EQUALISATION This is how to do it much better

[HairyO]

Equalisation - the top team gets to spend more on its list than the bottom team... because the players are better. We shouldnt have a system where spuds in a crap side get paid exactly the same as absolute superstars.

Seem fair?

3 year contracts for draftees, no compensation when unrestricted free agents leave. Only compensation when restricted free agents leave if they are in the top 10% of pay in the game. And its a 2nd rounder.

1 week trade period.

 

[mfcrox]

There are a few issues here behind the major issues in the competition:

-Teams like Geelong / Hawthorn drafted very well a decade ago and it allowed them to build strong teams capable of winning flags. They did this, and in order to win more, players were willing to cop it in the back pocket in order to keep their list together. Not the clubs/players fault, but it virtually renders the Salary Cap useless when A LOT of their players are being paid unders.

-Minimum 95% has to be paid on the Salary Cap. This is a MAJOR problem, because it means the difference between Melbourne / Brisbane's minimum payments and Geelong / Hawthorn's maximum payments is about $1,000,000. Think about that for a second. Melbourne HAS TO pay roughly the same for it's players as what Hawthorn does. Combine that with Hawthorn players taking unders, and we have major issues right there.


You can't police or abolish players getting paid 'unders'... but you can get rid of minimum cap payments though. It is the only way to really even things up. If Melbourne only had to pay 70% of its cap, then it would have an extra $3,500,000 to top up its list with top end talent.

This will never happen though AFLPA has too much power

 

[kranky al]

We already have enforced communism over at Hawthorn....Every player in the squad must satisfy themselves with a brand new Audi....The one exception being, that senior members get saddled with the limited edition top-of-the-range model....After all, we have to keep the new-upstarts in their place....Rookies get the shop-floor models.

OBAMA-NATION

DURNT SOSHULISTS

 

[greatwhiteshark]

I would like the Salary cap floor changed. Maybe down to 80%. It is absolutely ludicrous that the bottom side in the League pays their players the same as the top side in the league. AFL players should be paid on performance not on just turning up. Enforcing clubs with poor lists to pay their poor players good money is a stupid system. No other business in the world pays poor employees good money. AFL should be about base salary plus incentive. Performance and results will produce what they earn.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I would like the Salary cap floor changed. Maybe down to 80%. It is absolutely ludicrous that the bottom side in the League pays their players the same as the top side in the league. AFL players should be paid on performance not on just turning up. Enforcing clubs with poor lists to pay their poor players good money is a stupid system. No other business in the world pays poor employees good money. AFL should be about base salary plus incentive. Performance and results will produce what they earn.

All bonuses are part of the cap yeah?
Then why not pay the players bonuses at the end of each season, the ones that perform best get the most.

 

[BigVic]

Worried to see the Eagles and Geelong dominating the competiton like Hawthorn today in the next few years.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

All bonuses are part of the cap yeah?
Then why not pay the players bonuses at the end of each season, the ones that perform best get the most.

I think so mate.

Under my system if a current player is on a salary of 400k per year then I would do it as follows.
Base salary 200k
Winning games 10k
Losing games 2k

If all players are on similar then it is a far better system and it is up to the players what they can earn.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I think so mate.

Under my system if a current player is on a salary of 400k per year then I would do it as follows.
Base salary 200k
Winning games 10k
Losing games 2k

If all players are on similar then it is a far better system and it is up to the players what they can earn.

what do you do though if they lose every game, where does all them 8k's go?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

what do you do though if they lose every game, where does all them 8k's go?

That is one of my issues, they should not have to pay it out. You don't pay good money out for poor performance.That is saved money that can be used to entice better players to your club the following year. Still have a salary cap but it averages out over a 5 year period. If the Salary cap is 10 million then it is 50 million over 5 years to be paid as the club sees fit over that period.
But as someone said earlier in the thread the AFLPA won't allow this, they want everyone to be paid x amount no matter how they perform.

