95%

[MUYB]

How can anyone look at the output of these 'players' on our list, and seriously defend the fact that we have to pay our playing group at minimum 95% of what Geelong, Collingwood, Essendon etc. pay theirs.

I'm a very strong supporter of unionism, but clearly this is a case of it going too far. With guaranteed payments, these players don't feel like they actually have to put any effort into their job. They'll get paid six figure salaries whether they put in a brownlow performance, or spend the year jogging around at Casey.

Utterly ridiculous.

 

[LeverPuller]

Agreed.

 

[andrew99]

The minimum payment amount is made to foster player loyalty. Basically it prevents clubs from building up a big war chest to attract players from other clubs.

 

[Cannon82]

Should be a minimum percentage of say 75% with another 20% available on performance. Players' Association argued for an increase in the cap due to the bigger TV deal - there'd be a case to reduce it given viewers would be driven away from Melbourne games.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

How can anyone look at the output of these 'players' on our list, and seriously defend the fact that we have to pay our playing group at minimum 95% of what Geelong, Collingwood, Essendon etc. pay theirs.

With guaranteed payments, these players don't feel like they actually have to put any effort into their job. They'll get paid six figure salaries whether they put in a brownlow performance, or spend the year jogging around at Casey.

Very true - the 95% rule is a f***ing joke anyway, of course. In fact, the whole minimum salary cap percentage thing has ALWAYS been ridiculous and unnecessary.

The only reason it started in the first place was because Ross Oakley set it up to make life harder for Fitzroy, as part of that overall whiteanting campaign the AFL ran against us for 12 years.

When said rule was first introduced, it was an open secret amongst club admins around the league that this was the case. It was commonly known as the "Fitzroy rule"

I'm a very strong supporter of unionism.

Amen Brother

 

[RandB]

Its the AFL's way of soaking up dollars that battling clubs can throw at other players via free agency. Think about it, the salary floor only just rose this year after FA came in. Unless you have a heap of spuds on decent money coming out of contract you're tied up.

Having said that, most of our players are spuds anyway so disregard this post.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Its the AFL's way of soaking up dollars that battling clubs can throw at other players via free agency. Think about it, the salary floor only just rose this year after FA came in. Unless you have a heap of spuds on decent money coming out of contract you're tied up.

Exactly.

As I said, the whole purpose of this rule is to make life harder for struggling clubs - that's certainly how Oakley intended it to be, and that's how it is now. Perhaps even more pernicious now, with the 'floor' being raised as high as it presently is.

 

[Catsace]

Forgive me for intruding, but this is a subject i have always felt is real a problem for sides with young/developing lists, and it ties in with this other issue that must have some impact as well...the idea of 'bringing forward' one's salary to compensate for a likely higher level of salaries in the future.

The thing with this is, would there be a problem with motivation and full effort if by dint of being in a young squad, you are almost obliged to be given a larger percentage of your contract early (front loaded) as there is the twin issues of a) fewer older/experienced players getting the larger salaries, and b) having to spend 95%, you as a club have to pay players amounts that are probably above the young player's station at this stage of his career. There was talk about front loading Trengove's salary i think, along with a few others from memory a couple of seasons ago, and in all honesty, if you get the big bucks early....would you bust your gut in year three or four for maybe 15-20% of your full contracted payment, having got much of the money already? Does it act as a de-motivator for the player?

I have to use Geelong as an example, but i am certain that the 22 y/o's like Duncan, Christensen, T.Hunt, Smedts and the like would only be on a moderate sort of contract....maybe tops 200-250K at this stage a year, if that. At least until they start replacing the large number of senior players who rightfully are on the best money they can reasonably make given the cap constraints. But at the Dees, you have to spend 95% (although in fairness Geelong probably spends maybe close to a million more as there's 7-8 players on the veterans list. The Dees may not have anyone who qualifies on that).....on a young and largely unproven list.

Same with maybe Port, and certainly the Tigers of 2-3 years ago....having to spend big money and find ways to use the cap, which could come at the expense of motivation later in these youngster's contracts. I mean as an example, if you were paid 80% of your pay by say 1pm on a day of working....and it was in your pocket already, would you bust a gut later in the day?

That suggestion by Cannon82 of a 75% cap with bonuses or some way to sort of let the cap fit the list would be a much better suggestion. It just seems against the normal idea of 'earning your keep' in having a cap that is so high a percentage in comparison to sides whose output and results far exceed that of the Dees players.

 

[Cudi_420]

Socialism compromises competitiveness.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

That, in the words of an old Republican Supreme Court Justice, is the price you pay for a civilised society.

The closest nation to total unfettered capitalism is Pakistan, and I doubt many of us would ever want to live there.

Show me many industries in America where serious competition exists in any given market, beyond a cartel controlled by a handful of major players.

Unfettered capitalism also compromises competitiveness.

You don't get survival of the fittest, what you get is survival of the fattest.

Aside from equal opportunity in life being manifestly more important than 'free market' primacy.

For example, the right to a useful and remunerative job. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation, The right of farmers to raise and sell their products at a return which will give their family a decent living.

The right of businessmen, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

The right of every family to a decent home, the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health, the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment, and the right to a good education.

Quoting from Roosevelt's 1944 State of the Union address, where he outlined the need for a "Second Bill of Rights" in America.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Nor the appropriate place to talk politics.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Perhaps, but while the post was veering off the primary target, kinda like our kick-ins, I still feel I brought a good element of caché to it. Right up the ying-yang, as it were.

 

[stretcharmstrong]

Lol. Indeed you did mate.

 

[deeman87]

Just means we can keep front loading contracts and make more runs at big names ala Mitch Clark.

 

[Tulip]

Just means we can keep front loading contracts and make more runs at big names ala Mitch Clark.

Would be bloody exciting to get a big name in this year, just depends if players have faith in our systems.

 

[Bluelegs]

The biggest midfield name this year coming ooc is Daisy Thomas and we'd need a ****load of cash to throw at him for him to even consider coming to our rabble.

 

[raven echo]

The biggest midfield name this year coming ooc is Daisy Thomas and we'd need a ****load of cash to throw at him for him to even consider coming to our rabble.

Would love to have Daisy playing for us next year but we're going to need to drive up to his house with a dump truck full of cash to convince him to come over.

 

[Cannon82]

Would love to have Daisy playing for us next year but we're going to need to drive up to his house with a dump truck full of cash to convince him to come over.

I've given this a lot of thought and I think the best course of action for the club is to put together a massive harem of athletic girls (netball, hockey, soccer players, etc) and have Jack Viney, Nathan Jones, Mitch Clark and a few other choice players start knocking out F/S picks immediately. Take the "Footy Factory" to the next level...

Obviously more of a long term solution though.