Living away from Home allowance

[kreglze]

Different issue but just with the northern states where extra money would be handy is the fact that potential earning power for a player in VIC/SA/WA outside of footy is so much more.

If you play for Collingwood as an example, you have sponsors/gigs etc lining up for you, while GWS you don't have anywhere near the level of potential to make extra dollars. Just a thought.

 

[HairyO]

They get paid plenty. The contracts need to be longer.
4 years for 1st round
3 years for 2nd round
2 years for everyone else

That gives the clubs 4 years to convince the top players to stay, or far more bargaining power if it doesnt work out.

 

[Kwality]

I agree with COLA and incentivising but I don't like punishing

"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."


Pay people extra whilst they are there but don't penalise or be vindictive

Living away from home, not cost of living ?

 

[Freomaniac]

I am a dockers fan so I can see a neutral view on this.

The main issue isn't the go home factor.

I say the bigger issue is the salary cap and free agency.

The fact that the salary floor is 95 percent sucks. Now you got teams willing to get rid of players and sending them to other teams list to the point they will offer to pay some of their contract and possibly a draft pick to do it. The salary floor should go down to 90 percent or even 92.5 percent.

I don't mind free agency.

But it should be 6 years or even 5 years for restricted free agents and 8 years for unrestricted.

 

[Freomaniac]

Doesn't this just open the door for COLA again though?

The Swans would argue that, given the insane real estate costs in Sydney, keeping their non NSW players is a bigger burden than what the Crows or Power face.

Ultimately though, money isn't the lure for most players.

It's success. Or at least playing for a big club with big crowds.

The Saints, Roos and Dogs might have to load up an extra 10-20% to get a player across the line but (in VIC anyway) it's the intangibles that most players are attracted to. There's a reason the Tigers got BOTH Taranto and Hopper. Tom Lynch and Steve May didn't pick their clubs because of money. Ben King isn't being linked to the Pies because they are offering him more cash than the Suns and Saints.

It shouldn't open the door for COLA. The Salary cap is 13 million or $250,000 a week exactly.

The average Joe would love to be on $10,000 a week or $520,000 a year on a. Every day job.

I assure you that average people like you and me know people work 35-40 hours a week and get paid $1000 a week or $52,000 a year.

Again the AFL players association won't allow it or the AFL PA, knock the salary floor to 90 percent. That's 11.7 million spent. That is $1.3 million to work around to lure a free agent or retain some young kids, even if you have to overpay them.

 

[Freomaniac]

They get paid plenty. The contracts need to be longer.
4 years for 1st round
3 years for 2nd round
2 years for everyone else

That gives the clubs 4 years to convince the top players to stay, or far more bargaining power if it doesnt work out.

Ah the NBA method.

Also the money should be determined on what pick you are too.

In the NBA, 1st round picks are given 3 year deals.

2nd rounders are on 2 year deals and less money.

Saying that... Looking at the 1996 NBA draft. Allen Iverson was given a 3 year deal at 3 million a year.

Bryant and Nash were both taken after pick 10, both were given 3 year deals at 2 million a year.

Who ever was the last pick at pick 60, was given a 2 year deal at $500,000 a year.

 

[AstonSouffle]

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

Would be one way to drive up engagement and getting players from those areas?

 

[The Hobo]

They get paid plenty. The contracts need to be longer.
4 years for 1st round
3 years for 2nd round
2 years for everyone else

That gives the clubs 4 years to convince the top players to stay, or far more bargaining power if it doesnt work out.

Yup that would help, but players leave mid contract all the time. Once they want out, a club will honor their request more often than not

 

[VinnieB]

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.

A professional athlete is not your typical employee.

If they are only happy being around mum and friends, they have options outside of the AFL.

AFL footballers are, by and large, very immature. They don’t honour contracts and put their club in a difficult position with threats of not returning. Yet, if a club looks to trade them out, they have to agree on on the destination and claim clubs are unfair in them. Mind you, doesn’t happen nearly as often as it should.

 

[Freomaniac]

Revealed: AFL players rake in record salaries

Twelve AFL players were paid seven-figure salaries last year - a new competition record - as wages across the league grew to greater levels than ever before.

www.espn.com.au

well it says on here that only 10 players were on $100,000 a year last season.

 

[WillHayward]

Lots of players come from places that don't have a team.

 

[Freomaniac]

They get paid plenty. The contracts need to be longer.
4 years for 1st round
3 years for 2nd round
2 years for everyone else

That gives the clubs 4 years to convince the top players to stay, or far more bargaining power if it doesnt work out.

Yup that would help, but players leave mid contract all the time. Once they want out, a club will honor their request more often than not

Well the base wage of a player taken in the draft are paid $104,000 a year or $2,000 a week. I think players taken in the 1st and 2nd round should be paid, double. So $4000 a week or $208,000 a year.

3rd rounders onwards should be paid $3000 a week or $156,000 a year.

Hell... Players taken in the rookie draft are getting paid like $1,000 a week or $52,000 a year.

 

[bzparkes]

$200,000 is nothing these days.

We found out who Philip Lowe posts as everyone.

 

[Rich01]

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

Agree. They took the absolute piss out of it with Franklin and Tippett. The Swans gave the AFL no choice but to remove it.

If they were only allowed to use it to retain 1-4 year players it would have been viable to keep.

 

[Rich01]

Lockett nearly went to Richmond?
Richardson and Lockett would have been quite a dominant combo.

Yeah it would have been fun to watch.
But Lockett and Loewe were a very good combo as well.

Saints had some amazing players in the 90s. Lockett, Loewe, Harvey, Burke, Frawley, Winnie, Hall, Everett.

They just didn’t have the culture at the time to nab a flag.

