2017 salary cap changes' impact on 2016 player movement

[LukeParkerno1]

it is 500k.....that a lot of $$$$$$

Depends what the TPP is going to be.

 

[butlers hawks]

Depends what the TPP is going to be.

Sounds like all clubs have been told to aim for around 10% and that it mightnt be set before trade period ends

 

[bungwahl]

Sounds like all clubs have been told to aim for around 10% and that it mightnt be set before trade period ends

I know the AFL isn't regarded as being overly professional but surely it's a new level of amateurish to have clubs going in to the list management period without knowing exactly how much coin they have next year.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Sounds like all clubs have been told to aim for around 10% and that it mightnt be set before trade period ends

Surely the AFL would have an exact figure, that would be highly ridiculous to have clubs guessing.

 

[butlers hawks]

I know the AFL isn't regarded as being overly professional but surely it's a new level of amateurish to have clubs going in to the list management period without knowing exactly how much coin they have next year.

Oh mate it is actually laughable that they dont already know in my books

 

[JeddaB]

I know the AFL isn't regarded as being overly professional but surely it's a new level of amateurish to have clubs going in to the list management period without knowing exactly how much coin they have next year.

When you've got the AFL and the Players Union involved, you just know it's going to be pathetic in every aspect.

 

[bradburygold]

I know the AFL isn't regarded as being overly professional but surely it's a new level of amateurish to have clubs going in to the list management period without knowing exactly how much coin they have next year.

NFL and NHL have both have strikes in recent years at least we don't have that. Also NFL had no cap for 1 season a few years ago clubs were literally told to just keep it reasonable, because no one could come to an agreement.

Agree a cap should be in place but it is common worldwide for these to drag on

 

[cdcanman]

Surely the AFL would have an exact figure, that would be highly ridiculous to have clubs guessing.

It's my understanding that they have a figure for next year, but have been told that it could increase slightly by an unknown amount. Going forward however, there is still great uncertainty.

I know the AFL isn't regarded as being overly professional but surely it's a new level of amateurish to have clubs going in to the list management period without knowing exactly how much coin they have next year.

It's as much the AFLPA's fault as it is the AFL's. Not much can be done without a CBA being agreed upon

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Sounds like all clubs have been told to aim for around 10% and that it mightnt be set before trade period ends

Clubs have been told 10%.

Hawthorn have had whispered 20%.

 

[HairyO]

Clubs have been told 10%.

Hawthorn have had whispered 20%.

The other day Gil said 10%, 3%, 2% as the approximate increases over the next 3 years.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

The other day Gil said 10%, 3%, 2% as the approximate increases over the next 3 years.

My Hawthorn sledge aside, that strikes me as particularly low given the size of the media rights increase which was reported as an increase of 67%.

It would be no surprise, therefore, if the players are up in arms.

 

[telsor]

NFL and NHL have both have strikes in recent years at least we don't have that. Also NFL had no cap for 1 season a few years ago clubs were literally told to just keep it reasonable, because no one could come to an agreement.

Agree a cap should be in place but it is common worldwide for these to drag on

That'd be an interesting one...The AFL telling clubs "There is no cap, and we can't strictly speaking enforce one, but just quietly if you go over $11M each, who knows what might happen..." <cue ominous music>

 

[bradburygold]

That'd be an interesting one...The AFL telling clubs "There is no cap, and we can't strictly speaking enforce one, but just quietly if you go over $11M each, who knows what might happen..." <cue ominous music>

dallas cowboys and the washington redskins (the 2 clubs owned by mega billionaires) were seen to have ignored this insutruction by signing multiple free agents so they had cap restrictions put in place a few years later

 

[JeddaB]

My Hawthorn sledge aside, that strikes me as particularly low given the size of the media rights increase which was reported as an increase of 67%.

It would be no surprise, therefore, if the players are up in arms.

IMO the players shouldn't be getting any extra. Should all be going to rebuild/restructure grass roots footy and academies Australia wide. But that's a topic for another day.

 

[telsor]

dallas cowboys and the washington redskins (the 2 clubs owned by mega billionaires) were seen to have ignored this insutruction by signing multiple free agents so they had cap restrictions put in place a few years later

I imagine the AFL would be more likely to 'adjust' the fixture (Hawthorn V Collingwood in Launceston anyone?), extra funding and things like compo picks, but yeah.

 

[bradburygold]

I imagine the AFL would be more likely to 'adjust' the fixture (Hawthorn V Collingwood in Launceston anyone?), extra funding and things like compo picks, but yeah.

well they have put a trade ban in place in the past after a club was seen to push the general spirit of a rule but i didnt want to start the comparison by myself..

 

[HairyO]

My Hawthorn sledge aside, that strikes me as particularly low given the size of the media rights increase which was reported as an increase of 67%.

It would be no surprise, therefore, if the players are up in arms.

Yep, and the AFL still refuses to open up all their books to scrutiny by the AFLPA. They are very much expecting the AFLPA to bend over and cop what they are given.

 

[dlanod]

dallas cowboys and the washington redskins (the 2 clubs owned by mega billionaires) were seen to have ignored this insutruction by signing multiple free agents so they had cap restrictions put in place a few years later

Yeah, that was funny. Got draft picks docked for not obeying rules that didn't exist. The AFL would've been proud.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

IMO the players shouldn't be getting any extra. Should all be going to rebuild/restructure grass roots footy and academies Australia wide. But that's a topic for another day.

