Maybe Tyrants, but in regards to the actual point of this thread, BM's post is on the _ _ _ _ _.

_________________
Click here to follow TalkingCarlton on twitter
TalkingCarlton Posting Rules

I care not for "actual points".

Should Captain Obvious come in here and say "Synbad has a clear agenda which colours his posts", or should we make a thread for what is bleedingly obvious to everyone? Oops.. there is one... its here!

_________________
Love Cricket? Love me

I've kept my head out of this (for fear of being labelled a Camporeale basher again)

However, it is not hard to see where Camporeale could be being paid 620K this year.

If his last contract was for 4 years at 600K (when signed in 2000 - and was to last for 4 years i.e. 2001-2004. That equals a payment of $2.4 million. So in years 2001/02 he received 2 x 600K = $1.2 million of that $2.4 million.

However, because when Collins came into power end of 2002 and immediately told the players to take a pay cut, some had their contracts extended, in some cases because they had extended the terms of their contracts, in the short term, we had no choice but to pay some players peanuts in return for paying them in the future. It's like when a trust fund accidentally doesn't pay as much as it should under the terms of the trust deed, the beneficiary may say, ok, pay me less now, but I want the required payment and make up payments combined later.

If Camporeale then took a payment of 300K in 2003 (in order to keep up under the cap), then he could rightfully (due to contractual obligations) demand 900K over the next 1 year (2004) (contractually enforceable - the 900K remaining from the $1.2 million owed after 2002). However, say he then demanded he be paid $400K for 2005. If the club doesn't sign, then Camporeale can contractually (and enforceable in a court of law) claim 900K for 2004. So the club has no choice but to say, ok, you're worth $400K. Let's split $1.3 million over 2 years in order to reduce the impact on the salary cap.

So a new contract is redrawn (using clauses from the original contract which would state that after year 2003 he had been paid $1.5 million for 3 years - with $900K owing (due to terms of 2000 contract - the $2.4 million I have talked about). This new contract that covers 2004-2005 - would state (or imply) that he would be signed for $400K in year 2005 but because we can't afford a 900K player in 2004, the payments would be split evenly between the years 2004-2005 for $1.3 million.

Divided evenly between 2 years, $1.3 million = $650K.

That is an entirely plausible scenario verbs. So over 5 years Camporeale has received $2.8 million (which is the same as 4 years @ 600K + 1 year at $400K) - Camporeale has therefore averaged $560K per year of his last contract and extension.

It also shows that due to his taking a 50% pay cut (and only paying him 300K) then we can afford him at $620K - even $650K.

It also shows that he's received an average $500K/year over the term of his contract and extension.

It seems to me verbs, that you're not going to change your mind anyway. But here's a plausible scenario IMHO. I invite anyone to find some flaws in it.

_________________
"A good composer does not initiate. He steals."

- Igor Stravinsky

What doesn't surprise me is your answer.

Think about it....backended contract. That means he was earning less initially example; 300K first year, 350K second year, 400K third year & 450K last year. Average = 375K. Umm....I Campo worth 375K? Considering most are saying we should sign him up at 300K for next couple of years @ 30+ and with his best footy behind.

Worth every penny.

Opinions were offered on media reports.
Last week, 2 football journalists quoted Camporeales contract as being 600k+.
Certain posters offered opinions on those reports.
I fail to see how anyone has mislead posters.

If Verbs wants evidenciary proof and clarification for every opinion offered on TC, it will soon become a boring place.

I would have thought media reports and speculation are behind many threads on football websites.
Having an opinion on them eg. Angwin, encourage good debate.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

*sigh*

I wasn't going to bother with this any more because I spent quite a bit of time on it already, and if people want to blindly accept fairly rubbery figures without spending some time actually thinking about what we're fed, then that's not my problem. I know, a lot of people find that too much hard work.

As I have said, through my own research, I discovered Camporeale signed his current contract at the end of 2001, for three years (2002,03,04), at the same time as Mckay btw. I also discovered his contract is "most likely" backloaded. I even provided an example of how backloaded contracts are structured with Simon Black's contract.

There is no four year contract which was extended to five years. To say so is misleading.

Now here's the thing BV...if Camporeale had a three year contract (which he did) which was then spread over four years to take a pay cut, and his contract is backloaded, how the hell can he be on $620,000 this year????

The only way would be if his original contract was well over $750,000 per year. I highly doubt that was the case. Or he took well less than $300,000 out of our cap last year.

So 2 "football journalists" say Camporeale is on $600,000 but can they backup where they get their figures from, especially in light of what I have uncovered through my own research? Was he on $600,000 BEFORE or AFTER the salary cap issues and the extra year added on?

None of that fits with what I've uncovered (read post above: three year contract, backloading).

Also, your figures average out to $500k+ per year, as you've said...well below the high $600,000s we're being fed.

500K, 600K? 600K+.does it matter...for me he is only worth 250K a year and it wouldnt be a long term contract. Has been a good player but has also been well looked after regardless...

I think his trade value is minimal due to his age and expected life span in the game, while he can still get enough of the footy I dont think he hurts opposing teams as much and doesnt kick enough goals for me...leadership wise I think he is too much of an individual to be effective in that area as well...

Surrey...450K....I dont see how you can justify paying him that amount...
J Brown of Brisbane is signing for around 500K if you trust the media reports.....how is Campo only 50K less value than Brown...

