Clubs beginning to realise footy dept tax is a door charge to the exclusive premiers club

[telsor]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Seems the Swans were running their academy and having a significant effect with it before the AFL changed the rules and allowed you to take players from them.

Therefore having clubs be able to take players isn't a necessary part of the academy system, so why not remove it and remove a lot of angst.

I mean, it'd also be nice if the northern clubs acknowledged that the AFL (and thus Vic clubs) are paying for them, but that's a minor detail compared to perverting the draft just to assist clubs gain artificial success. I mean, surely a club so keen on fairness would like the idea of a fair draft, right?

 

[CD__]

Seems the Swans were running their academy and having a significant effect with it before the AFL changed the rules and allowed you to take players from them.

Therefore having clubs be able to take players isn't a necessary part of the academy system, so why not remove it and remove a lot of angst.

I mean, it'd also be nice if the northern clubs acknowledged that the AFL (and thus Vic clubs) are paying for them, but that's a minor detail compared to perverting the draft just to assist clubs gain artificial success. I mean, surely a club so keen on fairness would like the idea of a fair draft, right?

We always had 'priority' access to kids in the academy, it's just that none were of note until Isaac Heeney last year and Callum Mills this year. So for all the ranting and raving about the inequality of the draft, we've invested upwards of $10m for little on-field success at this stage, however the development of Aussie rules footy in NSW is priceless in my opinion.

Also, the supposed inequality in the draft would barely scrape into the top 10 for factors that benefit certain teams moreso than others.

 

[MarkT2]

Hmm it's almost like that idea got tried before and failed completely so they put in academies instead hmmmm

1. It never happened.
2. Even if it did and didn't work it doesn't change the point at all.

 

[Kabana]

Can we have a hard salary cap on players payments then Andrew? No exceptions of any type to any club?

We can thank Eddie for that.

 

[telsor]

We always had 'priority' access to kids in the academy, it's just that none were of note until Isaac Heeney last year and Callum Mills this year. So for all the ranting and raving about the inequality of the draft, we've invested upwards of $10m for little on-field success at this stage, however the development of Aussie rules footy in NSW is priceless in my opinion.

Also, the supposed inequality in the draft would barely scrape into the top 10 for factors that benefit certain teams moreso than others.

So until Heeney came along, you had the access, but didn't even find a single kid worth a 5th rounder?

Odd how the access was there, but they didn't have the points system...

As for Sydney investing $10m....It's very nice of you to invest the money we give you into the things we give it to you for, but don't claim it's yours. (and BTW, it's not just your club..there are 3 others on the teat, 'investing' the money we give them and then claiming all the rewards).

 

[Pessimistic]

Nice thread about anything but the OP

 

[Boxhead_31]

Nope

 

[Boxhead_31]

Sydney still gets COLA-lite after that...

$15,000 to players under $300k paid by the AFL is a lot different to CoLA

 

[boncer34]

$15,000 to players under $300k

 

[bumsonseats]

In a discussion about having a level playing field for all 18 clubs, academies are very relevant.

I think spending on Academies should be included in a clubs football department spend.
Not sure how it is any different than paying for development coaches

 

[jatz14]

Anywhere that holds 100k seems fine. Where would you suggest?

I think it should be held where it's hard for anyone but Vic's to attend, but where you can say, 'its for the good of the game'
Now where would that be?

SYDNEY has put an official submission to the AFL asking for a hard cap on club football department spending.

AFL clubs can this year spend over the $9.3 million cap, but pay a 75 cents tax to the league for every dollar over that mark.

​

We expressed a view if you are going to have a cap, why not have a hard cap?

Andrew Ireland

​

The Swans believe it should be a definitive cap with only some exemptions for welfare and psychological services.

It would mean the likes of Collingwood, Hawthorn and West Coast could not decide to spend their way to a premiership by blowing that footy cap.

The league is reviewing its club revenue tax — currently capped at $500,000 a club — as well as the footy department tax.

It is understood the AFLPA also supports a hard footy department cap to ensure the most level playing field possible.


Sydney chief executive Andrew Ireland told the Herald Sun the Swans wanted equalisation across the board.

A hard cap would likely tie in with the AFL bridging the gap for clubs paying less than the $9.3 million figure, which would cost a combined $14 million.

The Lions are paying around $8 million in their football cap.

“The AFL asked clubs early in the year to put some thoughts into future distributions,’’ Ireland said.

“We expressed a view if you are going to have a cap, why not have a hard cap?

“It seems unfair if 16 of the AFL clubs were complying with that and there were two clubs who could just do it and spend more regardless and afford to pay a tax.”

In theory under the soft cap a club starved of premierships could decide to invest millions more in coaching, sports science, overseas camps and then pay the tax back to the AFL.

But while the Swans believe in equity across the competition they do not support the players’ bid for a guaranteed slice of the AFL’s revenue.

AFLPA boss Paul Marsh has staked his tenure on acquiring that guarantee from the AFL.

But Ireland said the Swans believed a better agreement to see players handed an increase if the league made more money in coming years was fairer.

“We have been opposed to set percentages. There are so many things we believe would end up being out, it starts to mean what is it a percentage of” he said.

“Even the ones that are almost no-brainers are poker machine revenues, the legislation won’t permit it.

“It is a question of what is the amount the competition can fairly pay the players and there has been a system by which if there is more income than envisioned, that is passed onto the players. “We think that’s reasonable.”

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[telsor]

$15,000 to players under $300k paid by the AFL is a lot different to CoLA

True, instead of almost a million extra, they 'only' get ~300K more than other clubs.

Still not a level playing field.