The Salary Cap Thread

[Tesla]

I disagree with others in this thread, I think we are the most likely to be over the cap. We basically have 2 marquees under the cap (Duff and Mooy). Plus a decent amount of senior players.

Why do you think I've been calling for JVS to be sacked since like the second game of the season, on paper the squad is very good.

Also I can certainly see CFG disregarding the salary cap TBH.

[Thrillhouse]

I disagree with others in this thread, I think we are the most likely to be over the cap. We basically have 2 marquees under the cap (Duff and Mooy). Plus a decent amount of senior players.

Why do you think I've been calling for JVS to be sacked since like the second game of the season, on paper the squad is very good.

Also I can certainly see CFG disregarding the salary cap TBH.

mooy was aus marquee for first half of the season so that would of massively helped us

[Tesla]

I disagree with others in this thread, I think we are the most likely to be over the cap. We basically have 2 marquees under the cap (Duff and Mooy). Plus a decent amount of senior players.

Why do you think I've been calling for JVS to be sacked since like the second game of the season, on paper the squad is very good.

Also I can certainly see CFG disregarding the salary cap TBH.

mooy was aus marquee for first half of the season so that would of massively helped us

Source?

It would make sense, but haven't seen it anywhere.

[Thrillhouse]

 

 

I disagree with others in this thread, I think we are the most likely to be over the cap. We basically have 2 marquees under the cap (Duff and Mooy). Plus a decent amount of senior players.

Why do you think I've been calling for JVS to be sacked since like the second game of the season, on paper the squad is very good.

Also I can certainly see CFG disregarding the salary cap TBH.

mooy was aus marquee for first half of the season so that would of massively helped us

Source?

It would make sense, but haven't seen it anywhere.

 

straight from someone high up in the club, was the one that said garuccio was injured for season all those weeks back

[Nate]

It'd be hilarious if we were over the cap given how shit we've been.

[jw1739]

I'd have thought bearing in mind how quickly FFA jumped on the Lampard loan that they would have been watching like hawks for the slightest transgression by us. Can't think that CFG would be that stupid.

[hakz7]

We only filled about 20-21 players in the senior list including Koren before Kennedy and all the injury replacements. So we must have been close to the limit and for that reason didn't sign more players. Only non-injury replacement player signed later (in the cap) on was Clisby but that was after Kalmar left. EDIT: and Safuwan.

Edited April 21, 2015 by hakz7

[Tesla]

We only filled about 20-21 players in the senior list including Koren before Kennedy and all the injury replacements. So we must have been close to the limit and for that reason didn't sign more players. Only non-injury replacement player signed later (in the cap) on was Clisby but that was after Kalmar left. EDIT: and Safuwan.

Unless we had hidden payments as well and so we were really already over the cap when we were officially only near it.

[Deviant]

Would that cfg sharing of debt effect the cap? Or would it just be writing off on admin stuff?

[jw1739]

Would that cfg sharing of debt effect the cap? Or would it just be writing off on admin stuff?

Nothing to do with it. Player payments are player payments.

[Tesla]

The other thing that comes to mind is David Villa. Wasn't it suggested at one point that it wasn't decided if he was going to be a guest player or stay a bit longer as a loanee. Maybe the club fucked it up somehow or the FFA decided to make up a rule on the spot that made it so Villa doesn't count as a guest player and so his salary counted towards the cap.

A few weeks of Villa salary would certainly put us over the cap.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Tesla

[Tesla]

Of course this is all speculation, chances are the whole thing is BS.

[jw1739]

The other thing that comes to mind is David Villa. Wasn't it suggested at one point that it wasn't decided if he was going to be a guest player or stay a bit longer as a loanee. Maybe the club fucked it up somehow or the FFA decided to make up a rule on the spot that made it so Villa doesn't count as a guest player and so his salary counted towards the cap.

A few weeks of Villa salary would certainly put us over the cap.

IIRC the City's official position was that we hoped to get him back before Christmas to play a few more games in his "guest" stint. He wasn't deleted from the club's player list until that didn't eventuate.