 

[LoungeLizard]

That is one of my issues, they should not have to pay it out. You don't pay good money out for poor performance.That is saved money that can be used to entice better players to your club the following year. Still have a salary cap but it averages out over a 5 year period. If the Salary cap is 10 million then it is 50 million over 5 years to be paid as the club sees fit over that period.
But as someone said earlier in the thread the AFLPA won't allow this, they want everyone to be paid x amount no matter how they perform.

Yeah i get what you are saying, but.
If clubs don't pay the players enough, they will look to a club that pays full cap, this would just amplify the strength of the stronger clubs.
I think there should be a deduction if a players asks to be traded, ie: if a 4th year player wishes to be traded, then he goes from 4th year back to 2nd year payments, if a club delists a player, they stay at that level

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Yeah i get what you are saying, but.
If clubs don't pay the players enough, they will look to a club that pays full cap, this would just amplify the strength of the stronger clubs.
I think there should be a deduction if a players asks to be traded, ie: if a 4th year player wishes to be traded, then he goes from 4th year back to 2nd year payments, if a club delists a player, they stay at that level

Only the top sides will pay the full cap and then the player needs to ask would he get a game in those sides?
Unfortunately we have created the mentality for players that they get paid no matter how they perform. Lazy average players will still be the same player at another club. The idea is to make them have to work harder for their money.
Hypothetical anyway as it is what it is and clubs will forever be stuck with paying huge money out to average players. That is the downfall of full professional sport.

 

[Furn2]

I think so mate.

Under my system if a current player is on a salary of 400k per year then I would do it as follows.
Base salary 200k
Winning games 10k
Losing games 2k

If all players are on similar then it is a far better system and it is up to the players what they can earn.

Isn't that going to just encourage players to go to clubs that win the most games eg Hawthorn, from the clubs that lose all their games ?

and isn't that the problem in the first place ?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Only the top sides will pay the full cap and then the player needs to ask would he get a game in those sides?
Unfortunately we have created the mentality for players that they get paid no matter how they perform. Lazy average players will still be the same player at another club. The idea is to make them have to work harder for their money.
Hypothetical anyway as it is what it is and clubs will forever be stuck with paying huge money out to average players. That is the downfall of full professional sport.

True, but a bonus pay system would mean perform or you give your bonus to someone that has performed.
That way the club still pays the cap, and also pays the players that deserve it.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Isn't that going to just encourage players to go to clubs that win the most games eg Hawthorn, from the clubs that lose all their games ?

and isn't that the problem in the first place ?

The incentive can be anything. They all can't go to one club.
If your a midifelder maybe you are paid on your output, possessions, effective possessions, score assists.
There are many ways of paying incentives for players to perform.
I simply don't like a system where Carlton paid their players almost the same as Hawthorn did this year.
That is like coming last in the Melbourne cup but still getting a 5 million dollar prize. No sense in it at all.

 

[CobberRodgers]

I've got a GREAT idea.

Let'e get Mark Robinson to rank all players in the AFL, giving them a grade from A through to E.

Each club is then only allowed to have a certain number of each letter ranked players, just to make it fair to everyone.

Then at the end of the year, when the rankings are re-done, any surplus you now have in each letter group are delisted and go into the pre season draft and the clubs that finished bottom get first crack at them because it's not their fault they finished bottom, it's the unfair AFL's fault.

Maybe I should start a thread about this idea? Anyone know of any other threads containing great ideas about equalisation like my suggestion?

 

[Micksy]

If Melbourne only had to pay 70% of its cap, then it would have an extra $3,500,000 to top up its list with top end talent.

$3,500,000 to replace all the half decent players that have left due to you only paying 70% of what the top teams are paying?

 

[greatwhiteshark]

$3,500,000 to replace all the half decent players that have left due to you only paying 70% of what the top teams are paying?

So you are a believer in paying good money and whether they perform or not it doesn't matter? I know that is how it is but I am dam glad I don't run my business like that.

