Jump to content
Melbourne Football
Sign in to follow this  
jw1739

The Salary Cap Thread

Recommended Posts

jw1739    6,984

You're quite correct Tesla. There's a cap on what you can pay up to 24 players, but you can actually spend as much as you like on the other two (the marquees). And, as you say, no club has gone over the top with it's marquees - indeed, not all clubs have had marquees every season (Heart being one of them).

 

The salary cap is football's version of the"Nanny state" mentality that pervades our society. But I mustn't get off topic...

 

P.S. I think you mean "discretion" above...

Edited by jw1739

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moraiwe    88

It's only an equalising measure, nothing more.

 

Let's assume this is true.  Can you explain why it's a bad thing to have such an equalising measure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097

You're quite correct Tesla. There's a cap on what you can pay up to 24 players, but you can actually spend as much as you like on the other two (the marquees). And, as you say, no club has gone over the top with it's marquees - indeed, not all clubs have had marquees every season (Heart being one of them).

 

The salary cap is football's version of the"Nanny state" mentality that pervades our society. But I mustn't get off topic...

 

P.S. I think you mean "discretion" above...

Spot on. And yes I did, auto correct on my phone changed it on me.

It's only an equalising measure, nothing more.

 

Let's assume this is true.  Can you explain why it's a bad thing to have such an equalising measure?

I'm not necessarily saying it is. In fact equalising measures are good, but they generally come at a cost. The cost in the instance is bringing the overall quality of the league down.

So that's the debate, how much should we sacrifice in terms of the quality of our league in order to equalise it? I don't mind sacrificing somewhat as a more equal league is more interesting and entertaining and attracts more fans, but we also want a high quality competition.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
malloy    3,114

You're quite correct Tesla. There's a cap on what you can pay up to 24 players, but you can actually spend as much as you like on the other two (the marquees). And, as you say, no club has gone over the top with it's marquees - indeed, not all clubs have had marquees every season (Heart being one of them).

The salary cap is football's version of the"Nanny state" mentality that pervades our society. But I mustn't get off topic...

P.S. I think you mean "discretion" above...

It is actually more akin to communism. Than 'nanny state'. Force everyone to be 'equal' by dragging everyone down to the low achievers level.

I am all for removing the cap, but believe it should be progressively raised over the next 5 seasons or so before completely removing it.

Having transfer fees between clubs is also a necessity. However I would cap the max amount payable. It would increase each year inline with the cap increase and then be scrapped once the salary cap is scrapped.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097

You're quite correct Tesla. There's a cap on what you can pay up to 24 players, but you can actually spend as much as you like on the other two (the marquees). And, as you say, no club has gone over the top with it's marquees - indeed, not all clubs have had marquees every season (Heart being one of them).

The salary cap is football's version of the"Nanny state" mentality that pervades our society. But I mustn't get off topic...

P.S. I think you mean "discretion" above...

It is actually more akin to communism. Than 'nanny state'. Force everyone to be 'equal' by dragging everyone down to the low achievers level.

I am all for removing the cap, but believe it should be progressively raised over the next 5 seasons or so before completely removing it.

Having transfer fees between clubs is also a necessity. However I would cap the max amount payable. It would increase each year inline with the cap increase and then be scrapped once the salary cap is scrapped.

What does capping transfer fees achieve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jun    189

 

You're quite correct Tesla. There's a cap on what you can pay up to 24 players, but you can actually spend as much as you like on the other two (the marquees). And, as you say, no club has gone over the top with it's marquees - indeed, not all clubs have had marquees every season (Heart being one of them).

The salary cap is football's version of the"Nanny state" mentality that pervades our society. But I mustn't get off topic...

P.S. I think you mean "discretion" above...

It is actually more akin to communism. Than 'nanny state'. Force everyone to be 'equal' by dragging everyone down to the low achievers level.

I am all for removing the cap, but believe it should be progressively raised over the next 5 seasons or so before completely removing it.

Having transfer fees between clubs is also a necessity. However I would cap the max amount payable. It would increase each year inline with the cap increase and then be scrapped once the salary cap is scrapped.

 

As with the recent example of communism in China, its gradually become a free market. I think we'll all see the same happen with the A-league as it becomes financially stronger and stronger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    6,984

I really don't follow the argument that "equalizing" the league provides more entertainment and draws more fans, and I'd like to see the evidence that this is the case. I think I can find plenty of football matches where the teams are equal but the matches are neither entertaining nor do they draw more than a handful of spectators.

 

I would have thought that the evidence shows that the higher the standard of football the greater the entertainment and the greater the public interest. Like any other form of show biz. Therefore, if we are to have any form of equalization then let's do it by raising the standard of the poorer clubs rather than lowering, or restricting, the standard of the richer clubs. FFA already has shown itself, in a way, willing to do this by taking ownership or part ownership of various clubs to keep them going.