 

Don't think he was ever a loan - that was to be Lampard.

Edited April 21, 2015 by jw1739

[Shahanga]

 

I disagree with others in this thread, I think we are the most likely to be over the cap. We basically have 2 marquees under the cap (Duff and Mooy). Plus a decent amount of senior players.

Why do you think I've been calling for JVS to be sacked since like the second game of the season, on paper the squad is very good.

Also I can certainly see CFG disregarding the salary cap TBH.

mooy was aus marquee for first half of the season so that would of massively helped us

 

I thought you were just allowed 1 person, per season per marquee slot.  read that on here somewhere, but as to whether it's true, no idea.

[Peter]

If Perth are the benchmark for the side with a salary cap breach, then the cap is too low. To compete with other codes and simply attract those used to a higher standard of football, players that can complete passes, finish attacking moves, clear the ball sensibly, have an excellent first touch etc. are a must.

I believe the salary cap should stay, but be increased. Perhaps the smaller clubs may need some assistance to remain viable and grow the game in regional centres.

Also I think an extra marquee spot would help bring in better talent to assist the Australian players develop and to make the league more exciting. A second marquee could also be valuable if one doesn't end up being quite as good as first thought. Like Rob...

[jw1739]

Spot on Peter.

 

The bigger and richer clubs can afford a higher cap. FFA can assist the smaller ones. In any case, most of not all of the cap is being paid by FFA now thanks to the new TV deal, so it could easily go to $5m.

 

Make it two marquee players, but no restrictions on nationality.

[haz]

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/football/melbourne-victory-set-to-win-battle-for-star-winger-fahid-ben-khalfallah/story-fnk6rmfl-1227314033367?from=public_rss

Unless the Tards make FBK their marquee surely they'll be close to the cap next season

[Tony999]

My money would be on Lowy FC from Sydney for exceeding the cap. Look at their squad!

[Nate]

My money would be on Lowy FC from Sydney for exceeding the cap. Look at their squad!

Half of them are injury replacements though

[japiedog]

Sydney has to be close, look at the past seasons, they must have pushed the envelope there

Plus the Visitors must be close

 

I sort of agree with a salary cap, but should be raise to 3m

easy for us to say no salary cap, cos the shake n bake is bankrolling us

but what happens when he loses interest and we have no sugar daddy

[jw1739]

Sydney has to be close, look at the past seasons, they must have pushed the envelope there

Plus the Visitors must be close

 

I sort of agree with a salary cap, but should be raise to 3m

easy for us to say no salary cap, cos the shake n bake is bankrolling us

but what happens when he loses interest and we have no sugar daddy

IIRC FFA is paying most or all of the $2.55m cap for each club as a result of the recent TV deal, meaning that the owners are paying out $2.55m less per season than they were a couple of years ago.

Raising the cap to $5m would put the owners back to where they were before, but surely it would raise the standard of the league and therefore ultimately drive more income?

[n i k o]

This is where I think the FFA may be short sighted regarding the matter of Australian players playing in the league. A stronger league and a higher cap would inevitably put Australian players into an environment where the quality of football is much higher than it currently is.

I also think the FFA is backward in its thinking by not allowing more visa players into the league (eg 6 visa plus marquee). If they're in the business of developing future Socceroos then they need to weed out those than wont make it . Forcing teams to have only 5 visa players means you have 2-3 extra Aussie players on the pitch that, honestly speaking, won't ever make it to the NT. We should be having our best Aussies at each club on the pitch and not giving handouts to players that don't deserve it.

[NewConvert]

 

Sydney has to be close, look at the past seasons, they must have pushed the envelope there

Plus the Visitors must be close

 

I sort of agree with a salary cap, but should be raise to 3m

easy for us to say no salary cap, cos the shake n bake is bankrolling us

but what happens when he loses interest and we have no sugar daddy

IIRC FFA is paying most or all of the $2.55m cap for each club as a result of the recent TV deal, meaning that the owners are paying out $2.55m less per season than they were a couple of years ago.

Raising the cap to $5m would put the owners back to where they were before, but surely it would raise the standard of the league and therefore ultimately drive more income?

