Port's Salary Cap Proposal

[doggies4eva]

Port Adelaide plans to put forward a proposal it says will ease the SANFL salary cap pressures and boost grassroots football in South Australia.

Based on the AFL veterans rule, Port suggests that if a player has been recruited from within its zone, only 50 per cent of match payments be included in the cap once that player reaches 100 league games for the club.

This provides more incentive to develop from within the zones which also supports metropolitan and country football in SA.

The Magpies have this season relocated seven juniors to Adelaide from their West Coast-based football academy, including Lindsay Thomas, who debuted in league ranks against North Adelaide on Saturday.

"It encourages and rewards clubs to develop their own and it keeps money in this state," Port general manager Matthew Richardson said. "We think it's one thing that can keep the SANFL going forward."

SANFL salary cap rules are under review and the nine clubs will put submissions to the investigations committee next month.

Port's idea is one of many being discussed by the clubs. Most agree the $305,000 salary cap - which has been adjusted just once since 1999 - should increase in line with the Consumer Price Index since '99.

The Maggies' idea would free up money within the salary cap to lure quality interstate players to Adelaide to keep the standard high.

AFL-experienced players such as Port Magarey Medallists Ryan O'Connor, Tony Brown and Jeremy Clayton have been pivotal in maintaining the SANFL as the premier state league in Australia since the advent of the Crows in 1991.

Dozens of interstate-born players have represented the SANFL at state level, where SA has lost just twice in 10 matches since 1995. However, it is getting harder to recruit delisted AFL players because of their financial expectations. Increases in total player payments per AFL club have sky-rocketed from $4.25 million in 1999 to $6.47 million this year but the SANFL cap has not moved.

At least one club wants the SANFL limit to rise to $500,000 next year while Central District would rather an open market with an "import rule" limiting the number of interstate recruits at any club.

If that existed now cash-strapped clubs Norwood and Sturt would find it even harder to compete for quality interstate recruits.

They would simply be outbid by wealthy clubs.

The Eagles advocate having a fixed amount - perhaps $40,000 - in the cap for every player fresh out of the AFL. If clubs paid more it would not come into salary cap restrictions.

The SANFL wants an equal playing field for all clubs and the Magpies say recruiting is not always about waving the cheque book around.

"Quite often it's not about the money," Richardson said. "(Match payment) expectations are definitely higher so getting (recruits) work is so important. They expect a certain amount of money but we can't pay that sort of money so we have to get them a job."

The salary cap review will be far reaching and set in place conditions to govern recruiting for years to come. Richardson says this is a pivotal moment for the league.

"That's why we need to have this development rule," he said. "Our club's view is to support football in this state and in our zone."


Courtesy of The Advertiser
Story by Doug Robertson

[doggies4eva]

I lifted the above from the SANFL site. There are a couple of issues which I would like to discuss.

The first is what would Port's proposal achieve? I support the idea of better support for grass roots footy but I think it will work in the opposite direction. What will happen under this scenario is the financial clubs will have more money left under the cap and will use it to chase interestate players offering them more $s. This will ironically limit the opportunities for home grown talent.

The second point is that of the writer who says

"At least one club wants the SANFL limit to rise to $500,000 next year while Central District would rather an open market with an "import rule" limiting the number of interstate recruits at any club.

If that existed now cash-strapped clubs Norwood and Sturt would find it even harder to compete for quality interstate recruits.

They would simply be outbid by wealthy clubs."

I don't agree. A limit on the number of imports in a club will actually limit the bidding war that already exists and allow the Norwoods or Sturts to be more competitive.

[drebin]

The NAFC CEO's stance is that if we proclaim to be the best league outisde the AFL then we need to get the talent into the comp to sustain that so if we have to go interstate and recruit players so be it. Why put a limit on how many interstate recruits we can get? The talented juniors will always come through but never hang a round too long because they get drafted so putting too many "eggs in the development basket" is wasted to a degree because you get no long term value out of players and you are continually developing to replace.

Lift the cap to $500K and make it open slather as to interstate recruits.

[dinglinga]

y have a salary cap to protect those clubs that dont run the club like a business...

what does the goverment tell business that they cant spend that much on staff because they want to be succesful...

if a business over comits and goes broke tuff..

so y cant a football club be in the same basket.
and if the rich get richer tough... thats life... maybe those poorer clubs could learn and go out and develop themsevles better

[TroyGFC]

Some very good points. It would be a good way to get AFL retired players back to there old clubs if more money was available but a salary cap must still be in use to keep the comp even. Also increase a penalty for salary cap breaches, money and well as points.

[Aerie]

I like Port Adelaide's proposal. There would not be too many players around the competition who would be eligible so would not have too much of an effect. I like the idea of rewarding loyalty. The SANFL do not need to change too much. Grand Finalists of the past few years are now occupying the bottom two spots on the ladder and it appears several clubs such as Norwood and Glenelg have got systems in place which give them every chance of success in the near future. At the same time, clubs that are successful are given a chance to stay at the top if they are good enough, unlike the AFL, where draft picks are all important.

