Marquee Players

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Apologies if this has been done before.

Just curious what peoples thoughts are on AFL clubs having a 'Marquee Player', on their list, who's pay packet doesn't get included in the salary cap. They have thsi system in the A League and it seems to work ok. It would allow clubs like Geelong, Hawthorn and in the future Carlton, to be able to keep good sides together. We've seen clubs like essendon and Brisbane have to shed good players to other clubs due to salary cap restraints, maybe, if they were able to take, say a Hird's or Lloyd, or Voss's salary out of the equation, they could possibly keep their side together longer.

Obviously I have a vested interest as I want to keep guys like Franklin, Hodge, Roughead etc together, and I'm sure Geelong supporters don't want to see a player like Kelly, or Chapman or Corey pushed out in a bid to keep ablett and bartel. Carlton are likely to have issues in the future with Judd, Fev etc too.

Just after your thoughts, thanks, and apologies for the novel!!

 

[TassieSaint]

AFL has gone to great lengths to produce a competitive, cyclical competition so this idea would be kind of counter productive.

Plus most good players in great sides should have the common decency and team spirit to take less then they'd get elsewhere in order to keep the team together (I believe Geelong are currently doing this)

 

[TheKITC]

I don't really think this would alleviate the salary cap problems that you have spoken about and keep certain star teams together anyway. I believe it would fail for 2 reasons.

Firstly with the marquee player being paid whatever outside the cap, eventually what your best players under the cap expect to be paid will rise again and the same problem will re-occur. I'm not sure if this explains my point enough to do it it justice, but basically i think that the expectations of players and their managers who are non-marquee or under the cap will alter given the amount of money that will be available and we will have an identical situation to what we have today, except with one player being paid a ridiculous salary as the marquee player.

Secondly i think it would be counter productive to teams like your own and others trying to keep gun teams with several stars together. Think about it, if say Collingwood were able to offer Luke Hodge ten times his current salary for example (assuming Buddy would be Hawthorn's marquee player) and not have him under the salary cap, how could he refuse? Loyalty only goes so far and players would be mad not to swap clubs and accept money that could set them and their families up for life and then some. I could easily see situations like this occurring and introducing this marquee idea actually being detrimental to the good teams with multiple good players on their list.

Just my take though, apologies for the long response.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Hmmm, yeah both good calls. I guess it does open up the pandoras box, and possibly brings in a 'i want what he's having' sort of scenario. But imagine being able to increase your call group of players next contract by $100k by simply putting one player in as Marquee. Take Carlton. Assume that Judd is their Marquee and paid $750k a yr. You could essentially increase Gibbs, Fevola, Kreuzer, Murphy's etc etc contract by $100k and keep yourself under the salary cap.

And it won't stop the footy from being cyclical. I mean, Carlton have managed to get a great group of player together and look to be pushing for finals this year.

Sorry to pick on Carlton, not intentional.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Geelong needs a key forward. Easy fixed, Buddy is Hawthorn's 'marquee player' and Roughead is out of contract so we'll nominate him as our 'marquee player' pay him a million a year outside the salary cap and we'll win the next 3. Beauty, I like the idea.

 

[Galactico]

AFL has gone to great lengths to produce a competitive, cyclical competition so this idea would be kind of counter productive.

Yeah how awesome is it. Every team waits its turn to have a crack at some glory and, if you are seriously struggling for that, tank for a couple of years and be rewarded with the best young talent. Off on the merry-go-round we go.....

awesome system! Sure is a professional sport.....

 

[TassieSaint]

Yeah how awesome is it. Every team waits its turn to have a crack at some glory and, if you are seriously struggling for that, tank for a couple of years and be rewarded with the best young talent. Off on the merry-go-round we go.....

awesome system! Sure is a professional sport.....

The thing that makes it work is that obviously there is a lot more to it than that. There are measures which help struggling sides improve, but guarantee nothing.

