Sydney Salary Cap

[nineteen eighty]

Let me guess, you borrowed a few million to buy a lavish house on the beach, a high priced car, etc...

These are not essentials
Essential would be 2000lancer, a 2room furnished apartment borrowing little

Problem is, sports stars want to live the high life, rather then a healthy life

A 2000 lancer is not a healthy life!!

Fair dinkum there are some incredulous posts (I was going to say stupid but thought I would be nice about it) here. Being a Melbournian who has moved to Sydney, I can tell you for fact that comparing apples with apples, Sydney property is a lot more expensive. I am talking APPLES with APPLES here! When I moved up and look to buy the same level of house I had in Melbourne (close to city, renovated, off street parking, etc...), it cost significantly more than Melbourne. At the time it was close to double. Yes I could have chosen to live further out from the city, could have had a place that needed work as opposed to being renovated but I wanted a LIKE for LIKE place. And that's what people see and experience when they first move up and do that property thing.

 

[Off The Couch]

nineteen eighty - this may be the case but that doesn't then explain why the top end of the playing group gets the largest slice of the pie when in reality it would be those drafted that would require the most assistance. It should go back to relocation allowance and available to any player relocating with a larger allowance for 1-3yr players and a one off payment only.

 

[tonk]

A 2000 lancer is not a healthy life!!

Fair dinkum there are some incredulous posts (I was going to say stupid but thought I would be nice about it) here. Being a Melbournian who has moved to Sydney, I can tell you for fact that comparing apples with apples, Sydney property is a lot more expensive. I am talking APPLES with APPLES here! When I moved up and look to buy the same level of house I had in Melbourne (close to city, renovated, off street parking, etc...), it cost significantly more than Melbourne. At the time it was close to double. Yes I could have chosen to live further out from the city, could have had a place that needed work as opposed to being renovated but I wanted a LIKE for LIKE place. And that's what people see and experience when they first move up and do that property thing.

Stop making sense.

 

[cinderella man]

Well this added to the debate well done

Just say the word Sydney and the negative and irrelevant bile will spew forth when this moron is online.
Go back over his posting history and Sydney dominate his responses. Dont bother with fools. Bitter ones especially.

 

[NUFC Tiger]

I don't really have any interest or opinion in if Sydney should be allowed to keep the extra additional cost of living cap space but I find it hard to believe that a developing team like the Lions can't afford Tippett but the reigning AFL premiers can - something about that just seems wrong.

Surely Brisbane's need for Tippett would be greater than the Swans? I'm not sure of the state of the Brisbane salary cap but given the relatively young list and some of the older guys probably being on the veteran's list, surely they would have some space to move with?

 

[Gongswan]

I don't really have any interest or opinion in if Sydney should be allowed to keep the extra additional cost of living cap space but I find it hard to believe that a developing team like the Lions can't afford Tippett but the reigning AFL premiers can - something about that just seems wrong.

Surely Brisbane's need for Tippett would be greater than the Swans? I'm not sure of the state of the Brisbane salary cap but given the relatively young list and some of the older guys probably being on the veteran's list, surely they would have some space to move with?

Every team pays the minimum required TPP, which leaves about 400k in the balance. This is enough to get a player to the club, but keeping him requires that you have the extra space over the next 3 years after the initial signing, as in backloading. We will have the space with a whole lot of retirees coming in the next 2 to 3 years, and the fact that we have now finished paying Bradshaw and cut a whole bunch of 4th year players etc, frees up some space. Brisbane being a young team apart from 2 or 3 oldies and big money players in Brown and blackwouldn't want to part with their young talent any more than we did, so in relative terms we are probbaly better equipped to pay KT

 

[Suma Magic]

I tried to explain this to an NRL fan last night:

Me: and so the more they earn, the more they are deemed to require assistance to help with the CoL differences.
him: don't you mean the less they earn?
me: no, the higher the income, the higher the assistance given to help address the difference in cost of living.
Him: so if someone gets a huge payrise, the afl thinks that they are going to struggle even more with the CoL difference?
me: yep.
him: surely those who earn the least would need it the most?
me: apparently not.
him: wow
me: indeed.

 

[skzm]

Every team pays the minimum required TPP, which leaves about 400k in the balance.

Out of interest where did you get 400k from? Just make it up or is it based on any actual research....

 

[Gongswan]

Out of interest where did you get 400k from? Just make it up or is it based on any actual research....

5% of 8 mil odd, rough guess

 

[Scotland]

Salary cap is $8.78m, minimum TPP is 92.5%.

$8.78m x 7.5% = $658k

A club (excluding Sydney & GWS) with all contracts lodged for a season can have a maximum of $658k space left over.

 

[Gongswan]

Salary cap is $8.78m, minimum TPP is 92.5%.