 

 

I do believe that you are right regarding the FFA effectively paying the players under the cap plus they also guarantee the payments for the marquee players. After the current media rights deal were concluded the PFA asked for a very small salary increase and a guarantee that all players would be paid their contracts. This was to prevent the situation where Clive Palmer did not pay his players at GCU and NQ couldn't pay them.

Although I do agree that the salary cap should be increased I am not so sure that the leap should be to $5M. Ultimately you would be paying Hoffman and a few others a lot more money for effectively the same standard. Don't forget that there will still be 18 (or 19 in the future) Australian players. To raise the standard of these players will not happen overnight it will be an almost generational thing. Bringing in higher paid foreigners does not necessarily mean that they will be better than the current crop nor does it mean that they will improve the standard of the league. After all Zlatan I. failed at Barcelona.

Increasing the number of visa players could be an interesting experiment. Not sure whether that would attract, repel or have no impact on the popularity of the A-League. After all, people do like to go and see the local produce and a team which is mostly comprised of visa players may not hold a wider appeal.

If the A-League was to improve to a new level then perhaps follow the MLS example of providing a funded scouting network for the visa players. Greater investment by the FFA to clubs for infrastructure and other staff.

Of course this could only happen after the next media rights deal.

[japiedog]

 

Sydney has to be close, look at the past seasons, they must have pushed the envelope there

Plus the Visitors must be close

 

I sort of agree with a salary cap, but should be raise to 3m

easy for us to say no salary cap, cos the shake n bake is bankrolling us

but what happens when he loses interest and we have no sugar daddy

IIRC FFA is paying most or all of the $2.55m cap for each club as a result of the recent TV deal, meaning that the owners are paying out $2.55m less per season than they were a couple of years ago.

Raising the cap to $5m would put the owners back to where they were before, but surely it would raise the standard of the league and therefore ultimately drive more income?

 

sorry stand corrected , should raise it to around 4 million 

Edited April 22, 2015 by japiedog

[Tesla]

Honestly forcing the rest of the league down to the financial level of a CCM would be like Chelsea and Man Utd being forced down to the level of Burnley.

Fact is someone like CCM will never be financially powerful, and we shouldn't limit the rest of the league to their level.

Remove the salary cap, allow transfer fees between A-League clubs. Someone like CCM can still do well if they develop players and then sell them on to the bigger clubs in the league, giving them the finances to be competitive. Same with Newcastle, they're losing a quality young player like Hool on a free transfer, if we had no salary cap but allowed transfer fees in the A-League they could surely get at least $100k for him from someone like Sydney FC.

Plus it helps with the development of Australian players when you have teams that are forced to do it to survive.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Tesla

[KSK_47]

I don't know about removing the cap entirely but now we are loaded I think it should be raised.

Also I don't see the point of having no transfer fees between HAL clubs? I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind it

[jw1739]

I don't know about removing the cap entirely but now we are loaded I think it should be raised.

Also I don't see the point of having no transfer fees between HAL clubs? I honestly don't understand the reasoning behind it

Has it ever been explained? It seems to be a taboo subject with commentators.

 

Like you I can see no valid reason for not having transfer fees. 

 

Allowing clubs to have transfer fees would be a further incentive for them to continue to develop youth.

[Thrillhouse]

Free transfers within aleague should be for players not getting game time and moving to play eg clisby

Clubs should have to pay for starters eg hoole

Where young talent like melling fit into that i'm not sure

 

Would like to see the cap increased a little bit and have 2 international marquees while keeping an aussie marquee 

[n i k o]

Honestly forcing the rest of the league down to the financial level of a CCM would be like Chelsea and Man Utd being forced down to the level of Burnley.Fact is someone like CCM will never be financially powerful, and we shouldn't limit the rest of the league to their level.Remove the salary cap, allow transfer fees between A-League clubs. Someone like CCM can still do well if they develop players and then sell them on to the bigger clubs in the league, giving them the finances to be competitive. Same with Newcastle, they're losing a quality young player like Hool on a free transfer, if we had no salary cap but allowed transfer fees in the A-League they could surely get at least $100k for him from someone like Sydney FC.Plus it helps with the development of Australian players when you have teams that are forced to do it to survive.

