Ramifications for all Australian Football Leagues

[sydney eagle]

Haven't read all posts so forgive me if I repeat something.
My understanding of the issue being raised by this SBW issue and how it might relate to AFL is this.
Suppose Gary Ablett Jr is on 500K a season.Hawthorn comes along and offers him 1.5 mil a season,well over their salary cap.The AFL says you can't do that because of cap restraints.
Gazza goes to court and argues restraint of trade by the afl,due to the salary cap.
I've heard from legal freinds that the salary cap in the AFL would not stand up to a legal challenge as it is basically a gentleman's agreement.
I know this would have huge ramifications but that is why it's such a big issue atm!!

The comparison is more like this. Say Gary Ablett Jnr has a contract woth 500k a season for five years and has completed two years of that contract and all obligations to him have been met by Geelong. Then suddenly Gaelic Football gets multi million dollar sponsors (however unlikely that is !) and offers him 1.5Mill a year to play in Ireland WHILE HE IS STILL UNDER CONTRACT TO GEELONG.

 

[Luc]

Also, in Lukesta63's example Hawthorn would be actively making a decision to break the salary cap that they, and other clubs have agreed to.

Now, considering that the AFL has a tight control over the clubs' licensing agreements, I would say that the weight that they could throw at any club that decided to break with the 'rules' would be enough that no club would dare to cross that line.

The SBW situation is that a club that is under no obligation to the NRL has come in, and is able to ignore any consequences of making an offer to that player.

 

[Mental Magpie]

I say; "eliminate the salary cap full stop"

This will determine which clubs will survive and which clubs fall by the wayside. This will ensure the competition is fairer by making sure all teams play each other twice.

LOSE THE CAP!!!!!

 

[malph]

I say; "eliminate the salary cap full stop"

This will determine which clubs will survive and which clubs fall by the wayside. This will ensure the competition is fairer by making sure all teams play each other twice.

LOSE THE CAP!!!!!

And lose clubs.
Lose markets.
Lose television revenue.
Lose gate takings.
Lose money.
That "fair" competition will go broke.

Idiot.

 

[Orange]

if an employer wants to say we only have 8 million to spend on wages then they should have every right to do so.

i want my employer to give me more money but he won't.

i can either put up with it or get another job

**** restraint of trade, since when were courts the handmaidens of economic philosophy

and why can't the argument be put that no salary cap is a restraint of trade for the AFL?

 

[Mental Magpie]

And lose clubs.
Lose markets.
Lose television revenue.
Lose gate takings.
Lose money.
That "fair" competition will go broke.

Idiot.

Ralph.

The competition will grow due to the fact that all the weak clubs will be gone and the power houses will be able to do as they please.
Look at the English Premier League.
From strength to strength year in year out!

IDIOT!

 

[Mental Magpie]

if an employer wants to say we only have 8 million to spend on wages then they should have every right to do so.

i want my employer to give me more money but he won't.

i can either put up with it or get another job

**** restraint of trade, since when were courts the handmaidens of economic philosophy

and why can't the argument be put that no salary cap is a restraint of trade for the AFL?

But the employer wants to pay 20 million and he's not allowed!

 

[malph]

Ralph.

The competition will grow due to the fact that all the weak clubs will be gone and the power houses will be able to do as they please.
Look at the English Premier League.
From strength to strength year in year out!

IDIOT!

The comparison is not the EPL. It's the VFL.

It's funny how you say "the competition will grow" when the weak clubs stop competing. I don't know who you are, or what you do, but you're showing less than a remedial understanding of what makes the AFL tick today. It's television rights. And if my club was to die, I'm going watch exactly what I was watching before 1997, and it wasn't the AFL. Broadcasters aren't going to pay as much as they do for less product, and advertisers aren't going to pay as much for less exposure. Money will run from the game.

In any case, fewer clubs would put more players out of a job, and I doubt the abolition of the salary cap is going to be endorsed by the AFLPA for that reason.

 

[campbell]

The only reason the Afl has been fine so far is due to the AFLPA being onside.
Do people honestly think that the clubs have the best interests of the players at the core of their salary dealings.

A shame if your last contract was for say 200,000 for 2 years. You have played real well in that time. Yet, in these negotiations, you are offered less, due to salary cap problems within the club, your employer. How is this right or fair. This happens all the time in the AFL. Players get screwed over, as clubs try to find ways to come in under the cap.

 

[malph]

The only reason the Afl has been fine so far is due to the AFLPA being onside.
Do people honestly think that the clubs have the best interests of the players at the core of their salary dealings.

A shame if your last contract was for say 200,000 for 2 years. You have played real well in that time. Yet, in these negotiations, you are offered less, due to salary cap problems within the club, your employer. How is this right or fair. This happens all the time in the AFL. Players get screwed over, as clubs try to find ways to come in under the cap.

That's why the AFLPA is pursuing free agency, before they even consider abolishing the cap . . .