Of course as a Collingwood supporter I'm sure you would much prefer a system where you bastards, Essendon, West Coast and Adelaide buy in all the best players for ludicrous amounts of money and spend the next 200 years locked into the top 4 and sharing the flags between you whilst everyone else makes up the numbers. Sounds way better and super exciting!

 

[estibador]

Geelong needs a key forward. Easy fixed, Buddy is Hawthorn's 'marquee player' and Roughead is out of contract so we'll nominate him as our 'marquee player' pay him a million a year outside the salary cap and we'll win the next 3. Beauty, I like the idea.

If you were going to bring it in (and it never will be) it would have to apply only to players the club drafted and developed themselves to stop unfair raiding of other clubs' star players.

 

[Galactico]

Of course as a Collingwood supporter I'm sure you would much prefer a system where you bastards, Essendon, West Coast and Adelaide buy in all the best players for ludicrous amounts of money and spend the next 200 years locked into the top 4 and sharing the flags between you whilst everyone else makes up the numbers. Sounds way better and super exciting!

Your right, I would rather that. West Coast, Adelaide, Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn etc would at least all be strong and have shots at glory.

That's 2 more than currently realistically exist in the English Premier League and their comp is one of the most exciting sporting spectacles in the world, not to mention their transfer period in the off-season is worth listening to also and keeps people interested.

How's this? Before this season started, most pundits gave 2 clubs a realistic chance at the premiership. Geelong and Hawthorn. Before the start of the Premier League, most pundits gave 4 clubs a realistic shot at the premiership (Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal). So much for our even competition.....you will find in any given year, only 2 maybe 3 clubs are in a realistic position for glory. All our system does is make it a cycle, its not as if every year we have every club in with a shot of glory.

This is, after all, supposed to be the pinnacle of our football code isn't it? Yet we have a draft system that rewards mediocrity to start with and lures teams into throwing games.

 

[Zvim]

Just curious what peoples thoughts are on AFL clubs having a 'Marquee Player', on their list, who's pay packet doesn't get included in the salary cap.

Not really, the point of a Salary Cap is to limit how much each team spends on their players, it is as much protection for less wealthy clubs as it is protecting clubs from themselves, in the EPL you have seen clubs spend themselves into oblivion.

Clubs can keep 4 or 5 marquee players on their list as long they are not overpaying. Most players value success and loyalty more than individual wealth.

 

[estibador]

How's this? Before this season started, most pundits gave 2 clubs a realistic chance at the premiership. Geelong and Hawthorn. Before the start of the Premier League, most pundits gave 4 clubs a realistic shot at the premiership (Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal). So much for our even competition.....you will find in any given year, only 2 maybe 3 clubs are in a realistic position for glory. All our system does is make it a cycle, its not as if every year we have every club in with a shot of glory.

Better to have a cycle than the same 4 clubs every year.

And it's not every year we only have two standout favourites. It's not like in Jan 05 everyone was saying only Sydney or the eagles could win it. Every year is unique - that's the beauty of our system.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Apologies if this has been done before.

Just curious what peoples thoughts are on AFL clubs having a 'Marquee Player', on their list, who's pay packet doesn't get included in the salary cap. They have thsi system in the A League and it seems to work ok. It would allow clubs like Geelong, Hawthorn and in the future Carlton, to be able to keep good sides together. We've seen clubs like essendon and Brisbane have to shed good players to other clubs due to salary cap restraints, maybe, if they were able to take, say a Hird's or Lloyd, or Voss's salary out of the equation, they could possibly keep their side together longer.

Obviously I have a vested interest as I want to keep guys like Franklin, Hodge, Roughead etc together, and I'm sure Geelong supporters don't want to see a player like Kelly, or Chapman or Corey pushed out in a bid to keep ablett and bartel. Carlton are likely to have issues in the future with Judd, Fev etc too.

Just after your thoughts, thanks, and apologies for the novel!!

it would have some merit....if there was other, better, more wealthy international competitions out there who could poach players.