I agree except with removing the entire salary cap simply because I think there's a 'ceiling' where above that we couldn't get a certain level of player to come to the Aleague. Any player playing in any of the strong domestic competitions around the world would definitely rather stay where they are. The question is what standard of player could we bring where we could build the league around that standard. This is where I think still having a salary cap of 4-5 million could be sustainable for the type of player we could bring in.

Then again maybe I'm wrong.

[Shahanga]

In the 10 years of the A League I've seen Auckland , NQ and Gold Coast go to the wall, Brisbane re-financed twice, jets re-financed, Central Coast re-financed at least once, Sydney refinanced twice (I think), Adelaide refinanced, Perth refinanced and in addition I think Wellington have also been refinanced (by refinanced I mean that all the original capital was consumed and more needed to be raised). Only the Melbourne clubs have avoided this capital destruction.

The league was clearly well short of financially stable - the better TV deal had provided enough money for most clubs to stay viable, but we are not flying yet.

Frankly I don't think the league can afford the large salary cap increase some are advocating.

[Tesla]

If a team can't afford it there is no reason for them to spend more.

Fact is the only way you could argue that the salary cap improves the financial stability of clubs is if it was a hard cap (no marques), and even then I wouldn't really agree that it does much. With it being a soft cap, teams can still spend large sums on salary if they so wish, but obviously it's limited by what budget they have, just as it would be if there's no cap. So it currently makes no difference in regard to financial stability.

It's only an equalising measure, nothing more.

[n i k o]

In the 10 years of the A League I've seen Auckland , NQ and Gold Coast go to the wall, Brisbane re-financed twice, jets re-financed, Central Coast re-financed at least once, Sydney refinanced twice (I think), Adelaide refinanced, Perth refinanced and in addition I think Wellington have also been refinanced (by refinanced I mean that all the original capital was consumed and more needed to be raised). Only the Melbourne clubs have avoided this capital destruction.

The league was clearly well short of financially stable - the better TV deal had provided enough money for most clubs to stay viable, but we are not flying yet.

Frankly I don't think the league can afford the large salary cap increase some are advocating.

I wasn't aware of that. I think your post especially highlights though that a simplistic answer such as 'get rid of the cap' just isn't good enough. There's so many issues that need to be considered for it to be viable. Its just a shame the cap can't be moved to be higher much quicker. Aside from the money side of things, it would boost football in every way in this country.

[Shahanga]

If a team can't afford it there is no reason for them to spend more.

Fact is the only way you could argue that the salary cap improves the financial stability of clubs is if it was a hard cap (no marques), and even then I wouldn't really agree that it does much. With it being a soft cap, teams can still spend large sums on salary if they so wish, but obviously it's limited by what budget they have, just as it would be if there's no cap. So it currently makes no difference in regard to financial stability.

It's only an equalising measure, nothing more.

Come on TeslA surely you know that's just not true. A component of salary caps is to "save clubs from themselves". That's a big reason as to why they were brought in in Australia in the first place.

Another thing to ponder is that the A league currently has this thing (rarely discussed) called a salary floor. Yes that's right there is a minimum salary bill required to be paid by each club. I guess it's to ensure owners maintain the standard of the league but I've always found it strange.

[Tesla]

If a team can't afford it there is no reason for them to spend more.

Fact is the only way you could argue that the salary cap improves the financial stability of clubs is if it was a hard cap (no marques), and even then I wouldn't really agree that it does much. With it being a soft cap, teams can still spend large sums on salary if they so wish, but obviously it's limited by what budget they have, just as it would be if there's no cap. So it currently makes no difference in regard to financial stability.

It's only an equalising measure, nothing more.

Come on TeslA surely you know that's just not true. A component of salary caps is to "save clubs from themselves". That's a big reason as to why they were brought in in Australia in the first place.

