No Oppo Supporters Re-signing Tex, Danger and Sloane *** Crows Only ***

[Red mist]

It could also benefit players that are less desirable though. the ones that get offered big bucks to move, do, and the ones that dont get the godfather offer or choose to stay out of loyalty also get more money. its win win for the players, so i can see the aflpa backing it.

Yes this makes sense. Didn't see that angle.

 

[1970crow]

But their intention is to have the salary cap increased isn't it? Isn't that what Paul Marsh was banging on about that its a travesty only one of our highest paid players is in the top-50 sports earners?

You're point about facilitating staying potentially driving up the offers needed to wrest a player away may be true. I guess then it turns into an arms race and an ever expanding cap to accommodate it.

It is an arms race, just operated within a specific limit. This is why I bang on about the culture of accepting a few overpaid players as being ok. It's not. The only way players will accept unders is if they're sacrificing for team success. If you're paying overs to mediocre role players and have no recent history of success, then you're much less likely to get players to stay if they're not getting their fair whack based on the open market.

 

[BrissyCrow]

But if players stay put market value stagnates doesn't it? I'm no expert in economics but I would have thought commodities need to be traded for value to increase.

Not Necessarily. Remember Players don't have to stay put. They will still be able to exercise their right to move. The club wont know if a player is determined to be a one club player so they wont be able to exploit it and if they do that then the player was stupid to say so. Having a nest available at the end of your career will only mean that a player has another thing to take that into consideration.

 

[mattymac]

It could also benefit players that are less desirable though. the ones that get offered big bucks to move, do, and the ones that dont get the godfather offer or choose to stay out of loyalty also get more money. its win win for the players, so i can see the aflpa backing it.

I really hope it pans out like this. Would be a great initiative and be something that would suit us tremendously as a club and also be a bit more of an Australian home grown aspect rewarding loyalty rather than being all out mercenary like soccer and American sports whose influence has become too great on our game imo.

 

[mattymac]

Not Necessarily. Remember Players don't have to stay put. They will still be able to exercise their right to move. The club wont know if a player is determined to be a one club player so they wont be able to exploit it and if they do that then the player was stupid to say so. Having a nest available at the end of your career will only mean that a player has another thing to take that into consideration.

So just to get this straight, would this 'loyalty nest egg' be considered separate from the cap? I wonder how that could work without impacting the integrity of the salary cap

 

[Red mist]

I really hope it pans out like this. Would be a great initiative and be something that would suit us tremendously as a club and also be a bit more of an Australian home grown aspect rewarding loyalty rather than being all out mercenary like soccer and American sports whose influence has become too great on our game imo.

Man, it's getting slammed on the main board.

 

[mattymac]

Man, it's getting slammed on the main board.

screw the main board

 

[Paladin]

Man, it's getting slammed on the main board.

Probably has merit then

 

[Red mist]

screw the main board

Yeah just a recent observation. Hawks hate it the most

 

[1970crow]

So just to get this straight, would this 'loyalty nest egg' be considered separate from the cap? I wonder how that could work without impacting the integrity of the salary cap

Would have to be. If a player is going to qualify and it's included in the cap, then that amount will have to come from another player or that player will be low-balled to take into account their bonus. If there's no benefit to the entire playing fraternity, then why would anyone bother. Clubs can already choose to overpay existing players at the expense of others.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

It is an arms race, just operated within a specific limit. This is why I bang on about the culture of accepting a few overpaid players as being ok. It's not. The only way players will accept unders is if they're sacrificing for team success. If you're paying overs to mediocre role players and have no recent history of success, then you're much less likely to get players to stay if they're not getting their fair whack based on the open market.

I think its become very important to bottom out, load up on picks and the have 5 years on top then bottom out again. The AFLs new rule allowing clubs to save up salary cap to be used the following year only serves to reinforce that. There is even less value in being an 'always rounding out the 8' sort of club.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

So just to get this straight, would this 'loyalty nest egg' be considered separate from the cap? I wonder how that could work without impacting the integrity of the salary cap

The way sloane is proposing it im fairly sure its outside the cap, but is a set amount based on years at the club, number of games etc.

 

[Red mist]

I think its become very important to bottom out, load up on picks and the have 5 years on top then bottom out again. The AFLs new rule allowing clubs to save up salary cap to be used the following year only serves to reinforce that. There is even less value in being an 'always rounding out the 8' sort of club.

There's a number of reasons why it isn't feasible for us, 2 team town etc that keep on getting thrown around to dispel that idea. I've had the thaught every now and then that we should have as well.

