Salary cap, minimum TPP and veteran's allowance

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I'm interested in the thoughts of others on a few topics regarding team and player salaries.

Since 2013 the minimum total player payments, that ALL clubs have to reach, has been set at 95% of the salary cap. I believe this is too high. Regardless of how many stars or 1st and 2nd year players a team might have, they HAVE to spend $11,827,500 of their $12,450,000 cap. 30 years ago, that was set at 90% (salary cap was only $1.25m). Personally I think 85-90% is more realistic. This allows struggling clubs to keep their TPP to a minimum and have more in the bank to make a play at free agents.
There was a rule where a club could pay under the minimum TPP on any given year and bank the savings (for a maximum of 3 years), which could then be used to exceed the cap by the same amount. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but I would abolish that rule if it's still around.

Then there's the veteran's allowance. Previously, a percentage of a player's wage could be excluded from the cap, up to a certain amount per year, if the player had played a specified number of games for the one club. This was recently removed and absorbed into one of the recent salary cap increases.
I reckon it should be brought back in a slightly different format.
I'd have a sliding scale based on games played. For instance, if a player has played 100, 150 or 200 games for the one club, discounts of 10%, 15% and 20% could be applied to the salary counting towards the cap. This would encourage players to stay at the one club longer. However, if a player plays 100 games at one club and then changes clubs, the discount is forfeited until that player racks up 100 games for their new club.
Once a player reaches 250 career games, regardless of club, they could then be eligible for a 25% discount towards a team's cap.

Obviously the numbers used here are purely examples and could be tinkered with if they are excessive (number of games could stay the same, but percentages halved, or only kicks in from 150 games, etc.).

What do people think could be the potential benefits or drawbacks with the above? Are you a fan? Do you think it's fine how it is? Are there other ideas that could work just as well, or better?

Mods, please move if this is in the wrong spot

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

On a side note, out of interest, while looking up some info for this thread, I noticed that back in 1987, Sydney were found guilty of breaching the salary cap by a whopping $1.15m. When you consider that the cap at the time was only $1.25m, that's equivalent to a current team breaching by $12m! Their punishment was a $60k fine and loss of 1st round pick. (this isn't a dig at any team, just an intriguing fact about the how things have changed)

 

[Donakebab]

On one hand you want to encourage players staying by giving them a increasing discount over time, on the other you want the minimum cap spend reduced so struggling clubs can stockpile more for free agents. These work against each other and will just increase player payments at the pointy end without really changing anything else.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

On one hand you want to encourage players staying by giving them a increasing discount over time, on the other you want the minimum cap spend reduced so struggling clubs can stockpile more for free agents. These work against each other and will just increase player payments at the pointy end without really changing anything else.

It's a balancing act. You can't completely restrict player movement though. I see your point though.

Do they work against each other, or does it create a balance, where struggling clubs can more easily attract top players?

 

[Quivorir]

Its always baffled me that Carlton have to pay their spuds the same amount of money as the good teams.

 

[matt_bas]

Its always baffled me that Carlton have to pay their spuds the same amount of money as the good teams.

It' why we see so many over paid 'stars'

 

[Suma Magic]

I prefer to keep things simple. I'd have no allowances for anything. Clubs shouldn't be advantaged or disadvantaged by the number of veterans they have.

I'd give everyone the same cap. Remove the concessions currently enjoyed by the Sydney clubs. Remove the ambassador money. Just make it a level playing field.

Finally, I'd stop a player's old team paying part of his salary at his new club.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Its always baffled me that Carlton have to pay their spuds the same amount of money as the good teams.

Says the guy whose team was throwing money at anyone that looked at them in the offseason.

I know that picking on Carlton is what all the 'cool kids' are doing, but try and stay on topic. This has nothing to do with Carlton.

 

[MarcusP2]

I prefer to keep things simple. I'd have no allowances for anything. Clubs shouldn't be advantaged or disadvantaged by the number of veterans they have.

I'd give everyone the same cap. Remove the concessions currently enjoyed by the Sydney clubs. Remove the ambassador money. Just make it a level playing field.

Finally, I'd stop a player's old team paying part of his salary at his new club.

I wouldn't, this helps decent players on good wages get moved along and actually get a game. It obviously still has to count in both team's cap though.

NFL's floor is 90% as measured over 4 years. That seems fairly reasonable.

 

[Shoei]

• Every club has exactly the same salary cap.
• Salary cap floor to be spread out over a number of years e.g 5 years rather than one.
• Complete unrestricted free agency for any players after their initial draft contract

Salary cap stops "best" teams stockpiling all the best players.
More fluidity in player movement and team building - don't have to rely on the draft to build or supplement a team looking for a flag.
Lower cap floor over a number of years allows the "struggling" teams to stockpile some money and land either a "superstar" free agent or 2-3 good players to build a core with their younger ones.
Enforce a minimum AFL players salary of something like $100,000 to offset the idea that players are getting ripped off.