Otherwise, if there's not, it doesn't make a lick of sense

 

[TassieSaint]

Your right, I would rather that. West Coast, Adelaide, Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn etc would at least all be strong and have shots at glory.

That's 2 more than currently realistically exist in the English Premier League and their comp is one of the most exciting sporting spectacles in the world, not to mention their transfer period in the off-season is worth listening to also and keeps people interested.

How's this? Before this season started, most pundits gave 2 clubs a realistic chance at the premiership. Geelong and Hawthorn. Before the start of the Premier League, most pundits gave 4 clubs a realistic shot at the premiership (Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal). So much for our even competition.....you will find in any given year, only 2 maybe 3 clubs are in a realistic position for glory. All our system does is make it a cycle, its not as if every year we have every club in with a shot of glory.

This is, after all, supposed to be the pinnacle of our football code isn't it? Yet we have a draft system that rewards mediocrity to start with and lures teams into throwing games.

There is a big difference, you can absolutely 100% lock in that one of those 4 clubs will win the EPL. Couldn't say the same thing about Geelong and Hawthorn and this year is abnormally uneven. 2 years ago West Coast were huge favourites and didn't even make the top 4. The GF was fought out by 2 teams most people didn't even think would make finals.

It gives our league an unpredictability, on any given day any team can beat another. Teams can rise and fall massively between years. It's exciting and gives fans of smaller teams (fan base wise) a reason to turn up.

I cannot comprehend where a system where the same old teams dominate time and time again could possibly be better. It's one of the things that turns me off soccer, why even bother watching each year if you don't follow a big club? But obviously it's personal preference so I'll leave it at that

 

[Galactico]

Better to be a cycle than the same 4 clubs every year.

And it's not every year we only have two standout favourites. It's not like in Jan 05 everyone was saying only Sydney or the eagles could win it. Every year is unique - that's the beauty of our system.

It might be unique but, IMO, it brings the level of competition down and diminishes it somewhat for what is the pinnacle of football in this country. I know I'm probably alone in this viewpoint but, in reality, we have this scenario to protect 3 or 4 teams in the overall scheme. In a 16 club competition, its rather lame.

A club is either viable or its not. AFL assistance and such stringent rules placed on the competition to help strugglers brings the whole quality of it down IMO.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Your right, I would rather that. West Coast, Adelaide, Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn etc would at least all be strong and have shots at glory.

That's 2 more than currently realistically exist in the English Premier League and their comp is one of the most exciting sporting spectacles in the world, not to mention their transfer period in the off-season is worth listening to also and keeps people interested.

How's this? Before this season started, most pundits gave 2 clubs a realistic chance at the premiership. Geelong and Hawthorn. Before the start of the Premier League, most pundits gave 4 clubs a realistic shot at the premiership (Man Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal). So much for our even competition.....you will find in any given year, only 2 maybe 3 clubs are in a realistic position for glory. All our system does is make it a cycle, its not as if every year we have every club in with a shot of glory.

This is, after all, supposed to be the pinnacle of our football code isn't it? Yet we have a draft system that rewards mediocrity to start with and lures teams into throwing games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League#.22Big_Four.22_dominance

Since Blackburn Rovers lifted the trophy in 1994–95, only three clubs have won the Premier League title—Manchester United (eight of the club's ten titles), Arsenal (three times) and Chelsea (twice)

From 1995 onwards, ten teams have won an AFL premiership.

 

[Galactico]

I cannot comprehend where a system where the same old teams dominate time and time again could possibly be better. It's one of the things that turns me off soccer, why even bother watching each year if you don't follow a big club? But obviously it's personal preference so I'll leave it at that

It's ok, your not alone. There are many people from abroad who really don't understand how our system works here and laugh at the way its structured, from the draft to the trading to the salary cap....and in reality it is rather rubbish, no other professional competion anywhere would go to such drastic lengths.

and yeah, its clear you don't watch much other than AFL. Tell you one thing, I know people that are passionate, loyal and obsessed with certain clubs that are not part of the big clubs in European football, clubs which struggle to win anything.....and yet they are all generally far happier with their club and keen to watch them regardless in comparison to supporters here who follow the likes of North Melb, Western Bulldogs, Melbourne etc (on a general basis, not just taking into account one or two years). Also they all seem to share a massive passion to watch and enjoy the big clubs in Europe too, far from being envious and jealous, they seem to embrace the quality on offer and love watching great football.