*sigh*

Perhaps you are missing the point you accuse everyone else of missing Verbs.
Where do you get your "research" from?
Journalists quoting from a book written by a bankrupt charged with dishonesty offences.
A person who told us we were'nt in debt and swore we were not over the salary cap.

Where does it say Campo extended his contract an extra year?

How does an "example" of a backended contract lend any validity to this case?

The point is, figures were thrown up by journalists.
Are they credible? Who knows.
Are you credible? Who knows.
Its all good for debate.
To suggest Synbad mislead anyone more than your "research" is debatable.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

verbs,

You've misquoted Synbad...

He said he's *averaged* 500K/year over his last contract. He never said Camporeale averaged 600K, Synbad said he's in the 600K+/year THIS year.

Which you freely admit may be possible because of his "most likely" backloading.

BTW, what's your research? If you don't tell us, then you're just as "wrong" as Synbad.

I've heard nothing concrete on the issue, to use your words.

_________________
"A good composer does not initiate. He steals."

- Igor Stravinsky

Where do you get your "research" from? My "research" included two articles from 2001, one which simply said "Camporeale is out of contract at the end of the year" -- pretty objective don't you think? The second simply said "Camporeale has agreed to terms of a new three year deal" -- again, a clear objctive statement of fact.

Where does it say Campo extended his contract an extra year? Three year deal in 2001 would expire at the end of 2004. Simple mathematics. I'm open to some theories about this. So far it's not in dispute. If you don't think that's the case, let's hear what you think.

How does an "example" of a backended contract lend any validity to this case? If Camporeale has a backended contract, logic would suggest it would be structured something like Black's. It may indeed not be, but using a demonstrated model (an "example") as a basis for a theory is preferential to merely guessing. Thus, if $620,000 is 60% of the contract...

"To suggest Synbad mislead anyone more than your "research" is debatable." Is it a lot to ask that someone provided a basis for what they're saying, especially once I, without pointing the finger at anyone or getting hot under the collar, simply put forward well thought out points as to why I believe the figures being bandied about are pretty rubbery? Is it too much to ask that I then be challenged with reasoned and well structured responses rather than vitriol and scorn? Why it was delivered in such a manner really makes me wonder. And if you want to rubbish my detailed points, then you better be ale to come up with something yourself. What is your point BV?

This is not a debate about wheather Camporeale gets paid too little or too much or not enough. Nowhere, as far as I know , have I even discussed that...as I have said there are plenty of forums here for doing that.

Sorry if you don't like the fact I have stood up and said "I don't think these figures add up" and then gone on to logically (with "research") outline why. I have quite openly asked for other people's theories on how the figures add up but instead, for the main, most people just come up with "who cares....he's getting paid too much....just shut up".

That is sad.

Intitally we were lead to believe Camporeale's contract was for high $600,000s A YEAR.

What you're thinking of is the other night, that got changed to Camporeale being on a 4 year contract at $500,000 and then got another year at another $500,000. Even Simple Simon could see that makes no sense. Needless to say is he on a $600,000 year contract? Or a $500,000 a year contract? Or less, to save the club money after the salary cap problems? The way things keep on changing makes me even more suspicious about these figures.

If he is on a backloaded contract, which is "most likely", at what would be a reasonale estimate of 60%, (consistent with the Black "example") that would mean he'd only be on a total contract of $1,033,333.

I have explained my research in my previous post. It was reported TWICE in 2001. The first was in August. The second was in September or October from memory. The first one can be directly sourced on the net. I had to cache the second one.

There were articles in 2000 saying that Camporeale had signed a 4 year contract starting end of 2000 to cover the period 2001-2004.

_________________
"A good composer does not initiate. He steals."

- Igor Stravinsky

The irony is that you dispute figures offered by journalists and question their validity.
You then use articles produced by journalists to somehow make your point valid.

To suggest I dont like the fact you have "stood up" is laughable.
I'm more than happy to read your opinions and find most of them to be informative.
But to suggest Synbad has misled anyone is wrong imo.
He based his thoughts on information supplied by football journalists.
No different to what you have done.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

I though it was from 'inside' information.

_________________
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty" -Winston Churchill

L.M 35-06

From the 2001 season here. It's the August footy news, sourced from Australian newspapers at the time.

With all due respect, I don't think you got what I said. As far as I'm concerned

1) Camporeale will be out of contract at the end of the year
and
2) Camporeale agreed to a three year deal


aren't really things to dispute. Should they be when reported by journalists? I would've thought them to be simple facts which even Camporeale would come out in the press and admit.

Interesting that Whits signed a two year deal in 01, which means that his next contract would have been under Collos regime and there is no way Collo would agree to a 600 000+ deal given the financial circumstances at the time. Let alone now.

_________________
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty" -Winston Churchill

L.M 35-06

Hence I'm dubious about that link verbs.

I remember quite categorically that the Age was reporting a 4 year deal to Whitnall and Camporeale at the end of 2000 after their stellar seasons.

_________________
"A good composer does not initiate. He steals."

- Igor Stravinsky

Here's the second one.

Now you can be dubious about the link, but there's some pretty detailed facts in there, if they are pie in the sky stuff.

You can make up your own mind, but at least you can see I'm at basing what I say on "something". And I was wrong!! It was Hickmott not McKay

Edit: If you're willing to pay $2.20 for The Age's archives, you will find an article on 31 August 2001 headed "Camporeale signs three-year deal".