Yeah, well if that's how you see it then...

But it's not the way it is in reality.

Machsy, "the gateway to reality"... Stand back, gents!

Machsy, "the gateway to reality"... Stand back, gents!

Didn't say that.

But while he has the right to an opinion, it's a simpleton's argument.

Go back to 13.

We have less talent than other teams but have to reach the salary 'floor' - of course we are going to over pay.

This is the least of our concerns.

Not having the talent to over pay would be a higher concern, yes?

I did refer to this in a rather confused manner on another thread.

While a salary component is often attraction, which is sometimes an element in over paying, paying for performance is more important within any organisation. Payment on worth is the best policy and it is pretty obvious that our list is not worth the same as the Sydney Hawks or Cats so why would we pay the same salary cap to players who are not performing at that level. It does seem to me to be a flaw in the AFLPA and AFL arguments about salary levels.

Why not reach the salary floor/ Cap requirement by spreading our spend deeper into the Casey side and try and encourage a deeper performance rather than an elite few being overpaid. Surely our current list is not performing at the same level as other lists and yet we are paying the same Dollars.

Machsy said this( - I can't do "quote" from two different pages of the thread):

Yeah, well if that's how you see it then...
But it's not the way it is in reality.

Machsy, "the gateway to reality"... Stand back, gents!

Didn't say that.
But while he has the right to an opinion, it's a simpleton's argument.

Go back to 13.

My point is, how you see it is your right, how he sees it is his right - but your thinking it does not make it "reality": it's just your opinion.

And so, you cannot declare him a simpleton just because his opinion was different to yours.... in fact, if we want to sling around the simpleton tag on a site like this, maybe the biggest simpleton is the one who thinks his is the only opinion worth listening to. None of us here are in a position to claim an exclusive alignment with reality, are we?

[Exit onto the Southern wing]

Edited July 15, 201411 yr by robbiefrom13

I did refer to this in a rather confused manner on another thread.

While a salary component is often attraction, which is sometimes an element in over paying, paying for performance is more important within any organisation. Payment on worth is the best policy and it is pretty obvious that our list is not worth the same as the Sydney Hawks or Cats so why would we pay the same salary cap to players who are not performing at that level. It does seem to me to be a flaw in the AFLPA and AFL arguments about salary levels.

Why not reach the salary floor/ Cap requirement by spreading our spend deeper into the Casey side and try and encourage a deeper performance rather than an elite few being overpaid. Surely our current list is not performing at the same level as other lists and yet we are paying the same Dollars.

So instead of paying Frawley overs to keep him, are you suggesting we give Blease, Tapscott, Strauss and Clisby and extra $100k each? That's paying overs... And we can't spread spend into the non-AFL listed players (which in any case I think would be a waste of money too).

I did refer to this in a rather confused manner on another thread.

While a salary component is often attraction, which is sometimes an element in over paying, paying for performance is more important within any organisation. Payment on worth is the best policy and it is pretty obvious that our list is not worth the same as the Sydney Hawks or Cats so why would we pay the same salary cap to players who are not performing at that level. It does seem to me to be a flaw in the AFLPA and AFL arguments about salary levels.

Why not reach the salary floor/ Cap requirement by spreading our spend deeper into the Casey side and try and encourage a deeper performance rather than an elite few being overpaid. Surely our current list is not performing at the same level as other lists and yet we are paying the same Dollars.

Like Undeetered, I am equally sceptical about what you are proposing to do with that extra cap money. We will use it for fringe players at Casey. Kids are at Casey and NQR players. Do we pay and play more pros at Casey? Why wouldn't we target players to get paid more that actually play AFL. If you are recruiting kids to play at Casey while they develop - why would you pay them more than they are worth in the market?

Overpaying your best players is an unfortunate happenstance when you have a barren list like ours.

Like Undeetered, I am equally sceptical about what you are proposing to do with that extra cap money. We will use it for fringe players at Casey. Kids are at Casey and NQR players. Do we pay and play more pros at Casey? Why wouldn't we target players to get paid more that actually play AFL. If you are recruiting kids to play at Casey while they develop - why would you pay them more than they are worth in the market?

Overpaying your best players is an unfortunate happenstance when you have a barren list like ours.

the afl salary management system may have as many flaws as democracy has as a political system

but likewise coming up with a better system is the problem - alas

the afl salary management system may have as many flaws as democracy has as a political system

but likewise coming up with a better system is the problem - alas

I think clubs like ours should only have to pay 70% of the cap and then give a further 15% of the cap to us supporters for turning up every week - that seems equitable.

I think clubs like ours should only have to pay 70% of the cap and then give a further 15% of the cap to us supporters for turning up every week - that seems equitable.

The players union won't go for that nutbean.

100% for all no matter your ability.

How on Earth should the MFC have had to pay 95% of the same amount as Hawthorn.

On the basis that we were not even competitive in 2013 should we be paying that figure.

It should be up to the club how much they pay if that is 70% so be it.

But the union won't allow that .

The players union won't go for that nutbean.

100% for all no matter your ability.

How on Earth should the MFC have had to pay 95% of the same amount as Hawthorn.

On the basis that we were not even competitive in 2013 should we be paying that figure.

It should be up to the club how much they pay if that is 70% so be it.

But the union won't allow that .

I want my 20% - I say we bring in the union busters - a few baseball bats and head breakers....like the bad old days. ( Ive watched Hoffa too many times)

The players union won't go for that nutbean.

100% for all no matter your ability.

How on Earth should the MFC have had to pay 95% of the same amount as Hawthorn.

On the basis that we were not even competitive in 2013 should we be paying that figure.

It should be up to the club how much they pay if that is 70% so be it.

But the union won't allow that .

think the afl commission quite like it too od

I find the whole cap thing totally odd.

I would have thought a cap was a cap, a ceiling of sorts , not a universal absolute. It punishes the less successful clubs and promotes mediocrity.

Quite silly really.

think the afl commission quite like it too od

They like it because it keeps the union happy dc.

There endth the story.

So instead of paying Frawley overs to keep him, are you suggesting we give Blease, Tapscott, Strauss and Clisby and extra $100k each? That's paying overs... And we can't spread spend into the non-AFL listed players (which in any case I think would be a waste of money too).

Well no. Thanks UD I am probably not sure what or how I would do it and agree with what you have said.

Dont want to pay overs for any players who are not performing.

I dont really know how the salary cap works (obvious) but just get frustrated that we are paying a similar amount for players who are obviously worth less than other lists.

I was thinking that we could spread that money among more players but as you suggest that may be wasted so probably means delist some performers and maybe not pay over for Frawley but use the money to buy a better number of better players.

i checked with the octopus at melbourne aquarium. frawley definitely gorn.

i checked with the octopus at melbourne aquarium. frawley definitely gorn.

Can you put Ling and Hayes to the octopus and see who he chooses?

Smart clubs can make the most of FA.

You guys like Bernie Vince yeah?

FA helped us get him.

It got us the pick and smart people in our Footy Dept turned it into Vince.

I prefer the slower, older Daniel Cross to be honest.

He will not be at Melbourne next year.

Don't blame him one bit.

I don't think it lends to well to Kids who admire the players and having so many moving clubs so much more often I think takes away from that, but I understand why it needed to come in from the players prespective

In Chips case I probably wouldn't mind it purely from a planning point of view, if we knew he was leaving and we'd get Band 1 we have an extra 10 weeks to plan who we might draft, who might be on the table during trade week and so on, although I think they would have a reasonable idea by now anyway.

i dont think it lends to well for fans in general.... Our game was built on community and loyalty and the gradual introduction of money into aussie rules, has slowly changed the game... Its more a marketing business game now... premierships are won off field now, in shady back room deals with hand shakes and bags of cash...

I'd be really surprised and shocked, if our clubs wasn't planning for his departure anyway... In the modern game all clubs should be planning for the departure of anyone on their list...

dpositive - what's worse is that because we've been so rubbish for so long, with nobody to really pay but with a minimum spend we have to meet, we've frontloaded the bejeesus out of a lot of contracts in past years.

Therefore, even a lot of our better players have been paid more than their actual salary in early years, leaving more cap space we have to find someone to pay now. That's part of the reason why Frawley is an unrestricted free agent, because he got a fair whack of moolah early and is now not in the top 'X' earning players (rpfc is much better on this stuff than me...)

i dont think it lends to well for fans in general.... Our game was built on community and loyalty and the gradual introduction of money into aussie rules, has slowly changed the game... Its more a marketing business game now... premierships are won off field now, in shady back room deals with hand shakes and bags of cash...

I'd be really surprised and shocked, if our clubs wasn't planning for his departure anyway... In the modern game all clubs should be planning for the departure of anyone on their list...

How exactly do you plan for a players departure in the modern game. I am sure the recruiting staff are looking at possible replacements and thinking about the extra money in the cap but on the field ????. Did the Hawks preplan Buddy's departure - no - they won a premiership win with him as the centrepiece of their forward line. If your team is flush with options as to replacements then maybe you can. But I don't know many clubs that are and I don't many clubs that do "preplan". There has been talk that Frawley was moved forward with the thinking of letting the defense prepare for a post Frawley era. I believe Frawley went forward but we were out of other options. I think this is further reinforced by Frawley now going back to defense when there are other options. Also Roos threw the team around on Saturday and pushed Dunn forward and then through Howe forward - doesnt really tally with Roos planning for Frawleys departure.

i dont think it lends to well for fans in general.... Our game was built on community and loyalty and the gradual introduction of money into aussie rules, has slowly changed the game... Its more a marketing business game now... premierships are won off field now, in shady back room deals with hand shakes and bags of cash...

I'd be really surprised and shocked, if our clubs wasn't planning for his departure anyway... In the modern game all clubs should be planning for the departure of anyone on their list...

world championship wrestling is one kind of fake; Essendon's approach to the ASADA investigation shows a non-sport motivation there, and undermines assumptions on which the naive supporter follows the game; and, if loyalty to community and players is eroded on a large scale by FA (in the players' pursuit of money and disregard for community and loyalty) then what the game has always been built on takes another hit. Taking a battering...

Football is changing visibly, showing how it has been changing in the backrooms for a while, and I ask myself do I like it? Am I invested in the way we all used to be? I can't think that I - or maybe many of us - am/are. Somehow it feels like we have become just the punters, the "mark" that a corporatised organisation feeds stuff to, while keeping their eye entirely on the dollar. Disappointing.

The thing for me is, the wrestling is fake and we know it. Watch it only for a laugh, if at all. But now we've heard of cricket, soccer, etc being corrupted at high levels with match-fixing; and in whole countries, plus spread throughout cycling, swimming, weightlifting, sprinting, etc - and now Essendon - a constant chemical warfare to stay ahead or legally weasel out of being stopped from winning by means of cheating with drugs. What sport is "clean"? - how pointless has it become to watch in admiration? The ancient Greeks saw nobility and respect for the gods who made us as the over-riding thoughts about success at sport, and I reckon a lot of us have had thinking that was not too different. We just loved seeing prowess and the whole thing coming together and being inspired on the day. I used to love the characteristic humility of Australia's tennis champions. The "whatever it takes" posters, who attack our players and talk of culls, may be able to adapt to the changing (or changed) nature of sport, but others of us are really struggling, and not sure we want to get there.

Edited July 15, 201411 yr by robbiefrom13

I suppose alot depends on how long before our flag window opens

20 million years

dpositive - what's worse is that because we've been so rubbish for so long, with nobody to really pay but with a minimum spend we have to meet, we've frontloaded the bejeesus out of a lot of contracts in past years.

Therefore, even a lot of our better players have been paid more than their actual salary in early years, leaving more cap space we have to find someone to pay now. That's part of the reason why Frawley is an unrestricted free agent, because he got a fair whack of moolah early and is now not in the top 'X' earning players (rpfc is much better on this stuff than me...)

That's right. The frontloading of contracts was an ingenious way to meet the minimum of the cap but as you say - it creates more room in following years to pay others and when you can get a Clark or a Dawes to soak up that cash - great. If you can't then you are going to overpay a number of your players rather than recruit one overpaid player.

Another issue is the AFL making up - on the fly - that the FA rules will look at the last year of a contract rather than the whole contract averaged out over the length of the contract.

The point is that the salary cap minimum is here to stay and so is the practice of bad teams overpaying talent.

Edited July 15, 201411 yr by rpfc

Well no. Thanks UD I am probably not sure what or how I would do it and agree with what you have said.

Dont want to pay overs for any players who are not performing.

I dont really know how the salary cap works (obvious) but just get frustrated that we are paying a similar amount for players who are obviously worth less than other lists.

I was thinking that we could spread that money among more players but as you suggest that may be wasted so probably means delist some performers and maybe not pay over for Frawley but use the money to buy a better number of better players.

You have to pay between 95% (was raised from 92.5% a couple of years ago) and 100% of the salary cap each year. The salary cap is set to be $10.071 million in 2015, this includes all guaranteed base payments and any performance incentives (games played and other KPI's) for the 40 main list players and the 4-6 rookie list players. For each veteran on your list (10+ years) you get an extra 1.23% (~$115,000) on the salary cap and there are concessions available for the inclusion of rookie players (up to 50% of a players wage) based on the number of rookies you have. They average wage for a current AFL player is approx $230,000.

They are set to introduce a new rule stating that if a team pays under the salary cap for 2 consecutive years, they can then pay overs in the following year equivalent to the amount not spent or 5% - eg. you spend 98% 2 years in a row you can spend 104% in the third year, you spend 95% 2 years in a row you can spend 105%. This has been introduced to make lower teams more competitive in FA, as they can throw more money at players if they haven't paid the full salary cap in previous years.

Players who have been taken in the National or Rookie drafts and who have not played AFL before are on guaranteed contracts with the $ value set by the AFL, based on where you are taken in the draft. Players in the first 2 years also have pretty decent KPI's based on games played (approx $2,500 per game played) allowing them to earn very good money ($150,000+) in their second year.

There are a large number of variables involved with player contracts (such as performance payments and trigger clauses), however to simplify it players are given a set amount over a set period of years (the numbers reported in papers are generally based on the player achieving all KPI's). For example, Mitch Clark was reportedly on 750-800k, this included approx 100-150k based on him playing a set number of games, as he didn't play the required amount he will be paid approx 600-650k this year.

The list manager does a bunch of calculations on how likely it is that players will hit their KPI's, after this they will have a rough idea of what the Total Player Payments are and how much $$ we will have left to play with. You have to pay the minimum cap of 95%, if after KPI's have been taken in to account there is $$ left, they will typically look to front/ back end a contract, paying a player a larger amount this year (and lesser amounts in subsequent years) to ensure that we meet the minimum payments, eg. in 2011 we had a pretty turd list and needed to front-end a large amount of cash to make the minimum payment, James Frawley signed a new 4 year deal and had a fair chunk of it front loaded in the first year to ensure we met the cap.

Hopefully that's gives you a basic overview of the salary cap/ list management.