 

[Power Raid]

A professional athlete is not your typical employee.

If they are only happy being around mum and friends, they have options outside of the AFL.

AFL footballers are, by and large, very immature. They don’t honour contracts and put their club in a difficult position with threats of not returning. Yet, if a club looks to trade them out, they have to agree on on the destination and claim clubs are unfair in them. Mind you, doesn’t happen nearly as often as it should.

this is so 1960s in thinking

football is a job and we should put the responsibility of creating good work places on the employer not the employee.

employees should not have to honour contracts, especially if the maiden contract is not one but mutual agreement but a take it or leave it deal. Football's employment should always be in line with the concepts of restraint of trade as with any other place of work.......people ARE more important than the game.

 

[Power Raid]

Living away from home, not cost of living ?

I guess I'm pro increasing salaries for players, at club that require additional incentives to retain players. I'm just not supportive of penalising players.

FTR - I would support additional salary caps to GC and GWS

 

[Freomaniac]

Agree. They took the absolute piss out of it with Franklin and Tippett. The Swans gave the AFL no choice but to remove it.

If they were only allowed to use it to retain 1-4 year players it would have been viable to keep.

Well if you look at the Kurt Tippet deal when he went to the swans, it's less suspicious now than what it was at the Time.

When a team wins a flag or at least makes a grand final, they either stay the same or become weakened with players leaving.

Swans won the 2012 flag but added Kurt Tippet to the swans to make the side stronger? The question is, how come Tippet fit into their cap?

I can explain that. Yes the swans delisted a few players on $200-$300,000 a year.

But people forget about a certain player. Daniel Bradshaw.

The point was the swans had a spare $600,000 to spend after getting rid of Barry Hall.

So they got Bradshaw on a 3 year deal on $600,000 a year for seasons in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Bradshaw lasted 18 months. Retired in the middle of 2011. Swans still had to pay Bradshaw's wages in 2012.

Essentially, Kurt Tippet filled Bradshaws wages and list spot.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Judd was a different kettle of fish altogether. No doubt the Dees, Hawks & Saints could have paid him but almost all the talk was Collingwood and Carlton because they would not only pay him, but set up his profile so that he could be just as successful off the field.

Dawson & JHF (and any non Vic kid) are going home to two team towns. Makes it much easier to negotiate because you only have to beat one opponent.

Any half decent player is going to take a pay cut for success.

Imagine if Harley Reid is picked by the Eagles and wants to "come home" in 2 years.

Could the Saints, Dogs & Roos really offer him that much more money than the other VIC clubs?

If these clubs aren't in a spot to contend then would he really wanna toil away there for an extra 200-300k on top of something close to a million anyway?

He'd probably be compared to Judd actually.

"You don't want to have to carry a s**t team like Juddy. Far better being paid a little less and playing for a great team."

Players have different motivations. The Judd thing was a complete auction. He became the best player in the league and cashed in on that. It was only about money and the Visy deal (additional $300k) is what got him to Carlton. He didn’t give two shits about potential success. Perhaps because he’d already won a flag, perhaps he didn’t care at all.

 

[Rich01]

Well if you look at the Kurt Tippet deal when he went to the swans, it's less suspicious now than what it was at the Time.

When a team wins a flag or at least makes a grand final, they either stay the same or become weakened with players leaving.

Swans won the 2012 flag but added Kurt Tippet to the swans to make the side stronger? The question is, how come Tippet fit into their cap?

I can explain that. Yes the swans delisted a few players on $200-$300,000 a year.

But people forget about a certain player. Daniel Bradshaw.

The point was the swans had a spare $600,000 to spend after getting rid of Barry Hall.

So they got Bradshaw on a 3 year deal on $600,000 a year for seasons in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Bradshaw lasted 18 months. Retired in the middle of 2011. Swans still had to pay Bradshaw's wages in 2012.

Essentially, Kurt Tippet filled Bradshaws wages and list spot.

Tippett was offered a ridiculous deal to come across. Well more than Bradshaw.

Sydney Swans reportedly offer key forward Kurt Tippett a contract worth $3.5 million over four years

Swans offer Tippett $3.5 million

www.foxsports.com.au

 

[Bunk Moreland]

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.

Is it only based on state borders? Surely gets a bit fuzzy around country kids who have no real connection to the capital city (where all the clubs are based, other than Geelong) in their home state anyway.

Albury / Wodonga examples?

Somebody like Charlie Dixon? He left Gold Coast in his “home state” and went to Port Adelaide. But he’s from Cairns and has zero connection to GC anyway.

Ollie Wines is a Victorian with zero connection to Melbourne. People talk about Mason Redman “going home” to Adelaide… Adelaide is nowhere near his home.

 

[Freomaniac]

Tippett was offered a ridiculous deal to come across. Well more than Bradshaw.

Sydney Swans reportedly offer key forward Kurt Tippett a contract worth $3.5 million over four years

Swans offer Tippett $3.5 million

www.foxsports.com.au

Well that's a shock to me. I though it was $3.5 million dollars over 5 seasons or $700,000 a year.

But say if it was 3.6 million over 4 years or $900,000 a year, it wouldn't of been hard to open up an extra $300,000 a year.

 

[Rich01]

Well that's a shock to me. I though it was $3.5 million dollars over 5 seasons or $700,000 a year.

But say if it was 3.6 million over 4 years or $900,000 a year, it wouldn't of been hard to open up an extra $300,000 a year.

Bradshaw on $350k a year at the Swans.

So $550k a year difference.
With Fat Ed calling for the end to COLA for years, this was just too much for the AFL to withstand.

Bradshaw lines up $1m deal with the Swans over Carlton

amp.theage.com.au