 

[Micksy]

So you are a believer in paying good money and whether they perform or not it doesn't matter? I know that is how it is but I am dam glad I don't run my business like that.

Did you quote the wrong person?

 

[LoungeLizard]

So you are a believer in paying good money and whether they perform or not it doesn't matter? I know that is how it is but I am dam glad I don't run my business like that.

You can't just look at it that way.
The club is the one that drafted the players, if they drafted players that don't perform to their expectations, then part blame is on the club.
Players still have to work their butts off, training etc. so they still deserve to be paid.
Clubs also recruit the coaches, if the coach is a dud that is not the players fault.
There are many circumstances that might be costing players.

 

[DNine]

Interesting discussion, moving on to the salary cap and poor sides having to pay poor players. One particular poster is very negative, but he did click into it. He'll have to choose better what he clicks into if he wants to only read what he wants to, no one forced him to click in.

I don't know the answers, all I know is that I dislike teams just dominating everyone. It is boring. For a couple of years now, I have thought to myself, there is no one that will challenge the Hawks. That is sad, and has been spot on.

Like predicted, the poorer side supporters are more open to correcting the system than the strong sides. One Blue supporter not so, but I think he'd surely be the only one that is happy that name after name are asking to go to stronger sides, while Carlton are getting the poorer players that are interested, because the strong sides aren't interested in them.

I am not guessing to say that the league is not equal. I think sponsors have a lot more to do with strong sides being able to keep good players than we naive supporters would know.

I think my negative thoughts about the fairness of the competition begun when Gary Ablett was looking to go to the Suns. They had Frank Costa on the Sunday morning footy show, and they were asking how they could keep Gary from leaving. Costa said, "We'll have to go back to our sponsors to see what they can offer". My bottom jaw hit the ground, while the media didn't skip a beat, and there was nothing said about it in days after.

Gary Ablett still ended up leaving, but was Costa's comment a window into what was happening? I think yes. Geelong are sponsored by Simonds. I am sure a lot of the players are living in houses mortgage free. Driving a new Ford. Collingwood too, have players driving around in Holden's. Now what is to stop sponsors to "LEND" these items to the player? It is not their House or Car, or whatever else, but who sponsors Western Bulldogs, and Saint Kilda. A Food company, An Energy Company? I am sure they get free sandwich wraps and Energy perks, but how does that compare?

If the home or Car is not signed up to the player, the AFL can not complain about it. And everyone is ok if this was true? Once again, I am sure the top sides would be happy. The bottom side supporters who don't have the big sponsors, I think you need to start standing up for your clubs rights.

I am ok, I barrack for the Pies, and by the end of this trade period we will have Treloar, Aish and Howe. But other teams are getting the scraps, and although my side may rise again, once all this comes good, it is not going to be as sweet as if it was more difficult to put together.

I always have been one that likes to see the underdog get up. I was hoping that Dogs or Dockers would win this flag. When they were gone, I was hoping West Coast would do it. Anyone but bloody Hawthorn.

I seen Gibson, Hale, Lake, Burgoyne, Gunston, Frawley and McEvoy all ask to go to Hawthorn, and all getting their wish. It was not that impressive to me, seriously. If all those players asked to go to Melbourne, they would be the ones that are strong. Sure, Hawks did well with a few draft picks to compliment it, but seriously, you can't do it with them alone. 7 players out of 22 makes a HUGE difference. Take those seven out, and put in Simpkin, Langford, Whitecross, Sicily, Spangher, Litherland and Howe into the lineup, and good luck being a competitive finals side.

Rightly or wrongly, the success of Hawthorn is not that impressive because of this. The sponsors are behind the scenes making sure that Hawks stay strong for their corporate dollar, and it is nothing but trickery. Those who buy in to the trickery, good luck to you, I am not.

Forget me picking on the Hawks, my own side Collingwood. When we get strong, I could say the same. Adams, Treloar, Aish, Varcoe, Greenwood and possibly Howe are not going to be what impresses me, because had they had an equal competition, each of them may of chosen another destination. It is the Scharenberg's, Elliott's, DeGoey, Pendlebury's, Swan's, Cloke's and Reid's that feel boni fide Pie players. They were drafted and developed by the club.

