AFL draft and salary cap

Remove this Banner Ad

Sep 21, 2002
53,929
48,420
Adelaide
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Norwood
Testimony to the AFL's "evening up" process with the draft and salary cap is this week's Grand Final. It is being played between the 1998 and 1999 Wooden Spooners.
Brisbane Lions are a marvellous side and Leigh Matthews has done a great job, whereas Eddie McGuire and Mick Malthouse have moved mountains in getting Collingwood to where they are.
My question is, "If Brisbane win back to back premierships, should they still be allowed priority draft picks, and extra salary cap allowances?"
Their ability to retain 3 or 4 Brownlow Medallists is greater than that of most other clubs in the AFL. (I am thinking perhaps Lappin or Headland may win one in future).
Are these concessions appropriate in order to foster football in Queensland, or should the AFL review their stance on the Brisbane Lions?
 
All it proves is that the extra picks you get for finishing last or winning less than 5 games is too great an advantage.

Brisbane's success is still partly an effect of the merger and all the talent that came together from two teams will lots of previous draft picks. They have made that talent last by trading for more draft picks.

Brisbane will probably loose a few players after this year. I reackon they should consider trading one of the fab four if it means they can keep hedland. Probably lappin would be the most expendable.

Extra cap room is merely leveling the playing field for a developing state. You've been listening too much to Eddie and Micks spin doctoring if you think otherwise.



Originally posted by Adelaide Hawk
Testimony to the AFL's "evening up" process with the draft and salary cap is this week's Grand Final. It is being played between the 1998 and 1999 Wooden Spooners.
Brisbane Lions are a marvellous side and Leigh Matthews has done a great job, whereas Eddie McGuire and Mick Malthouse have moved mountains in getting Collingwood to where they are.
My question is, "If Brisbane win back to back premierships, should they still be allowed priority draft picks, and extra salary cap allowances?"
Their ability to retain 3 or 4 Brownlow Medallists is greater than that of most other clubs in the AFL. (I am thinking perhaps Lappin or Headland may win one in future).
Are these concessions appropriate in order to foster football in Queensland, or should the AFL review their stance on the Brisbane Lions?
 
As to the question should the AFL review it's stance on concessions to the Lions, The answer to that must be yes. Even if ultimately they decide concessions should still remain for a short period, there is no way they can totally ignore the effect the additional salary cap is having. You can say we want to foster the sport in non-football states but do we also want to create a situation like the Premier League and Serie A have where a handful of clubs are the only ones with any chance of lifting the trophy. The salary cap has most recently caused teams to offload players they would sooner have kept and it has sown in their results, Brisbane are protected from this. I am not in favor of immediate abolition of this concession but a plan should be put in place to phase it out over say 3 years so that Brisbane can be brought into line with as little trauma to that club as possible.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Originally posted by mic59
As to the question should the AFL review it's stance on concessions to the Lions, The answer to that must be yes. Even if ultimately they decide concessions should still remain for a short period, there is no way they can totally ignore the effect the additional salary cap is having. You can say we want to foster the sport in non-football states but do we also want to create a situation like the Premier League and Serie A have where a handful of clubs are the only ones with any chance of lifting the trophy. The salary cap has most recently caused teams to offload players they would sooner have kept and it has sown in their results, Brisbane are protected from this. I am not in favor of immediate abolition of this concession but a plan should be put in place to phase it out over say 3 years so that Brisbane can be brought into line with as little trauma to that club as possible.

But why?. The comparison with Collingwood in the original post is almost identical. Last year Brisbane were in exactly the same position as Collingwood are now. Underdogs in a GF.
That implies that Brisbane is on a level playing field with Collingwood. If you wish to take away some of Brisbane's benefits, you should also take away some of collingwoods. Anything else is pro-vic mumbo jumbo.
 