 

[MarcusP2]

• Every club has exactly the same salary cap.
• Salary cap floor to be spread out over a number of years e.g 5 years rather than one.
• Complete unrestricted free agency for any players after their initial draft contract

Salary cap stops "best" teams stockpiling all the best players.
More fluidity in player movement and team building - don't have to rely on the draft to build or supplement a team looking for a flag.
Lower cap floor over a number of years allows the "struggling" teams to stockpile some money and land either a "superstar" free agent or 2-3 good players to build a core with their younger ones.
Enforce a minimum AFL players salary of something like $100,000 to offset the idea that players are getting ripped off.

This is already in force (except for rookies).

 

[Suma Magic]

I wouldn't, this helps decent players on good wages get moved along and actually get a game. It obviously still has to count in both team's cap though.

NFL's floor is 90% as measured over 4 years. That seems fairly reasonable.

It leads to picks for cash trades which I don't like. Just allows clubs to operate above the max TPP.

If it still counted in the new teams' TPP then I'd be fine with the old club paying some of the salary.

 

[legend166]

I prefer to keep things simple. I'd have no allowances for anything. Clubs shouldn't be advantaged or disadvantaged by the number of veterans they have.

I'd give everyone the same cap. Remove the concessions currently enjoyed by the Sydney clubs. Remove the ambassador money. Just make it a level playing field.

Finally, I'd stop a player's old team paying part of his salary at his new club.

We get salary cap concessions? Would have been good for the club to know that before they traded Tom Mitchell. COLA hasn't been in force for a few years now and nothing replaced it.

Anyway, as for the OP - tying game appearances directly to salary can be a bad idea, because you're then punishing players who get injured or those who are at a club who don't necessarily play young players early, and even those who are in a crappy team that don't play finals.

For example - compare Dustin Martin and Nat Fyfe. Taken in the same draft and are now at a very similar level of output and what salary they are worth. They were also both well established in their team's best 22 early in their careers. Let's say they were both up for contract renewals at the end of the year, and they both play all the games remaining this season (excluding finals for the sake of comparison). Martin will end up on 200 games and Fyfe on 160. Based on your salary scale Martin is eligible for a 20% boost and Fyfe only for 15%? Just because Fyfe missed large chunks of 2012 and 2016 with injuries. Doesn't seem fair.

If that system is going to exist it needs to be based on years of service.

 

[Quivorir]

Says the guy whose team was throwing money at anyone that looked at them in the offseason.

I know that picking on Carlton is what all the 'cool kids' are doing, but try and stay on topic. This has nothing to do with Carlton.

Sorry mate, apply it to any other of the spud teams for all I care. Point was teams at the bottom of the ladder with less talent shouldn't be forced to pay the same amount as those who have talent actually worth the price tag. Imagine having to give player like Jacob Weitering an extra 50k just to reach the minimum cap.

 

[Dazzler9]

For what reason is there a minimum TPP? What purpose does it serve?

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Sorry mate, apply it to any other of the spud teams for all I care. Point was teams at the bottom of the ladder with less talent shouldn't be forced to pay the same amount as those who have talent actually worth the price tag. Imagine having to give player like Jacob Weitering an extra 50k just to reach the minimum cap.

See how easy it can be to get your point across without being a dick. This is why it can be so hard to have normal conversations on the main board.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Anyway, as for the OP - tying game appearances directly to salary can be a bad idea, because you're then punishing players who get injured or those who are at a club who don't necessarily play young players early, and even those who are in a crappy team that don't play finals.

For example - compare Dustin Martin and Nat Fyfe. Taken in the same draft and are now at a very similar level of output and what salary they are worth. They were also both well established in their team's best 22 early in their careers. Let's say they were both up for contract renewals at the end of the year, and they both play all the games remaining this season (excluding finals for the sake of comparison). Martin will end up on 200 games and Fyfe on 160. Based on your salary scale Martin is eligible for a 20% boost and Fyfe only for 15%? Just because Fyfe missed large chunks of 2012 and 2016 with injuries. Doesn't seem fair.

If that system is going to exist it needs to be based on years of service.

I did think about the missed games, but just went for something a little different. Could easily change games played to years served.

And just to be clear, it wouldn't be a boost for the player, but a discount for the club towards salary cap. So Fyfe could be on $800k, but only $640k counts towards cap. A similar thing was in place, but it came into effect later in a player's career and there was a total value that it capped out at and it was quite convoluted.
http://www.afl.com.au/afl-hq/the-afl-explained/veteran-players

 

[Quivorir]

See how easy it can be to get your point across without being a dick. This is why it can be so hard to have normal conversations on the main board.

