Salary cap, minimum TPP and veteran's allowance

[legend166]

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

Sure, but much like when COLA was around, if you're a player agent and you know that your player is eligible to receive 20% extra that doesn't go into the cap you're being a horrible player agent if that means you don't get your player an extra 20%.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

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.

Maybe it's not subconscious.

 

[Suma Magic]

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.

I just think it's unnecessary. No other sport in Australia grants Sydney clubs extra salary allowances.

 

[legend166]

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.

I mean I'm not particular crying for the poor guys earning $300k a year, but that's really not accurate. You're not getting a house within 15km of the SCG for less than $1.5 million. The take home pay for a someone on $300k a year is $185k. Let's say they're particularly thrifty and say they have $30k a year in expenses. So that's $150k a year they can plow into a mortgage. So even if there was absolutely zero interest on a $1.5 million loan you're not paying it off in 10 year. Even then, if you're a bank the last person you want to loan that kind of money to is an average AFL player who could easily lose his job in 2-3 years and see his earning capacity drop tremendously.

That's why all those guys rent. Median rent in Sydney is a good 40% higher than Melbourne and even more than every other capital city.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Sure, but much like when COLA was around, if you're a player agent and you know that your player is eligible to receive 20% extra that doesn't go into the cap you're being a horrible player agent if that means you don't get your player an extra 20%.

Yeah, but then just becomes a bargaining chip between player/agent and club. The club can just as easily come back and say 'we can't fit $800k + 20% under the cap'. 'Go and ask another club for $960k and lose that 20% discount and see if they can fit you in their cap for the full amount'.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

I mean I'm not particular crying for the poor guys earning $300k a year, but that's really not accurate. You're not getting a house within 15km of the SCG for less than $1.5 million. The take home pay for a someone on $300k a year is $185k. Let's say they're particularly thrifty and say they have $30k a year in expenses. So that's $150k a year they can plow into a mortgage. So even if there was absolutely zero interest on a $1.5 million loan you're not paying it off in 10 year. Even then, if you're a bank the last person you want to loan that kind of money to is an average AFL player who could easily lose his job in 2-3 years and see his earning capacity drop tremendously.

That's why all those guys rent. Median rent in Sydney is a good 40% higher than Melbourne and even more than every other capital city.

Yeah, good points. I stand corrected.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

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.

Naah
It was an additional 10% on contracts $15ok pr less. This would be where the 15k figure came from. Not sure how the new agreement last year affected it.
What it means is draftees drafted for the first time and in all likelihood anyone added to the rookie list get an extra 10%. Unlike Cola it cant be manipluated because the draftees first contract is fixed.Bit different for players drafted who have previously been on a list or rookies, but it's small and only at the very bottom end.

 

[Tbonefreo]

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

At least it's going to the players and not some over paid 'suit'

 

[didaksrightfoot]

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

I dont agree with the cap discount for vets. It would make it easier for top teams to continue to keep their veteran talent, at cheaper rates, whilst still topping up with recruits.

I would go the other way:
I dont think we're too far away from NBA-like max salaries (both $/yrs). Enough Buddy/Boyd like contracts (i reckon Lynch might be on the end of one this year) and the AFL might start to look at putting things in place to save clubs from themselves. Say limit max individual salary at 20% of the cap, and Max length at 5 years: and allow the "home" team to offer slightly more, and an extra year - that still hits your salary cap, but makes you more competitive in trying to keep someone.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I mean I'm not particular crying for the poor guys earning $300k a year, but that's really not accurate. You're not getting a house within 15km of the SCG for less than $1.5 million. The take home pay for a someone on $300k a year is $185k. Let's say they're particularly thrifty and say they have $30k a year in expenses. So that's $150k a year they can plow into a mortgage. So even if there was absolutely zero interest on a $1.5 million loan you're not paying it off in 10 year. Even then, if you're a bank the last person you want to loan that kind of money to is an average AFL player who could easily lose his job in 2-3 years and see his earning capacity drop tremendously.

That's why all those guys rent. Median rent in Sydney is a good 40% higher than Melbourne and even more than every other capital city.

Actually a lot of our guys seem to be buying investment properties, but you're right, generally not in Sydney and as far as I know they all rent.

The real issue is AFLW where they dont earn enough to live inSl Sydney. Club provides a big share house. Not sure if the offer includes utilities groceries etc.

 

[Suma Magic]

Naah
It was an additional 10% on contracts $15ok pr less. This would be where the 15k figure came from. Not sure how the new agreement last year affected it.
What it means is draftees drafted for the first time and in all likelihood anyone added to the rookie list get an extra 10%. Unlike Cola it cant be manipluated because the draftees first contract is fixed.Bit different for players drafted who have previously been on a list or rookies, but it's small and only at the very bottom end.

Do you have a source for that?

