The "Oakley Rule" and the future of the game

[LeverPuller]

The "Oakley Rule" is also known as the salary cap floor. This was brought in by Ross Oakley to force clubs to spend a certain amount of the salary cap - initially 90% of the maximum spend. The objective was to force clubs to spend money and those who couldn't afford to would be forced to merge/fold. It did its job, too - Fitzroy were the target as they were white-anted out of the AFL.

Now it's having an effect in other ways.

Melbourne's playing list is earning 95% of the maximum of the salary cap.

Now, some of these are known. Mitch Clark is believed to be on $800,000 per year. Chris Dawes is believed to be on $500,000 per year. That's a chunk of the cap in two non-playing players, to be sure.

But the cap is $9.13 million. This means that outside of those two players, the rest of the list - 42 players - is earning, on average, a minimum of $175,559 p/a.

Why the hell does that playing list deserve that much? I mean seriously. This is a group of players that have performed the worst of any list in the last 20 years. And I'm including Freo 1995-2002, Carlton 2002-2008 and Richmond 2003-2009 in that. They are terrible.

The AFL is upping ticket prices to their 'entertainment' yet the angry crap I put up with week-in, week-out sees these blokes earn more in one year than most graduates can earn in 3.

The floor needs to drop back to 90%. Up the cap to satisfy the AFLPA but drop the floor to 90% so clubs aren't destroying themselves on player wages while they are trapped at the foot of the ladder.

 

[TassieSaint]

Mate it's not the AFL's fault that in 7 years of rebuilding Melbourne hasn't recruited anyone worth paying.

 

[Bluelegs]

Mitch Clarks contract was front-ended so theres a good chance he's earning significantly less than that by this point.

 

[Bluelegs]

Mate it's not the AFL's fault that in 7 years of rebuilding Melbourne hasn't recruited anyone worth paying.

The point is clubs at the bottom end are restricted in their approach to rebuilding by having such a high minimum spend on their players.

 

[TassieSaint]

The point is clubs at the bottom end are restricted in their approach to rebuilding by having such a high minimum spend on their players.

What would paying the same crap list less achieve? more footy dept. spending?

Player salaries as a whole are a reflection of the AFL's popularity as a sport, not their performance. If they are generating that much money in entertainment value then that's how much they deserve to get paid. Obviously Melbourne doesn't entertain much, but you have to be consistent across the league.

 

[CakeEater]

The floor needs to drop back to 90%. Up the cap to satisfy the AFLPA but drop the floor to 90% so clubs aren't destroying themselves on player wages while they are trapped at the foot of the ladder.

Um, this point here is a narrow view of the situation.

The only clubs who would benefit from an increased salary cap would be the leading clubs (such as Eagles, Collingwood) and would in essence create an us and them competition, which is exactly the thing the equalisation process is meant to prevent.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Yeah I totally agree with this thread and I was absolutely spewing about the same thing between 2008-12.

We had at that time one of the worst lists in the league, but we had to pay these guys almost as much as Geelong were paying their players. That meant that just about every player on our list was being overpaid, which was always going to make it a lot more difficult to retain players as we improved, and it provided no incentive for players to try harder to get a better deal financially.

Melbourne should be able to play their players market value. They shouldn't be earning basically the same as what Freo and Hawthorn's players are earning. It gives the club a lot more room in terms of recruiting and rewarding player improvement

 

[Scotland]

I'd be surprised if Vince, Tyson, Byrnes etc. weren't on a fair bit more than they'd get elsewhere. The only reasons you would sign for Melbourne now are opportunity and money.

Agree that it's ridiculous that $9.13m is spent on Hawthorn's list and $8.67m is spent on Melbourne's, but if you remove/lower the salary cap floor you run the risk of the lower clubs getting stuck in the cycle that Melbourne seem to already be in.

 

[TedDougChris]

The "Oakley Rule" is also known as the salary cap floor. This was brought in by Ross Oakley to force clubs to spend a certain amount of the salary cap - initially 90% of the maximum spend. The objective was to force clubs to spend money and those who couldn't afford to would be forced to merge/fold. It did its job, too - Fitzroy were the target as they were white-anted out of the AFL.

Not convinced that this was the only reason the salary cap floor was brought in, it was also designed to ensure that there was a minimal level of competitive performance - by supposedly preventing people having an entire side of 18 year old kids getting whacked every week.

