Important News


User Tag List

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47

Thread: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

  1. #1
    Super Moderator divvydan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Team
    WESTERN BULLDOGS
    Posts
    14,133
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    337 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-0...ow-spend-later

    CLUBS will be encouraged to spend extra dollars on players under a radical new player payments scheme that allows clubs to pay over 100 per cent of the salary cap if they underspend the previous year.

    The permitted amount clubs will be allowed to spend on its players will need to be commensurate with the amount clubs spend under 100 per cent of the TPP and ASA in the preceding period.

    • The overspend amount in any given year permits a Club to spend up to a maximum of 105% of the combined limit in that year


    It means if a club is $400,000 below the maximum player spend in 2015, it would be able to spend up to $400,000 over the limit in 2016.

    The system will be introduced immediately meaning that clubs which paid under the 100 per cent limit in 2014 will be able to pay over the limit, if they have the capacity, next year.



    The other main surprise in the announcements was that Greater Western Sydney would be subject to the same reform in the cost of living allowance (COLA) as the Sydney Swans.


    COLA will be transitioned down in 2015 and 2016 to take into account existing contractual obligations. The new system means a fixed accommodation subsidy introduced for newly contracted players from 2015 below a salary threshold that is still to be determined. That accommodation subsidy will be paid directly by the AFL.


    Under other measures introduced as part of the competitive balance policy:


    - a soft cap will be introduced on football department spend, and set at the "projected industry average spend plus $500,000" in 2015 and increase according to inflation in 2016. Clubs exceeding this limit will be taxed by the AFL at 37.5 per cent in 2015 and 75 per cent in 2016.


    - luxury tax payments will be capped at $1 million per club per annum for 2015 and 2016.


    - the veterans allowance will be retained at $118,000 per eligible player in 2015 and 2016 before being removed from 2017


    - TPP will exceed $10 million for the first time, sitting at $10.07 million in 2015 and $10.37 million in 2016.

    Last edited by divvydan; 4th June 2014 at 07:13 PM.

  2. #2
    FFC General Manager Crow-mo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Team
    ADELAIDE
    Posts
    5,507
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    wow. they are getting serious about equalisation, and starting to allow clubs to think for themselves.
    the problem with equalisation in the past is that it was not designed to work. it was designed to give an illusion, but not give any freedom to the poorer clubs to innovate.

    you'll see a radical change in player contracts shortly. there are some big wins for the players there, now add in a reduced FA qualifying period for players on mid range salaries (its coming) and soon that wil be followed by players losing trade veto rights.

    hip hip ****ing hoorah I say
    TEX WALKER. that is all.

  3. #3
    Moderator Wogitalia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Team
    SYDNEY
    Posts
    22,196
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    899 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Awards FFC Blogger

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    Can't fault any of the changes, the only thing I asked on the COLA was that GWS should also lose their's as it is only fair (either the COLA was brought in for legitimate reasons or it wasn't either way it applies to both or neither, not one or the other and this new system will stop anyone from being able to use it as a crutch against Sydney or GWS).

    I don't really like that they are getting rid of the veteran's cap, I like that it created a loyalty mechanism that benefited both player and club.

    Other changes feel fine, the cheap clubs will still be cheap and not use all the cap but I guess this change may make it possible to go hard at a FA or retain one of their own as a result of being able to overspend.

    Not a fan of the cap on off field expenditure though, this just holds the game back overall and punishes the well run clubs and will restrict innovation greatly.

    With the rate that TPP are increasing, the Buddy contract is going to end up being a perfectly reasonable contract going forward.

    Maybe there is hope for the AFL commission yet, this year they actually made reasonable well thought out changes for the most part.
    The Truck is driving the Fish Shack in 2018... Christian Petracca is my boy!

  4. #4
    Super Moderator dylan123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Team
    ADELAIDE
    Posts
    17,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    590 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    Yeah not a fan of the veteran cap going.

  5. #5
    Moderator Skeeta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Hoffland
    Team
    ESSENDON
    Posts
    8,366
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    478 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Awards FFC Twitter Poster - A great twitter poster on behalf of FFC and TFP

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    Not a fan of the cap on football department expenditure.
    hoff.

  6. #6
    Fort Kickass Ben the Gooner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Team
    ESSENDON
    Posts
    20,137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    674 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Awards FFC Twitter Poster

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    Don't like the veterans' list going, nor the department cap.

    The veterans' list is a great counterpoint to increased player mobility, and rewards blokes who stay with fatter contracts, as well as blokes who go.

    The department cap essentially punishes the better run clubs for being better run and encourages the poorer run clubs to do nothing. Hawthorn is proof that a well run club can leverage a medium to small supporter base to get high revenue.
    Never bet against Tom Rockliff

  7. #7
    Moderator Wogitalia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Team
    SYDNEY
    Posts
    22,196
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    899 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Awards FFC Blogger

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben the Gooner View Post
    Don't like the veterans' list going, nor the department cap.

