http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-funds-club-to-pay-100-per-cent-of-salary-cap-players-win-payrise-cost-of-living-allowance-to-be-phased-out-through-equalisation/story-fni5f22o-1226942014359

THE AFL will fully fund a $150,000 salary cap increase for poor clubs as part of equalisation measures to be rolled out today.

And a new league expectation that all clubs pay 100 per cent of the salary cap will help create a $1 million war chest for many of the league’s perennial strugglers.

Many clubs which can only afford to pay 95 per cent of the $9.6 million cap will be told they must pay every cent of it when they receive their equalisation funding.

It is part of the AFL’s determination to reduce the gap between haves and have-nots.

Just means your draft picks of the world will get big dollars

Just means your draft picks of the world will get big dollars

Pretty sure there's a limit for draft picks.

Pretty sure there's a limit for draft picks.

exactly right, they're on set wages plus match payments for their first contract.

This means that clubs that aren't paying 100% of the cap can front-end contracts even further (up to an additional 450k or so) until there's enough cash left over to spend it on someone worthy.

Ah, the AFL still not quite getting it.

The gap in football department resources between a top-financed club and a poorer club is as much as $100,000 per year, per player.

That gap will have to be compensated for by the poorer clubs by paying 'overs' to retain or recruit players, especially through free agency.

Twiddling the cap is hosing the fire 'slightly less inadequately'. Eventually the house still burns down.

And to abuse the metaphor a little further - Free Agency has installed highly flammable insulation. I don't even want to imagine what it will look like if they scrap FA compensation.

Forcing teams to pay the full cap kind of rewards mediocrity, does it not? Unless teams can devise a "bonus" system for top performers as part of reaching the total cap? Say, best three performers every round, as voted by coaches, get a $10k bonus.

Im a big fan of the footy department cap idea, mostly because it would screw Collingwood over

No reason we can't get 1or 2 really good players at years end

I like this idea.

One step further though, so that clubs aren't forced to overpay average players, we need a mechanism which allows players to receive less pay: any club that does not pay 100% of the Cap returns the money to a central pot which is then divided equally amongst every afl listed player.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/facebook-fans-and-footy-how-relevant-is-your-club-20140603-zrwo2.html

good article on the different exposure clubs get

On one hand I love this because it will help us as we currently can't afford to pay 100%.

On the other hand I see two problems with it;

1) who determines if a club is able to pay 100%? Say for instance a club could pay 100% but elect to put the extra money in their FD spend, who determines that? Will all clubs who aren't banking millions just say they can't afford 100% as that money is diverted to FD spending? If so it could increase the gap between the big and small clubs.

2) There is no evidence to say paying 100% is a good thing - did our list deserve to be paid the same amount as Geelong's or Collingwood's in 2011? I think giving clubs the ability to pay 100% is ideal but forcing them to do so probably isn't.

I like this idea.

One step further though, so that clubs aren't forced to overpay average players, we need a mechanism which allows players to receive less pay: any club that does not pay 100% of the Cap returns the money to a central pot which is then divided equally amongst every afl listed player.

I prefer that All membership & gate receipt takings are paid directly into an AFL Club revenue Fund, to be divided up evenly amongst all the clubs, distribute over 3 payments per year.

Clubs will still get they're sponsorship takes, which will differ according to popularity & numbers.

And have a Salary & Footy dept' spending cap, inclusive of assistant coach wages. The head coach should be on the Admin' accounts.

I prefer that All membership & gate receipt takings are paid directly into an AFL Club revenue Fund, to be divided up evenly amongst all the clubs, distribute over 3 payments per year.

Clubs will still get they're sponsorship takes, which will differ according to popularity & numbers.

And have a Salary & Footy dept' spending cap, inclusive of assistant coach wages. The head coach should be on the Admin' accounts.

This is a great idea i think, last year some of the bigger teams were losing out on big dollars through having to play us at the MCG and us being non competitive

The great debate between clubs. There is a fair and responsible way to equalize to competition with out tax and hand outs, but the AFL doesn't have the guts to do it. The bigger clubs will complain, [censored] and moan today but if they look at this fairly at what they are given they should just shut up and cop it sweat.

The AFL through the one tool they totally control could equalize the competition. The Fixture, I read the age and it all about attendance, memberships and TV Audience. Looking at our club we sit second last on this table, why our draw and in particular our home games. We play Sydney, WCE, Gold Coast, Western Bulldogs, Collingwood, Port, Fremantle, GWS, North, Geelong, Brisbane as home matches, this draw smashes any club. You replace three games say GWS, WCE and Brisbane with Essendon, Richmond and Carlton , we would average over 50K attendance compares to what will be approx 17K.