 

[DD#23]

Isn't it in their interest to promote fluidity in the market place, i.e. player movements, in order to drive up market value?

well if you added a financial incentive for players to stay that would only further increase the size of the buying offers to entice them to move right?

I'm of the opinion you don't want that anyway though, I can't believe in such a small system we're still seeing the so-called 99% being dicked out of money for the sake of a few, precious elite - and by a group that's meant to look after ALL the players no less!

 

[1970crow]

I think its become very important to bottom out, load up on picks and the have 5 years on top then bottom out again. The AFLs new rule allowing clubs to save up salary cap to be used the following year only serves to reinforce that. There is even less value in being an 'always rounding out the 8' sort of club.

One of my greater gripes. We seem to build our list from the middle. Mackay's 4 years whilst we had Danger, Tex and Sloane unsigned was testament to our priorities. Without Mackay, our last 2 seasons would not have been any worse than they were. Now, Mackay at his best and providing it consistently is a bit different, but he doesn't provide that. I know I'll get the, "it's only $50-$100k, it doesn't matter" response from a few, but it does. Every penny that a player is overpaid results in another being underpaid. The question is whether you'd rather overpay serial under-achievers or ordinary players or potential club legends like Danger, Crouch, Sloane.

 

[Red mist]

well if you added a financial incentive for players to stay that would only further increase the size of the buying offers to entice them to move right?

I'm of the opinion you don't want that anyway though, I can't believe in such a small system we're still seeing the so-called 99% being dicked out of money for the sake of a few, precious elite - and by a group that's meant to look after ALL the players no less!

What about the next wave that wants FA to be sized down from 7 to 4 or 5 yrs. If FA is going to go on the up then shouldn't the transverse option proposed have some merit?

 

[DD#23]

What about the next wave that wants FA to be sized down from 7 to 4 or 5 yrs. If FA is going to go on the up then shouldn't the transverse option proposed have some merit?

I'll be furious if they lower the number of years, I don't like the whole concept as it is to begin with.

if the trend continues, at what point do you just say **** it and scrap the draft altogether? What's the point of having it if players can hop wherever they want every time their contract runs out?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

What about the next wave that wants FA to be sized down from 7 to 4 or 5 yrs. If FA is going to go on the up then shouldn't the transverse option proposed have some merit?

They should make 100 games and you qualify for free agency.

 

[Red mist]

I'll be furious if they lower the number of years, I don't like the whole concept as it is to begin with.

if the trend continues, at what point do you just say **** it and scrap the draft altogether? What's the point of having it if players can hop wherever they want every time their contract runs out?

I'm pretty sure that as soon as the AFLPA got the FA proposal met, they were already rubbing their hands together to lower it the next time around. The way it is being moulded at this time by clubs is detrimental to equalisation. The gap is widening.

 

[Red mist]

They should make 100 games and you qualify for free agency.

Is that a NBA situation knowing you are a fan?

 

[DD#23]

I'm pretty sure that as soon as the AFLPA got the FA proposal met, they were already rubbing their hands together to lower it the next time around. The way it is being moulded at this time by clubs is detrimental to equalisation. The gap is widening.

I don't doubt that at all, you're very likely correct.

doesn't make it any easier to swallow though, its difficult to watch where this game is going.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Is that a NBA situation knowing you are a fan?

No, its anywhere between 5 and 7 years of active service.

22 games a year time 5 = 110 but it does take some players longer to reach that point.

If they are asking for free agency to kick in after 5 years. That makes 18 year olds 23 and some have done SFA at that club.

Therefore, if you make it 100 games - I feel thats good service to the club.

 

[Red mist]

I don't doubt that at all, you're very likely correct.

doesn't make it any easier to swallow though, its difficult to watch where this game is going.

Yeah getting clouded by all the off field machinations, than actually getting to go and sit down and watch a awesome game of footy.

 

[Red mist]

No, its anywhere between 5 and 7 years of active service.

22 games a year time 5 = 110 but it does take some players longer to reach that point.

If they are asking for free agency to kick in after 5 years. That makes 18 year olds 23 and some have done SFA at that club.

Therefore, if you make it 100 games - I feel thats good service to the club.

Yes, perhaps a games cap would be a decent amendment.

 

[Red mist]

No, its anywhere between 5 and 7 years of active service.

22 games a year time 5 = 110 but it does take some players longer to reach that point.

If they are asking for free agency to kick in after 5 years. That makes 18 year olds 23 and some have done SFA at that club.

Therefore, if you make it 100 games - I feel thats good service to the club.

Do we give them a congratulations banner on their 100th game or nothing because they a buggering off?