 

[campbell]

That's why the AFLPA is pursuing free agency, before they even consider abolishing the cap . . .

Free agency will kill off clubs as well.

 

[Mental Magpie]

That's why the AFLPA is pursuing free agency, before they even consider abolishing the cap . . .

Free agency will kill off clubs as well.

Let the weak clubs die.

They can merge, they can disappear, who cares as long as the amount of teams left, ensures all teams play eachother twice.

The competition is flawed in it's current state.

 

[campbell]

Let the weak clubs die.

They can merge, they can disappear, who cares as long as the amount of teams left, ensures all teams play eachother twice.

The competition is flawed in it's current state.

NRL is in the same boat, how many team sin Sydney? How many of these are flying by the seats of their pants?
NRL is doomed. They should not be threatening players as a group. They are their commodity, without the players, their is no competition NRL, ARU, Soccer or AFL. Administrators sometimes are a thick lot.

 

[malph]

Let the weak clubs die.

They can merge, they can disappear, who cares as long as the amount of teams left, ensures all teams play eachother twice.

The competition is flawed in it's current state.

You're not following, are you?

 

[Mental Magpie]

The comparison is not the EPL. It's the VFL.

It's funny how you say "the competition will grow" when the weak clubs stop competing. I don't know who you are, or what you do, but you're showing less than a remedial understanding of what makes the AFL tick today. It's television rights. And if my club was to die, I'm going watch exactly what I was watching before 1997, and it wasn't the AFL. Broadcasters aren't going to pay as much as they do for less product, and advertisers aren't going to pay as much for less exposure. Money will run from the game.

In any case, fewer clubs would put more players out of a job, and I doubt the abolition of the salary cap is going to be endorsed by the AFLPA for that reason.

Television rights will continue to increase as per the EPL.

If you are concerned about your club's ability to survive without a cap, then maybe your club is not worthy of a place in the AFL.

More players available, means every team can have more players on their list as it was before. One teams demise would give every other side approximately 4 extra players on the senior list. The talent pool would increase too, meaning the average player would either have to lift his game or play in the lesser leagues.

 

[malph]

Free agency will kill off clubs as well.

Not necessarily, if the salary cap remains. Look at the NFL: The Arizona Cardinals are in no more danger of dying than the Dallas Cowboys. Well, maybe a little more . . .

Also, with free agency in American football, the clubs have their own tools to maintain balance, namely the franchise 'tag' and restricted free agency.

 

[malph]

Television rights will continue to increase as per the EPL.

Why will more people want to pay for less product?

 

[RUNVS]

Not necessarily, if the salary cap remains. Look at the NFL: The Arizona Cardinals are in no more danger of dying than the Dallas Cowboys. Well, maybe a little more . . .

Also, with free agency in American football, the clubs have their own tools to maintain balance, namely the franchise 'tag' and restricted free agency.

I'll have to takie your word on that as i know apsolutely nothing about American Football other than they wear a huge amount of padding.

 

[Mental Magpie]

Why will more people want to pay for less product?

Less teams doesn't mean less product.

Less teams means player lists with greater talent and depth.

This equates to a much better product, which equals more dollars.

 

[campbell]

Less teams in Melbourne, may mean more teams in Qld or NSW or Tassie. So newer markets for broadcasters.

 

[Mental Magpie]

Less teams in Melbourne, may mean more teams in Qld or NSW or Tassie. So newer markets for broadcasters.

Exactly!

 

[malph]

Less teams in Melbourne, may mean more teams in Qld or NSW or Tassie. So newer markets for broadcasters.

Tasmania would survive in such a league? They would struggle to compete financially in the current competition.

But regarding this less teams = more dollars nonsense. What part of the AFL's expansion success since 1987 have you not been paying attention to?

 

[Mental Magpie]

Tasmania would survive in such a league? They would struggle to compete financially in the current competition.

But regarding this less teams = more dollars nonsense. What part of the AFL's expansion success since 1987 have you not been paying attention to?

Then why is Tassie going full tilt trying to convince the AFL to give them the next licence? So they can go belly up? Don't think so!

The AFL is indeed growing at a fantastic rate. Kudos to the AFL for having the foresight to expand the league by including WA, SA, NSW, QLD.

What they didn't do is take into account how many Victorian fans have left the game due to being alienated and disgusted at where tha game is heading. All about money and don't worry about the little bloke.

Don't get me wrong, I couldn't give a rat's about the little bloke, or the alienated fans.

I'm just sick and tired of a seriously flawed competition.

 

[campbell]

I have been to Darwin a few times in the last couple of years in footy season. They love their footy here. The talk is everywhere. I think Darwin is resource rich and could have a Northern Australia team.

 

[campbell]

Exactly!

The sad thing for Melbourne teams id that this debate will throw up the Free Agency push.
I would love a Darwin team, for the Top end of all Australia.They love their footy up their. Diverse culture and market for broadcasters and marketers. A flush resource rich area of Australia.