The attendance is only one thing our TV audience increases, our corporate entertainment increases. By changing these three games only it would add an extra $500-750,000 to our bottom line, this doesn't include addition sponsorship revenue that could be generated by the increased Audience.

So when Edi and Co jump on their high horses today someone should remind them all on the free kicks the currently receive from the AFL.

The great debate between clubs. There is a fair and responsible way to equalize to competition with out tax and hand outs, but the AFL doesn't have the guts to do it. The bigger clubs will complain, [censored] and moan today but if they look at this fairly at what they are given they should just shut up and cop it sweat.

The AFL through the one tool they totally control could equalize the competition. The Fixture, I read the age and it all about attendance, memberships and TV Audience. Looking at our club we sit second last on this table, why our draw and in particular our home games. We play Sydney, WCE, Gold Coast, Western Bulldogs, Collingwood, Port, Fremantle, GWS, North, Geelong, Brisbane as home matches, this draw smashes any club. You replace three games say GWS, WCE and Brisbane with Essendon, Richmond and Carlton , we would average over 50K attendance compares to what will be approx 17K.

The attendance is only one thing our TV audience increases, our corporate entertainment increases. By changing these three games only it would add an extra $500-750,000 to our bottom line, this doesn't include addition sponsorship revenue that could be generated by the increased Audience.

So when Edi and Co jump on their high horses today someone should remind them all on the free kicks the currently receive from the AFL.

the only way to change these attendance numbers, & TV audiences directly, is through monetary equalisations. That's why I suggested that all gate & membership receipts are banked into the competitions general club fund, To be divided up equally.

After we end up with a more equal competition, the major TV timeslots could be shared more equitably. & that should be watched & shared around equally, after the competition has leveled out.

this will end up equalising the competition, however it will take a bit of time for the quality to even out & to filter through the lists. Then hopefully we would get clubs bearing fruit in differing cycles.

We play Sydney, WCE, Gold Coast, Western Bulldogs, Collingwood, Port, Fremantle, GWS, North, Geelong, Brisbane as home matches, this draw smashes any club. You replace three games say GWS, WCE and Brisbane with Essendon, Richmond and Carlton , we would average over 50K attendance compares to what will be approx 17K.

The attendance is only one thing our TV audience increases, our corporate entertainment increases. By changing these three games only it would add an extra $500-750,000 to our bottom line, this doesn't include addition sponsorship revenue that could be generated by the increased Audience.

Fixtures against the bigger clubs only draw 50k + crowds - and all the resultant benefits - when we're playing good footy.

Check the attendances of our games against those clubs in recent years (and 2014) and they've been poor, and that's for opposition home games which favour their supporters attending.

As I posted in another thread, we could have had 22 Friday night games last year and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference to anything; memberships, gate receipts, TV audience, win-loss record etc

And imagine if we had secured extra sponsorship last year b/c of a brilliant TV-friendly draw - our sponsors would have broken the contract after 3 rounds upon realising that no-one in the universe is going tune into a Melbourne.

Sorry for asking this question, Does AFL have a collective bargaining agreement where players get 50% of the revenue like in North American Sports ?

Sorry for asking this question, Does AFL have a collective bargaining agreement where players get 50% of the revenue like in North American Sports ?

No it's more like 25%. Most clubs revenues are over 40mil and the salary cap in 10mil and that's not counting the AFL's revenue that isn't passed on to clubs.

However in the US those clubs are privately owned and (mostly) profitable and the league isn't sinking money in to 2 new teams.

The players are probably underpaid when football department spending is more than the salary cap. Ie. add the coaches, physios, sports science etc and you get more than the players are paid.

But we need expansion and equilisation to grow strong clubs before the salary cap takes a massive hike.

Sorry for asking this question, Does AFL have a collective bargaining agreement where players get 50% of the revenue like in North American Sports ?

The AFL fought long and hard not to have a set percentage and GRRM is right - it is close to a quarter.

Most sports pay players much, much more than coaches and its coaching staff. The AFL is one of the few that pays coaches more than players.

The cap is low from what I can tell -the AFL makes a great deal of money still. The ownership structure is different to US sports but they are far more equalised than the AFL in terms of gate receipts, merchandise, game day revenues, and Free Agency as a means of evening the competition.