It's a different culture altogether but it does strike me as quite impressive. When their teams do win, they celebrate with gusto be it in the premier league or division 2. Here, if two teams are struggling (take Nth Melb and Melbourne) your lucky if the 'hardcore' fans actually turn up.

 

[Hawkamania!]

It's ok, your not alone. There are many people from abroad who really don't understand how our system works here and laugh at the way its structured, from the draft to the trading to the salary cap....and in reality it is rather rubbish, no other professional competion anywhere would go to such drastic lengths.

The NFL says hello.

 

[Galactico]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League#.22Big_Four.22_dominance


From 1995 onwards, ten teams have won an AFL premiership.

That article failed to mention that Liverpool have not won the Premier League but did win the Champions League (European Cup) in that time.

I see your point regarding the 10 AFL clubs winning flags in that time but, for me, that isn't as important as seeing the best of the best in the pinnacle of our competition, even if it means 4 less teams win premierships in that period. Just my thoughts.

 

[Galactico]

The NFL says hello.

The NFL does not go to the same lengths as the AFL here. Try again.

 

[ausfatcat]

Just curious what peoples thoughts are on AFL clubs having a 'Marquee Player', on their list, who's pay packet doesn't get included in the salary cap.

Isn't the whole idea of the salary cap so teams of great players don't stick to the one club? Wouldn't this be against the whole idea of the salary cap?

 

[mcgarnacle]

How's this? Before this season started, most pundits gave 2 clubs a realistic chance at the premiership. Geelong and Hawthorn..............

So much for our even competition.....you will find in any given year, only 2 maybe 3 clubs are in a realistic position for glory. All our system does is make it a cycle, its not as if every year we have every club in with a shot of glory.

This is, after all, supposed to be the pinnacle of our football code isn't it? Yet we have a draft system that rewards mediocrity to start with and lures teams into throwing games.

this is an argument for Free Agency. it is the missing link in the current system. the only realistic tool for clubs to recruit in the AFL is via the draft where the majority of the pool of players selected arent AFL ready or are nowhere near the peak of their footballing ability. FA will allow clubs to hire uncontracted experienced players to enable them to improve their competitiveness at a much quicker rate than is currently the case. ideally, a reasonable 'service period' to a players initial club would need to be served in order for a player be eligible for FA.....such as 100 games or 6 years - whatever is reached first.

FA in operation within the limits of the salary cap, would compliment the current recruitment tools of the draft and exchange period (which should be extended much longer than the current 5 days), and would certainly allow clubs to break out of the decade-long 'rebuild-growth-compete-decline' cycle of the AFL.

 

[ausfatcat]

The NFL does not go to the same lengths as the AFL here. Try again.

They have a draft which is the main way to get college talent, they have a salary cap.....

The only real difference is the free agency which is dependant on playing time, years of service ect ect

And the whole if we didn't have the salary cap that it would be a competition between West Coast, Adelaide, Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn bs it would be, it would be between West Coast and Adelaide and maybe Collingwood, damn three years ago Hawthorn and Carlton were in the duldrums financially and on-field with this system they wouldv'e stayed there indefinantly.

