Salary Cap Question

Can anyone explain to me the relevance of having a Salary Cap in the SANFL if Port Adelaide put 18 AFL listed players on the field earning several times in excess of the rival SANFL clubs cap for their players? How does the salary cap make the competition even and fair for all the participating sides in that instance?

forgetting the two franchises, i don't believe in it anyway, if a club, any club mine included was stupid enough to spend money they didn't have and went broke then that would serve them right

Well it would serve them right but that doesn't help anyone. The clubs need to be protected from themselves in this area I think. For me, the solution is not to scrap the salary cap, but to scrap the AFL teams.

I' m with F9 on this one. All good and well to say that if a club overspends they deserve their own demise, but what effect does that have on the competition and thus other clubs. I'm happy for a Cap to remain in place and think it needs to. Would like to see it around the $600k mark though, moving upward in line with CPI adjustments annually.

Yes a cap is necessary in the current environment. But the AFL teams' lack of one just puts a microscope on the inequity they have allowed in the competition.

Scrunch wrote:I' m with F9 on this one. All good and well to say that if a club overspends they deserve their own demise, but what effect does that have on the competition and thus other clubs. I'm happy for a Cap to remain in place and think it needs to. Would like to see it around the $600k mark though, moving upward in line with CPI adjustments annually.

I think it's much more likely the cap will come down, rather than be increased.

Apart from two ior three clubs, the rest find it difficult to fund the current level and would have no chance of funding a $200K increase.

Whether that's bad for the comp is a fair question, but it's the reality.

On the AFL teams, my problem is (as it has always been) with the 'marque' top up player. It's hard enough playing against 16 or more listed players, without having a 'top up' player on a maximum of $400 a game winning a B & F as well.

Lee wrote:

Scrunch wrote:I' m with F9 on this one. All good and well to say that if a club overspends they deserve their own demise, but what effect does that have on the competition and thus other clubs. I'm happy for a Cap to remain in place and think it needs to. Would like to see it around the $600k mark though, moving upward in line with CPI adjustments annually.

I think it's much more likely the cap will come down, rather than be increased.

Apart from two ior three clubs, the rest find it difficult to fund the current level and would have no chance of funding a $200K increase.

Whether that's bad for the comp is a fair question, but it's the reality.

On the AFL teams, my problem is (as it has always been) with the 'marque' top up player.  It's hard enough playing against 16 or more listed players, without having a 'top up' player on a maximum of $400 a game winning a B & F as well.

I don't see the Cap increasing to the level I've suggested, it's just what I'd like to see .. Perhaps if the initially purported $200mil+ from sale/development of West Lakes had come to fruition it would have been achievable.

If the competition becomes purely feeder only, then (imho) that will be the final straw for the diehards.

If the competition can no longer attract Brett Eddy, Sam Lonergan, Simon Phillips, Luke Thompson, Travis Tuck etc and/or no longer lure back (for example) locals that have fallen out of the AFL system (ie, Petrenko, Panos, Coad, L. Johnston etc), then it's done and dusted in my opinion.

I had an interesting discussion recently with a senior executive of an SANFL club, about issues like the salary cap and the presence of AFL teams in the competition. I've expressed the view in the past, that we'd be better off without the latter, but when you think about it from a club executive's perspective, and think Lee might agree with me here, it comes down to which is the best course to keep our comp. relevant. Particularly in the eyes of sponsors, and others who put in significant sums of money, for reasons that are either partly or fully commercial. At the moment we're still getting reasonable media coverage for example. Cut ourselves off from the AFL altogether, tempting as it sometimes seems, and we risk losing the cash streams which, like it or not, are tied in with that. The salary cap is here to stay. There would be wholesale chaos without it. As you all know, the SANFL is trying to extend the concept to the country leagues. It's at times like this I'm happy to be retired. I can talk about it, toss in my two bob's worth, then retreat to my hobby farm and leave it to the younger people, who still have the energy and drive for it all.

I agree with most of the last two posts. Scrunch, I'd feel the same as you about attracting talent from interstate and retyuning AFL players. I think the current salary cap allows clubs to fit that in, within reason. Without it, the comp would become much poorer. They lose their talented juniors to the AFL for not that much money and wouldn't be able to replace them with good talent.

cc, I originally thought the same about needing coverage, but I'm not sure we've seen much benefit. Crowds against Adelaide are the lowest for most clubs and much of the coverage is of the AFL Reserves teams.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the SANFl had called the AFL teams 'bluff?' about playinmg Amatuer League. Adelaide 78.33 d Rostrevor OC 0.1 wouldn't have benefited anyone.

Although I accept the reality of what we have, (and I don't blame the AFL clubs for being there), I do believe some of the regulations need to be changed, with the benefit of 2 years experience.

A National AFL Reserves comp would, IMO, benefit the SANFL and the AFL clubs. The SANFL might lose some coverage, but no-one is going to go to the AFL Reserves games unless they're curtain-raisers to AFL games.

I believe there is a fair bit of s=discussion going on about the current conditions and I'm jopeful we might get an outcome that's fairer for all parties.

Easier said than done, though.