Originally posted by grayham
But why?. The comparison with Collingwood in the original post is almost identical. Last year Brisbane were in exactly the same position as Collingwood are now. Underdogs in a GF.
That implies that Brisbane is on a level playing field with Collingwood. If you wish to take away some of Brisbane's benefits, you should also take away some of collingwoods. Anything else is pro-vic mumbo jumbo.
Which Collingwood benefits?
 
The issue re extra cap room is player retention. The AFL is trying to promote player retention in the northern states. The logical extension here is that they are hindering the ability of other teams to retain players.

Essendon was forced into losing a key component of its backline. Hawthorn lost a 21 year old key position player largely due to salary cap restraints. Richmond is under immense pressure, Carlton obviously has its troubles managing the cap and Fremantle's playing list will be closer to 30 than 40 on present trends.

Yet Sydney can sign Barry Hall on an exorbitant contract and Brisbane can retain Voss, Black, Akermanis, Lappin, Leppitsch, Lynch, Brown, both Scotts, Pike and maybe even Headland.

Opposition to extra cap space is not "pro-vic mumbo jumbo". It is a desire to be treated on equal terms with your competitors.
 
Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
Opposition to extra cap space is not "pro-vic mumbo jumbo". It is a desire to be treated on equal terms with your competitors.

True, but the question which can then be posed, is whether or not the 'allowances' are creating a level playing field, or skewing it. And in the event of them creating a level playing field, is it too much to ask for this process to continue, or should the clubs in question merely be faced with the realities of their predicament, without any form of assistance?
 
Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
Yet Sydney can sign Barry Hall on an exorbitant contract and Brisbane can retain Voss, Black, Akermanis, Lappin, Leppitsch, Lynch, Brown, both Scotts, Pike and maybe even Headland.
Bingo.

I forgot to mention in my wet and wild arguments yesterday, that not only does Brisbane have this extra moolah, but their cost of living, especially rent, is significantly less.

They are getting a sweet, sweet deal.

We got a priority pick and duffed it. That's the extent of our "AFL assistance". We are where we are because we recruited brilliantly and Malthouse has made us one of the hardest units going.
 
Originally posted by Stocka
True, but the question which can then be posed, is whether or not the 'allowances' are creating a level playing field, or skewing it. And in the event of them creating a level playing field, is it too much to ask for this process to continue, or should the clubs in question merely be faced with the realities of their predicament, without any form of assistance?
It's a good theory. But in practice, are those clubs any worse off than others in player retentions stakes?

I'll back my club to go player-for-player against anyone over the last ten years in the 'quality player lost back to home state' stakes.
 
Originally posted by FIGJAM
We are where we are because we recruited brilliantly and Malthouse has made us one of the hardest units going.

Brilliantly articulated, although, I'm afraid that you've got the wrong coach . . . it's actually supposed to be Matthews, not Malthouse. :eek: :D
 
Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
It's a good theory. But in practice, are those clubs any worse off than others in player retentions stakes?

I'll back my club to go player-for-player against anyone over the last ten years in the 'quality player lost back to home state' stakes.

It's hard to say what the affects may have been, had the said allowances not been in place, and for this reason, it's also hard to make a comparison to other clubs. But this is really where the whole issue lies though.

It all comes down to a value judgement regarding what people believe a level competition to be, and whether or not moves such as the ones mentioned should be adopted in the belief of trying to create a level playing field.

It is basically a situation, where the parties involved will easily be able to justify their stance (that has even been made evident by discussions here on BigFooty). The factor that weighs in the most, is what particular agenda is being pursued by those in power at the time.

Overall though, while it is certainly an issue worth debate (albeit, I believe the topic is given far more concern than need be), I don't believe that it is necessarily any more important than a number of other issues (past and present) which receive less consideration by those who are now complaining about this particular issue.
 
Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club
It's a good theory. But in practice, are those clubs any worse off than others in player retentions stakes?

I'll back my club to go player-for-player against anyone over the last ten years in the 'quality player lost back to home state' stakes.

Hawthorn have done badly with interstate players, but they would be the extreme example of vic clubs, not the norm.
And Hawthorn have finally figured out the best way to avoid homesick players, and thats recruit people from its own state, an option sadly missing for Sydney and Brisbane.