On comparing to Soccer how long has the a-league been around? There Marque player system is there to bring in oversea's stars to play locally or keep talent in Australia thereby increasing the talent pool in Australia (where are afl players going to play Souh Africa?). Afl doesn't have this problem. How many clubs went under with no salary cap with the NSL? How many clubs in the premier league became financial basket cases in the late ninties trying to keep pace? We don't have clubs that can jump up and down leagues, and if we did wouldn't this spread the talent too thin? Wouldn't we end up with teams like West Coast having a forward line of Franklin, Hall, Reiwoldt, Tredrea. Hall with two playing with the reserves each week? In other words pooling talent and not playing them (just so the opposition can't play them).

On the point of AFL shouldn't be constantly propping up teams I tend to agree...... But by having 16 teams instead of 12 teams brings in more money with TV rights, sponser exposure ect, what has to be considered is the money going in to propping up these teams more or less than revenue that would lost without having them in the league? For example if Melbourne and Bulldogs are receiving say 3 million a year in assistance (no idea of the actual figure) but with a 14 team comp meaning less games meaning less sponsership and tv rights money say of 10 million year isn't it worth it to prop them up? This is what the AFL weighs up with the speacial assistance.

 

[mcgarnacle]

The NFL says hello.

They have a draft which is the main way to get college talent, they have a salary cap.....

The only real difference is the free agency which is dependant on playing time, years of service ect ect

the NFL is nowhere as restrictive as the AFL.

the NFL draft is a recruiting tool to distribute pro-football ready top college talent. many more college players are recruited to the NFL as undrafted signings.

the NFL trading period extends into the season to allow teams to make necessary changes to their rosters where they see fit. teams can also trade future draft picks.

NFL Free Agency is an imprortant recruiting tool which enables teams to make changes to the roster with immediate impact, not 3 or 4 years down the track. furthermore, players only need to accrue 4 years service to become unrestricted free agents.

 

[Galactico]

They have a draft which is the main way to get college talent, they have a salary cap.....

The only real difference is the free agency which is dependant on playing time, years of service ect ect

And the whole if we didn't have the salary cap that it would be a competition between West Coast, Adelaide, Essendon, Carlton, Collingwood, Hawthorn bs it would be, it would be between West Coast and Adelaide and maybe Collingwood, damn three years ago Hawthorn and Carlton were in the duldrums financially and on-field with this system they wouldv'e stayed there indefinantly.

IIRC the salary cap in the NFL is far wider than what we allow here in the AFL, all being relative of course. Also their free agency is far, far better structured and I also think the salary cap is being changed soon as is the free agency anyway, allowing teams to be able to spend more.....

As for the West Coast, Adelaide, maybe Collingwood trio you threw up there, I call BS. Carlton have always been a financial powerhouse, it was only when they ****ed themselves a few years ago that they crippled, even then they always had Pratt waiting in the wings anyhow, they have big spenders behind that club, always have and always will. They would certainly be part of it and possibly a benchmark.

Throw in Collingwood and Essendon which are strong powerhouses currently and Hawthorn who are not far behind these days and it would be closer than you think. Even Richmond could be in on the act, they have the base behind them.....

Anyone who says it would be restricted to 2 or 3 clubs is kidding themselves. It does not have to be like the EPL, a free for all. Just a far better system (with flexibility for players swapping clubs and money spent) than what we have now.

 

[estibador]

It might be unique but, IMO, it brings the level of competition down and diminishes it somewhat for what is the pinnacle of football in this country.

I would argue that it enhances true competition. There's nothing competitive about rich clubs simply buying all the best players. Unless you consider a battle of the sponsors' chequebooks to be competition - in which case you might as well just follow the stock market.

In our system success has to be earnt the hard way - through shrewd identification and development of talent through the draft. That's the real essence of (sporting) competition - all clubs being subjected to the same conditions and competing on a level playing field.

Rich clubs can still use their money to their advantage but they have to earn any advantage with intelligent investment in top quality recruitment networks and coaching systems, rather than simply buying all the best players and leaving the poorer clubs unable to compete.

It all boils down to what sort of competition you want to see - do you want to see the real competition occur on-field between teams on a level playing field, or are you more interested in a competition of boardroom dealings and bank balances?