I read in the paper today that Matthew Lloyd's management want to have a rule that excludes him from the salary cap under the guise of him being "the franchise player".
The National Basketball Association of the USA instituted this rule, which became known as the 'Larry Bird exemption', named after the star Boston Celtic small forward. In essence, it allowed for a team to pay its number one star whatever it took to keep them, with the rest of the roster required to stay under the cap.
I think that this rule is completely at odds with what the draft and salary cap are supposed to be achieving. The AFL's precious notion of standardisation across the league is almost in place, with only Essendon at one end and St Kilda at the other performing at anything other than varying degrees of mediocrity. Why then would they consider a rule that threatens this situation, by allowing the more financially powerful clubs to pay such salaries to their franchise players?
Since the AFL has spent the last fifteen years "evening up" the competition, it's hard to believe they'd consider any rule that would contradict that "progess". But does it have merit?
For struggling clubs, to be able to pay the likes of Wayne Carey, Chris Grant or Ben Graham their true market rate without making everyone else on the list play for peanuts must have its appeal. The drawback would seem to be that only one player would be involved. Not such a stretch for some teams, but where does that leave the likes of James Hird, Mark Mercuri, Joe Misiti et al at Essendon? Do they take the Barry Young option and walk, perhaps to become the franchise player at another club? Does the designation of this franchise player lead to resentment and jealousy at clubs? Should there be two or three of these franchise players allowed?
I think it opens too many cans of worms to be a workable idea, but I'm interested to read what others think.
------------------
He's blonde, he's quick
He's got a massive ... err ... kick
Danny Chook! Danny Chook!
The National Basketball Association of the USA instituted this rule, which became known as the 'Larry Bird exemption', named after the star Boston Celtic small forward. In essence, it allowed for a team to pay its number one star whatever it took to keep them, with the rest of the roster required to stay under the cap.
I think that this rule is completely at odds with what the draft and salary cap are supposed to be achieving. The AFL's precious notion of standardisation across the league is almost in place, with only Essendon at one end and St Kilda at the other performing at anything other than varying degrees of mediocrity. Why then would they consider a rule that threatens this situation, by allowing the more financially powerful clubs to pay such salaries to their franchise players?
Since the AFL has spent the last fifteen years "evening up" the competition, it's hard to believe they'd consider any rule that would contradict that "progess". But does it have merit?
For struggling clubs, to be able to pay the likes of Wayne Carey, Chris Grant or Ben Graham their true market rate without making everyone else on the list play for peanuts must have its appeal. The drawback would seem to be that only one player would be involved. Not such a stretch for some teams, but where does that leave the likes of James Hird, Mark Mercuri, Joe Misiti et al at Essendon? Do they take the Barry Young option and walk, perhaps to become the franchise player at another club? Does the designation of this franchise player lead to resentment and jealousy at clubs? Should there be two or three of these franchise players allowed?
I think it opens too many cans of worms to be a workable idea, but I'm interested to read what others think.
------------------
He's blonde, he's quick
He's got a massive ... err ... kick
Danny Chook! Danny Chook!
