Strategy An equal share salary system

[pinky951]

Thought I would post up some ideas I had and give someoff season "blue sky" thinking fun.

I was reading about the cricket Australia salary scheme and noted that all players receive the same annual contract with match payments the same also (with the exception of a captain's bonus). It struck me that this could be something to employ on an AFL list.

I built the following player scheme on the assumptions:
- A strong investment would be made into player welfare, preparing for life after football, education, club culture, club services, networking assistance, media opportunities and family outreach/inclusiveness etc and other intangibles which would not incur salary cap spend but would add value to the overall package of being a Collingwood player
- A strong focus would be placed on contribution, with match payment and years of service in the AFL being the only differentiators of Salary on the list.
- The scheme would encourage retention of players who value the culture and investment made in their life and education, as well as a team equality mentality, which would hopefully balance the losses made by any lack of retention of marquee players.

The salary would be as follows, based on the 2016 salary cap.

Match payments for all players - $5000 per game
1st year draftees base - 75K (or the minimums required by AFL, average would be 75K)
2nd year players - 100K
3rd year players - 125K
4th year players - 150K
Senior players - 250K
Captain Bonus - 100K
Rookie list - outside of TPP

So in each case a player would have the opportunity, having played all 22 games, to earn.
1st year - 185K
2nd year - 210K
3rd year - 235K
4th year - 260K
Senior players - 360K
Captain - 460K

Whilst not reaching the lofty heights of some players, 360K for players over 4 years is still very good and I would presume when you break down the actual mix of the playing list it might be possible to increase this, or match payments slightly.

Thoughts? I would be one of those players that would buy into it I think, unfortunately I am a terrible footballer.

 

[76woodenspooners]

This is how things used to be back in the Jock McHale days - every player (plus coach) were paid the same money.

I think I remember reading somewhere once that McHale had in been roundly criticised in his later years for holding onto that idea, when other clubs had moved on.

I doubt it would work at a club level. Any club that instituted this scheme would have many of their best players poached by clubs that didn't.

If it were instituted competition wide then it could change things a bit. It'd take away one incentive for players to switch clubs. Daisy going to Carlton would have had nothing to with the money. Beams gong to Brisbane would have had nothing to do with the money. Franklin going to Sydney would have had nothing to do with the money ...

... Or maybe not? You've got rookie list outside of the TPP, which would allow the wooden spoon team to happily delist their best player, then rookie them, and pay them whatever they like because it's outside of the TPP?

Many will reject this out of hand because they think the Marxist ideal is counter to human nature. I'm a capitalist bourgeois at heart myself ... But I think this is interesting food for thought. As you say, it works for the Australian cricket team.

 

[Chameleon75]

Think that the ship has already sailed.

 

[Kappa]

Thought I would post up some ideas I had and give someoff season "blue sky" thinking fun.

I was reading about the cricket Australia salary scheme and noted that all players receive the same annual contract with match payments the same also (with the exception of a captain's bonus). It struck me that this could be something to employ on an AFL list.

I built the following player scheme on the assumptions:
- A strong investment would be made into player welfare, preparing for life after football, education, club culture, club services, networking assistance, media opportunities and family outreach/inclusiveness etc and other intangibles which would not incur salary cap spend but would add value to the overall package of being a Collingwood player
- A strong focus would be placed on contribution, with match payment and years of service in the AFL being the only differentiators of Salary on the list.
- The scheme would encourage retention of players who value the culture and investment made in their life and education, as well as a team equality mentality, which would hopefully balance the losses made by any lack of retention of marquee players.

The salary would be as follows, based on the 2016 salary cap.

Match payments for all players - $5000 per game
1st year draftees base - 75K (or the minimums required by AFL, average would be 75K)
2nd year players - 100K
3rd year players - 125K
4th year players - 150K
Senior players - 250K
Captain Bonus - 100K
Rookie list - outside of TPP

So in each case a player would have the opportunity, having played all 22 games, to earn.
1st year - 185K
2nd year - 210K
3rd year - 235K
4th year - 260K
Senior players - 360K
Captain - 460K

Whilst not reaching the lofty heights of some players, 360K for players over 4 years is still very good and I would presume when you break down the actual mix of the playing list it might be possible to increase this, or match payments slightly.

Thoughts? I would be one of those players that would buy into it I think, unfortunately I am a terrible footballer.

I feel like giving everyone the same regardless of their contribution is an idea that's tried and failed somewhere...

