The Salary Cap floor is too high

Remove this Banner Ad

eth-dog said:
So, as I'm sure most of you know, the salary cap floor is at 95%. A mark ridiculously high for me, and today shows why.

Bryce Gibbs has retired from football and despite that, Adelaide are redrafting him onto the rookie list. Why? Well it's obviously because they weren't going to reach the salary cap floor for next year and had to bring in someone who can basically fill however much money needed (as only 80k of the salary isn't counted towards the cap on the rookie list).

People marvel at the fact guys like Brandon Ellis get paid half a million a year as a solid workmanlike player. The Suns kinda had to do it that way so that they could reach that floor. Back in Carlton's period of horribleness, I saw Dennis Armfield's estimated salary being around the 500k mark a couple of times. From my own club, in the late 2000's, we were overpaying guys like Henry Slattery.

Reducing the cap floor to 90% is the best way for these clubs down the bottom to not overpay good ordinary players or be forced to redraft guys that have retired.
Click to expand...


Always hated it and have made numerous posts in the past about how it should be scrapped.

If a club can have all the players on it's list signed up and they only spend 70% of the cap why should be penalised for good management by making them pay an additional 20%.

The other thing is, clubs have to raise that 95% every year which is putting extra pressure on them to survive.
 
Altum Volantes said:
WCE reportedly always pay 100% of the cap and have probably the best player retention record in the league - maybe clubs should do that instead? :cool:
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, West Coast is so analagous with every other club. Every other club is financial successful and successful in competition, operates in a two team town where the other team is a perennial loser and lays claim to be the "home" of roughly 30% of AFL talent. Every other club is just like that...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

FlowersByIrene said:
Oh yeah, West Coast is so analagous with every other club. Every other club is financial successful and successful in competition, operates in a two team town where the other team is a perennial loser and lays claim to be the "home" of roughly 30% of AFL talent. Every other club is just like that...
Click to expand...

so....paying less than 100% is about saving money?

I’m pretty sure it’s more to do with list quality/cap management than penny pinching, therefore WCE are in the same position as everyone, whether it minnow or big club.
 
Altum Volantes said:
so....paying less than 100% is about saving money?

I’m pretty sure it’s more to do with list quality/cap management than penny pinching, therefore WCE are in the same position as everyone, whether it minnow or big club.
Click to expand...
No the point is you can't compare WCE's scuccess while paying 100% of the salary to other teams as other teams don't have the intagibles to attract players and pay below or at market value for players like WCE does
 
FlowersByIrene said:
No the point is you can't compare WCE's scuccess while paying 100% of the salary to other teams as other teams don't have the intagibles to attract players and pay below or at market value for players like WCE does
Click to expand...

Some other teams definitely do - usually the successful ones.

If you can’t compare and aim to emulate the successful clubs then what are you trying to achieve?

A never ending ‘War Chest’ of cap space?
 
living_in_syd said:
Can you rollover savings to future years? Otherwise theres no point lowering the floor as clubs need to use it anyways
Click to expand...



I agree it with using it anyway approach. Clubs should have been trying to take bad contracts off other clubs for draft picks, similar to Collingwood this year. Give someone a second round pick and a player with a bad contract for a fourth rounder to get the off the books.
 
The 747 said:
No argument from me OP, this is something that was put in place in order to get rid of Fitzroy.

However good luck getting the AFLPA to agree. It should be 90% at least.
Click to expand...
you posted this on another thread. I dont know where. But I do remember you posting about the Salary cap floor was to slowly kill off Fitzroy.

Saying that, I agree the Salary cap Floor should be changed. 95% is too high. 90% is fair even 92.5% is good too.

Still remember the Salary cap back in 2010 or 2011. It was one of those years collingwood made the grand final and Port Adelaide struggled in the bottom half of the ladder.

The Salary cap back then was like 8.2 million. the minium Salry cap floor was 92.5% or 7.6 million. thats only $600,000 for the highest and lowest cap limits.

The Salary cap was 13 million this season. If the minimum floor was 90% that means the Salary floor is 11.7 million or 1.3 million less than the Maximum.

Im going to Use North Melbourne as an example.

No disrecpect to North, they dont have a Big Supporter base. Yet posted a "profit" in 11 of the past 12 years. North were 9-10 million in debt a decade ago. People can knock North on their Financial problems but I will respect them on slowly knocking off the debt.

My theory on North making a "Profit".

North gets distribution from the AFL. Or a Budget. North Stay under that budget, any spare cash they have left is a "Profit".



So If North have got 13 million in the Salary cap. They use the bare minimum of 90 percent. If they want to use that 1 million or 1.3 million in that salary cap to pay off their debt, then I am all for it.

If north are going to finish bottom 6 for the next 2-3 seasons to rebuild and control and Pay off their debt, Then thats fine. Sure they might spend 2-3 years having a bare bones squad, but once their debt is gone, they will be fine. Sometimes you gotta sort out the off field problems 1st before the on field problems need to be addressed.
 
Freomaniac said:
you posted this on another thread. I dont know where. But I do remember you posting about the Salary cap floor was to slowly kill off Fitzroy.
Click to expand...