    The veterans' list is a great counterpoint to increased player mobility, and rewards blokes who stay with fatter contracts, as well as blokes who go.

    The department cap essentially punishes the better run clubs for being better run and encourages the poorer run clubs to do nothing. Hawthorn is proof that a well run club can leverage a medium to small supporter base to get high revenue.
    Just need to look at Geelong and Hawthorn. Both were a complete shambles and are now two of the best run and most profitable clubs. Hawthorn were incredibly close to being taken over by Melbourne, just for an indication of how much things can change.

    Biggest problem though is that it is the rich clubs that drive the innovation in the sport by spending more money. It doesn't help anything because the cheap and badly run clubs have no incentive to spend more, they just bring the average down more by spending less and make it more restrictive to development.
    The Truck is driving the Fish Shack in 2018... Christian Petracca is my boy!

  8. #8
    Fort Kickass Ben the Gooner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Team
    ESSENDON
    Posts
    20,137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    674 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Awards FFC Twitter Poster

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    Hawthorn got 17k to a home game at the MCG as the reigning premiers. They simply don't have the baseline supporter base (i.e. the dyed in the wool, go every week, pay thousands of dollars types) of a Richmond, Collingwood or Essendon. They've done a ridiculously good job of leveraging what fanbase they do have, and the cap will basically restrict them from spending their hard earned dollars, because Footscray can't be arsed to do the same thing.
    Never bet against Tom Rockliff

  9. #9
    FFC Football Operations Manager ZergMinion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Team
    WEST COAST
    Posts
    4,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    108 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben the Gooner View Post
    Hawthorn got 17k to a home game at the MCG as the reigning premiers. They simply don't have the baseline supporter base (i.e. the dyed in the wool, go every week, pay thousands of dollars types) of a Richmond, Collingwood or Essendon. They've done a ridiculously good job of leveraging what fanbase they do have, and the cap will basically restrict them from spending their hard earned dollars, because Footscray can't be arsed to do the same thing.
    Can you detail what Hawthorn did that Footscray can't be bothered doing? I'm genuinely curious to see if your rant has any basis in fact.

    The cap stops the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, which is kind of the point of genuine equalization measures. Your argument also implies that there is no such thing as luck in whether a club is strong or weak right now. West Coast are so strong pretty much entirely through the good luck of being the foundation team in a footy mad state. That's something that Footscray could never ever have.

  10. #10
    FFC General Manager Crow-mo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Team
    ADELAIDE
    Posts
    5,507
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    305 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    Quote Originally Posted by Wogitalia View Post
    Not a fan of the cap on off field expenditure though, this just holds the game back overall and punishes the well run clubs and will restrict innovation greatly.
    not sure I can agree that more spend = more innovation. I'd say the opposite is usually true
    TEX WALKER. that is all.

  11. #11
    Fort Kickass Ben the Gooner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Team
    ESSENDON
    Posts
    20,137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    674 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Awards FFC Twitter Poster

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    Both teams had on-field success in the same era with which to cash in on the "bandwagon" (for want of a better term) fans that every team is trying to bring in on top of their bedrock of the people who sign up every year regardless. Both clubs were a bit (or a lot) of a rabble about 10-15 years ago. It's a pretty comparable scenario.

    On the one hand you have Hawthorn who have worked their arses off to not just sell home games but establish themselves as the team for Northern Tasmania. Meanwhile Footscray (who really hit their tradition by dropping their real name, for negligible gains in terms of controlling the whole western region of Melbourne) have flitted between selling games to Sydney (never going to be a viable market for a Vic team), Canberra (half arsed), Darwin (half arsed) and now Cairns (dare I say it'll be half arsed). There's been no concerted effort to establish themselves as the club for one of those regions (compare North with Southern Tasmania or GWS with Canberra). Hawthorn produce all sorts of novelty jumpers which can be sold to the sort of fans that they're marketing to (the dyed in the wool ones would buy the home strip regardless); Footscray invert their colours, which, while effective as a clash strip, doesn't lend itself to marketing at all well (shit, even Essendon who absolutely half arsed their clash strip - to the point where it clashes more with certain so-called clashes like Fremantle - market their abomination as a "heritage guernsey").

    Since the Tassie partnership began in 2006, their membership has increased every year, even before they became a premiership contender for the first time in 2008 (which, in hindsight, was an incredibly early win for that group, and a real credit to Clarkson), and even after the down years of 2009-10, which suggests that they hung on to the vast majority of their premiership "bandwagoners" even after two really lean years (by reigning premier standards) immediately following.