Now, it clearly hasn't worked with some of the performances we've seen since the rule was introduced (and you've mentioned some good examples above), but it wasn't just designed to kill off Fitzroy.

But I do acknowledge that there should be more flexibility, although it does come with a risk...

 

[Topkent]

Mate it's not the AFL's fault that in 7 years of rebuilding Melbourne hasn't recruited anyone worth paying.

Pathetic cheap shot mate

He is merely pointing out that blokes on that list like Watts, Trengove, Grimes, Jamar etc who have underperformed for years are in at least one case earning more than some very good players at other clubs

One of those blokes is probably making between 400-700 this year purely to help fill our cap

With free agency the need for a minimum salary cap makes no sense to me, if we underpay all of our players to save money they will just piss off somewhere else

Surely the minimum could be dropped back to 85%

 

[TedDougChris]

Agree that it's ridiculous that $9.13m is spent on Hawthorn's list and $8.67m is spent on Melbourne's, but if you remove/lower the salary cap floor you run the risk of the lower clubs getting stuck in the cycle that Melbourne seem to already be in.

Agreed - it will create a have's and have not's divide as the poorer clubs bottom out both performance wise and financially...

 

[LeverPuller]

Yeah I totally agree with this thread and I was absolutely spewing about the same thing between 2008-12.

We had at that time one of the worst lists in the league, but we had to pay these guys almost as much as Geelong were paying their players. That meant that just about every player on our list was being overpaid, which was always going to make it a lot more difficult to retain players as we improved, and it provided no incentive for players to try harder to get a better deal financially.

Melbourne should be able to play their players market value. They shouldn't be earning basically the same as what Freo and Hawthorn's players are earning. It gives the club a lot more room in terms of recruiting and rewarding player improvement

That's the problem I've got. You've got a guy like Cam Pedersen, or Jack Fitzpatrick, on more than a minimum salary. Pedersen was brought in as backup/cover and had to get a new 3 year deal because that's what the club had to pay to make the salary cap.

And of course I understand there's risk involved. The problem I've got with the cap as it stands is that it allows no room for performance-based clauses. If you had say, a club minimum spend that was lower and bonuses based on performance ratings (say Brownlow votes, wins, ladder position, playing finals, winning the flag) then it'd be much much better. Incentivise performance to a degree, but also make it mandated in the CBA - the floor drops and clubs must offer x amount of their unspent cap as incentives to players. So the floor may be 80% but mandate that the clubs must still offer 95% to players, with the 25% gap being offered in external performance-based incentives. Clubs could still spend higher (all the way to 100%) but must at least offer the 95% to players if they can grab it. Put it in the players' hands.

 

[Topkent]

Agreed - it will create a have's and have not's divide as the poorer clubs bottom out both performance wise and financially...

A million $ less we can spend on spuds like Byrnes and Dawes is a Million more we could put into recruiting and developing what we already have

Jack Watts probably got a massive pay rise when he re signed last year, absoloutely did not deserve it and we could have better spent that money on another 1-2 development coaches or high end scouts/list managers/recruiters

 

[Air_Chester]

Just think, if Melbourne were even slightly on the ball they could be paying someone decent $1.3 million a year instead of spending it on two guys who have played a combined 27 of a possible 70 games.

Sorry mate, the time for niceties has long since passed. The salary cap isn't an issue. Melbourne just all round suck.

 

[MarkT2]

What is the penalty for not meeting the minimum?

 

[Belnakor]

Agree that it's ridiculous that $9.13m is spent on Hawthorn's list and $8.67m is spent on Melbourne's, but if you remove/lower the salary cap floor you run the risk of the lower clubs getting stuck in the cycle that Melbourne seem to already be in.

not quite true as the hawks get an allowance due to more games being played and winning the premiership. i thought it was around 10%.

 

[TedDougChris]

Striker475 - can I offer an alternate scenario.

The AFL agree to reduce the lower limit on Melbourne's Salary Cap at the end of 2014.
Melbourne offer massively reduced contracts to Watts, Trengrove, Grimes amongst others. Who refuse to extend their contracts and enter the PSD/ND. Frawley leaves as a Restricted Free Agent (RFA). No RFA of note wish to join Melbourne, following the shabby treatment of existing players and poor short term prospects of success.
Melbourne recruit more kids.

2015 - the beatings continue.
Sponsors abandon the club after a decade of non-competitiveness. Melbourne reacts by slashing wages of the players to the minimum level of 85% of the full cap. After another year of being unable to attract RFA's, Melbourne are forced back into the draft for more kids. Roos declines to extend his contract, realising that there is at least another 3 - 5 years before the club can be turned around....

