Salary Cap Investigations

[marbles]

im not even bothering reading your small time lack of appreciation for quality footballers morell

what gain is there arguing expansion and excellence to pelican that feels weekly car wash vouchers will get his club out of div 6

[Trader]

Morell, I don't understand why you are so against allowing clubs to spend money.

There are blokes that spend 200k on a boat and fishing equipment because they enjoy that hobby and find it a great way to fill their weekends.
There are other blokes who don't like to fish, but would rather watch local footy. So rather than spending 200k on a boat, they donate 10-15k a year to their local club. If a club has 10-20 of these blokes floating around, which is easily the case at some of the bigger clubs, then why shouldn't that club be allowed to spend $200k a year on players?

The fisherman is allowed to spend his money to buy a better boat, why cant the footy fan donate and enable his side to buy a bigger ruckman?

I don't buy the argument that we need to cap the top end to push the quality of players around, that's a false economy of football talent. Div 7 isn't meant to be equal to Div 1, there is no reason for the talent to be equally spread.

[human_torpedo]

Agreed wholeheartedly with your last point, div 7 should never be equal to div 1.. But just because they play under the same cap, doesn't make them equal. No Div 7 club will come close to the cap..

The issue that clubs spending limitless money is generally that it creates a false value for players, and quite often its not sustainable, and when the money dries up, the club bottoms right out.. Think they are trying to make a sustainable and viable environment for all

Having said that, I still cant understand why the C9AFL clubs would want a lower cap than Country leagues. The fuel allowance should be the only point of difference IMO

[Fricky]

Morell, I don't understand why you are so against allowing clubs to spend money.

There are blokes that spend 200k on a boat and fishing equipment because they enjoy that hobby and find it a great way to fill their weekends.
There are other blokes who don't like to fish, but would rather watch local footy. So rather than spending 200k on a boat, they donate 10-15k a year to their local club. If a club has 10-20 of these blokes floating around, which is easily the case at some of the bigger clubs, then why shouldn't that club be allowed to spend $200k a year on players?

The fisherman is allowed to spend his money to buy a better boat, why cant the footy fan donate and enable his side to buy a bigger ruckman?

I don't buy the argument that we need to cap the top end to push the quality of players around, that's a false economy of football talent. Div 7 isn't meant to be equal to Div 1, there is no reason for the talent to be equally spread.

I wouldn't mind just one of those guys

[jo172]

Agreed wholeheartedly with your last point, div 7 should never be equal to div 1.. But just because they play under the same cap, doesn't make them equal. No Div 7 club will come close to the cap..

The issue that clubs spending limitless money is generally that it creates a false value for players, and quite often its not sustainable, and when the money dries up, the club bottoms right out.. Think they are trying to make a sustainable and viable environment for all

Having said that, I still cant understand why the C9AFL clubs would want a lower cap than Country leagues. The fuel allowance should be the only point of difference IMO

Wouldn't be so sure of that in 2016.

Have it on reasonable authority that one D7 club's spending had it mid-range in D1

[marbles]

Do these salary cap restrictions apply to country leagues too? ie: luke harder

They sure do - No sign on fees ,1 marquee player per team, total payments $3500 plus $600 incentives, so if he was there marquee player he can be paid $1000 per game.

giv div 1 to div 3 the same

and div 4 down can remain talentless.

[jo172]

Do these salary cap restrictions apply to country leagues too? ie: luke harder

They sure do - No sign on fees ,1 marquee player per team, total payments $3500 plus $600 incentives, so if he was there marquee player he can be paid $1000 per game.

giv div 1 to div 3 the same

and div 4 down can remain talentless.

Without extensive consideration I would have thought (on the understanding the rest of the SACFL is at $3,500 next year):

D1: $3,500
D2: $3,000
D3: $2,800
D4: $2,600
D5: $2,400
D6: $2,200
D7: $2,000

would be about right.

[human_torpedo]

Agreed wholeheartedly with your last point, div 7 should never be equal to div 1.. But just because they play under the same cap, doesn't make them equal. No Div 7 club will come close to the cap..

The issue that clubs spending limitless money is generally that it creates a false value for players, and quite often its not sustainable, and when the money dries up, the club bottoms right out.. Think they are trying to make a sustainable and viable environment for all

Having said that, I still cant understand why the C9AFL clubs would want a lower cap than Country leagues. The fuel allowance should be the only point of difference IMO

Wouldn't be so sure of that in 2016.

Have it on reasonable authority that one D7 club's spending had it mid-range in D1

And will PNU be reigning in their spending in 2017 you reckon?

[jo172]

Agreed wholeheartedly with your last point, div 7 should never be equal to div 1.. But just because they play under the same cap, doesn't make them equal. No Div 7 club will come close to the cap..

