Equalisation - Solutions? Lets hear ya

[pebblestone]

First round in the National Draft should be 10 picks only.

 

[Kwality]

Just give every team and player a ribbon at the end of season for participating.
No Grand Final or final series. We can't have anybody winning or being better than anybody.
The poor children will get upset if they can't win at least half of the time.

Its some supporters that need a ribbon.

The idea that every team wins across an 18 year cycle belongs at little aths, the AFL is a competition, the best win - unfortunately for some occupying positions of influence on the Commission & in senior management, it will be difficult to do away with the competitive instinct & replace it with social inclusion.

 

[WideOpenRoad]

AFL needs to get serious on controlling clubs' off field spend. Football Department spending should be subject to a hard cap, rather than a soft cap/luxury tax as at present. It's a ridiculous competitive advantage for the big clubs to have in an era where sports science knowledge is advancing by the day.

 

[Rob]

Yeah the need for shit lists to pay their players as much as premiership winning lists is just so dumb.

No question this is the number 1 factor in what's stopping shit teams getting better through FA.

The idea of a salary floor - especially one greater than about 75% of the cap - is just laughable in the first place.

 

[Kwality]

No question this is the number 1 factor in what's stopping shit teams getting better through FA.

The idea of a salary floor - especially one greater than about 75% of the cap - is just laughable in the first place.

Hard to avoid Tom Boyd as an example of money at work versus the $700k squad at the Hawks.

 

[WideOpenRoad]

On the salary cap floor thing, how about this:

We all know that the AFLPA will not allow the cap floor to be significantly reduced (and I think they have a pretty good point from a workers' rights perspective).

So how about if teams at the bottom of the ladder still paid the whole cap in real salary terms, but only a given percentage of players' salaries actually counted towards the salary cap for AFL equalisation purposes. Say if a player was on $300,000, only $250,000 or $200,000 counted towards the cap. This would allow poor performing teams to overspend to "catch up", and keep the AFLPA happy.

The only problem is the cap pressure once the team got better. Not sure how to solve that.

 

[Rob]

On the salary cap floor thing, how about this:

We all know that the AFLPA will not allow the cap floor to be significantly reduced (and I think they have a pretty good point from a workers' rights perspective).

It's not about workers' rights, it's about getting players more money. Workers rights isn't about giving ordinary players bigger pay packets simply because they play for a rubbish team.

 

[blue harvest]

On the salary cap floor thing, how about this:

We all know that the AFLPA will not allow the cap floor to be significantly reduced (and I think they have a pretty good point from a workers' rights perspective).

So how about if teams at the bottom of the ladder still paid the whole cap in real salary terms, but only a given percentage of players' salaries actually counted towards the salary cap for AFL equalisation purposes. Say if a player was on $300,000, only $250,000 or $200,000 counted towards the cap. This would allow poor performing teams to overspend to "catch up", and keep the AFLPA happy.

The only problem is the cap pressure once the team got better. Not sure how to solve that.

That's basically what COLA was.
Swans only had to count approx 90% of their total player payments in the cap.

 

[blue harvest]

Equalisation is working fine as it is.
In the last 20 years I think all clubs have had periods near the top of the ladder and in the finals.
It has worked.

People just need to realise that it doesn't necessarily mean every team winning premierships in each 18 year period. That's not how sport works. Sometimes teams get lucky, sometimes they don't, sometimes they stuff things up. There are always going to be periods where some teams dominate for a while and others are crap for a while, that's just part of the random nature of sport.

 

[deltablues]

Equalization. What does this even mean? The AFL's concept of equalization is deeply flawed - it is actually talking about equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity. It is trying to achieve a state of Utopia - always near, but like a mirage, always on the horizon. Never happens.

But a socialist top-down organization like the AFL has spent and will spend a lot of money on this fruitless pursuit. At the ultimate expense of the ordinary fans and families who are being priced out of being able to attend a game of footy.

Nothing will change until the AFL subsidy mindset changes. Which means private team ownership like the NFL (Packers excepted - a community-owned team). Meantime the AFL will continue to manipulate the game to suit its TV revenue and fat-cat salary KPIs.

 

[jackess]

Equalization. What does this even mean? The AFL's concept of equalization is deeply flawed - it is actually talking about equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity. It is trying to achieve a state of Utopia - always near, but like a mirage, always on the horizon. Never happens.

But a socialist top-down organization like the AFL has spent and will spend a lot of money in this fruitless pursuit. At the ultimate expense of the ordinary fans and families who are being priced out of being able to attend a game of footy.