Another thing to ponder is that the A league currently has this thing (rarely discussed) called a salary floor. Yes that's right there is a minimum salary bill required to be paid by each club. I guess it's to ensure owners maintain the standard of the league but I've always found it strange.

How does it save clubs from themselves when they can still choose to spend however much they want on salary? Not too mention they can spend however much they want on any other area.

Your other point is my other issue with the salary cap, having a minimum spend does the opposite of helping financial stability.

[mus-28]

Scrapping the cap will lead to clubs overspending just to remain competetive. If clubs only spend what they can afford it would end up a 3 horse race every year, much similar to the SPL had been prior to Rangers punishment and nobody wants that. Until all the clubs become sustainable without continual need for owners to dip into their own pocket the cap needs to stay. 

 

Perhaps increase it by $250k-$350k at the next TV deal to allow clubs to retain their better player who are coming out of contract, something that would've helped Brisbane with Berisha and MV in their current predicament with FBK and Delpierre. Also with the increase in the cap, increase the squad numbers to 25, give clubs the option of more depth and/or investing in getting more young player training in a full time environment.

[Tesla]

Scrapping the cap will lead to clubs overspending just to remain competetive. If clubs only spend what they can afford it would end up a 3 horse race every year, much similar to the SPL had been prior to Rangers punishment and nobody wants that. Until all the clubs become sustainable without continual need for owners to dip into their own pocket the cap needs to stay. 

 

Perhaps increase it by $250k-$350k at the next TV deal to allow clubs to retain their better player who are coming out of contract, something that would've helped Brisbane with Berisha and MV in their current predicament with FBK and Delpierre. Also with the increase in the cap, increase the squad numbers to 25, give clubs the option of more depth and/or investing in getting more young player training in a full time environment.

You're contradicting yourself, you're citing examples from other leagues where different levels of finances just leads to a league dominated by few, while for some reason clubs in the A-League would overspend? All that would happen is what you say, some teams will become more dominant, but it wouldn't be to SPL levels. No idea of the actual numbers, but Celtic probably makes 10 times what the next highest revenue SPL club makes. I'd argue it would make teams more financially stable if you remove the minimum salary, that's the only thing that will force teams to overspend.

The league has reached the point where we cant let a team like CCM be the benchmark we need to drag other teams down to, the Melbourne and Sydney teams, as well as probably Brisbane, can go on and become big teams in Asia, but not if we drag them down to CCM level.

And what you suggest would amount to a reduction in the cap, because teams can currently sign injury replacement players that probably add more than $250-300k salary on average per team (i'm assuming that we wouldnt have injury replacement players in your scenario if squads are bigger)

[NewConvert]

 

Scrapping the cap will lead to clubs overspending just to remain competetive. If clubs only spend what they can afford it would end up a 3 horse race every year, much similar to the SPL had been prior to Rangers punishment and nobody wants that. Until all the clubs become sustainable without continual need for owners to dip into their own pocket the cap needs to stay. 

 

Perhaps increase it by $250k-$350k at the next TV deal to allow clubs to retain their better player who are coming out of contract, something that would've helped Brisbane with Berisha and MV in their current predicament with FBK and Delpierre. Also with the increase in the cap, increase the squad numbers to 25, give clubs the option of more depth and/or investing in getting more young player training in a full time environment.

You're contradicting yourself, you're citing examples from other leagues where different levels of finances just leads to a league dominated by few, while for some reason clubs in the A-League would overspend? All that would happen is what you say, some teams will become more dominant, but it wouldn't be to SPL levels. No idea of the actual numbers, but Celtic probably makes 10 times what the next highest revenue SPL club makes. I'd argue it would make teams more financially stable if you remove the minimum salary, that's the only thing that will force teams to overspend.

The league has reached the point where we cant let a team like CCM be the benchmark we need to drag other teams down to, the Melbourne and Sydney teams, as well as probably Brisbane, can go on and become big teams in Asia, but not if we drag them down to CCM level.