    It's funny that I've criticised Hawthorn for all of these things, because these are not things a big club would do, but for a club like Footscray, it's a blueprint for off-field success.
    Never bet against Tom Rockliff

  12. #12
    Moderator Wogitalia's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Team
    SYDNEY
    Posts
    22,196
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    899 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Awards FFC Blogger

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    Quote Originally Posted by Crow-mo View Post
    not sure I can agree that more spend = more innovation. I'd say the opposite is usually true
    In some areas, sure, but in something like football I'd say no. It is Collingwood who went down the path of high altitude training (among other things) that really pushed the training element. They were the club that invested in a specialised training centre designed entirely for an AFL football club that every club is copying. The GPS technology that they all use now was pushed by Geelong after they started to spend extra on their off field areas, Hawthorn are pushing it further this year. Sydney and Geelong were the clubs that went with the Leading Teams to change their leadership. There would be countless other examples.

    It's obviously not always the case but in AFL it has been the big clubs leading the way with changes and the smaller clubs jumping on board once they see it work.

    A cap on investment in the game is just awful, imo. You are punishing the well run teams and restricting them from being able to get rewards for their effort in being well run whilst removing the incentive the poor clubs have to try and improve their off field leadership, essentially you are saying there is no point in being above average because we will punish you.

    Look at a club like Port, in two years they've gone from being a joke to back to being a very good club, simply by getting good leadership and investing in their club off field. It's not hard to fix AFL clubs, Port were a mess, Hawthorn were a mess, Geelong were a mess, Sydney were a mess, Fremantle were an absolute rabble, heck even Collingwood were a mess. I'd rather see the top clubs setting an off field standard and the other clubs striving to match it. I'd love to know if there is even a correlation between off field expenditure and success though as well.
    The Truck is driving the Fish Shack in 2018... Christian Petracca is my boy!

  13. Likes Ben the Gooner, Thumpy liked this post
  14. #13
    FFC Agent of Chaos Big Sledge #32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Adelaide
    Team
    ADELAIDE
    Posts
    16,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    579 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    Quote Originally Posted by Wogitalia View Post
    In some areas, sure, but in something like football I'd say no. It is Collingwood who went down the path of high altitude training (among other things) that really pushed the training element. They were the club that invested in a specialised training centre designed entirely for an AFL football club that every club is copying. The GPS technology that they all use now was pushed by Geelong after they started to spend extra on their off field areas, Hawthorn are pushing it further this year. Sydney and Geelong were the clubs that went with the Leading Teams to change their leadership. There would be countless other examples.

    It's obviously not always the case but in AFL it has been the big clubs leading the way with changes and the smaller clubs jumping on board once they see it work.

    A cap on investment in the game is just awful, imo. You are punishing the well run teams and restricting them from being able to get rewards for their effort in being well run whilst removing the incentive the poor clubs have to try and improve their off field leadership, essentially you are saying there is no point in being above average because we will punish you.

    Look at a club like Port, in two years they've gone from being a joke to back to being a very good club, simply by getting good leadership and investing in their club off field. It's not hard to fix AFL clubs, Port were a mess, Hawthorn were a mess, Geelong were a mess, Sydney were a mess, Fremantle were an absolute rabble, heck even Collingwood were a mess. I'd rather see the top clubs setting an off field standard and the other clubs striving to match it. I'd love to know if there is even a correlation between off field expenditure and success though as well.
    Other things that helped all of those clubs were that they were shit for so long that by the time they got their shit in order they had a plethora of first round talent to lead the resurgence. Except maybe Sydney because I can't remember their situation.

    I don't necessarily know if there is a correlation between off field expenditure and success, but I imagine there would be a severe correlation between clubs who don't spend that much and how well they do.
    Baltimore Ravens Superbowl XLVII Champions
    Quote Originally Posted by Narkee View Post
    SC only


    #AgentOfChaos

  15. #14
    Fort Kickass Ben the Gooner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Team
    ESSENDON
    Posts
    20,137
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    674 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Awards FFC Twitter Poster

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    You have to get those picks right though Sledgey, and you have to develop them properly. Footscray and Melbourne are classic examples of basket cases who seem content to remain basket cases and cry poor who have wasted early picks through a combination of poor recruiting and poor development.
    Never bet against Tom Rockliff

  16. #15
    FFC Agent of Chaos Big Sledge #32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Adelaide
    Team
    ADELAIDE
    Posts
    16,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    579 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Re: Changes to AFL Salary Cap and COLA

    How are the Bulldogs a case of a team who has failed to develop their talent?

    They are about 12-18 months ahead of St Kilda in the rebuild cycle.

    They spent the early-mid 00s on the bottom after being one of the better sides of the late 90s with no success. They rebuild and are pretty much the third best side for 3 years by the late 2000s and are now in the process of rebuilding again off the back of guys like Libba, Macrae, Bontempelli and whoever else they picked up.

    Bulldogs are pretty much where I expect them to be given that they still don't have the KPP strength around them to go any higher up the ladder.

    They have had some problems with their recruiting, but not everyone lands their picks. They also lost their future captain to GWS and along with Harbrow goes some ways to explain the lack of quality in their list in that 24-27 age group.

    Melbourne I 100% agree with you on.
    Baltimore Ravens Superbowl XLVII Champions
    Quote Originally Posted by Narkee View Post
    SC only


    #AgentOfChaos

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •