All the talk in the off season from various Men Who Count at the AFL has been about Equalisation, and even though we covered this briefly in November, I thought it might be handy to get a grasp on exactly what developments took place to bring us up to date.
Collingwood chief Gary Pert has warned the AFL not to go overboard with equalisation policies lest all clubs look and feel the same.
”One of the great things about our game and what supporters have seen over the last five to 10 years is the advancement in the programs that we run and the support that we give to players in our medical [department] and trainers and coaches … and what we are seeing now is these highly trained, highly skilled athletes that require an investment in the football department to keep on developing these players to be elite.
”We can’t ever forget that the main competition … is other codes, other interests that could take our junior players away at an early age or take our crowds away.”
Leigh Matthews has entered the fray, suggesting that a cap of $10 million (after salary is paid) be applied to Football department spending, while Hawthorns Andrew Newbold warned the league to take a measured approach to reform.
“This is not something that can be rushed. These are policy changes that are going to affect the code for the next 25 to 30 years, so it’s something that has to be done in measured way,”
“We don’t want to bring a set of policies in and then find we have to change them again.
“The biggest fear is that every club looks the same and you get a very bland competition, and that is not something that anyone wants.
“So that’s where the thinking is required and that’s why I say that it is not something that certainly Hawthorn is pushing to rush.
“It needs to be done in a measured way, otherwise we are going to be left with consequences that we actually don’t want – such as a bland competition where, in effect, everyone is governed by the AFL because there are such a strict set of policies.”
The AFLPA has weighed in, with Matt Finnis saying that if department spending continues to rise, then the salary cap should as well – with players apparently concerned that their share of revenue is diminishing as more money is spent on football departments – with the Heraldsun writing that some clubs are spending nearly $6 million more on their departments than lesser clubs.. Further Finnis is concerend that the chances of success for a player are harmed if they go to a less resourced club.
“Some clubs are below 50 per cent of football department spend which goes to players,”
“The trend is a decline of about 2 per cent or 2-and-a-bit per year, an across the board decline.
“Clearly there needs to be change, because if the current trends continue, you are going to have some serious issues to deal with down the track in relation to the labour market restraints such as the draft and the salary cap which the industry has relied upon, as ceasing to be valid because players get drafted to clubs and they have a dis-equal opportunity for success.
“It is a fact that the players in good conscience couldn’t continue to support a salary cap in a context where you’ve got such a perverse economic outcome occurring.
“There are a number of objectives through this whole equalisation process – which significantly includes the profitability of all clubs – but a critical piece is that the industry seeks to preserve the integrity of the salary cap, if indeed the industry wants to continue to have it.”
West Coast and Fremantle have more or less conceded that the league will implement further reforms. The article in the West Australian tells us that the League took 1.2 million in $2 levy funds on from members tickets alone, and a further $170,000 was taken from gate reciepts under the same policy. The West Australian expects that to increase this year by about $40,000, or as much as $600,000 depending on the measures. The WA clubs have reminded the league that the pay significant revenue to WA football and hope that exceptions can be made accordingly.
In the Age, Jake Niall writes that the bigger clubs may have to give some of their pokie money to the lesser financial clubs.
