Do the equalisation methods need tweaking?

[RUNVS]

Need to lower the base salary cap to 80% as well instead of 95% to give the bottom teams enough money and salary cap room to go after big named targets. It is insane that a team like Carlton is paying its players almost as much as Hawthorn are paying theirs.

 

[rippersnipper]

You lower the salary cap players then the best will be targeted by the lower sides and if its a trade rather than free agency, the bigger clubs can receive high draft picks as compensation for the players they lose. That way there is a constant cycle and you hopefully don't have teams like the dogs, saints and Melbourne down in the dumps for too long.

I think they way we conduct our draft needs to change too, far too much of it is based on a player's athletic ability. Huge lack of 'footballers' nowadays and this also affects the length of time that it takes clubs to rebuild. No point having a bunch of marathon runners playing football.

Oh and finally 17 game seasons need to be brought in.

None of that will happen though.

 

[HBF]

Poor HBF, you're going to be so disappointed

He's been ok so far.
At the very least he oversaw I complete process to get Bolton into the club.
He's also a non Carlton person who has said we have to have a rebuild, which no other CEO has said in there time there.
And he appears to have a good relationship with MLG.

 

[MarkT2]

3. Melbourne is only allowed to pay 5% less than hawthorn in the salary cap, Hawthorn just pay there stars a little unders while lower sides are forced to overpay mediocrity

That isn't an equalisation issue. You don't perform worse if you pay players more. It is a CBA issue. I don't agree with it but the player union wants the floor to ensure pays are maximised.

 

[Topkent]

That isn't an equalisation issue. You don't perform worse if you pay players more. It is a CBA issue. I don't agree with it but the player union wants the floor to ensure pays are maximised.

It is because the AFL is adamant that lower clubs can steal free agents with money but the reality is we have barely anymore to spend than Hawthorn

 

[didaksrightfoot]

It is because the AFL is adamant that lower clubs can steal free agents with money but the reality is we have barely anymore to spend than Hawthorn

Yep - this is the biggest problem with AFL player movement right now - there are too many ways a top club is able to get itself under the salary cap to give it room to sign players, and not enough flexibility for bottom clubs to get the kind of cap space they will need to be competitive in free agency.

 

[RUNVS]

Yep - this is the biggest problem with AFL player movement right now - there are too many ways a top club is able to get itself under the salary cap to give it room to sign players, and not enough flexibility for bottom clubs to get the kind of cap space they will need to be competitive in free agency.

It would be really interesting if all AFL clubs had to pay their players a fixed rated. None of this front loading or back loading a contract. A fixed rated every year for the life of the contract.

 

[Topkent]

Yep - this is the biggest problem with AFL player movement right now - there are too many ways a top club is able to get itself under the salary cap to give it room to sign players, and not enough flexibility for bottom clubs to get the kind of cap space they will need to be competitive in free agency.

Right now with our list profiles Melbourne and Collingwood are 2 clubs who should have 2-3 million spare in the salary cap to pay, but instead having to meet the minumum payments we are probably paying less than half a million than hawks are paying their 3x premiership list

 

[Randy Campbell]

The more equal they make it the less equal it becomes.

 

[Fidel Cashflow]

Get rid of the veterans rule. $118k outside of the cap for 10 year players is a joke. Hawks have 4 and allows 475,000 extra to grab Frawley. If Geelong didn't have any would they be able to afford Danger? Are you telling me Hawthorn would have moved on Mitchell, Hodge, Roughead and Lewis if they had to pay their full wage?

 

[didaksrightfoot]

The more equal they make it the less equal it becomes.

No that's because they always half-ass it and are trying to keep certain people happy without caring much for actual equalization.
----

Some very simple methods:
Any outside cap payments that are related to the club (ie. Media deals or group sponsorship) must immediately come under the cap, unless you can prove that it is equivalent to market rates across the board. (Collingwood would probably take a hit from guys like Trav and Swan - I reckon Hawthorn would likely take a much bigget hit from some of its sponsorship deals).

Get rid of front/back ended contracts - too easy to manipulate to create cap space.
Get rid of the veterans payments (if they are still in place)... I'm pretty sure a few years ago there were a half-dozen Hawks guys on these - and most are still playing.

Get rid (or drop) the minimum spend - to allow bottom clubs to actually create significant cap room.

And finally:
Allow clubs the power to trade players DURING their contracts. If Melbourne knew (or guessed) a year early that Frawley would be walking out then they should be allowed to trade him at that point to the highest bidder. Hawthorn might decide to sit tight and wait a year, but a team like Freo or Sydney might think he's worth the gamble for that year, and then try to convince him to stay beyond that.

