Salary Cap Should the SANFL Keep it or get rid of it.

[Dog_ger]

I think we have to have some sort of protection in the system. Without a salary cap you run the risk of club officials promising players too much and not being able to payup at the end of the year. Players taking legal action on that and making the clubs sell assests to pay wages. The road to bankruptcy..! In ten years time we might have only 1 club left..!

[Wedgie]

What were you expecting Punk, and thats a serious question. What else would you expect clubs that dont have the funds that say Centrals or North have???

Why are people concerned with which clubs have the funds? Surely people should be more concerned with clubs that are exceeding the salary cap by the most, ie allegedly two teams who aren't Central or North.

Talk about Central and North is just jealousy, if people were serious about the salary cap they'd be talking about the two other teams.

Back to the serious matter on the cap, I think people are too paranoid, for some reason a lot of people think its a serious rule to break like it is in the AFL or NRL. It isnt, its merely there to keep some $$$$ coming in from the AFL which we otherwise wouldn't get. If clubs are 5k over it like Central were a couple of years back they pay 5k back to the SANFL, simple, that's the rule, no biggy. To give the SANFL power and the man hours to administer it 100% effectively you'd probably have to fork out 250k on salary to get about 100k back if you're lucky, its not just economic sense, perhaps the supporters of some of the clubs in ordinary financial positions should be thinking about what they'd do with 20-30k less per year.

[Wedgie]

North have recruited eight players (according to this site) and, "I don't believe that we're over"

You might want to look at who's fallen off the list too.
Players like Jason Roe, Shannon Motlop, Adam Hueskes, Tim Cook and Mark Jeffries would have been on very good salaries.
I wouldn't have been suprised if Roe and Motlop were our highest paid players or very close to it.

I'll be very honest in saying North aren't over the cap, but they do have some very nicely paid barmen, drive through attendants, mr fixit men working for the Northern Tavern and the Grand North. What's wrong with that though? Clubs have been employing players in various roles since the start of time.

North own the businesses involved and have every right to pay their employees whatever they want to as long as its economically viable.

[JK]

Some random thoughts ...

- I don't think it's a matter of who exceeds the cap lol "by the most", you either adhere to it or you break it, pretty simple ... Whether the SANFL is going to a)police it or b)penalise any breaches seems to be the main point of contention, to be honest for mine it doesn't really fuss me, the rules will still be the same for all competing teams regardless of what they might be so perhaps best to just leave it as is!

- In reference to the comments made about the poorer clubs, ie, Norwood & Sturt, I'm not aware of my club making any loud noises over the issue (doesn't mean it hasn't happened though) ... I think people forget that even if you took Norwood & Sturt out of the comp, there would still be 2 other clubs who are the poorest, and if the divide grew further, well then where to then .. End up with a comp consisting of 5 loaded teams???

[topsywaldron]

North aren't over the cap, but they do have some very nicely paid barmen, drive through attendants, mr fixit men working for the Northern Tavern and the Grand North.

Anyone else care to comment on this or do we let the words speak for themselves?

[Wedgie]

- I don't think it's a matter of who exceeds the cap lol "by the most"

Wrong, that' has a BIG part to do with it.
Club that's 1k over has to pay 1k.
Club that's 200k over has to pay 200k.
Simple.
Its actually the most important factor in the SANFL salary cap rules.

[JK]

Not at all, it's the most important factor in ascertaining the PENALTY once proven guilty

[Wedgie]

North aren't over the cap, but they do have some very nicely paid barmen, drive through attendants, mr fixit men working for the Northern Tavern and the Grand North.

Anyone else care to comment on this or do we let the words speak for themselves?

Ahh good old Topsy, can never make a common sense comment without having a childish dig instead.
What has what a player gets paid in their every day job have to do with the salary cap which is merely a measure of what players are being paid for football.
When a Norwood player worked for the North and Norwood FCs in recent years doing junior development it wasn't treated as a player payment in the salary cap.
Same rules for every club.
You could argue some clubs had an unfair advantage in the 80s and 90s with what they made compared to other clubs too, perhaps some people are just upset as their club didn't capitilise on it as well as a club like Central is now?

[Wedgie]

Not at all, it's the most important factor in ascertaining the PENALTY once proven guilty

I would have thought the penalty for breaking a rule is a big part of the discussion?
Perhaps we should fine players 50k every time they push another player in the back or take premiership points away?

[topsywaldron]

What has what a player gets paid in their every day job have to do with the salary cap

If their employer is the football club or the social arm of the football club then what they earn there has a lot to do with the salary cap. Common sense really.

[Wedgie]

What has what a player gets paid in their every day job have to do with the salary cap

If their employer is the football club or the social arm of the football club then what they earn there has a lot to do with the salary cap. Common sense really.

I disagree, the salary cap is for football payments only, unless we want to change the rule? (I thought we were discussing the current rules?)
Common sense really.
How about sponsors, can players work for sponsors or in your opinion this should be counted too?
Where do you want the buck to stop (so as to speak?)?

[redandblack]

I think the salary cap rules aren't as simple as you think they are, Wedgie. I think it can be much more than dollar for dollar if the breach is deliberate.