The issue that clubs spending limitless money is generally that it creates a false value for players, and quite often its not sustainable, and when the money dries up, the club bottoms right out.. Think they are trying to make a sustainable and viable environment for all

Having said that, I still cant understand why the C9AFL clubs would want a lower cap than Country leagues. The fuel allowance should be the only point of difference IMO

Wouldn't be so sure of that in 2016.

Have it on reasonable authority that one D7 club's spending had it mid-range in D1

And will PNU be reigning in their spending in 2017 you reckon?

You're right in thinking that the Club I refer to is not going to be in D7 in 2017, hasn't gone the same direction as the PNU C Grade though.

[marbles]

Agreed wholeheartedly with your last point, div 7 should never be equal to div 1.. But just because they play under the same cap, doesn't make them equal. No Div 7 club will come close to the cap..

The issue that clubs spending limitless money is generally that it creates a false value for players, and quite often its not sustainable, and when the money dries up, the club bottoms right out.. Think they are trying to make a sustainable and viable environment for all

Having said that, I still cant understand why the C9AFL clubs would want a lower cap than Country leagues. The fuel allowance should be the only point of difference IMO

Wouldn't be so sure of that in 2016.

Have it on reasonable authority that one D7 club's spending had it mid-range in D1

And will PNU be reigning in their spending in 2017 you reckon?

exactly ttg cgrade vs para hills $3000 per game enjoy boys

[marbles]

Without extensive consideration I would have thought (on the understanding the rest of the SACFL is at $3,500 next year):

D1: $3,500
D2: $3,000
D3: $2,800
D4: $2,600
D5: $2,400
D6: $2,200
D7: $2,000

would be about right.

plus marquee players yeah?

so brett ebert could play C9AFL?

[jo172]

Without extensive consideration I would have thought (on the understanding the rest of the SACFL is at $3,500 next year):

D1: $3,500
D2: $3,000
D3: $2,800
D4: $2,600
D5: $2,400
D6: $2,200
D7: $2,000

would be about right.

plus marquee players yeah?

so brett ebert could play C9AFL?

I'd get rid of individual maximum player payments altogether as the benevolent CFL overlord. If you want to give all $3,000 to one person each week next year go your hardest. I really don't understand what purpose they serve.

[morell]

Morell, I don't understand why you are so against allowing clubs to spend money.

There are blokes that spend 200k on a boat and fishing equipment because they enjoy that hobby and find it a great way to fill their weekends.
There are other blokes who don't like to fish, but would rather watch local footy. So rather than spending 200k on a boat, they donate 10-15k a year to their local club. If a club has 10-20 of these blokes floating around, which is easily the case at some of the bigger clubs, then why shouldn't that club be allowed to spend $200k a year on players?

The fisherman is allowed to spend his money to buy a better boat, why cant the footy fan donate and enable his side to buy a bigger ruckman?

I don't buy the argument that we need to cap the top end to push the quality of players around, that's a false economy of football talent. Div 7 isn't meant to be equal to Div 1, there is no reason for the talent to be equally spread.

I am not totally against clubs spending money. If a player makes a profound impact on a club through their efforts, on and off the field, I can understand a monetary recompense being offered. What I am against is the over inflation of the market for average footballers which directly limits smaller clubs being able to recruit and retain players.

Worst. Analogy. Ever. When that fisherman spending 200k on his boat results in the guy in his tinny not being able to enjoy his weekend with the reels, then it would be apt. That's what everyone misses. Amateur football is a network. We're all interconnected. You cannot have some clubs paying huge money and not have it affect other clubs that can't.

I agree the talent doesn't have to be equal, but they never would be. There is no way the average spend in D7 would be the same as D2. All the cap is designed to do is ensure there aren't any rogue clubs massively inflating the market and keep clubs sustainable and from damaging the sport and themselves.

I would however absolutely support the notion above - a sliding cap. I am aware of a D5 club that spends $50k on players - utterly ridiculous, but perhaps suitable for D2.

[morell]

im not even bothering reading your small time lack of appreciation for quality footballers morell

Hey marbles...you're small time too

If you want to appreciate quality footballers, go here:



not here:

[marbles]

im not even bothering reading your small time lack of appreciation for quality footballers morell

Hey marbles...you're small time too

If you want to appreciate quality footballers, go here:



not here:

wow youve gone to a lot of trouble there and youre providing so much excellence to this forum, i think you have earnt yourself a car wash voucher

[morell]

Can I swap it for a Mitchell Park Canteen Voucher?

Those things are better than cash money!

[the milky bar kid]

Can I ask, if the current individual max payment is $400, what is the maximum in neighboring leagues?

[marbles]

Can I swap it for a Mitchell Park Canteen Voucher?

Those things are better than cash money!

no those are only for our marquee players.

[jo172]

Can I ask, if the current individual max payment is $400, what is the maximum in neighboring leagues?

Marquee $1,000, everyone else $500

[Footy Chick]

If someone photo shops Trumps hair onto a picture of JK it's beers on me whenever you visit MPFC

Yeah I probably wouldn't suggest anyone doing that