-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Salary Cap
- Thread starter nwonash
- Start date
P
PuntRoadRoar
Guest
the big news in perth is that hay will be going to the eagles because of hawthorns salary cap squeeze. and being an ex east freo boy heading home is his preferred choice.
but if they are over 400k then it will be interesting to see who else they are likely to let go
but if they are over 400k then it will be interesting to see who else they are likely to let go
A post from "The Tiger Stripe" - 5th June 2003
"As the AFL prepares to review their Salary Cap regulations later this month, one thing grows ever more obvious. The AFL, by way of it's ridiculous salary cap concessions, is buying the sportsmanship of clubs up North (namely, Sydney and Brisbane), and tearing it up into a million pieces, never to be seen again. Nevertheless, it seems that, at least for now, the concessions are here to stay.
Firstly, to the facts. For the 2003 Season, AFL clubs are allowed a player salary cap of $5.94 million. For the Brisbane Lions, this figure is increased by 10% (to $6.53 million) and for the Sydney Swans, the figure is increased by a massive 15% (to $6.83 million).
And now for the reasoning. In the case for Brisbane, located in a state dominated by Rugby, the concessions are to assist them in retaining their players (who are mainly from interstate) due to their desire to return to their home state. And for Sydney, the concessions are simply to account for the higher living costs faced by Sydney players. According to former Brisbane Chief Executive and current Sydney director of football, Andrew Island, the salary cap concessions are "...necessary to ensure a level playing field."
And last but not least, the truth. The AFL salary cap concessions are a complete joke, making a mockery of the term 'sportsmanship' within the AFL arena. Let us first look at Sydney, who receives approximately $900,000 more in salary cap allowances, and the supposed 'considerably higher' living costs faced by Sydney players. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the actual difference between mean weekly housing costs in Sydney, compared to Melbourne, is $32 a week. This represents an annual difference of $1,664, which distributed to Sydney's 42 senior players represents a figure just shy of $70,000 per year.
The question must be asked then, how can a $70,000 per year difference in player housing costs be worth almost $900,000 in salary cap concessions?? Unfortunately, at this point in time, the answer alludes me (as it does both Sydney Football Club and the AFL, I'm sure). Nonetheless, the remainder of the concession allows the Swans $19,500 per year for every senior player on their list, or 5.8 the average player salaries of other (non-concession) clubs.
In terms of raw numbers, Brisbane receive allowance for approximately $50,000 to $60,000 per year per player of their senior list who has a home state club, above that of Melbourne based clubs. Brisbane have 26 players on their senior list who fall into this category, for which they receive their almost $600,000 extra in salary cap concessions. Meanwhile clubs such as Richmond and St Kilda, for example, have 14-16 players who fall into this category.
The question for the Brisbane case, then, is how much is a reasonable premium to pay a player who has a home state club to return to?? Obviously $60,000 per player per year appears too much, given that (in such a case) this would account for $960,000 of non-concession clubs' $5.94 million salary caps. Again onto the figures, this theory would suggest that, on average, if a player had a home state club to return to, the premium they received to encourage them to stay would be over half as much again of their playing salary (if only I could get paid half my salary again to live in Queensland!)
Finally, there remains the small issue of discussing whether or not the salary cap concessions create, as Mr Ireland put it, "...a level playing field." For this case, one must only glance at the current AFL ladder (Brisbane's Back-to-Back Premierships aside), and particularly at the team sitting high and mighty at top position. The team that currently receives 10% salary cap concessions is unbeaten, with the one exception of their loss to the team with 15% salary cap concession. I wonder if there remains any hope for a team without concessions?
While I accept my view is not held by all, I can't help but feel that there is something amiss in the idea of setting different rules for different teams, with the hope of creating a 'level playing field'. Personally I think it's disgusting, and I would like to see these clubs stop destroying the very idea of sportsmanship... before it's too late.
This is TS, signing out... thanks for listening."
"As the AFL prepares to review their Salary Cap regulations later this month, one thing grows ever more obvious. The AFL, by way of it's ridiculous salary cap concessions, is buying the sportsmanship of clubs up North (namely, Sydney and Brisbane), and tearing it up into a million pieces, never to be seen again. Nevertheless, it seems that, at least for now, the concessions are here to stay.
Firstly, to the facts. For the 2003 Season, AFL clubs are allowed a player salary cap of $5.94 million. For the Brisbane Lions, this figure is increased by 10% (to $6.53 million) and for the Sydney Swans, the figure is increased by a massive 15% (to $6.83 million).
And now for the reasoning. In the case for Brisbane, located in a state dominated by Rugby, the concessions are to assist them in retaining their players (who are mainly from interstate) due to their desire to return to their home state. And for Sydney, the concessions are simply to account for the higher living costs faced by Sydney players. According to former Brisbane Chief Executive and current Sydney director of football, Andrew Island, the salary cap concessions are "...necessary to ensure a level playing field."
And last but not least, the truth. The AFL salary cap concessions are a complete joke, making a mockery of the term 'sportsmanship' within the AFL arena. Let us first look at Sydney, who receives approximately $900,000 more in salary cap allowances, and the supposed 'considerably higher' living costs faced by Sydney players. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the actual difference between mean weekly housing costs in Sydney, compared to Melbourne, is $32 a week. This represents an annual difference of $1,664, which distributed to Sydney's 42 senior players represents a figure just shy of $70,000 per year.
The question must be asked then, how can a $70,000 per year difference in player housing costs be worth almost $900,000 in salary cap concessions?? Unfortunately, at this point in time, the answer alludes me (as it does both Sydney Football Club and the AFL, I'm sure). Nonetheless, the remainder of the concession allows the Swans $19,500 per year for every senior player on their list, or 5.8 the average player salaries of other (non-concession) clubs.
In terms of raw numbers, Brisbane receive allowance for approximately $50,000 to $60,000 per year per player of their senior list who has a home state club, above that of Melbourne based clubs. Brisbane have 26 players on their senior list who fall into this category, for which they receive their almost $600,000 extra in salary cap concessions. Meanwhile clubs such as Richmond and St Kilda, for example, have 14-16 players who fall into this category.
The question for the Brisbane case, then, is how much is a reasonable premium to pay a player who has a home state club to return to?? Obviously $60,000 per player per year appears too much, given that (in such a case) this would account for $960,000 of non-concession clubs' $5.94 million salary caps. Again onto the figures, this theory would suggest that, on average, if a player had a home state club to return to, the premium they received to encourage them to stay would be over half as much again of their playing salary (if only I could get paid half my salary again to live in Queensland!)
Finally, there remains the small issue of discussing whether or not the salary cap concessions create, as Mr Ireland put it, "...a level playing field." For this case, one must only glance at the current AFL ladder (Brisbane's Back-to-Back Premierships aside), and particularly at the team sitting high and mighty at top position. The team that currently receives 10% salary cap concessions is unbeaten, with the one exception of their loss to the team with 15% salary cap concession. I wonder if there remains any hope for a team without concessions?
While I accept my view is not held by all, I can't help but feel that there is something amiss in the idea of setting different rules for different teams, with the hope of creating a 'level playing field'. Personally I think it's disgusting, and I would like to see these clubs stop destroying the very idea of sportsmanship... before it's too late.
This is TS, signing out... thanks for listening."
TS - on the basis used by the AFL the 4 clubs based in WA and SA should be on a reduced salary cap as the cost of living in both of these states is considerably lower than either Vic or NSW.