Forcing teams to pay the full cap kind of rewards mediocrity, does it not? Unless teams can devise a "bonus" system for top performers as part of reaching the total cap? Say, best three performers every round, as voted by coaches, get a $10k bonus.

In theory - no. The FA concept would mean that players go to the best deal and the talent is spread across the competition.

In reality - well, it's there for all to see. Players will take pay cuts to stay at clubs in contention, and even pay cuts to leave for clubs in contention.

AFL Free Agency has a way to go before it is doing what it intends to do.

I've always wondered about this 'can't afford to pay the cap' stuff.

Surely, the AFL should just fund the salary cap and keep it completely quarantined from all other club spending and revenue.

That will sort it out - if you don't spend it, you don't get it.

However, the flip side of course is that forcing clubs to pay out the whole lot doesn't mean squat - our ability to attract free agents is not a $$ problem, it is a credibility problem. Paying 100% of the cap will just result in blokes like Tapscott and Blease being paid way overs.

Fixtures against the bigger clubs only draw 50k + crowds - and all the resultant benefits - when we're playing good footy.

Check the attendances of our games against those clubs in recent years (and 2014) and they've been poor, and that's for opposition home games which favour their supporters attending.

As I posted in another thread, we could have had 22 Friday night games last year and it wouldn't have made a jot of difference to anything; memberships, gate receipts, TV audience, win-loss record etc

And imagine if we had secured extra sponsorship last year b/c of a brilliant TV-friendly draw - our sponsors would have broken the contract after 3 rounds upon realising that no-one in the universe is going tune into a Melbourne.

Melbourne over the last few years have been exceptional circumstances. What about Footscray or St. Kilda then? North? The argument that you get rewarded for playing well is 1) a fallacy as seen FIXtures over the last decade and 2) antithetical to have a fair competition with integrity.

Melbourne over the last few years have been exceptional circumstances. What about Footscray or St. Kilda then? North? The argument that you get rewarded for playing well is 1) a fallacy as seen FIXtures over the last decade and 2) antithetical to have a fair competition with integrity.

I just don't think the draw is an effective tool in equalisation. It actually has the potential to work the other way. If we'd played Collingwood, Essendon et al twice last year, rather than the bottom clubs, the end result would have been more dire than what it was.

The bottom line is poorly-performing clubs make for bad viewing. Who wants to watch Bulldogs v Saints on a Friday night? No-one given their current standing. But if they were sitting 1-2 on the ladder we would be salivating at match-of-the-round.

I just don't think the draw is an effective tool in equalisation. It actually has the potential to work the other way. If we'd played Collingwood, Essendon et al twice last year, rather than the bottom clubs, the end result would have been more dire than what it was.

The bottom line is poorly-performing clubs make for bad viewing. Who wants to watch Bulldogs v Saints on a Friday night? No-one given their current standing. But if they were sitting 1-2 on the ladder we would be salivating at match-of-the-round.

Well I like watching good games of footy so I'd rather watch Port v North on a Friday night rather than Essendon/Carlton/Richmond.

Of course the FIXture is the main issue preventing the small clubs from making ground on the bigger ones - we have played Carlton and Essendon at home ONCE EACH over the last 5 years! BTW who we play home/away has nothing to do with WHEN the games are played either. We play 7 of the 8 non-Vic sides at home this year as well as Dogs and North. The only games we can realistically make decent money from is this week and against the Cats who aren't a massive crowd pulled either. It is ridiculous the AFL has been able to get away with such a disadvantageous FIXture for the last 20 years which benefit the big clubs who then complain about small amounts of compensation handed out to the ones who are consistently disadvantaged. Hawthorn saw just how easy it is to make money on dud games last Sunday, let's see how they go playing those games on Mothers Day and Easter Sunday as well

Also the "reward" for good performance is a fallacy. Where is Ports reward after their season last year? Why do Essendon and Carlton continue to get gifted great FIXtures every season even when they have performed terribly? It's rubbish and just an excuse to justify the AFL's unfair policies.

its one of those...Oh great idea ....in first 5 mins until you think it completely through.

Kinda an attempt at a one size fits all solution. Not an epic fail , but a fail none the less. Do I have the perfect solution ? No. I just think this ISNT it.

As mentioned (wisely) elsewhere by another its a filed day for mediocrity. Surely part of a business's ability to fine tune is to pay what is warranted. Now it will become further skewed.