Nothing will change until the AFL subsidy mindset changes. Which means private team ownership like the NFL (Packers excepted - a community-owned team). Meantime the AFL will continue to manipulate the game to suit its TV revenue and fat-cat salary KPIs.

It's an equal playing field which they're after. Like cutting back on third party deals because some clubs can offer much better deals than others.

 

[dogs105]

How about a cost of living allowance?

 

[Higgs Boson]

Higgs Boson or Contra Mundum do we know any people with legal knowledge who can explain where this might or might not work?

Without having the chance to think too deeply about it, my first question would be who, in fact, is the employer? Under Australian law, an employee cannot be 'transferred' to another employer against his/her will. Even where a business is sold (asset sale as opposed to share sale), an employee of the vendor needs to agree to a new offer of employment with the purchaser, and can't be forced to 'transfer'. He/she may not get redundancy pay if the offer of new employment is in broad terms no less favourable than the old employment, but that's a different question. So if the club is the employer of players playing for it, then no, it can't force a player to be employed by another club.

If, on the other hand the AFL is, in fact, the employer, then perhaps conceivably it could be done - perhaps analogous to an employer requiring an employee to move offices/roles. But it would all come down to what's in the player's contract, ie does the AFL have a contractual entitlement to force such a move? I'd suspect not, if this system hasn't been envisaged. So you'd probably need a root and branch review of contractual arrangements. That's leaving aside questions of whether a forced move, say, interstate would be permissible and not equate to a redundancy.

Then there's the enterprise agreement - what does the CBA say? If that precludes a new system, you're pretty much stuffed; good luck getting the players to approve the necessary changes.

So I'd say most likely not possible, at least as things presently stand.

 

[WideOpenRoad]

That's basically what COLA was.
Swans only had to count approx 90% of their total player payments in the cap.

Yeah good point. Maybe take the COLA structure and apply it to say, any team that finishes bottom 4. Fixed time frame of 3 years or so. Could encourage tanking I guess.

 

[dave123]

If you finish top 4 you can only make one trade in the off season that following season

Bottom 4 given an extra pick at the end of the 2nd round

Afl to help build facilities for each team and make sure they reach a certain standard.

The top two teams of they are Victorian must travel interstate at least 5 times the following season to the top 5 intestate sides from that year

If they are interstate they must play the top 5 Victorian sides on the road

That would do it

 

[dave123]

How about a cost of living allowance?

Perth is officially more expensive to live than Sydney

 

[markr]

Haven't read the whole thread, but one reason for the floor is to stop clubs just sacking everyone and recruiting a team of VFL players and paying them bugger all for a few seasons to get out of debt.

If your club can't sort out their contracts so they can free up cash to make a play at a FA, it's not the salary cap floor at fault. Take a look at the Dogs and Boyd. You may not agree with what they did, but they did _something_ with all that cash rather than over-paying a bunch of duds. They rolled the dice.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

Playes who are not free agents and want a trade can noninate either:
WA + SA
NSW + QLD
Vic.

They can then be traded by their club to whichever club in that region gives the best deal. People can "go home" but they can't nominate one club and put their old club over a barrel. Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond are only a few km apart. The idea someone who wants to go home gets to choose one or the other is absurd. You could live in the same house and play for any of them.

That might work for Victoria but not interstate clubs. Imagine being Brad Hill wanting to go home to Western Australia and then realising Hawthorn of only strike a deal with Adelaide. How does that work

 

[Gavin Excell]

It's not about workers' rights, it's about getting players more money. Workers rights isn't about giving ordinary players bigger pay packets simply because they play for a rubbish team.

I thought the argument was to ensure clubs dont completely bottom out to build up

 

[Stratton_Gun]

No salary cap floor

Equal salary cap

No academies

Get rid of draft. Would solve the issue about plays wanting to leave after 2 years. The bottom clubs would be able to offer more to the top talent but give them the choice. Either this or pics 1 to 18 are rotated on an 18 year basis

No priority picks/ extra assistance if you are shit. Every club has been shit at some point work it out.

 

[Furn2]

Just stop giving Hawthorn free kicks.

 

[SBYM]

How about a cost of living allowance?

You cheeky bugger, you.

 

[NathanMX]

Give the bottom 4 teams each year 10% extra cap room for the following season only, will at least let them compete for the best free agents at least with a bigger offer. And make it applicable only once every 3-4 years so teams cannot purposely tank repeatedly to build a war chest. $1 million extra may not lure in anyone but at the very least it may make it harder for their current free agents to wanna leave by at least giving them a new deal with a bigger first year pay rate.

 

[pazza]

Ban the top 4 from the first 2 rounds of the draft and trading out of or for any players.

 

[Seedsfan]

Win the flag and forfeit your first pick