I also believe that payments to player/employees that are "over the odds" are caught by the salary cap rules, IF they are policed.

The question is whether the SANFL want to uphold the integrity of the salary cap rules.

In the past, it probably hasn't been put to the test much. Now, with South's alleged obvious breach and Port Magpies blatantly excessive payments, the league must act, or they are seen to be effectively condoning the breaches.

[Wedgie]

I think the salary cap rules aren't as simple as you think they are, Wedgie. I think it can be much more than dollar for dollar if the breach is deliberate.

Interesting redandblack, I wasn't aware of that, I stand corrected, would also like to find out what they can be.

Be interesting to see what the club who is under investigation for having 2 different contracts (may have been mentioned in your post) for players might get treated then.

[doggies4eva]

I also believe that payments to player/employees that are "over the odds" are caught by the salary cap rules, IF they are policed.

And how do you police it red and black? I've heard of clubs that fill in false timesheets and design elaborate bullshit "contracts" to cover their tracks. Unless teh SANFL gets someone to "spill the beans" a la South then most will get away with it.

[topsywaldron]

I disagree, the salary cap is for football payments only, unless we want to change the rule? (I thought we were discussing the current rules?)

John Condon was recently given the power to audit the books of clubs social arms to examine any payments made by these bodies to players. Which makes it, in my book anyway, a current rule.

[Wedgie]

I disagree, the salary cap is for football payments only, unless we want to change the rule? (I thought we were discussing the current rules?)

John Condon was recently given the power to audit the books of clubs social arms to examine any payments made by these bodies to players. Which makes it, in my book anyway, a current rule.

If that's the case then my opinion would be that North are in the shit but I'd be interested to know what can/can't be counted towards the salary cap. It'd have to be a very complex rule. If its that simple I'd expect to see results very soon.
No offence but I'd only believe that one once I see it in black and white though but as I was ignorant to teams going deliberately over the cap deliberately it wouldn't suprise me.
I'm still honestly interested in an answer to my question previously, do you think sponsors paying players should be counted?
If all of North went and started working at Mistral for 100k a year each would that be an issue?

Its a pity these questions/comments didn't come up a bit earlier, we might have had a chance of getting some questions answered by Bones and Wildy as I was suprised how much SANFL talk they've had on 5AA recently. I think Dumb and Dumber are back today so there's be no chance.
I could ask Glenn (or even Warky) but hate to bother CEOs so might wait to see what Drebin has to say on the matter as he'd be in the know.

[redandblack]

I think the rules cover any payments for employment with entities connected to the club that are obviously over a reasonable amount.

You're right, though, it would not be easy to work it out and the SANFL would have to have the will to do it anyway. So far, they don't appear willing to do so. Their problem is that the South situation can't be ignored and the Port Magpies actions are so blatant that the other clubs will complain loudly until something is done, I would guess.

As far as Port are concerned, when you add Maric, Stevens and Surjan to the dozen or more ex-AFL players they have recruited, they will have 15 of them playing. Given that several of them would be some of the highest paid players in the league, it is beyond belief to think they would be remotely near the cap. They are openly challenging the rules, so it will be interesting to see what, if any, action is taken.

[Wedgie]

Exactly r&b, the thing that concerns me is that to fully police the rule you'd probably have spend 100s of Ks on salarys and other misc stuff.
If that's the case we might as well as scrap it and lose the AFL funding which probably wouldn't even cover that as the AFL funding is the only reason we have the rule in place.
I suppose the SANFL's only option is what they do now, half heartedly police it whilst continuing to get the $$$ from the AFL, its probably what's helping keep a couple of clubs alive so I can see the SANFL's reasons.

[am Bays]

North have recruited eight players (according to this site) and, "I don't believe that we're over"

You might want to look at who's fallen off the list too.
Players like Jason Roe, Shannon Motlop, Adam Hueskes, Tim Cook and Mark Jeffries would have been on very good salaries.
I wouldn't have been suprised if Roe and Motlop were our highest paid players or very close to it.

I'll be very honest in saying North aren't over the cap, but they do have some very nicely paid barmen, drive through attendants, mr fixit men working for the Northern Tavern and the Grand North. What's wrong with that though? Clubs have been employing players in various roles since the start of time.

North own the businesses involved and have every right to pay their employees whatever they want to as long as its economically viable.

I'm not questioning if North are over the cap, I'm questioning the hypocrisy of people claiming were aren't over the cap but others who have recruited less than we have are. Based on the ins/outs on this site some big coin has left Port too over the past year.... Bamford Brown C-Collins & Francis

[Wedgie]

I'm not questioning if North are over the cap, I'm questioning the hypocrisy of people claiming were aren't over the cap but others who have recruited less than we have are. Based on the ins/outs on this site some big coin has left Port too over the past year.... Bamford Brown C-Collins & Francis

I know that some have left Port too, but the figures getting thrown around the traps about Port's play for players is positively obscene.
Obviously redandblack has hear the same things, I don't think its fair that he can mention it but I can't without being accused of being hypocritical?
All alleged of course.