Its quite simple to see examples of how the extra cap has helped Sydney and Brisbane. Just compare times when they didnt have it, to times when they did. They didnt 10 years ago and both teams were last and second last. This gives pretty conclusive proof that Brisbane and Sydney cannot recruit and retain players without paying them more.
And look at today, one team about to finish 1st or 2nd, the other finished about 12th. For an average finishing position of about 6th/7th (mid table). Seems like a pretty level playing field to me.

There are about 5 blocks of teams in the AFL which needs should be considered seperately, but as long as the 5 blocks average out to about 8th spot, the competition can be seen to be fair.
Block 1: Non-AFL states. Syd and Bris. Average 6/7th.
Block 2: Non vic AFL: WC, Freo, Ade, Port. Average about 5th.
Block 3: Big Vic: Coll, Rich, Ess, Carl. Average about 8th.
Block 4: Med Vic: Haw, Melb, Geel, etc Average about 10th
Block 5: Poor Vic: Saints, Dogs, North. Average about 11th.

Whats that prove? It proves that the comps pretty level. Teams will good management regardless of your block are doing well. As it should be. The ones that struggle will be the poor vic with only 92.5% of the cap, but that has absolutely nothing to do with Sydney or Brisbane.

BTW, did anyone understand Micks cap proposal on TF last night? From what I could make out, it sounded like a more complicated version of exactly what we have now.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Originally posted by Danny Chook Fan Club

Yet Sydney can sign Barry Hall on an exorbitant contract and Brisbane can retain Voss, Black, Akermanis, Lappin, Leppitsch, Lynch, Brown, both Scotts, Pike and maybe even Headland.

Opposition to extra cap space is not "pro-vic mumbo jumbo". It is a desire to be treated on equal terms with your competitors.

Maybe Sydney having to pay Hall a lot more than he could have got at another Vic club merely proves that Sydney need a cap extension to compete with Vic clubs. If Hall had gone to Collingwood for 15% less than Sydney this would probably be a non-issue.

Also, your example players from Brisbane includes mosly non-qlders so the 10% extra is probably being used to retain them.

True, pro-vic mumbo jumbo may have been a tad of a generalization, as it seems to be an issue only for officials from a very succesful victorian club who I suspect is using it as a political tool against their opposition for this particiular game only.

I guess the question comes down to, would you move interstate for a 10% pay rise? Not many would.
 
Why don't they level up Sydney's and Brisbane's player payments with the rest of the AFL

BUT give them that extra money... 6 - 800,000 for players recruited from that state... so it gives them an incentive to keep and build up players from that state... not keep players from other states...

Seems simple to me..

The other idea is to actually cap player payments to say 500k per person...
 
Originally posted by Vaul Darkhour
Why don't they level up Sydney's and Brisbane's player payments with the rest of the AFL

BUT give them that extra money... 6 - 800,000 for players recruited from that state... so it gives them an incentive to keep and build up players from that state... not keep players from other states...

Seems simple to me..

The other idea is to actually cap player payments to say 500k per person...

Both ideas sound too restrictive for players.

I have no problem with the extra cap allowance being based on the % of Sydney players in the AFL (and Brisbane....) thereby the most efficient way for Sydney to build a good side is to play those Sydney players base rates, and the extra interstaters needed base + %. Equilibrium will be found, as it rougly now.
 
Originally posted by Vaul Darkhour
BUT give them that extra money... 6 - 800,000 for players recruited from that state...
Imagine the sooking from St Kilda if your best player went back to Qld with the extra money. Also hardly any playes are from the Sydney area so that would amount to nothing.

I think most of you are underestimating the power of Leigh Matthews to inspire his players. Also the amount of friendship that is in the club helps players want to stay. Most of the big name players at the Lions have had big offers to go elsewhere and have chosen to stay there.

The game is not all about money.
 
I have read some of the posts here, and some are quite spot on.

I have gone over this before, but I will do so again.

