend the salary cap?  For example if we put Costa entirely on this $150k booster pay, could we free up what we're currently paying him for other players?

I would imagine that's a way to exploit this anyway.

It would have to come down to what the 3 are getting paid. I would say at a guess, Hearfield is the highest paid, with Costa getting slightly more than Draper? You could speculate that Costa and Draper would be somewhere around the 40-45k mark perhaps? Full time footballers?

To get Hearfield to cross the ditch, you'd need to dangle a carrot hence why I think he would be the highest paid.

So what are you really saving yourself in designating Hearfield as the marquee youth? Maybe 65-70k? What does that get ya? You would also piss the kiwi lads off doing so.

I don't see how that would piss the kiwi lads off. The salaries of everyone are still the same. All it has done (using your figures which sound pretty good) is lifted the overall cap by 65-70k for the Phoenix. I think we might have been quite close to it so it should help a bit.

Ok to work in absolutes for two minutes which involves assumptions and generalisations.

If I was Costa, the first question I would ask is "Why not me??" This is a Kiwi club, I am a Kiwi player, I am the future.

Professional sports people work on a bigger better deal synopsis. Either move to a better club, get a better role in the team or get a better salary. By giving it to Troy Hearfield (not that I am saying he doesn't deserve it mind you) you could potentially piss off a kiwi player.

If you listened to exerts of Mathew Sinclair on the news today, he said he was quite gutted to be dropped from the contract list althought he wasn't surprised he missed the England tour. He also said that he would go to CD first and see what they could do for him because he 'feels he is the best NZ domestic batsman'

I understand what you are saying that salaries don't change but there is alo the ego'honour of it all.
To be told that the Aussie kid is being designatied marguee youth would piss me off if I was Costa....


Agent 472008-04-15 17:06:12

nobody in our squad U23 worth spending that on at the mo. But good if a big club comes looking, can say ""stay here and you can have a $150,000 pay rise"

I think some people are getting a bit confused as to what this would entail. We don't need to spend all $150,000 I would assume so why not place one of our current U23's under "marquee" status to free up more room under the cap? I don't think it will really matter that most recruitment has already been done because the same thing could be done at other clubs.

It does depend where, if the option is Division 3 in Sweden, backwoods Romania, or AFC Wimbledon then the A-League is probably a better bet...