Yep although it wasn't slowly, it was very quick. The AFL knew Fitzroy could not pay that much, that is why they did it.

On a side note about the only classy thing about Fitzroy getting killed off was Freo hosting them in the last game and showing respect to a long standing club. That earned Freo a lot of credits as a club.

Anyway we agree about the cap floor, it should be lower. Why should a club with shithouse players have to pay them so much, this perpetuates the cycle of struggling clubs, they get players with some talent who then get way overpaid and become lazy and comfortable playing for the paycheck. There is no financial incentive of note for the players if the club improves on the field.
 
It is ludicrous that the bottom club pays their players the same as the premier club. The players association have stuffed this up and have way to much power.
Football is a team sport and is about winning and losing. I would much prefer a system where you get a base yearly contract and are then paid for winning and losing games.
You could have Dusty Martin at Richmond on 400k base and 30k a winning game and 10k a losing game. And at the other end of the scale you may have a Marion Picket on 150k base. In Richmonds case most players Woukd earn what they did anyhow.
For the clubs that are at the bottom some say this system penalises their good players but again this should be club governed and in those cases those senior good players Would be on high bases with lower game payments and the young players looking to make a name for themselves Would be the ones learning their craft knowing that winning will increase their pay.
The AFL pay big money to players who don’t have to perform to get it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

HairyO said:
95% should be the long term avg bottom but teams should be allowed to go as low as 90% for 1 year to bank cash for a big FA push.

It is riduclous that mediocre players have to get paid as much as good players.
Click to expand...
Thats what I was Thinking.

I will use your team as an example yes you guys lost Isaac Smith as a free agent but gained Kyle Hartigan to fill his wages.

Say if the hawks only used 90 percent of that salary cap in 2021. And then the hawks make finals in 2021.

Hawks then have a spare 1.3 million. Sure the hawks can use that 1.3 million to get an elite player or pay $650,000 each for 2 players.

There is a lot of wriggle room if that's the case
 
eth-dog said:
So, as I'm sure most of you know, the salary cap floor is at 95%. A mark ridiculously high for me, and today shows why.

Bryce Gibbs has retired from football and despite that, Adelaide are redrafting him onto the rookie list. Why? Well it's obviously because they weren't going to reach the salary cap floor for next year and had to bring in someone who can basically fill however much money needed (as only 80k of the salary isn't counted towards the cap on the rookie list).

People marvel at the fact guys like Brandon Ellis get paid half a million a year as a solid workmanlike player. The Suns kinda had to do it that way so that they could reach that floor. Back in Carlton's period of horribleness, I saw Dennis Armfield's estimated salary being around the 500k mark a couple of times. From my own club, in the late 2000's, we were overpaying guys like Henry Slattery.

Reducing the cap floor to 90% is the best way for these clubs down the bottom to not overpay good ordinary players or be forced to redraft guys that have retired.
Click to expand...
And what happens when your clubs greedy *s like Grundy and Moore want the vast majority? If i had it my way both would've been offered far less a d they could take it or leave it, problem is other clubs would've offered them more, i would love to see a cap on how much you can pay a player, 500k is ample amount for these guys who play a domestic sport IMO, i would bring the minimum amount up to 100k, AFLPA can go and * themselves.
 
HavUEvaSeenTheRain said:
The problem with banking money would also be about teams being encouraged to massively bottom out which the AFL clearly doesn’t want.
Click to expand...
Ummmm there are positives and negatives about this.... But I do undertand what you are saying.

Again..... It depends which team we are talking about.

Going to use North Melbourne again as an Example. North were 9-10 million in debt 10 years ago. Imagine if the Kangaroos were 10 million in debt now?

Again, they are not going to lure an Elite or Marketable player like Buddy Franklin or Dustin Martin. It would help if they did.

The Salary cap was 13 million this year. Again, Imagine if the minimum of the cap was only 90%? That would mean 11.7 million or 1.3 million less than the maximum 100% of the cap.

Or if it was like the old salary cap rules as recent as 2010 or 2011: 92.5%. When you think about it, 92.5% of 13 million is $12,025,000. thats $975,000 difference between minimum cap and maximum cap limits.

If you think about it If Clubs Like North were allowed to operate at 90% of the salary cap, would they still be a compeititive side? Yes they would. North dont have a lot of Debt now, they only have $500,000 in debt.

But Say if North were still 10 million in debt, Would they operate on 90% of the cap for the next 3-5 years and allocate that 1.3 million a year to pay debts off? 1.3 million over 3 years is 3.9 million. 1.3 million over 4 years is 5.2 million. 1.3 million over 5 years is 6.5 million. that is a huge amount of money over a 3-5 year period.
 
Freomaniac said:
Ummmm there are positives and negatives about this.... But I do undertand what you are saying.

Again..... It depends which team we are talking about.

Going to use North Melbourne again as an Example. North were 9-10 million in debt 10 years ago. Imagine if the Kangaroos were 10 million in debt now?

Again, they are not going to lure an Elite or Marketable player like Buddy Franklin or Dustin Martin. It would help if they did.