The SANFL has a good mix IMO. It is attracting the best players outside the AFL from around Australia, whilst still maintaning it's suburban feel with locally produced players and of course a sneak peek at future stars such as Gibbs, Sellars and the AFL young talent in Douglas, Knights etc.

[Blue Boy]

I am all for a salary cap increase as this would see more better players to the SANFL competition. In time all clubs with there new venues should be able to sustain the increase.

But it ( salary cap ) must be monitored properly for it work equally.

[Macca19]

I dont mind the idea. It promotes home grown players. The truth is there arent many 100 game players in the SANFL. Not much at all really and a fair few of them are imports as well. It seems that if a youngster doesnt get drafted by the age of 22 they either play amateurs or quit altogether. I think its a good idea.

I also like the import limit as well. Maybe limit to 4. But who do you include as an import? Do you count guys like Corey AhChee, Dane Fitzgerald and Stephen Bailey (who didnt play AFL but came from Darwin, TAC Cup and VFL respectively) or is it just limited to AFL experienced players?

[doggies4eva]

I dont mind the idea. It promotes home grown players. The truth is there arent many 100 game players in the SANFL. Not much at all really and a fair few of them are imports as well. It seems that if a youngster doesnt get drafted by the age of 22 they either play amateurs or quit altogether. I think its a good idea.

I also like the import limit as well. Maybe limit to 4. But who do you include as an import? Do you count guys like Corey AhChee, Dane Fitzgerald and Stephen Bailey (who didnt play AFL but came from Darwin, TAC Cup and VFL respectively) or is it just limited to AFL experienced players?

Regarding the import rule - you could have a rule like Basketball has. There a player can become a local after they have played for 10 years. That way it prolongs the careers of those players who move and want to play out their careers in SA. Maybe for footy 10 years is too long - it could go on games played. I would like to see some special arrangements made for AFL players who are drafted from a club and return to that same club after AFL being given special treatment - ie players like McCabe so thay can be induced to stay on and put in a few more good seasons. That would strengthen the comp.

[drebin]

I dont mind the idea. It promotes home grown players. The truth is there arent many 100 game players in the SANFL. Not much at all really and a fair few of them are imports as well. It seems that if a youngster doesnt get drafted by the age of 22 they either play amateurs or quit altogether. I think its a good idea.

I also like the import limit as well. Maybe limit to 4. But who do you include as an import? Do you count guys like Corey AhChee, Dane Fitzgerald and Stephen Bailey (who didnt play AFL but came from Darwin, TAC Cup and VFL respectively) or is it just limited to AFL experienced players?

Good point re your last line and that is where the restriction rule could be blurred. Remember alot of the exVics in the SANFL have played at VFL level but have also been on AFL lists but never have played a game e.g. Gill and the Gowans for starters so you hardly class them as ex-AFL just because they trained with an AFL team - plus how many games do you have to play at AFL level to be classed as "AFL experienced"?


No restriction is the way to go -after all the AFL can take as many players as they want if all the eligible players nominate and they don't give a shit about the SANFL so let's get their best FL players and keep that comp as it is - an AFL reserves comp and nothing like the SANFL.

[Wedgie]

I prefer no restirction if its going to be lifted.

As a club can produce 18 AFL standard players who all go interstate and they won't be able to replace enough of them with recruits.
Another club can produce 1 AFL standard players and 17 SANFL standard players and be able to recruit the same amount of I/S recruits as Club A.

Ridiculous proposal with the way the AFL/SANFL is set up when you think about it.

[giffo]

Central's would have 3 players who meet the local & played 100 games criteria and also 3 who fit the "returning AFL player" category. Everything has its pros and cons but as long as the SANFL make a balanced decision that favours all clubs and not just cashed up clubs, that's fine with me. For the moment though, the cap should be increased with the CPI.

[Sojourner]

Given the current issues with restrictions on recruiting, perhaps encouraging home grown players is not such a bad idea, frees up some coin to get the very best players from interstate thus increasing the standard of the competition overall which cant be a bad thing!

[whufc]

i wanna see free for all, no restrictions

will never happen though.

[dedja]

Doesn't bother Central, that's what they do now anyway ...

[Barto]

Doesn't bother Central, that's what they do now anyway ...

They just want to get the paper bags above the table. Someone could get an RSI injury after all these years.

[sjt]

Doesn't bother Central, that's what they do now anyway ...

I don't get it?

[doggies4eva]

I found it interesting reading the original article - posted 4 years ago and what the individual clubs were advocating.

It seems we ended up with the worst of all worlds!

[smac]

Doesn't bother Central, that's what they do now anyway ...

Ha! The last player we didn't get wound up at your club. Watch for the shattering glass when you throw those stones.

[Lynwood]

I would love to see clubs rewarded for having home grown players. It also rewards the players for staying Loyal to the club,