The amount of players coming out of WA, SA and VIC far outweighs the amount of players coming out of NSW and QLD.

This is the problem. With not many players coming out of NSW and QLD, this means that Sydney and Brisbane teams are mainly made up of WA, SA and VIC players.

Therefore the amount of players that 'may' want to go back 'home' is bigger than the amount that would want to go back to NSW or QLD (smaller number by far).

Put it in a situation. (without the cap)
There is a gun kid that is playing for Sydney, he is from Vic. He gets an offer to play for Hawthorn, and they can offer the same as Sydney. Where will he go? To Hawthorn of course, this way he gets to go home and be on the same money.

Situation (with the extra cap)
There is a gun kid in Sydney and he has a choice in staying at Sydney or going back to Hawthorn. Sydney can offer him $10,000 more. So he stays in Sydney.

You could say there is an arguement for both, but the problem is, that just say there is no cap.
That means every kid outside the state can go to other clubs on the same amount of money, so many would leave Sydney to go to their home state.

Because there is not as many NSW and QLD players, there is not be as many to return home, and therefore the competition would be lopsided.

Too many players leaving to coming in, and their would be no stability, which would leave Sydney and Brisbane towards the tail end of the ladder.

Until there is a similar amount coming out of NSW and QLD as the other states, there should and will always be this extra cap.
 
Originally posted by Philj
Don't (didn't) Sydney get an extra Cost of Living bonus as well?

Not sure. Probably. Probably included in the extra cap space, and that is another point. A player could be offered $410,000 at Sydney, and also say Hawthorn where he is from. Melbourne real estate is cheaper, so it costs him less to live.
 
Originally posted by Philj
Don't (didn't) Sydney get an extra Cost of Living bonus as well?

I havent heard of anything seperate, but in the past some have called the cap extension a cost of living bonus.

I guess it all relates back to the same thing. If you are an 18 yo Victorian living at home, it costs a lot less to stay in victoria than pay rent & food in NSW.
 
Originally posted by TheMase


Not sure. Probably. Probably included in the extra cap space, and that is another point. A player could be offered $410,000 at Sydney, and also say Hawthorn where he is from. Melbourne real estate is cheaper, so it costs him less to live.

I dont think cost of living should be brought into it at all.
The player could buy a very modest house in Sydney for $600,000 or a mansion in Melbourne for $600,000 but 10 years down the track the Sydney house will be worth a lot more.
 
Originally posted by grayham


I dont think cost of living should be brought into it at all.
The player could buy a very modest house in Sydney for $600,000 or a mansion in Melbourne for $600,000 but 10 years down the track the Sydney house will be worth a lot more.

I dont think so either. My main point does stand.
 
Originally posted by MSB ROYS

Imagine the sooking from St Kilda if your best player went back to Qld with the extra money. Also hardly any playes are from the Sydney area so that would amount to nothing.

I think most of you are underestimating the power of Leigh Matthews to inspire his players. Also the amount of friendship that is in the club helps players want to stay. Most of the big name players at the Lions have had big offers to go elsewhere and have chosen to stay there.

The game is not all about money.

Sooking?.. When did St Kilda come into the equation?.. Do you attack people out of the blue for no reason at all all the time?

Sounds to me that someone is sooking that they didn't aquire Riewoldt...

Well then, if no players come out of Sydney or Brisbane for that matter.. why have clubs in those states?... The problem is that the AFL needs to build up grass roots football in those states. By giving the states the money incentive to only recruit homegrown players.

I think people recognise that football must grow in order to succeed in Qld and NSW but i don't support using the extra money to hold onto/aquire interstate players..

Another solution is to give Qld and NSW priority picks from the entire state..

As far as being to restrictive on player payments... do players play just for money?... If you cap the player payments at something like 500k, (lots of money already) player payments become more balanced within the club and clubs aren't forced to exceed the salary cap. It also stops alot of player trading and forces clubs to grow players and not buy them...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

AFL draft and salary cap

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top