$8.78m x 7.5% = $658k

A club (excluding Sydney & GWS) with all contracts lodged for a season can have a maximum of $658k space left over.

Well rat spit, other posters are saying it's up to 95%, someeven saying its 97.5%. I'll go with your figures, my original post still applies

 

[skzm]

Well rat spit, other posters are saying it's up to 95%, someeven saying its 97.5%. I'll go with your figures, my original post still applies

95% is the right figure. TPP + ASA - is about 10mil...

 

[Gongswan]

95% is the right figure. TPP + ASA - is about 10mil...

I can't be bothered looking it up, any way you look at it, if you're only meeting the minimum, as Brisbane should be with their lack of top end talent, should be plenty of room to lure a big name

 

[Scotland]

Well rat spit, other posters are saying it's up to 95%, someeven saying its 97.5%. I'll go with your figures, my original post still applies

Rat spit?

'My figures' are well publicised.

The salary cap, known officially as Total Player Payments, is A$8,780,000 for the 2012 season with a salary floor of $8,121,500 except for the Gold Coast, whose salary cap will be A$9,530,000 with a salary floor of $8,871,500, and Greater Western Sydney, whose salary cap is $9,780,000 with a floor of $9,121,500.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap#Australian_rules_football

 

[Gongswan]

Rat spit?

Clint Eastwood, Heartbreak Ridge, you'd need to watch it for context

 

[Numbered Days]

I tried to explain this to an NRL fan last night:

Me: and so the more they earn, the more they are deemed to require assistance to help with the CoL differences.
him: don't you mean the less they earn?
me: no, the higher the income, the higher the assistance given to help address the difference in cost of living.
Him: so if someone gets a huge payrise, the afl thinks that they are going to struggle even more with the CoL difference?
me: yep.
him: surely those who earn the least would need it the most?
me: apparently not.
him: wow
me: indeed.

Come on mate, if you want to talk to your NRL mates and report back at least be accurate. You used the word "assistance" twice. It is not assistance, it is an allowance. We are not given any money and it has nothing to do with helping players. No-one, except those misrepresenting it, has ever said that's what it's for.

Secondly, we do pay those who need it most more. For example, our rookies get 30% than other clubs AFAIK.

No call your mate up and this time don't pretend it's something that it's not. Then, at the end of the call, tell him how your club has twice asked for exactly the same thing

 

[Suma Magic]

Come on mate, if you want to talk to your NRL mates and report back at least be accurate. You used the word "assistance" twice. It is not assistance, it is an allowance. We are not given any money and it has nothing to do with helping players. No-one, except those misrepresenting it, has ever said that's what it's for.

Secondly, we do pay those who need it most more. For example, our rookies get 30% than other clubs AFAIK.

No call your mate up and this time don't pretend it's something that it's not. Then, at the end of the call, tell him how your club has twice asked for exactly the same thing

I stand corrected on the allowance/assistance.

Although it's an allowance, isn't the principle is the same? The more you earn, the more of an allowance you receive from the club, specifically to address CoL issues.

Why is not for helping players with the CoL difference? What is it for?

Also I did not know you were able to pay your rookies more. But that's not as much as the allowance given to the highest earning players is it?

 

[Andrew Mc]

Rat spit?

'My figures' are well publicised.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap#Australian_rules_football

Suggest you find figures more credible than wikipedia.

From http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2011/images/CBA_Presentation_ 151211.pdf a document entitled Collective Bargaining Agreement dated December 2011.

"Each club must spend no less than 95% of the combined annual TPP and ASA limits in Football Payments and ASA payments to players (up from 92.5%)"

It's really not difficult to find the correct information. So yes, rat spit.

 

[Numbered Days]

I stand corrected on the allowance/assistance.

Although it's an allowance, isn't the principle is the same? The more you earn, the more of an allowance you receive from the club, specifically to address CoL issues.

Why is not for helping players with the CoL difference? What is it for?

Also I did not know you were able to pay your rookies more. But that's not as much as the allowance given to the highest earning players is it?

It's about equalisation. In basic terms it's so each dollar earned by one of ours is the same as each dollar earned by one of yours. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that because you guys should get it as well but in basic terms, the reason for it to exist is valid.

The idea of all equalisation measures is that you win some and lose some but overall most clubs should be equal. I completely accept that it probably doesn't work that way but the focus on just one of the factors is continually frustrating from our point of view.

For example - and this is by no means a whinge at other clubs, just examples.

1. You guys can have a bad few years and suffer little financially and then get the advantage of high draft picks. We can't afford to "bottom out" so simply cannot take advantage of the "equalisation" measure that helps teams that struggle on the field.

2. We have, I think, 4 guys from NSW in our team and only two are actually from Sydney (although the Central Coast and Nelson Bay aren't too far away). This isn't a choice, it's just the way it is. So, 95% of our players have to relocate and we have to deal with the go home factor. We have learnt how to deal with it and it isn't a huge issue but still, you guys probably have half your squad from WA. This means you and Freo can get away with paying some of your guys a bit less because the alternative is they would have to move interstate.