 

[MarkT2]

It would be really interesting if all AFL clubs had to pay their players a fixed rated. None of this front loading or back loading a contract. A fixed rated every year for the life of the contract.

Why? Clubs should be able to manage payments as they see fit. There is a maximum they can pay. If they can juggle things a bit to not waste cap space then good form them. Good management is a good thing not a bad thing.

It's probably not such a big deal now though as clubs can bank cap space.

 

[The Passenger]

The salary floor will never be removed by the AFLPA, but it seems ridiculous that the TPP for the bottom team are at the lowest 95% as high as the best team in the competition. It really leaves the bottom clubs hamstrung at the negotiation table. They have to pay overs for their players, and if that player improves they expect to get paid even more, even though their original salary was over what they are worth.

A player at a bottom club might get 650-700k a year, whereas at a mid table club or one of the better clubs that would be down around 450-500k which is closer to his true value. This player might improve to a 650-700k player a year over the next two years. But when he sits down to talk contracts, all parties know he is a much improved player and now he wants that to reflect in his contract so he wants 850-900k which is above what he is worth.

Bottom clubs will find themselves overpaying players to hit the 95% salary floor, and once you start overpaying someone it's very hard to drag their contract back into align with their true value. Especially if that club is still continuing to struggle so they can't even use the carrot of finals or premierships in salary negotiations.

It's quite a vicious cycle.

 

[RUNVS]

The salary floor will never be removed by the AFLPA, but it seems ridiculous that the TPP for the bottom team are at the lowest 95% as high as the best team in the competition. It really leaves the bottom clubs hamstrung at the negotiation table. They have to pay overs for their players, and if that player improves they expect to get paid even more, even though their original salary was over what they are worth.

A player at a bottom club might get 650-700k a year, whereas at a mid table club or one of the better clubs that would be down around 450-500k which is closer to his true value. This player might improve to a 650-700k player a year over the next two years. But when he sits down to talk contracts, all parties know he is a much improved player and now he wants that to reflect in his contract so he wants 850-900k which is above what he is worth.

Bottom clubs will find themselves overpaying players to hit the 95% salary floor, and once you start overpaying someone it's very hard to drag their contract back into align with their true value. Especially if that club is still continuing to struggle so they can't even use the carrot of finals or premierships in salary negotiations.

It's quite a vicious cycle.

Very much agree with this. At the very least it needs to be dropped to 90%, even 85% as it gives the lower ranked clubs so much more power to build their list. The AFLPA really screwed over equalisation demanding the 95% rule though I doubt they care.

 

[Prudster]

There has never been a time where equalisation has been allowed to run it's course without having an asterisk. CoLA and ambassador payments played a role in Sydney's recruitment of Franklin. The recruitment of Franklin left Hawthorn with a huge hole in the salary cap, which helped us get Frawley. Frawley leaving got Melbourne pick 3, which pushed other teams down the draft. F/S, priority picks, and academy picks push teams down the draft order for reasons outside of equalisation, and this propagates through the years to see some teams get an advantage, and others lose out.

Any rule that goes against equalisation of opportunity has impacts down the line that never seem to be accounted for. This means every time you bring in a new club, or change the rules to assist with developing markets/struggling teams, it goes directly against equalisation. We don't know just what issues these things cause down the line, but there is no point changing rules every year until we start at a base of complete equality.

On a side note, off field inequality should never be counterbalanced by giving on field advantages. If there are clubs who are struggling, they should be given off field support to get their club running properly. After that, support either needs to be given in a fair way (e.g rent assistance for all clubs' lowly paid rookies, rather than one clubs entire list), or clubs need to be left to sort themselves out.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Why? Clubs should be able to manage payments as they see fit. There is a maximum they can pay. If they can juggle things a bit to not waste cap space then good form them. Good management is a good thing not a bad thing.

It's probably not such a big deal now though as clubs can bank cap space.

Because your salary in each particular year should be equivalent to the overall value of players on your team - and being able to adjust these payments is a very simple way to create more cap room - which should be much more difficult to do for bigger clubs than it is currently.

 

[mfcrox]

Umm, that's how it should be.

If you're signing a player as a free agent (meaning they are uncontracted), why should you be trading anything or sacrificing a draft pick (or being compensated with one the other way)? You're using your salary cap and list space as currency to acquire them.

People need to accept that in some situations, some clubs lose out. Usually it's because of bad management or some fault of their own.

I know that is how it is, but it is bullshit that a premiership club can top up season after season by poaching players from struggling teams, and not have to give up a single thing for it.

 

[Prudster]

I know that is how it is, but it is bullshit that a premiership club can top up season after season by poaching players from struggling teams, and not have to give up a single thing for it.

