Yes you're right. My bad. It was part of an article re Free AGency creating an environment where players thought they can now rip up contracts.

McLachlan said that only five of the 50 eligible free agents from the outset of the 2014 season had moved clubs

Ergo:No problem. We have the same issue though. Need to become a destination fast. And we do that by winning.

I'd say 10% is a very large proportion, relatively speaking. It means that 1 out of every ten players you draft will leave your club after you've put 6-8 years into them. And what do you get in return? Cale Morton, Jordan Gysberts, Lucas Cook. Maybe a Tom Scully if you're lucky.

The offset may be an equalisation measure in terms of free agency.

It will be harder for a top team to pay under 100% of the cap and thus access the overcap payment.

Rebuilding teams are more likely to be paying 95% which in 2015 equates to being able to spend approximately $500,000 above the cap in 2016.

As a result top clubs may be limited to offering a top free agent a la Dangerfield $750K + a high chance of finals footy/premierships.

A bottom club coming off 2 years of paying 95% of the cap could be able to offer $1,25mil a year in the first 2 years or $1 million more than the top club.

That is enough to make a Dangerfield think about knocking back the Hawks to play for the Dees.

Obviously a Hawthorn would then have to think about trading out good players who they would have kept before this change to allow them to access the overcap payments.

Come to think of it Geelong may be doing the same by letting Varcoe go and the unplanned exit of Christensen may be an attempt at salary cap dumping to allow then to access the overcap in 2016 to help lure Dangerfield.

Either way the effect should be to see more player movement from stronger clubs to weaker clubs unless players at strong clubs take even great market discounts to give their clubs access to overcap payments.

This aligns with the thinking in the NBA that if each team had one player outside the cap the best talent would be more evenly spread among the teams beause instead of sacrificing $5 million to play with other stars in a title contender they'd have to sacrifice far more to do so ie $10 million or $20 million a season.