Creative Idea For Salary Cap

[Robin Hood]

1. Still set a salary cap at the current amount/s.

2. Make this cap a soft salary cap where teams can go over the salary cap.

3. If teams go over the cap, for every dollar they are over they have to play $2 to a competitive balance fund.

4. Most of the big profits for AFL clubs are in the vicinity of $1million. Those Clubs (Coll, Ess etc) could effectively afford to pay an extra $350k than the other sides who just break even.

5. The money raised would be in the competitive balance fund hence these clubs paying more would help support the struggling clubs alot more than at current.

Thoughts?

 

[Fire]

No.

Just have a flat cap. Or be consistaint and allow every club to be over or under the cap given the cost of living from their host city.

 

[Robin Hood]

No.

Just have a flat cap. Or be consistaint and allow every club to be over or under the cap given the cost of living from their host city.

I think its great, it provides an advantage but not a huge one while supporting our clubs - like North - that are rooted long term if something isnt done.

 

[jim boy]

Would ensure rich clubs win all the premierships, while clubs like Geelong would never rise above mediocrity. The rich clubs would gather even more money, and while they are effectively be taxed heavily, it would still lead to even bigger discrepencies between the haves and the have nots. Probably would find the odd team like Carlton would go the way of lLeeds, buy up big, fail spectacularly and struggle to manage huge debts. Would also lead to even more inflated salaries for footballers.


Nice try, but an economic disaster

 

[Robin Hood]

Would ensure rich clubs win all the premierships, while clubs like Geelong would never rise above mediocrity. The rich clubs would gather even more money, and while they are effectively be taxed heavily, it would still lead to even bigger discrepencies between the haves and the have nots. Probably would find the odd team like Carlton would go the way of lLeeds, buy up big, fail spectacularly and struggle to manage huge debts. Would also lead to even more inflated salaries for footballers.


Nice try, but an economic disaster

Yeh but under this economically the most a club could spend is $350k a season more to still remain viable. I think you would be surprised about Geelong's long term profitability.

 

[Robin Hood]

I think the main point of my thread is that clubs cant afford to spend an extra $1m on players and play the $2m fee so there would be an effective practical salary cap of about $350k above the salary cap.

 

[Fire]

You havent adressed Jim Boy's point, which is effectivly the argument your theory needs to defeat.

 

[Robin Hood]

You havent adressed Jim Boy's point, which is effectivly the argument your theory needs to defeat.

which point?
that carlton will do a leeds? or rich clubs will win preimerships?

 

[Killigrew]

Anything that allows one club to spend more on it's list than another just makes the competetion less even. The great thing about the AFL today as compared to almost any other professional sport is that all the clubs have a reasonable chance of winning the flag. There is nothing wrong with the Salary Cap why would you change it?

 

[jim boy]

I think the main point of my thread is that clubs cant afford to spend an extra $1m on players and play the $2m fee so there would be an effective practical salary cap of about $350k above the salary cap.

How do you figure that? A club that is consistently succssfull, and most of the richer clubs would be because they can afford the best players, will genrate far more money through far greater marketing opportunities.

Say Essendon figure, ok, we spend an extra $6 million on players, thereby ensuring we get the absolute cream of the crop. Sure, we then have to pay $12 million to a competitive fund, but that works out at less than a million dollars per club extra, nowhere near enough to compete with Essendon who will have all the best players. Plus the $12 million finances itself as Essendon could charge far more for corporate sponsorship and the ineveitable increased tv exposure and size in fan membership that ultra-successful clubs enjoy.

Say then Carlton say I want a piece of this, put $4 million in, plus $8 million to a competitive funds, but through bad luck, injuries, suspensions, they find they are paying a large chunk of their money to overated unfit lard buckets and simply don't reap the rewards that Essendon have got. They can't meet interests payments and it's goodnight Blues.

It's a recipe for disaster

 

[LegalEagle]

1. Still set a salary cap at the current amount/s.

2. Make this cap a soft salary cap where teams can go over the salary cap.

3. If teams go over the cap, for every dollar they are over they have to play $2 to a competitive balance fund.

4. Most of the big profits for AFL clubs are in the vicinity of $1million. Those Clubs (Coll, Ess etc) could effectively afford to pay an extra $350k than the other sides who just break even.

5. The money raised would be in the competitive balance fund hence these clubs paying more would help support the struggling clubs alot more than at current.

Thoughts?

another "great in theory" theory, but would also need the draw and tv coverage to be fair

 

[Weaver]

Most people think of the salary cap as a tool to create an even comp, and that is fair enough.

I think of the TPP as the best thing the AFL ever gave to us the ordinary fan. It is an insurance policy to limit the amount of carnage a board can do to a club.

Under this proposal imagine West Coast, Freo, Adelaide, Port and say Essendon each payed $500k over the odds. That would put $5m into the competitive balance fund and get $300k back of their $1.5m investment.

Other clubs would then have to deal with the inflationary pressure. They have to pay more to their star players or risk losing them. They have the choice to try and spend the extra money or not compete.

This forces the clubs to trade more and more in the red and places them at risk.

The salary cap was introduced to save the clubs from themselves. Without it plenty of us would have lost our teams by now.

 

[Hit And Rum]

Why not have the salary cap as it is now and allow them to go over the salary cap paying the $2 every $1 spent. Those clubs that chose to do this get nothing back form the competitive balance fund once they go over the level bcoz obviously they have enough money spend. Further you could say they can spend only up to an extra $500, 000 a year or something.

Effect: Lets say 6 clubs chose to spend $500k plus antoher three spend $200k over then those 9 clubs contribute a total of $7, 200, 000 to the competitive balance fund. That is then distributed between the other 7 clubs = an extra $1, 028, 571 in that year for those clubs not going over the cap. Take out the 3 spending $200k and the other 10 clubs are still getting $600K each in that year.