3. I was shocked during the whole Tippett debacle because I had no idea that players could make $100k plus per year from ads and crap like that. These are outside the cap and being in a footy state, a bunch of your players can take advantage of this. Not all $100k obviously but something. We have one guy who would make anything outside the club and that is for national ads. Don't know for sure but I doubt if any of our players make anything from 3rd party deals in NSW.

The problem with these threads is all they do is focus on what we get and make out that we are favoured when quite simply, when you take everything into account we aren't. I have no idea if we are better or worse off than you guys when everything is taken into account and honestly, I don't really care. We win some and lose some.

 

[Suma Magic]

It's...

That's a great post, and I agree nearly all of it.

However I'm unsure if you're saying it's about cost of living or about equalisation.

If it's about cost of living, then allowing Sydney to pay players an extra 10% (of their own cash) on top of their salary does not make this equal to other clubs. If Goodes (for example) was on ~700k, and got an extra ~70k on top, that's ~40k after tax. To argue that players spend an extra 40k due to differences in the cost of living between Sydney and Melbourne would be difficult. If each sydney player got the same amount, then that would make more sense to me, and would be justifiable as a CoL allowance.

If it's about equalisation, then there may be a case for qld/nsw clubs having an allowance such as this for the reasons you have outlined. But if it's about equalisation, then it should be clearly stated, and not titled a CoL allowance.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

1. You guys can have a bad few years and suffer little financially and then get the advantage of high draft picks. We can't afford to "bottom out" so simply cannot take advantage of the "equalisation" measure that helps teams that struggle on the field.

As a club who has been eating shit sandwiches for 30 years (and nearly gone broke twice because of it), can you explain to me why your club has to be protected from bottoming out and going bust, but its cool for it to happen to my mob?

 

[Numbered Days]

That's a great post, and I agree nearly all of it.

However I'm unsure if you're saying it's about cost of living or about equalisation.

If it's about cost of living, then allowing Sydney to pay players an extra 10% (of their own cash) on top of their salary does not make this equal to other clubs. If Goodes (for example) was on ~700k, and got an extra ~70k on top, that's ~40k after tax. To argue that players spend an extra 40k due to differences in the cost of living between Sydney and Melbourne would be difficult. If each sydney player got the same amount, then that would make more sense to me, and would be justifiable as a CoL allowance.

If it's about equalisation, then there may be a case for qld/nsw clubs having an allowance such as this for the reasons you have outlined. But if it's about equalisation, then it should be clearly stated, and not titled a CoL allowance.

It's a whole bunch of things that are about equalisation - COLA, draft, salary cap, draw, the fund that teams like Port and North get money from and so on. So it is about COL but I take your point that we probably get that one thing to equalise against the others.

I agree with your last paragraph. I actually think that if the AFL is going to say they are making the competition even they should do it properly. That doesn't mean removing our COLA but it means giving it to you and Freo, investigating if Adelaide clubs have had a net talent loss, investigating the lack of home ground advantage for the smaller Victorian clubs and so on.

IMO Brisbane are the ones that are really screwed out of this. The AFL seemed to buckle in relation to them 10 years ago and has then forgotten about the issues they face. I would imagine they have more locals than us but still, they are facing lots of difficulties. If they are now struggling financially a bit which will limit footy department spending then they quite simply won't make the finals much in the future.

 

[Scotland]

As a club who has been eating shit sandwiches for 30 years (and nearly gone broke twice because of it), can you explain to me why your club has to be protected from bottoming out and going bust, but its cool for it to happen to my mob?

Because we 'need' Sydney.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Because we 'need' Sydney.

Sydney will still exist if they bottom out - AFL is guaranteeing the existence of all 18 clubs for the duration of the current agreement. This is about the statement that the Swans cannot be allowed to bottom out.

Swans can bottom out, but it means like the Tigers, Dees, Dogs, Power, etc during the lean years they trim the budget and do it hard. If other supporters have to suck it up and endure the lean years, why not Swans fans?

and before anyone says "but its a new market, they won't come to games if they are losing", the Lions seem to be holding their shit together as a club without COL to keep their list together. why can't Sydney do the same?

 

[Scotland]

It's a whole bunch of things that are about equalisation - COLA, draft, salary cap, draw, the fund that teams like Port and North get money from and so on. So it is about COL but I take your point that we probably get that one thing to equalise against the others.

http://mm.afl.com.au/portals/0/2011/finals/club_funding_presentation_260911.pdf

Sydney will receive $3.9m of disequal funding over 2012-14, the same amount as Port Adelaide.

The AFL administration are worse than the Australian govt. They have turned club funding into an overly complicated welfare state.