The Salary cap was 13 million this year. Again, Imagine if the minimum of the cap was only 90%? That would mean 11.7 million or 1.3 million less than the maximum 100% of the cap.

Or if it was like the old salary cap rules as recent as 2010 or 2011: 92.5%. When you think about it, 92.5% of 13 million is $12,025,000. thats $975,000 difference between minimum cap and maximum cap limits.

If you think about it If Clubs Like North were allowed to operate at 90% of the salary cap, would they still be a compeititive side? Yes they would. North dont have a lot of Debt now, they only have $500,000 in debt.

But Say if North were still 10 million in debt, Would they operate on 90% of the cap for the next 3-5 years and allocate that 1.3 million a year to pay debts off? 1.3 million over 3 years is 3.9 million. 1.3 million over 4 years is 5.2 million. 1.3 million over 5 years is 6.5 million. that is a huge amount of money over a 3-5 year period.
Click to expand...
Personally I think the new football department cap should really make all clubs profitable over time but I get what you’re saying.
 
would there be tax implications for players on lower ended contracts? if I was getting paid an average of 150k i wouldn't want it all upfront, and i'd rather the salary cap floor to be a little more forgiving.
 
Quivorir said:
I've always found the salary cap floor stupid. I'm sure there are very thought out reasons for it but this fella who just takes it at face value cant understand why clubs are forced to pay nothing players way more than they're worth just to reach this cap.
Click to expand...

I guess they thought it would make sides always competitive - in reality it makes our FA system a farce because the s**t clubs (like mine) can't throw enough dollars at the true gun FA's to get them to join - because we have to pay utter spuds big $s to meet the cap floor.

It shouldn't exist.
 
Teams should be able to trade salary cap space. When a club is down the ladder, there really shouldn't be a need to pay 100% or 95% of your salary cap. So a club could trade x amount of their salary cap for y amount of years to a team vying for the Premiership and the lower ranked team gets an extra draft pick. E.g. Adelaide could have traded $500K of cap space for 2 years to Collingwood in exchanged for a 1st round pick. Adelaide gets an extra pick to use to rebuild, and Collingwood are able to retain players. Some US sports with a draft system use a similar system.
 
HavUEvaSeenTheRain said:
Personally I think the new football department cap should really make all clubs profitable over time but I get what you’re saying.
Click to expand...
I agree on that too.

But good luck making all 18 AFL clubs profitable. It's not possible under the AFLs current structure.

Again.... It's more about giving a team like north a budget in their salary Cap and department cap.

Sure a team like north wouldn't pay their assistant coaches and development coaches at lot of money but at least they have those types of coaches for their team.

A team like Richmond on the other hand makes profit partly due to having a bigger fan base. That means more money is being used. More money on better coaches and Medical staff. Also very likely to pay their players decent money and likely to use 100 per cent of the salary cap.
 
Fade to Gray said:
Teams should be able to trade salary cap space. When a club is down the ladder, there really shouldn't be a need to pay 100% or 95% of your salary cap. So a club could trade x amount of their salary cap for y amount of years to a team vying for the Premiership and the lower ranked team gets an extra draft pick. E.g. Adelaide could have traded $500K of cap space for 2 years to Collingwood in exchanged for a 1st round pick. Adelaide gets an extra pick to use to rebuild, and Collingwood are able to retain players. Some US sports with a draft system use a similar system.
Click to expand...
Seems like the AFL is slowly following the NBAs lead on what you have mentioned.

So here's a random scenario. North have pick 2. North ask for money. 2 million in cash for pick 2. Would a team like your side accept that offer?
 
The whole thing is a bit of a joke given clubs front and back end deals, player contracts aren't made public and third party deals aren't really policed.

My team has been in the finals 6 years in a row and is a contender, at least on paper. Not many people suggesting that we are overpaying players to get to 95%. I would assume we are paying 100% in 2021 and pay that or close to it every year. But if Patrick Cripps or Josh Kelly or whoever became available as a free agent at the end of next year, we'd somehow be able to fit them in.

The entire system needs an overhaul.
 
Quivorir said:
I've always found the salary cap floor stupid. I'm sure there are very thought out reasons for it but this fella who just takes it at face value cant understand why clubs are forced to pay nothing players way more than they're worth just to reach this cap.
Click to expand...
So that cheap clubs don’t bottom out ridiculously to maximise the draft prospect and maintain a fair pay environment. If the PA didn’t like it, it wouldn’t be there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Philhawk
Concussion and Cap Management
Replies
18
Views
546
Eat_Pant
E
C
Grass Roots Football and salary cap
Replies
8
Views
462
Breretonisahood
B
mouncey2franklin
  • Poll
Is it time to say goodbye to the knee-high 'speccy'?
Replies
2
Views
341
Osho
Osho
TennisFan76
Salary Cap cheating
Replies
0
Views
452
TennisFan76
TennisFan76
O
CARLTON SALARY CAP
21 22 23 24 25
Replies
604
Views
21K
Elmer_Judd
Elmer_Judd
L
Is the AFL just too serious?
Replies
19
Views
989
t_94
t_94
Mop
  • Poll
The Soft Cap
Replies
5
Views
199
Randomizor
Randomizor

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top