And so it continues.
-------------
It is a deliberately one sided view, but it's not impossible. This is what the AFL are trying to prevent, that clubs chase profitability by reducing wages and becoming completely uncompetitive and attractive on the field. While it hasn't worked (as clubs have been rubbish on field despite of this rule, it's intent isn't necessarily bad.

 

[KissKiss]

The problem I've got with the cap as it stands is that it allows no room for performance-based clauses. If you had say, a club minimum spend that was lower and bonuses based on performance ratings (say Brownlow votes, wins, ladder position, playing finals, winning the flag) then it'd be much much better. Incentivise performance to a degree, but also make it mandated in the CBA - the floor drops and clubs must offer x amount of their unspent cap as incentives to players. So the floor may be 80% but mandate that the clubs must still offer 95% to players, with the 25% gap being offered in external performance-based incentives. Clubs could still spend higher (all the way to 100%) but must at least offer the 95% to players if they can grab it. Put it in the players' hands.

Ive always been a fan of this but there is a danger of poorer clubs manipulating selection, game time etc to stop players from reaching certain bonuses. It would kill culture to do so though

 

[Belnakor]

Melbourne should be able to play their players market value. They shouldn't be earning basically the same as what Freo and Hawthorn's players are earning. It gives the club a lot more room in terms of recruiting and rewarding player improvement

i doubt the players association would feel the same way. Its important to remember that being at a bottom club has disadvantages for the players already, aside from premierships etc, you also have far far more chance of being cut as the bottom team list turnover is normally very high. They also has less time to wait (for example Freo have Moller on our list who is a 3-4 year project player - a team like Melbourne can't sustain a guy like that).

 

[TedDougChris]

A million $ less we can spend on spuds like Byrnes and Dawes is a Million more we could put into recruiting and developing what we already have

Jack Watts probably got a massive pay rise when he re signed last year, absoloutely did not deserve it and we could have better spent that money on another 1-2 development coaches or high end scouts/list managers/recruiters

Understand your view, that system only works if there is an overall cap on footy department spending and you can balance the salary cap and FD spend seperately, but part of a total package.

If it's been the recruitment and development, not coaches that has been the issue, surely you sack these guys and start afresh - rather than trying to reduce the contracts of the players first....

 

[Belnakor]

It is a deliberately one sided view, but it's not impossible. This is what the AFL are trying to prevent, that clubs chase profitability by reducing wages and becoming completely uncompetitive and attractive on the field. While it hasn't worked (as clubs have been rubbish on field despite of this rule, it's intent isn't necessarily bad.

very true.

People act like Melbourne HAS to pay these guys overs. Its true, that they may have to one for year, but forcing them to pay the min cap also means the possibility for them to go after a big name is much higher too.

Without the "low cap" i doubt GC would have gotten GAJ, they would have just said, well we'll pay unders while the team develops, and be profitable quicker.

 

[speedytiger]

The point is equalisation. Pay the current Melbourne players what they are worth, have a crack at some stars with the spare cash. Brings down the better clubs, lifts the bottom clubs

 

[invinciBlues]

I do think there should be a system in place where a club such as Melbourne on the back of several poor seasons can have the option of paying 80-85% of their cap so they can redirect that money into better facilities, maybe even speciality coaches.

I remember a couple of years back Carlton brought in a black belt Brazilian jiu jitsu martial artist to help with our tackling technique (inb4 chicken wing) and the results were brilliant. If Melbourne could find 100-200k to bring a guy in to help perfect a singular aspect that the club is lacking in, not necessarily tackling but whatever, I'd think they'd be better for it.

 

[Boxhead_31]

Okay let's say there was no minimum cap, Melbourne then get a reputation as being a club that skimps on its players much like the LA Clippers through the 90's and 00's where the only FA they could attract were guys at the end of their careers, players they drafted left as soon as their rookie contracts were up.

Is that what you want Melbourne to become, a feeder club to the rest of the competition?

 

[TedDougChris]

The point is equalisation. Pay the current Melbourne players what they are worth, have a crack at some stars with the spare cash. Brings down the better clubs, lifts the bottom clubs

The risk is that Melbourne reduce wages, lose players, become less competitive and no player wants to go there. This then spirals out of control as they become unattractive, uncompetitive and unprofitable - so they then slash wages again...