Which teams have done this? Hawthorn only got Frawley for 'free' because the compensation Melbourne got was far too much, giving them no incentive to match the bid and force a trade. And we could only afford Frawley because we lost the biggest name in the game the year before for far, far less compensation than Melbourne got.

Seems to me that Melbourne did better out of this than Hawthorn did, and that's after showing not a single sign in Frawley's 8 year career that they could even make finals, let alone be a contender.

 

[MarkT2]

Because your salary in each particular year should be equivalent to the overall value of players on your team - and being able to adjust these payments is a very simple way to create more cap room - which should be much more difficult to do for bigger clubs than it is currently.

I agree with this but I don't see how it relates to my post/question re mandating even salary contracts over the contract period. The issue with paying what a list is worth is more to do with the floor. The problem is that is a CBA stipulation that the union won't give up without substantial concessions elsewhere.

 

[M Malice]

i think the bottom 3 teams on the ladder should get 2 picks in the top 10 in each draft.

18th picks 1 and 8
17th picks 2 and 9
16th picks 3 and 10

15th pick 4 14th pick 5 13th pick 6 12th pick 7 .... 11th pick 11 ...

1 selection in the first round i think is not enough for a more rapid improvement.

 

[Stopher]

I wonder if there could be a more dramatic adjustment to the '105%' rule for the cap.

Say a team is allowed to drop it as low as 80% and go as high as 120% but over a 5-year period it has to be averaged out to 100%. By doing this, teams such as the Saints and Dogs who have gone to the draft and recruited well, could pay the kids well enough whilst keeping their powder dry and gradually allowing those who have performed well, bigger contracts without having to lose anyone. If a club was smart, they could even allow some room to go for a big fish when they felt they were in 'the window'. Again, keep in mind that over any 5-year stretch the average must remain at or below 100%. If you do the math, it'd mean a club could never pay the full 120% for more than 2 years of a given 5-year period as they'd have to go lower than the minimum 80% to stay under the 100% average.

There is quite possibly a severe flaw in this idea that I haven't considered, but off the top of my head, it seems to have some merit

 

[mfcrox]

Which teams have done this? Hawthorn only got Frawley for 'free' because the compensation Melbourne got was far too much, giving them no incentive to match the bid and force a trade. And we could only afford Frawley because we lost the biggest name in the game the year before for far, far less compensation than Melbourne got.

Seems to me that Melbourne did better out of this than Hawthorn did, and that's after showing not a single sign in Frawley's 8 year career that they could even make finals, let alone be a contender.

You picked up Frawley for nothing, and kept a first round pick to then draft with. Why should the premiers be given that? Essentially two first round picks for the cost of one. It's crap!!!

Free agency is just a deadset crock. Too bad it is here to stay though because of the AFLPA.

 

[theRainbowGame]

Perhaps there can be a clause in the contract stating that players will be paid a certain amount. However if the salary cap is less than 95% then they will be topped up by a percentage share to reach the amount.
This would be great for a young club as younger players would love to join during a rebuild, and the older ones would still be able to offered large incentives to join. All players are aware of the clubs future plans when they sign contracts theses days. If they know the club will most likely pay them 200k a season for a few years until they land a big time player, i believe a lot of players would be happy with this.

 

[Prudster]

You picked up Frawley for nothing, and kept a first round pick to then draft with. Why should the premiers be given that? Essentially two first round picks for the cost of one. It's crap!!!

Free agency is just a deadset crock. Too bad it is here to stay though because of the AFLPA.

We didn't get him for nothing. Getting Frawley is predicated on us losing Franklin. There isn't a team in the league who would take Chip over Franklin. It seems most are upset because we got better when Franklin left, despite him leaving an 800k+ hole in our salary cap, which enabled us to get even better once we filled it.

Why didn't Melbourne match the Frawley deal i wonder? Is it perhaps because they were being overcompensated for him? Maybe if they got less compensation, they would have matched, forcing Hawthorn to trade for him. Seems like ridiculous compensation is the biggest problem here

 

[Topkent]

We didn't get him for nothing. Getting Frawley is predicated on us losing Franklin. There isn't a team in the league who would take Chip over Franklin. It seems most are upset because we got better when Franklin left, despite him leaving an 800k+ hole in our salary cap, which enabled us to get even better once we filled it.

Why didn't Melbourne match the Frawley deal i wonder? Is it perhaps because they were being overcompensated for him? Maybe if they got less compensation, they would have matched, forcing Hawthorn to trade for him. Seems like ridiculous compensation is the biggest problem here

Yes a team who got over compensated and hasn't seen finals for a decade verse a 4x premiership side who has been able to add quality to its list every year is the problem in the afl