The only sources I could find refer to the $15,000 rental assistance:
https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/s...e/news-story/fa62aaeec0516a9e5b3db75967622b88
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ut-rent-subsidy-on-way-in-20140520-zrj5l.html
http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2014-05-31/hes-saying-were-cheating-syd

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

Do you have a source for that?

The only sources I could find refer to the $15,000 rental assistance:
https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/s...e/news-story/fa62aaeec0516a9e5b3db75967622b88
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ut-rent-subsidy-on-way-in-20140520-zrj5l.html
http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2014-05-31/hes-saying-were-cheating-syd

I'll try to locate it, might take a while.

 

[Suma Magic]

I'll try to locate it, might take a while.

I wouldn't bother, you won't find anything.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I wouldn't bother, you won't find anything.

No I stumbled across a document regarding draftee rules and salaries but didn't catalogue it so I'll have to search. Maybe I wont.

 

[Suma Magic]

No I stumbled across a document regarding draftee rules and salaries but didn't catalogue it so I'll have to search. Maybe I wont.

I suppose nothing to lose by looking.

I'm 99% sure policyy is $15,000 a year for those on less than the average salary - around $400,000 a year advantage to your club.

But I've been wrong before...

 

[Baklazan]

I am on board with the minimum TPP being lowered, to allow for teams to properly bottom out, without having to have lesser players taking up the bulk of their salary cap space. It is too high at the moment and I believe that the stagnation at the lower end of the table, in concert with the player-driven free agency system, is a symptom of the current rules.

One final thing to add, which is kind of off topic (apologies), would be the ability to trade players without their consent. This would allow for much more flexible list management and would assist teams in undertaking a rebuild in a less limited fashion. I can also see this being a lot more beneficial in the scenario of players on large and "horrible" contracts being traded to teams who need to fill their minimum TPPs, in return for salary cap relief, the teams could also provide some extra future assets (prospect players or draft picks), to make it worth their while.

 

[The 747]

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

To prevent struggling clubs underpaying players to stay afloat which then leads to a Fitzroy style death spiral.

 

[Dazzler9]

To prevent struggling clubs underpaying players to stay afloat which then leads to a Fitzroy style death spiral.

But doesn't it make struggling clubs pay more than they can afford, therefore accelerating their financial collapse??

 

[didaksrightfoot]

To prevent struggling clubs underpaying players to stay afloat which then leads to a Fitzroy style death spiral.

But doesn't it make struggling clubs pay more than they can afford, therefore accelerating their financial collapse??

If they cant afford it, on a regular basis, whilst still receiving equalisation money from the AFL, then you have to question their long term survivability in the league.

The minimim spend (which exists in other sports) is to try and prevent tanking, and try to have every team to be of a standard accepted level of quality. (Eg. If you are paying 95% wages, you should be close to 95% the quality of other teams).
In reality it doesnt do this, for a number of reasons, and the AFL player movement rules actually make things worse for these clubs.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Two players dickhead. Not "offseason" either. We were on Martin and Kelly during the early weeks of the finals at latest. Quiet as hell during trade week.

Which is bloody hilarious coming from a Bluws supporter.

Calm down mate. We’ve moved on from that. Was only returning serve to an unnecessary comment. How/why does a thread about a league-wide issue need to devolve into having digs at other clubs?

 

[LongPause]

interesting system but im sure as hell don't want my club to get some kind of reward for getting David Mckay to 200, 250 games.

 

[Isaac Cumming No 1]

I suppose nothing to lose by looking.

I'm 99% sure policyy is $15,000 a year for those on less than the average salary - around $400,000 a year advantage to your club.

But I've been wrong before...

I cant licate it but the reference in your post doesn't dont mention $400k and a reference to approx $15k is consistent with what I said. The issue is the upper salary it applies to.

 

[Suma Magic]

I cant licate it but the reference in your post doesn't dont mention $400k and a reference to approx $15k is consistent with what I said. The issue is the upper salary it applies to.

The articles reference average wage. I just did some quick sums to estimate the total subsidy paid by the AFL.

More players will be below average wage than above it.

So if 27 of 45 players are below the average wage the club in total gets around $400k.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

interesting system but im sure as hell don't want my club to get some kind of reward for getting David Mckay to 200, 250 games.

I’m just putting it out in the open for discussion. I literally spent about 5mins on it, so open to criticism and tweaks.
Not sure it’s an incentive to keep players that aren’t up to scratch.
No different to current situation. You either keep them or don’t. Currently you might keep them on for a year or two at reduced rates for depth/development/culture.

 

[Scotland]

What is the point of administering a salary cap floor when clubs can front/back end contracts and offer guys like Scully, Boyd, Lever well above market value?

Melbourne could be at 100% right now and all they need to do to sign Andrew Gaff (assuming he wants to go there) is find enough money to pay him above minimum salary for 2019 then pay him more when Jones, Vince and Lewis finish up. Carlton could offer him $1m in 2019 but it doesn't really matter unless they want to offer him more overall.