Without the six traded players, we may not be as competitive. If 18 players want to move clubs in any given year, I would like to see all teams get one each. But that is not how it is is it? Rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the powerful celebrate that they are something special. Well I don't see it as being special. You are playing against half a league, and throw the scraps and a bit of hope to the lower sides.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You can't just look at it that way.
The club is the one that drafted the players, if they drafted players that don't perform to their expectations, then part blame is on the club.
Players still have to work their butts off, training etc. so they still deserve to be paid.
Clubs also recruit the coaches, if the coach is a dud that is not the players fault.
There are many circumstances that might be costing players.

Clubs recruit players to do what they are recruited to do. perform at a high level. of course Clubs have a role in this but ultimately the player needs to perform. It is very common now that it is possibly always someone else's fault.
All AFL players train hard and work their butt's off. there will always be better players than others. But there are many AFL players getting over paid for their output. That is the system we created.
My thought pattern is the better you do the more you get paid. I never said they should not be paid at all.
The Eagles for example are after Lewis Jetta who i think has been poor for over a season now. He will be on good money based on 3 year old form. The club has a right to expect that the form he showed a few years ago is what they are now paying for, if he does not produce that then the club should have the right to adjust what he is paid based on his output. There is much more to it of course but I just don't get over paying players who don't perform.

 

[Brishawk]

So you're saying that it's not a good thing that they get it so right that players would rather do it for less money?

That's absurd, every single organisation's aim(in every industry) should be to have a culture so strong it saves them money and whacks their competitors into oblivion. This isn't a 'Hawthorn are doing such a brilliant job, we should take steps to curb it' issue, this is a 'why can't we have more of our clubs doing this?' issue.

We want a quality league to watch, take steps to improve the bottom line. Getting rid of the salary cap floor would go someway to making lower ranked clubs be able to actually reimburse their clearly inferior players for what they are worth.

Clubs are run by passionate people and/or ego maniacs. That is why more clubs can't achieve what Geelong and Hawthorn were able to and keep TPP down.

 

[Brishawk]

Interesting discussion, moving on to the salary cap and poor sides having to pay poor players. One particular poster is very negative, but he did click into it. He'll have to choose better what he clicks into if he wants to only read what he wants to, no one forced him to click in.

I don't know the answers, all I know is that I dislike teams just dominating everyone. It is boring. For a couple of years now, I have thought to myself, there is no one that will challenge the Hawks. That is sad, and has been spot on.

Like predicted, the poorer side supporters are more open to correcting the system than the strong sides. One Blue supporter not so, but I think he'd surely be the only one that is happy that name after name are asking to go to stronger sides, while Carlton are getting the poorer players that are interested, because the strong sides aren't interested in them.

I am not guessing to say that the league is not equal. I think sponsors have a lot more to do with strong sides being able to keep good players than we naive supporters would know.

I think my negative thoughts about the fairness of the competition begun when Gary Ablett was looking to go to the Suns. They had Frank Costa on the Sunday morning footy show, and they were asking how they could keep Gary from leaving. Costa said, "We'll have to go back to our sponsors to see what they can offer". My bottom jaw hit the ground, while the media didn't skip a beat, and there was nothing said about it in days after.

Gary Ablett still ended up leaving, but was Costa's comment a window into what was happening? I think yes. Geelong are sponsored by Simonds. I am sure a lot of the players are living in houses mortgage free. Driving a new Ford. Collingwood too, have players driving around in Holden's. Now what is to stop sponsors to "LEND" these items to the player? It is not their House or Car, or whatever else, but who sponsors Western Bulldogs, and Saint Kilda. A Food company, An Energy Company? I am sure they get free sandwich wraps and Energy perks, but how does that compare?

