Salary cap rules and regulations

This is a subject that naturally attracts many comments and opinions. We'll try to give an outline of some of the salary cap provisions here, to assist the discussion.

As far as we know (and we welcome any corrections) the cap is set at $360,000 per club. There are small extra entitlements which allow for rent for country players and for limited promotional work.

Once contracts are set and the SANFL are advised, those contracts cannot be re-negotiated during that year, as far as we know.

The penalty is a dollar for dollar fine for a breach up to $10,000. Over that, there is a much more substantial fine ($50,000) and a prohibition on recruiting for 12 months or thereabouts, except from a club's own zone.

Calculating the cap is not as simple as it might seem, as many players are paid on a basis different to just a dollar amount per game. Many are paid a 'sign-on' fee and a lesser amount per game, so as to no doubt guarantee them a minimum amount in the case of injury.

Many clubs calculate an amount more than $360,000 on the assumption that their highest paid 21 will not play every game.

As well as that, AFL players are not paid, but attract a 'notional' match payment for salary cap purposes of approximately $500 per game.

Perhaps it needs to be made simple and not dependent on the range of factors including injuries.

Otherwise it is like playing Blackjack.

It seems an inefficient way of doing things. I think we should revisit a model that I read about some time ago. Paraphrasing here but with this model there is no salary cap and if clubs go bust because of living beyond their means then so be it. The important thing is to get a level playing field when it comes to recruiting. A club gets for example 100 points per season for recruiting. Players developed in house cost zero points. This includes AFL players returning to their original club.A player from a rival club attracts say 10 points if he is a 1 to 50 game player, 20 points if over 50 games etc etc. An exAFl player or interstate recruit costs eg 30 points. You get the general idea. Clubs cant cheat because they are restricted to the points system. Its not perfect but at least its open and fairly policeable.

Under that system, a $25,000 ex AFL player at West attracts the same points as an ex AFL player at North on $200,000. Can't see that leading to a fair system.

The WAFL uses a points system. Not sure how it works exactly.
However, with their AFL reserves teams, that could compromise this method too.

Mannyredleg wrote:It seems an inefficient way of doing things. I think we should revisit a model that I read about some time ago. Paraphrasing here but with this model there is no salary cap and if clubs go bust because of living beyond their means then so be it. The important thing is to get a level playing field when it comes to recruiting. A club gets for example 100 points per season for recruiting. Players developed in house cost zero points. This includes AFL players returning to their original club.A player from a rival club attracts say 10 points if he is a 1 to 50 game player, 20 points if over 50 games etc etc. An exAFl player or interstate recruit costs eg 30 points. You get the general idea. Clubs cant cheat because they are restricted to the points system. Its not perfect but at least its open and fairly policeable.

The NBL system works similar to this method I believe. You are correct in that it doesn't prevent clubs from going bust - Gold Coast, Sydney Kings, Brisbane Bullets, South Dragons have all folded in the last decade, IMO due to extra 'big-name' signings. Not sure the SANFL or its supporters would be happy with this approach.

I just can't see why clubs couldn't budget to spend $330-$340,000 of their cap and keep $20-$30,000 in case these things happen.

Or perhaps we can introduce a marquee system like the A-League has. 2 players can be paid outside the cap - maybe for 1 ex-AFL and 1 'Home Grown' player. Clubs don't have to use it - I know many A-League clubs don't use theirs because of financial constraints, but the option is there if they wish.

This salary cap breach stuff is like being a drug addict. It can be accidental and it can be otherwise. However, both get tarred with the same brush.

There is such stigma attached to it because of the systemic organised rorting that has occurred in the past in the afl. How much of that has occurred in SA I don't know.

Seeing as we all know what the Crows have done, we would probably say that was just dumb, not systemic rorting.

Similarly, West seemingly have been a bit unlucky with how this occurred. I haven't seen what amounts are in play here, but if down to the injury modelling going astray, it surely can't be that much.

The thing that makes it look bad all around for both the afl and sanfl is this big stick attitude and constant commentary from Sherriffs Anderson and Demetriou.

When the story broke on radio, I heard their callers demanding the SANFL GF be declared null and void among other crazy suggestions.

If the whole thing was put into proper perspective, it probably is nothing major to worry about.

There are certainly much big fish to fry in addressing other concerns with footy.

I cant wait for the day someone challenges the cap in court. restraint of trade jumps out at me. who has the right to tell a player you can only earn x amount of dollars because the afl want it that way. bank bosses can earn as much as they want so why can't players? if a player can walk up to any club and ask for $1,000,000 and the club can pay it who then should have the right to tell the player he is not allowed? demitriou is earning millions maybe we should limit what he can earn. even the AFL draft could be declared illigal simply because it is telling a player where he has to play as opposed to where he wants to play, in other words work. I know it's meant to even out the comp but I think it would be thrown out of court if challenged. think back to the silvio fochini case in the eighties he challenged the VFL and won.

bullydog wrote:I cant wait for the day someone challenges the cap in court. restraint of trade jumps out at me. who has the right to tell a player you can only earn x amount of dollars because the afl want it that way. bank bosses can earn as much as they want so why can't players? if a player can walk up to any club and ask for $1,000,000 and the club can pay it who then should have the right to tell the player he is not allowed? demitriou is earning millions maybe we should limit what he can earn. even the AFL draft could be declared illigal simply because it is telling a player where he has to play as opposed to where he wants to play, in other words work. I know it's meant to even out the comp but I think it would be thrown out of court if challenged. think back to the silvio fochini case in the eighties he challenged the VFL and won.

A late entry for 'Post Of The Year' ?
Well said 'bullydog'.

Saw this on the other forum - a different way of penalising and a viewpoint on PAFC paying fines

If port are fined, they use the SANFL's own monies that prop up the power to pay the fine. Afterall, Port are affiliated with the Power as a united AFL club that supports and SANFL club that no longer has a say or dividend from the SANFL. Maybe I am wrong, but is there some irony about a fine being administered in this case?

Maybe the penalty is for clubs that breach, their salary cap the following year is reduced by the amount they breached the cap by?

This would automatically effect player contracts and restrict recruiting by the amount they have left in a salary cap. It doesnt bankrup struggling clubs either whether the breach was deliberate, negligent or otherwise

Yes, this is what I think is a fitting penalty commensurate with the crime.
But everyone seems too hell bent on hanging people for stealing a loaf of bread.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:Yes, this is what I think is a fitting penalty commensurate with the crime.
But everyone seems too hell bent on hanging people for stealing a loaf of bread.

This is how our country was started, wasn't it? Wasn't all bad then!