Well as it turns out, given our posts have all been shifted, it's now a topic for today

No. The players put on the show. It's them we pay thousands to marvel at. Distribution through grass roots only serves to take away community obligation and fatten the wallets of administrators at lower leagues (and insurance companies etc).

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

well they have put a trade ban in place in the past after a club was seen to push the general spirit of a rule but i didnt want to start the comparison by myself..

Do you know, and yes I know I'm opening a can of worms here, that the people at the Swans are still no better informed than we are as to the actual basis of the trade ban?

I had a crack at a senior Swans administrator about this at a lunch recently, in the context of being a paying member of long standing who felt in the dark on the issue and his response was "I can't tell you what I don't know." The excuses they got were exactly the same as those we got. "You can't have everyone." "We're helping you manage your cap."

Those aren't reasons. It was an act of retribution from a League Chairman for having his trade manipulations undermined.

 

[telsor]

well they have put a trade ban in place in the past after a club was seen to push the general spirit of a rule but i didnt want to start the comparison by myself..

True, but my suggestions would mean they didn't have to admit the cause and thus run into potential restraint of trade type legal problems.

Forcing Hawthorn to host Collingwood in Launceston meanwhile would officially be a matter of ensuring that the Tasmanian fans get to see all clubs (while at the same time 'just happening' to cost Hawthorn significantly in a financial sense).

 

[bradburygold]

Do you know, and yes I know I'm opening a can of worms here, that the people at the Swans are still no better informed than we are as to the actual basis of the trade ban?

I had a crack at a senior Swans administrator about this at a lunch recently, in the context of being a paying member of long standing who felt in the dark on the issue and his response was "I can't tell you what I don't know." The excuses they got were exactly the same as those we got. "You can't have everyone." "We're helping you manage your cap."

Those aren't reasons. It was an act of retribution from a League Chairman for having his trade manipulations undermined.

too big can of worms not going there

 

[telsor]

Do you know, and yes I know I'm opening a can of worms here, that the people at the Swans are still no better informed than we are as to the actual basis of the trade ban?

I had a crack at a senior Swans administrator about this at a lunch recently, in the context of being a paying member of long standing who felt in the dark on the issue and his response was "I can't tell you what I don't know." The excuses they got were exactly the same as those we got. "You can't have everyone." "We're helping you manage your cap."

Those aren't reasons. It was an act of retribution from a League Chairman for having his trade manipulations undermined.

Because the AFL coming out and saying that Sydney gamed the system would bring about bad PR both for the AFL (poor system that let itself be gamed) and Sydney ('cheats') and lead to questions about why Sydney isn't/wasn't punished more significantly rather than getting what was, after all, pretty much a slap on the wrist (they were prevented from doing something they were unlikely to be doing much of anyway).

As it is, Sydney, in return for a slap on the wrist, gets an issue to rally their fans around and a chance to be seen as something other than the AFLs love child, so overall, it's a win for Sydney.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Because the AFL coming out and saying that Sydney gamed the system would bring about bad PR both for the AFL (poor system that let itself be gamed) and Sydney ('cheats') and lead to questions about why Sydney isn't/wasn't punished more significantly rather than getting what was, after all, pretty much a slap on the wrist (they were prevented from doing something they were unlikely to be doing much of anyway).

As it is, Sydney, in return for a slap on the wrist, gets an issue to rally their fans around and a chance to be seen as something other than the AFLs love child, so overall, it's a win for Sydney.

But we didn't game the system. We traded players out and we traded players in. This is something you continue to fail to get. We traded players out as well. Ok? So if trading is gaming the system, I guess we're guilty. Are Geelong equally guilty?

 

[dlanod]

Because the AFL coming out and saying that Sydney gamed the system would bring about bad PR both for the AFL (poor system that let itself be gamed) and Sydney ('cheats') and lead to questions about why Sydney isn't/wasn't punished more significantly rather than getting what was, after all, pretty much a slap on the wrist (they were prevented from doing something they were unlikely to be doing much of anyway).

As it is, Sydney, in return for a slap on the wrist, gets an issue to rally their fans around and a chance to be seen as something other than the AFLs love child, so overall, it's a win for Sydney.

The problem is that the punishment didn't address the issue.

The AFL got rid of the COLA. Ok.
The AFL said it would be transitioned out over a couple of years. Ok.
The AFL said Sydney couldn't trade in or sign any players unless they dropped their cap by 9.8% (or whatever it was) in one season. Something the AFL knows is basically impossible because player contracts are guaranteed. Ummm...
The AFL then changed their mind and said Sydney could bring one player in if they had a contract value of less than $400k or so in a year where Sydney had lost a player on at least that much (IIRC). Ummm...

Basically the AFL just made it up as they went along. They would've been better off just saying "this is how the cap is going to be, you deal with it" because that would've been consistent with the normal AFL rules. Instead they felt Sydney made them look silly so they decided to ban Sydney from recruiting players. And the funny thing was it was only Sydney - GWS had the same rules applied to them, but the AFL didn't give them a trade and FA ban. Just dumb.