- Joined
- Dec 16, 2013
- Posts
- 3,744
- Reaction score
- 4,268
- AFL Club
- Carlton
1. Keep hearing that we have no salary cap space but Hawks can fit in Dangerfield. We have lost Judd, have a number of discounted veterans and may lose a number of our more experienced players in Warnock, Yaz, Hendo and in a worst case scenario Kruezer. Replacing these guys with draftees should reduce our payments well below the 95% min salary cap payment requirements? Are we allowed to do this? Do we need a FA?
2. Conversely, I do not understand how other clubs can keep paying high prices at the trade table but stay within the salary cap. The cap is $10.07m in 2015 and $10.22m to $10.37m in 2016, but proposed salaries for Treloar (6 years at $800K), Buddy (9 years at $10m, including $1.8m pa early years), Carlisle $700K pa, Dangerfield, etc. seem incredibly destructive to maintaining payments to 38+ players plus up to 6 rookies (average $265K in 2014). I appreciate that veterans at Geelong and Hawks are discounted but these winning clubs seem to retain a lot of quality that should demand a high price so must be at the TPP limit.
Wikipedia indicates "The VFL/AFL's salary cap has been quite successful in terms of parity: since the cap was introduced in 1987, each of the 16 teams (this excludes the expansion teams from the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney) has played in a Preliminary Final, 14 teams have played in a Grand Final, and eleven teams have won the premiership. ... Sydney have been in the finals in 17 of the 20 seasons (a finals success rate of 85%) since 1995, playing in five Grand Finals and winning the premiership in 2005 and 2012"
However Flags since 1987 (37 years):
Hawks 6, WCE 3, Geelong 3, Lions 3, Sydney 2, Adelaide 2, Carlton 2, *FC 2, NMFC 2, Crows 2, Pies 2, & PAFC 1.
3. The clubs with old lists benefit from veterans allowance i.e. Hawks, Geelong, NMFC, Collingwood, etc. I know why it is there, but is it time for it to go if AFL want FA and equalisation. At present it helps the successful clubs to maintain an older list, i.e. Hawks and Geelong, as the other clubs lose their older players as FA (St Kilda, Melbourne) and through mooted trades such as: Hendo to Geelong, Yaz to Hawthorn or WCE, Dangerfield to Geelong or Hawks, etc. showing these clubs remain the preferred destinations for the most talented older players.
4. GWS demonstrate that young talent is not competitive with established AFL bodies. As long as trade and FA flows to the successful clubs then the lesser clubs remain unlikely to compete for a Flag. The salary cap should balance this, but is it failing as clubs have to payout 95% TPP even when the list is rubbish.
5. New measures on trading future picks give the now winning teams more currency to satisfy a trade and prolong the reign, which disadvantages the lesser teams further. Does the AFL want a group of feeder teams?
6. Payment of 105% of the cap for a limited period sounds appealing, but when the weak clubs can barely pay the 95% minimum as it is, it just seem another change to prolong the success of the successful teams at the expense of the lesser teams.
7. Beaches of true salary cap continue, even after CFC were almost thrown out of the competition.
I know this is unlikely, but I would prefer no salary cap and a return to the free market if the AFL cannot stop meddling with the system.
2. Conversely, I do not understand how other clubs can keep paying high prices at the trade table but stay within the salary cap. The cap is $10.07m in 2015 and $10.22m to $10.37m in 2016, but proposed salaries for Treloar (6 years at $800K), Buddy (9 years at $10m, including $1.8m pa early years), Carlisle $700K pa, Dangerfield, etc. seem incredibly destructive to maintaining payments to 38+ players plus up to 6 rookies (average $265K in 2014). I appreciate that veterans at Geelong and Hawks are discounted but these winning clubs seem to retain a lot of quality that should demand a high price so must be at the TPP limit.
Wikipedia indicates "The VFL/AFL's salary cap has been quite successful in terms of parity: since the cap was introduced in 1987, each of the 16 teams (this excludes the expansion teams from the Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney) has played in a Preliminary Final, 14 teams have played in a Grand Final, and eleven teams have won the premiership. ... Sydney have been in the finals in 17 of the 20 seasons (a finals success rate of 85%) since 1995, playing in five Grand Finals and winning the premiership in 2005 and 2012"
However Flags since 1987 (37 years):
Hawks 6, WCE 3, Geelong 3, Lions 3, Sydney 2, Adelaide 2, Carlton 2, *FC 2, NMFC 2, Crows 2, Pies 2, & PAFC 1.
3. The clubs with old lists benefit from veterans allowance i.e. Hawks, Geelong, NMFC, Collingwood, etc. I know why it is there, but is it time for it to go if AFL want FA and equalisation. At present it helps the successful clubs to maintain an older list, i.e. Hawks and Geelong, as the other clubs lose their older players as FA (St Kilda, Melbourne) and through mooted trades such as: Hendo to Geelong, Yaz to Hawthorn or WCE, Dangerfield to Geelong or Hawks, etc. showing these clubs remain the preferred destinations for the most talented older players.
4. GWS demonstrate that young talent is not competitive with established AFL bodies. As long as trade and FA flows to the successful clubs then the lesser clubs remain unlikely to compete for a Flag. The salary cap should balance this, but is it failing as clubs have to payout 95% TPP even when the list is rubbish.
5. New measures on trading future picks give the now winning teams more currency to satisfy a trade and prolong the reign, which disadvantages the lesser teams further. Does the AFL want a group of feeder teams?
6. Payment of 105% of the cap for a limited period sounds appealing, but when the weak clubs can barely pay the 95% minimum as it is, it just seem another change to prolong the success of the successful teams at the expense of the lesser teams.
7. Beaches of true salary cap continue, even after CFC were almost thrown out of the competition.
I know this is unlikely, but I would prefer no salary cap and a return to the free market if the AFL cannot stop meddling with the system.
Last edited:
