Living away from Home allowance

[The Hobo]

Some will say it's ironic coming from a Port supporter, given we've benefited from this more often than we've lost out - however it really is something the AFL should address.
We see clubs deliberately avoiding players from interstate if there is a comparable player from their home state - even if they are slightly inferior. Whilst this may sound ok, it compromises the draft to a degree.

We don't want to see players getting drafted and jumping ship early in their career - going home is often the reason touted, but it's clear that there is also a financial element involved.

The proposal here is that if you draft a player out of their home state, the AFL would kick in an extra 10-15% (or whatever that number may be) for the first 5 years of that players contract (or extensions up to 5 years). If they end up being traded back home at any point in the first 5 years, they forfeit that benefit. This could be done as an ongoing payment or a bulk sum at the end of 5 years. Yes, this may lead to players leaving after 5 years and not 2-3, however my thoughts are that if the club hasn't managed to make them feel at home by that stage, then it is what it is.

Whilst it won't completely eliminate players wanting to go home, it does give just a little bit of extra incentive for the player to stay.

 

[Engimal v3]

Ironic coming from a Port supporter

 

[Engimal v3]

I could see this having unintended side effects. Given the majority of players are from Vic, isn't this essentially saying that the non-Vic clubs could afford to pay most players 15% more?

 

[The Hobo]

I could see this having unintended side effects. Given the majority of players are from Vic, isn't this essentially saying that the non-Vic clubs could afford to pay most players 15% more?

Only for players that have been drafted by that club, and only for the first 5 years. (ie. you can't trade an interstate player to another interstate club and continue to gain the $$)

The alternative is that every draftee regardless of location gets a "loyalty bonus" at the end of 5 years - which may even out the playing field and alleviate your concern, though would increase costs for the AFL as they're paying a bonus to a lot more players!

 

[Engimal v3]

Only for players that have been drafted by that club, and only for the first 5 years. (ie. you can't trade an interstate player to another interstate club and continue to gain the $$)

The alternative is that every draftee regardless of location gets a "loyalty bonus" at the end of 5 years - which may even out the playing field and alleviate your concern, though would increase costs for the AFL as they're paying a bonus to a lot more players!

Does this mean every draftee from Tasmania/NT/ACT gets the bonus?

 

[nobbyiscool]

There was always such an easier solution than the dumb, blunt instrument COLA allowance - you simply pay players drafted interstate an extra % on top of the normal rookie contract, and that percentage increases for the 2nd contract before going away when the player hits free agency.

Players will still go home - 19yos aren't necessarily motivated by money at that age - but it's so much fairer than what they used to do with Brisbane and Sydney.

 

[MF]

I've been saying this needs to happen for years. There's no fairer way to address the massive disadvantage teams have when the majority of their list is from interstate.

 

[The Hobo]

Does this mean every draftee from Tasmania/NT/ACT gets the bonus?

No - there is no "go home" factor for them that we're trying to avoid (for now) - potentially it would come into play for Tas once the team joins the AFL.

But there could be an argument for it as well - doesn't really matter in the scheme of the problem we're trying to solve.

 

[The Hobo]

I could see this having unintended side effects. Given the majority of players are from Vic, isn't this essentially saying that the non-Vic clubs could afford to pay most players 15% more?

The flip side to this is that VIC clubs are not affected by the "go home factor" as much as interstate clubs. There is no risk of losing their players to other clubs who can afford to pay more, because the extra comes from the AFL and only applies to players that were drafted interstate.

 

[MF]

I could see this having unintended side effects. Given the majority of players are from Vic, isn't this essentially saying that the non-Vic clubs could afford to pay most players 15% more?

That's kind of the point though. If GWS and Gold Coast were able to pay an extra 10-15% to most of their youngsters they probably wouldn't have had their lists pillaged to the extent they were and may have actually been able to attract some talent like other clubs can.

Given that both Sydney and Brisbane had to have an extra 10% to their entire lists just to become competitive I don't think paying a dozen or so youngsters an extra 10-15% will tip the scales in the other direction.

 

[RUNVS]

I could see this having unintended side effects. Given the majority of players are from Vic, isn't this essentially saying that the non-Vic clubs could afford to pay most players 15% more?

I would go with any player drafted to a club not in their home state automatically gets an additional 10% on their contract and that stays as long as a player is on $500,000 or less a season. If they start earning more than that the Living Away From Home bonus disappears.

 

[Kappa]

Give players a financial bonus for staying at the club they are drafted to. Doesn’t have to be big, but it may help sway players on the fence about leaving.

I think encouraging loyalty while also giving players freedom to move around is the best course.

