The chop should be to the fore at the end of this season, considering the performances of some over the last two to three years.
Speaking of performances, Why can't clubs place the majority of or all players on performance based contracts, thus allowing us to keep it at least to the 92.5% of the Cap(Which is still too high).
The top 5 to 10 could have a significantly higher base with Club Marketing(Allowing elite players to be used more than is allowed now) and performance inducements( relevant to the position they play on the feild and finals bonuses). Keeps everyone at a win win situation, and puts an end to the "Daffy" like senario. Where a player has two to three good years and negotiates an extremely favorable contract, coasts for the next 5 or so years, while focusing on generating outside business interests at the detrement of his playing performance.
Why should all clubs have to pay to a similar level as a sucessful club for players that perform at a mediocre level (Re: Fremantle 2001). This flies in the face of basic business acumen.
IMO this would solve the high debt problem, on feild Competitiveness of Clubs, allowing more funds for the marketing side and thus attracting barrackers to become Financial Supporters. The AFL has had a win-fall with TV rights for 5 years favouring all involved, after that who knows. At the moment, I feel some players (mainly the lower echelon) and possibily Coaches and their assistants are milking the system unfairly - high wages for mediocre performances (Our Danny seems to be on the right and fair track).
Speaking of performances, Why can't clubs place the majority of or all players on performance based contracts, thus allowing us to keep it at least to the 92.5% of the Cap(Which is still too high).
The top 5 to 10 could have a significantly higher base with Club Marketing(Allowing elite players to be used more than is allowed now) and performance inducements( relevant to the position they play on the feild and finals bonuses). Keeps everyone at a win win situation, and puts an end to the "Daffy" like senario. Where a player has two to three good years and negotiates an extremely favorable contract, coasts for the next 5 or so years, while focusing on generating outside business interests at the detrement of his playing performance.
Why should all clubs have to pay to a similar level as a sucessful club for players that perform at a mediocre level (Re: Fremantle 2001). This flies in the face of basic business acumen.
IMO this would solve the high debt problem, on feild Competitiveness of Clubs, allowing more funds for the marketing side and thus attracting barrackers to become Financial Supporters. The AFL has had a win-fall with TV rights for 5 years favouring all involved, after that who knows. At the moment, I feel some players (mainly the lower echelon) and possibily Coaches and their assistants are milking the system unfairly - high wages for mediocre performances (Our Danny seems to be on the right and fair track).