And what you suggest would amount to a reduction in the cap, because teams can currently sign injury replacement players that probably add more than $250-300k salary on average per team (i'm assuming that we wouldnt have injury replacement players in your scenario if squads are bigger)

 

 

You're contradicting yourself, you're citing examples from other leagues where different levels of finances just leads to a league dominated by few, while for some reason clubs in the A-League would overspend?

Well it is always reasonable to see what happens in other market places. Overspending seems to be the norm and then the leagues become dominated by two to four teams. An alternative is to look at Australian football over the decades and we find that this is what happened in the old NSL days. Another alternative is to look at other sports in Australia but then some will complain they are not relevant. The statement that they would not overspend is more of a conjecture than the inverse because the invers is what has historically happened.

 

I'd argue it would make teams more financially stable if you remove the minimum salary, that's the only thing that will force teams to overspend.

 

Again that is a conjecture that if implemented and failed the cost would be enormous to Australian football.

 

The league has reached the point where we cant let a team like CCM be the benchmark we need to drag other teams down

 

CCM has always been competitive until Moss and Charlesworth took over. Under Arnold, they were always top four as well as having discovered and nurtured local talent. Right now Charlesworth is proving as good an owner as Sidwell. And if you accept the theory of clubs cycling through the ladder (which is one of the things a salary cap is assist to do)   then they will eventually turn around.

 

Sorry woke up with my scientist hat on.

[jw1739]

In the 10 years of the A League I've seen Auckland , NQ and Gold Coast go to the wall, Brisbane re-financed twice, jets re-financed, Central Coast re-financed at least once, Sydney refinanced twice (I think), Adelaide refinanced, Perth refinanced and in addition I think Wellington have also been refinanced (by refinanced I mean that all the original capital was consumed and more needed to be raised). Only the Melbourne clubs have avoided this capital destruction.

The league was clearly well short of financially stable - the better TV deal had provided enough money for most clubs to stay viable, but we are not flying yet.

Frankly I don't think the league can afford the large salary cap increase some are advocating.

I would have argued that Melbourne Heart/Melbourne City was re-financed in January 2014 when we were taken over by Manchester City. Without that "re-financing" we would not have our own HQ and training facility at a cost of $15m - that would certainly not have happened under the previous ownership, at least not for a very long time. As far as I am aware, CCM is the only other club to have anything like our facility; to get where it is it has substantial received funds from government and I'm not even sure that the Tuggerah complex is completed yet.

 

So clubs can inf act spend as much as they like on everything bar their playing staff, and seek to gain an advantage over the others by doing so. If we assume that they are behaving responsibly in their spending on everything else, why do we assume that they need to be restricted in their spending on the actual players?

[Shahanga]

Never apologise for being a scientist.

[Tesla]

In the 10 years of the A League I've seen Auckland , NQ and Gold Coast go to the wall, Brisbane re-financed twice, jets re-financed, Central Coast re-financed at least once, Sydney refinanced twice (I think), Adelaide refinanced, Perth refinanced and in addition I think Wellington have also been refinanced (by refinanced I mean that all the original capital was consumed and more needed to be raised). Only the Melbourne clubs have avoided this capital destruction.

The league was clearly well short of financially stable - the better TV deal had provided enough money for most clubs to stay viable, but we are not flying yet.

Frankly I don't think the league can afford the large salary cap increase some are advocating.

I would have argued that Melbourne Heart/Melbourne City was re-financed in January 2014 when we were taken over by Manchester City. Without that "re-financing" we would not have our own HQ and training facility at a cost of $15m - that would certainly not have happened under the previous ownership, at least not for a very long time. As far as I am aware, CCM is the only other club to have anything like our facility; to get where it is it has substantial received funds from government and I'm not even sure that the Tuggerah complex is completed yet.

 

So clubs can inf act spend as much as they like on everything bar their playing staff, and seek to gain an advantage over the others by doing so. If we assume that they are behaving responsibly in their spending on everything else, why do we assume that they need to be restricted in their spending on the actual players?

You've basically said what I've been trying to in a better way. Though again I want to add that while there are restrictions on spending on players, there is no hard cap so again the total spent on players is at the digression of the club (apart from meeting the minimum spend) and again clubs are behaving responsibly in that regard too.