 

[Kwality]

That's kind of the point though. If GWS and Gold Coast were able to pay an extra 10-15% to most of their youngsters they probably wouldn't have had their lists pillaged to the extent they were and may have actually been able to attract some talent like other clubs can.

Given that both Sydney and Brisbane had to have an extra 10% to their entire lists just to become competitive I don't think paying a dozen or so youngsters an extra 10-15% will tip the scales in the other direction.

Money is not the only factor in players wanting to go home.

 

[The Devils Advocate]

Just keep shitting on players for going home, that will sort it out.

 

[VinnieB]

I've been saying this needs to happen for years. There's no fairer way to address the massive disadvantage teams have when the majority of their list is from interstate.

I think the AFL should provide an allowance for housing/rent etc for cities like Sydney. It has to be properly audited, but should be provided to players coming from another state as well as coaching staff.

You could argue it should also be paid for players coming from Adelaide for instance moving to Melbourne. Cost of living (particularly housing) is so much higher.

 

[VinnieB]

I would go with any player drafted to a club not in their home state automatically gets an additional 10% on their contract and that stays as long as a player is on $500,000 or less a season. If they start earning more than that the Living Away From Home bonus disappears.

Are players currently entitled to tax breaks for moving away from home for work purposes? Tax deductibility of rent or discounted stamp duty?

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Feel it’s up to the clubs to provide the right environment to encourage players to stay.

Historically Port have had a great record of keeping non SA draftees but if they want to leave, it will come around our way at points in time as it did with JHF.

Don’t like the idea of additional allowances as it will create extra wriggle room to be misused.

Provide a stable environment and players will want to stay. Case in point, Bergman resigning even after the pull to go home.

 

[Dazb86]

Only for contracts under 200k

 

[Warhorse]

I'm one of the few that agrees with COLA. Sydney abused the system to pay Buddy rather than how it was intended though

 

[The 747]

Money is not the only factor in players wanting to go home.

No but it would help with retention.

I don't mind the idea and it seems to be an obvious one, hence the AFL won't do it.

COLA is problematic both because of history and also that really WA, SA and QLD should get less in their cap if Sydney sides get more due to the cost of living. But a simple drafted interstate allowance is easy to manage.

 

[Power Raid]

Some will say it's ironic coming from a Port supporter, given we've benefited from this more often than we've lost out - however it really is something the AFL should address.
We see clubs deliberately avoiding players from interstate if there is a comparable player from their home state - even if they are slightly inferior. Whilst this may sound ok, it compromises the draft to a degree.

We don't want to see players getting drafted and jumping ship early in their career - going home is often the reason touted, but it's clear that there is also a financial element involved.

The proposal here is that if you draft a player out of their home state, the AFL would kick in an extra 10-15% (or whatever that number may be) for the first 5 years of that players contract (or extensions up to 5 years). If they end up being traded back home at any point in the first 5 years, they forfeit that benefit. This could be done as an ongoing payment or a bulk sum at the end of 5 years. Yes, this may lead to players leaving after 5 years and not 2-3, however my thoughts are that if the club hasn't managed to make them feel at home by that stage, then it is what it is.

Whilst it won't completely eliminate players wanting to go home, it does give just a little bit of extra incentive for the player to stay.

I'd prefer employees were just happy

If that means being with mum and friends, then so be it. Penalising kids financially for wanting to be happy, isn't what I'd suggest is being a good employer.

 

[ibd77]

Probably worth another thread, but what about transfer fees being payed to clubs during trade periods?

Clubs who spend a lot of time & money developing players, then they leave for more enticing opportunities. The developing club should be entitled to compensation payment for player development.

Imagine the how much money the Suns & GWS would have made since their inception? They could be running a healthy profit just from player transfers alone instead of drawing funds from members, sponsors and merchandise sales.

On the other hand, it would probably stop teams poaching these players after a few years service as the transfer fee would probably need to be included in the player salary cap.

 

[RUNVS]

Only for contracts under 200k

$200,000 is nothing these days.

 

[Kwality]

No but it would help with retention.

I don't mind the idea and it seems to be an obvious one, hence the AFL won't do it.

COLA is problematic both because of history and also that really WA, SA and QLD should get less in their cap if Sydney sides get more due to the cost of living. But a simple drafted interstate allowance is easy to manage.

COLA fluctuates & is a published index which leads to it being weaponised & used by any club when it suits their purpose.
It becomes just another 'go to' for the footy media on a quiet news day.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

$200,000 is nothing these days.

Only for people on more.
I'd laugh all the way to the bank for 200k