 

[Maddhew]

The argument's basis is that everyone on the list does the same amount of work, which to some extent is true.

The counter argument is that pay should be based on output (game day) and value of contribution to the organisation.

Should Xavier Richards be getting paid the same as Buddy Franklin? I think not


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Communists, too much that so not for me.
Cricket is scaled but a more controlled environment.
Each level different pay.
Only thing cricket can worry about is players preferring the money of T20 and bypass or "retire" from the longer game.
West Indies seem to have this problem, amongst others.

 

[pinky951]

Well, the giving everyone the same regardless of the contribution is hopefully offset somewhat by the match payments. So you play every game you get paid more. It might mean that players are poached but given that you can only spend so much money hopefully some players would put stock in the additional value at the club, i.e the player welfare stuff I mentioned also. You see that in the workplace nowadays, a lot of factors go into attracting the best employees, not just salary

 

[loki04]

Is that you Blairy?

 

[Jelly Bean]

This is the system that saw Bob Rose - possibly the greatest Collingwood player of all time - leave Collingwood I think. And possibly Des Tuddenhan and maybe even Len Thompson leave.

Won't happen.

 

[Aishole]

Could be seen to creat somewhat of an inequality.
By this logic the bloke that goes the extra mile (or 10) to get the best out of himself on game day, and does so, being a star every week (E.g. Scotty P) would get paid the same as that bloke that just does whats required and doesn't perform to such a high standard on the weekend, but just gets a game every week.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Would this not just lead to us having a bunch of spuds on our list while all the better players move on to other clubs for more cash? (ie. we'd attract minimum standard battlers)?

 

[Soups]

I feel this would lead to too much trouble. And we could be in enough trouble as it is right now.

 

[MarkT2]

What happens when Darcy Moore gets offered an extra $350k pa plus bonuses by Carlton and walks?

 

[Jasper84]

The argument's basis is that everyone on the list does the same amount of work, which to some extent is true.

The counter argument is that pay should be based on output (game day) and value of contribution to the organisation.

Should Xavier Richards be getting paid the same as Buddy Franklin? I think not


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

They are probably not that far off once Buddy makes his annual donation to the Columbian Employment Fund.

 

[Jasper84]

What happens when Darcy Moore gets offered an extra $350k pa plus bonuses by Carlton and walks?

He would have to walk to GWS first before Carlton even noticed him.

 

[Countrypie]

I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand . If you added in performance benchmarks to reward performance, with a lot of effort you could structure something that appeared fair and reasonable. The deal breakers would be injuries though. You can't punish someone because they broke their leg in the first minute of the season putting their body on the line for the club.

The other real problem is that in the initial years at least the pay system would make poaching a player from another club would be very difficult on a cash basis.

The key to making anything like this work would be developing a strong after footy focus that opened pathways for players upon retirement. You would have to make that first class to make everything else possible.

 

[pinky951]

The star walking out (i.e. Darcy Moore) view of things is a bit simplistic. You are saying that the star, plus two unproven players, is worth more than three proven, solid players combined, because to pay that star to stay you have to drop two solid 300K salaried players, and bring in draftees or players who are worth less than the average salary to replace them. In the equal pay system you might not have a Darcy Moore but you would also have two less non-reliable players on your list. It would be about building depth.

 

[pinky951]

This is how things used to be back in the Jock McHale days - every player (plus coach) were paid the same money.

I think I remember reading somewhere once that McHale had in been roundly criticised in his later years for holding onto that idea, when other clubs had moved on.

Not a bad coaching career Jock McHale! Rookie List salary exists outside of the salary cap to my knowledge

 

[76woodenspooners]

Not a bad coaching career Jock McHale! Rookie List salary exists outside of the salary cap to my knowledge

I thought it was only Cat B rookies? (ie: Cox)

 

[pinky951]

I thought it was only Cat B rookies? (ie: Cox)

You might be right, surprisingly hard to find accurate info on it all.

 

[MarkT2]

The star walking out (i.e. Darcy Moore) view of things is a bit simplistic. You are saying that the star, plus two unproven players, is worth more than three proven, solid players combined, because to pay that star to stay you have to drop two solid 300K salaried players, and bring in draftees or players who are worth less than the average salary to replace them. In the equal pay system you might not have a Darcy Moore but you would also have two less non-reliable players on your list. It would be about building depth.

You would never wina flag. Depth can get you to finals but stars win flags. Collingwood supporters should know this more than anyone.