I wasn't being a dick. Carlton have been at the ass end of the ladder for years. Why? Because they have the least talent. Its the perfect example for illustrating my point. Don't have a sook because I said a bad thing about the team you happen to support (of which I didn't even notice until the whinge btw).

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-08/new-veterans-rule-put-all-clubs-on-a-level-playing-field

 

[Suma Magic]

We get salary cap concessions? Would have been good for the club to know that before they traded Tom Mitchell. COLA hasn't been in force for a few years now and nothing replaced it.

Anyway, as for the OP - tying game appearances directly to salary can be a bad idea, because you're then punishing players who get injured or those who are at a club who don't necessarily play young players early, and even those who are in a crappy team that don't play finals.

For example - compare Dustin Martin and Nat Fyfe. Taken in the same draft and are now at a very similar level of output and what salary they are worth. They were also both well established in their team's best 22 early in their careers. Let's say they were both up for contract renewals at the end of the year, and they both play all the games remaining this season (excluding finals for the sake of comparison). Martin will end up on 200 games and Fyfe on 160. Based on your salary scale Martin is eligible for a 20% boost and Fyfe only for 15%? Just because Fyfe missed large chunks of 2012 and 2016 with injuries. Doesn't seem fair.

If that system is going to exist it needs to be based on years of service.

Your players on less than the average wage get a 15k rental allowance from memory. This replaced the CoLA. So at a guess this adds $400,000 to what your players get paid annually.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I wasn't being a dick. Carlton have been at the ass end of the ladder for years. Why? Because they have the least talent. Its the perfect example for illustrating my point. Don't have a sook because I said a bad thing about the team you happen to support (of which I didn't even notice until the whinge btw).

You made a conscious choice to use Carlton and the word 'spuds'. It's not my fault if you don't notice your own dickish behaviour. When pulled up on it, you stopped, engaged your brain, and got your point across in a normal and more constructive manner. Perhaps the problem is that you're subconsciously a dick because nobody pulls you up on it ('sook', 'whinge' you're doing it again).
Happy to move on.

 

[Quivorir]

You made a conscious choice to use Carlton and the word 'spuds'. It's not my fault if you don't notice your own dickish behaviour. When pulled up on it, you stopped, engaged your brain, and got your point across in a normal and more constructive manner. Perhaps the problem is that you're subconsciously a dick because nobody pulls you up on it ('sook', 'whinge' you're doing it again).
Happy to move on.

Because for the last 20 years the word spud has been synonymous with Carlton. Pretend I said North Melbourne then if it helps you sleep at night.

 

[Strahany]

The minimum spend definitely needs to be dropped rather significantly. When the AFL brought in Free Agency, they dismissed concerns regarding small clubs, or clubs going through a rebuild, being disadvantaged by saying that their 'benefit' will be a larger salary cap to entice other players. This simply isn't the case when there salary cap minimum is as high as it is, and whilst players much prefer success over a little more money.

For example, St Kilda has spent 5 years structuring TPP in a way that allowed maximum free space to acquire one or more Free Agents - this includes front-loading contracts of current players so that there was more room in later years, as well as spending the 95% figure for multiple years in a row in order to earn the right to spend 105% in subsequent years. But all of this deliberate planning only results in a little bit of extra cap space relative to other teams, which is far from enough. Given the absolute rabble that the club is, at the moment, I would not be surprised to learn that current free agents are demanding (close to) double the salary to come to St Kilda over clubs in better positions (not just clubs in contention). This would mean that, for all of the effort put into the meticulous approach, St Kilda may only be able to walk away with one strong Free Agent at best, rather than the two (or even three) that would be required to help make any kind of tangible difference. In a league with a reduced salary cap minimum, this would be possible.

Salary cap room needs to be restructured such that it is considered almost (or equally) as valuable as draft picks; salary cap room yields you established players whilst draft picks yields youth. As an added benefit, perhaps the sketchy compensation pick could be discarded altogether if this was the case; it would not be needed in a league where 'freeing up space' by losing a good player to Free Agency is more than a cardboard consolation trophy.

 

[skipper kelly]

Salary cap is soft as players can Additional Services Agreements for any amount at the discretion of the AFL.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Your players on less than the average wage get a 15k rental allowance from memory. This replaced the CoLA. So at a guess this adds $400,000 to what your players get paid annually.

Now that, I don't particularly have a problem with. It's better than just being allowed to go a certain percentage over the cap with no governance on how it's used, but 'less than the average wage'? Prior to last year, the average wage was $309k. As of last year, that went up to $371k. Let's face it, players earning over $150k (most players I would think) aren't exactly going to struggle to pay the rent. An AFL player on an average salary could pay off a house in Sydney in 4-5 year while still living above the poverty line. Back in 2015, 2nd and 3rd round draftees had a base salary of around $65k before any match payments.