Lots of talk about the Salary Cap lately, given the propsed abolishment of Brisbane and Sydeny's concessions. You know what the problem with the Salary Cap is? It's the fact that there are too many exceptions to the rule. In a post on another thread, the suggestion is made that players who have played for that club only are excluded from the cap.
In addition to that, we have a situation where one club gets a cost of living allowance, another club gets a "retainment" allowance, because they have a lot of non-local playes, other clubs have veterans whose salaries are not fully included in the cap etc.
There are just too many "reasons" that can used to give a team extra in their cap. How many reasons do you need? I could claim that Essendon's players live in the more affluent suburbs of Moonee Ponds and Ascot Vale, which is far more expensive to live in that Geeong, but the Cats and the Bombers have the same cap.
I could claim that Richmond have 20 players with kids (just an example), while Hawthorn have 5 players with kids. Having a child adds an extra $50,000 a year to the family budget, so Richmond should get more in their cap than Hawthorn.
See what I mean? It's become ridiculous. Even the allowances for Brisbane are ridiculous. Collingwood have 20 non-Victorians on their list, whle the Kangaroos have 9. Do Collingwood get a "retainment" allowance in their cap (like Brisbane), more so than the Kangaroos, because of the possibility of players getting homesick? Where do you draw the line? Once Brisbane get it down to 25 non-locals does the allowance stop? Or should it be a sliding allowance for every team based on how many locals are on every list? What if the Bulldogs hypothetically have 40 South Australians on their list next year? What happens then? Would they get an allowance? If not, why not?
Do we allow for cost of living in Perth and Adelaide if we allow for Sydney? And do we have a sliding system where we apply it for every club? How about we calaculate how many married players whose partners have jobs are on club lists? If their partner has a job, then they are making more money as a family and the salary cap can be less for that team. There's an excuse to give another club an increase. I could make an excuse for every team. All of them would "sound" valid, until you realised the 1,067 exceptions to the Salary Cap defeated the purpose of it.
The point is, the more "reasons" you bring in to give Salary Cap allowances, the more convoluted and farcial the Salary Cap becomes. If you allow for cost of living,why not allow any one of 100 other reasons? Obviously you can't do that. Althouth the AFL is doing their best to prove you can.
The solution is to make the Salary Cap identical for all clubs. No allowancs for veterans, either. What is the point of giving veterans an allowance when the idea of the Salary Cap is supposed to even up the league? The fact some clubs pay less because of the veterans rule is another reason the Cap becoming a joke. All clubs should have an identical amount of money to spend. No exceptions.
In addition to that, we have a situation where one club gets a cost of living allowance, another club gets a "retainment" allowance, because they have a lot of non-local playes, other clubs have veterans whose salaries are not fully included in the cap etc.
There are just too many "reasons" that can used to give a team extra in their cap. How many reasons do you need? I could claim that Essendon's players live in the more affluent suburbs of Moonee Ponds and Ascot Vale, which is far more expensive to live in that Geeong, but the Cats and the Bombers have the same cap.
I could claim that Richmond have 20 players with kids (just an example), while Hawthorn have 5 players with kids. Having a child adds an extra $50,000 a year to the family budget, so Richmond should get more in their cap than Hawthorn.
See what I mean? It's become ridiculous. Even the allowances for Brisbane are ridiculous. Collingwood have 20 non-Victorians on their list, whle the Kangaroos have 9. Do Collingwood get a "retainment" allowance in their cap (like Brisbane), more so than the Kangaroos, because of the possibility of players getting homesick? Where do you draw the line? Once Brisbane get it down to 25 non-locals does the allowance stop? Or should it be a sliding allowance for every team based on how many locals are on every list? What if the Bulldogs hypothetically have 40 South Australians on their list next year? What happens then? Would they get an allowance? If not, why not?
Do we allow for cost of living in Perth and Adelaide if we allow for Sydney? And do we have a sliding system where we apply it for every club? How about we calaculate how many married players whose partners have jobs are on club lists? If their partner has a job, then they are making more money as a family and the salary cap can be less for that team. There's an excuse to give another club an increase. I could make an excuse for every team. All of them would "sound" valid, until you realised the 1,067 exceptions to the Salary Cap defeated the purpose of it.
The point is, the more "reasons" you bring in to give Salary Cap allowances, the more convoluted and farcial the Salary Cap becomes. If you allow for cost of living,why not allow any one of 100 other reasons? Obviously you can't do that. Althouth the AFL is doing their best to prove you can.
The solution is to make the Salary Cap identical for all clubs. No allowancs for veterans, either. What is the point of giving veterans an allowance when the idea of the Salary Cap is supposed to even up the league? The fact some clubs pay less because of the veterans rule is another reason the Cap becoming a joke. All clubs should have an identical amount of money to spend. No exceptions.