If the home or Car is not signed up to the player, the AFL can not complain about it. And everyone is ok if this was true? Once again, I am sure the top sides would be happy. The bottom side supporters who don't have the big sponsors, I think you need to start standing up for your clubs rights.

I am ok, I barrack for the Pies, and by the end of this trade period we will have Treloar, Aish and Howe. But other teams are getting the scraps, and although my side may rise again, once all this comes good, it is not going to be as sweet as if it was more difficult to put together.

I always have been one that likes to see the underdog get up. I was hoping that Dogs or Dockers would win this flag. When they were gone, I was hoping West Coast would do it. Anyone but bloody Hawthorn.

I seen Gibson, Hale, Lake, Burgoyne, Gunston, Frawley and McEvoy all ask to go to Hawthorn, and all getting their wish. It was not that impressive to me, seriously. If all those players asked to go to Melbourne, they would be the ones that are strong. Sure, Hawks did well with a few draft picks to compliment it, but seriously, you can't do it with them alone. 7 players out of 22 makes a HUGE difference. Take those seven out, and put in Simpkin, Langford, Whitecross, Sicily, Spangher, Litherland and Howe into the lineup, and good luck being a competitive finals side.

Rightly or wrongly, the success of Hawthorn is not that impressive because of this. The sponsors are behind the scenes making sure that Hawks stay strong for their corporate dollar, and it is nothing but trickery. Those who buy in to the trickery, good luck to you, I am not.

Forget me picking on the Hawks, my own side Collingwood. When we get strong, I could say the same. Adams, Treloar, Aish, Varcoe, Greenwood and possibly Howe are not going to be what impresses me, because had they had an equal competition, each of them may of chosen another destination. It is the Scharenberg's, Elliott's, DeGoey, Pendlebury's, Swan's, Cloke's and Reid's that feel boni fide Pie players. They were drafted and developed by the club.

Without the six traded players, we may not be as competitive. If 18 players want to move clubs in any given year, I would like to see all teams get one each. But that is not how it is is it? Rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the powerful celebrate that they are something special. Well I don't see it as being special. You are playing against half a league, and throw the scraps and a bit of hope to the lower sides.

Hawthorn nearly merged less than 20 years ago. We didn't get additional salary cap or funding by the AFL. We had a low supporter base and very few members. We had almost no sponsors. Literally the only assistance we have received in that entire time is two draft picks for being a terrible side. On of those picks was Lance Franklin so no doubt it helped but lets call Hawthorn's success what it is - a product determined by and large by hard work and innovative thinking about fitness, strategy, financial management, marketing, talent identification and recruitment. Contrast this with Carlton (don't mean to pick on Calrton) who had Vissy bank roll the 'get Judd' contract. They gave away a future coleman medalist and a high draft pick to get one player on whom they wanted to build the side around and who would occupy more than 10% of the salary cap. It didn't work when they had Kouta and and didn't work when they had Judd. They are literally one of the poorest list mangers in the comp when you consider the draft picks they had and what they delivered. They have had several off field issues including breaching the salary cap. Sacked Ratten just to grab Malthouse. Both the Judd recruitment and the Malthouse recruitment tell us something very clear about Carlton - they think success is largely tied to the performance of key individuals. That is the ideological opposite of Hawthorn. Hawthorn don't pay big dollars to players (almost made the mistake with buddy) and everything we do is a team effort right the way through the organisation. It took a decade or more to put this in place. IT wasn't easy but it was well worth it. Saints have shown that equalization measures can allow poor clubs to reach great heights and if not for a few unlucky moments they could have won a flag or two in the past ten years. So what does that say about Richmond's 30 years of failure? Or Melbourne's perpetual cellar dwelling? It says they need to look at themselves before looking outwardly for new measures. No matter what system you have in place nothing can control for crap management. Culture beats bank balance every time.

 

[mfcrox]

$3,500,000 to replace all the half decent players that have left due to you only paying 70% of what the top teams are paying?

What? That doesn't even make sense :-/

 

[Kwality]

Does the OP understand there are far more issues to equalisation than paying players?