Oppo Camp Non-Eagles Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clubs should be held to maintaining a salary cap over a rolling 5 year period, maybe longer so cap space can be saved in poor years to help retain players in good ones.
Helps prevent campaigner teams like Geelong and Freo benefiting off Fold Coast needing to offload inflated salaries every year too
 
Clubs should be held to maintaining a salary cap over a rolling 5 year period, maybe longer so cap space can be saved in poor years to help retain players in good ones.
If you commit to the above you're still forcing clubs with long periods of mediocrity or worse to severely overpay players at least once in the cycle, pay players relative to output for 4 years, then you need overpay in the 5th year to avoid penalties.

This would have hit Gold Coast twice by now, and Melbourne twice in their finals drought from 2006 - 2017. In 2018 there were 4 teams with a finals drought of 5 years or longer, and then there's the current Essendon scenario.

Maybe teams work it out, but in reality that's just a complex way of both lowering the floor and raising the cap.
 
Thomas' alleged behaviour is so grubby and gross.

I tend to think the way we talk about sex these days, at least in the annoying circles I inhabit, is a bit puritanical.

But this is the sort of malicious shit that needs to be stamped out.

What a creep
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It was to prevent smaller clubs trying to save money by not paying the full amount of the salary cap. Minimum list sizes were designed to do a similar thing- stop clubs cutting costs by running with a smaller list

Partly it’s an equalisation measure - to save the paupers from themselves by preventing them from paying smaller lists on less money to stay financial. Those clubs also get an AFL top up so they can afford to spend the salary cap

It’s also the AFLPA making sure players as a collective get what they’re after

In reality it’s a dumb system for the reasons pointed out earlier. Clubs that are developing a list are forced to pay overs to players just to retain them, then don’t have the money to keep them/attract other players because they don’t have the space. GWS and Gold Coast have been hurt by this in particular

Clubs should be held to maintaining a salary cap over a rolling 5 year period, maybe longer so cap space can be saved in poor years to help retain players in good ones.
Are newly drafted players still on a predetermined salary based upon draft position/games played?

If so that makes the 95% rule even stupider because presumably you cant spread salary cap to those 1st or 2nd year players.
 
Are newly drafted players still on a predetermined salary based upon draft position/games played?

If so that makes the 95% rule even stupider because presumably you cant spread salary cap to those 1st or 2nd year players.

Yes they are, and it is so that they can't be lured away by opposition clubs with the promise of a higher salary.

Of course, it doesn't actually work as teams just inflate their years 3-5 salary to accomodate this. We did it with TK (or tried to if we had have been able to get geelong to agree to a fixed trade price after his first year), Tom Boyd to dogs, probably a heap of others I can't be bothered looking up.

Free Agency as a general principle needs a decent overhaul. I'm not sure if it is limits or penalties on top 4 and top 8 clubs grabbing free agents that would work (either surrendering draft picks, salary cap loading, limits on players from the bottom 6 going to top 4 sides etc) or what they do - but the flow of free agents is pretty much one way, from the lower clubs to the stronger clubs - and it is killing equalisation.
 
Clubs should be held to maintaining a salary cap over a rolling 5 year period, maybe longer so cap space can be saved in poor years to help retain players in good ones.

Something like this.

Look at what North did a few years ago. Decided to rebuild totally, so got rid of all the old guys and most of the high salary guys like Ben Brown. Then went to the draft and grabbed something like nearly 20 guys over two years.
With all these guys on AFL enforced draft salaries and rookie salaries they still had to reach 95%. So they had no choice but pad out the mid tier guys they had left. Paying them way overs.
Sure, they can do a bit of front loading of the spuds, but it still means that when all those draftees reach negotiated salary time, the bill for that group will go up dramatically. And 5% ain't enough to cover that.

A few ideas.

1. Keep a salary cap. Otherwise clubs will become debt traps like the VFL in the 80s. It also does help equalization.
2. Go with something like Keys 5 year rolling requirement. But lower the figure to 90% over 5 years.
3. Lower the single year figure to 80%. This allows clean outs like North did.
4. Allow a single year overspend to 105%. Only 1 year in 5, and only from money underspent previously.
 
Seeing that Setanta clips just reminds me how much I disliked him in the day. He always gave like bad vibes. Knocking out someone and then kicking is grub areas when it’s done on the street while on the piss but even shocking when it’s done in mellow training drill
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Too many UDL’s?
6ca6e0d2-7b77-42ff-8d77-2fc7b831d829_text.gif
 
Seeing that Setanta clips just reminds me how much I disliked him in the day. He always gave like bad vibes. Knocking out someone and then kicking is grub areas when it’s done on the street while on the piss but even shocking when it’s done in mellow training drill

Don't fight with Irish people. They are insane. This is basic stuff.
 




33BF931E-D1B0-492D-A791-9BE0A2F38561.jpeg

Every club receives a minimum base amount of funding plus a variable additional amount based on their level of paupery. West Coast, along with Hawthorn, Richmond and Collingwood receive the bare minimum

For 2023 the base amount of funding is between $10.5-11.0m. The exact amount will be determined once the salary cap amount for 2023 is finalised

Yes, that’s right, the season starts in 6 weeks but the salary cap still hasn’t been set. The AFL at work

Call me cynical but Sydney, along with Geelong, have been the most consistently successful club this century yet that still receive an additional $5m of funding ranking them in equal 6th in bloodsucking. Only the other northern clubs and perpetual battlers, North and St Kilda, receive more
 




View attachment 1599470

Every club receives a minimum base amount of funding plus a variable additional amount based on their level of paupery. West Coast, along with Hawthorn, Richmond and Collingwood receive the bare minimum

For 2023 the base amount of funding is between $10.5-11.0m. The exact amount will be determined once the salary cap amount for 2023 is finalised

Yes, that’s right, the season starts in 6 weeks but the salary cap still hasn’t been set. The AFL at work

Call me cynical but Sydney, along with Geelong, have been the most consistently successful club this century yet that still receive an additional $5m of funding ranking them in equal 6th in bloodsucking. Only the other northern clubs and perpetual battlers, North and St Kilda, receive more

Gotta feel for geelong, continually shafted by the afl!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top