 

I'm not advocating the immediate removal of the cap. That might produce too much of a shockwave. But least raise it in meaningful steps for several seasons and see what happens. And remove the "Lampard Loan" rule. I cannot see any valid reason why Club A cannot loan Player B to Club C if all parties are happy with the arrangement; why should FFA interfere with that? And introduce transfer fees so clubs can benefit from developing players from wherever they obtain them.

 

In summary make the challenge improvement rather than restriction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewConvert    708

I really don't follow the argument that "equalizing" the league provides more entertainment and draws more fans, and I'd like to see the evidence that this is the case. I think I can find plenty of football matches where the teams are equal but the matches are neither entertaining nor do they draw more than a handful of spectators.

 

I would have thought that the evidence shows that the higher the standard of football the greater the entertainment and the greater the public interest. Like any other form of show biz. Therefore, if we are to have any form of equalization then let's do it by raising the standard of the poorer clubs rather than lowering, or restricting, the standard of the richer clubs. FFA already has shown itself, in a way, willing to do this by taking ownership or part ownership of various clubs to keep them going.

 

I'm not advocating the immediate removal of the cap. That might produce too much of a shockwave. But least raise it in meaningful steps for several seasons and see what happens. And remove the "Lampard Loan" rule. I cannot see any valid reason why Club A cannot loan Player B to Club C if all parties are happy with the arrangement; why should FFA interfere with that? And introduce transfer fees so clubs can benefit from developing players from wherever they obtain them.

 

In summary make the challenge improvement rather than restriction.

 

I can only go by the AFL on this but it is quite common to see larger crowds when the top teams play one another than when a top team plays a hopeless bottom side. IIRC Eddie McGuire complained a few years ago when Collingwood played Melbourne who were being coached by Mark Neeld that the attendance figures dropped drastically causing concern for Collingwood's budget. Even when Heart/City play MV if Heart/City are doing poor the attendance figures drop. So equalizing the teams do provide a way of producing a product of a more consistent quality. Of course if the standards increase across the board and sooner then things will be even better. I don't think there is a quick fix for this other than a generational change, that is, with the state leagues and youth leagues aligning then hopefully better local players will emerge. I am not convinced that increasing the number of visa spots will actually improve the health of the A-League nor the development of the local talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heart_fan    193

I tend to think that the salary cap should stay, but more flexibility in loan deals an an extra marquee spot may well produce better results.

 

As much as the CCM owner tried to suggest that his club would be fine with a removal of a salary cap, the reality is that it would be left behind. We know all too well what having a squad on the cheap can do for supporter confidence, so that seems like an ll considered move on hs behalf.

 

The rumours around the extra 3 clubs breaching the cap, including us, certainly is concerning. The latest seems to suggest the Duff was paid outside the cap, but hey who knows where this rumour really started. I'm guess out west :lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097

I think the Perth situation showed that increasing the cap is probably better than having another marquee. Perth's problem was they didnt have any stand out earners, so they would have been spending less than someone like Sydney FC but Sydney are within the cap and Perth aren't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
n i k o    4,818

So this is where the FFA is at: the loan payments were not allowed before Victory did it, they are not allowed after Victory did it, but they were allowed when Victory did it. Explain that to the fans.

Wouldn't be surprised if this was the case. FFA cherry picking its favourite clubs. All clubs should be audited for this season, but I doubt they'd do that in fear of what they might uncover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Semper Cor    68

Always thought the salary cap was a good thing, clubs don’t potentially put themselves in financial strife and for league competitive reasons.

 

But what we’ve seen happen in Perth and now with MV and the FFA willing to overlook MV paying its’ players outside the cap, it is apparent that there is a strong case for removing the salary cap altogether.

 

There is no point in having a cap if it’s not policed properly or if the organisation responsible for maintaining the cap and competition integrity, the FFA, is willing to cherry pick when and where to apply penalties to salary cap breaches and the type of penalties (Perth gets knocked out of the finals whereas Sydney retains its’ trophies).  It makes the entire concept of having a cap meaningless.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mattyh001    398

the game, the clubs and (most importantly) the sporting scene in Australia are no where near ready to go without a salary cap.  

 

pure and simple, you are begging clubs to throw good money after bad in order to "win" / buy a trophy.  most clubs will go broke / be priced out of any serious long term competitiveness.

 

and for all you out there who dont care because our club now has money, you need to understand the more we push teams out of the league because its too expensive to be competitive, the harder it comes to keep sponsors and fans coming back.

 

sponsors want the big games and regular commercial interest via broadcasting (something that takes more clubs than fewer clubs and teams that are capable sides), while long term fans want more than a half decent game every month.  

 

think how shit it would be to play teams like St Kilda every week.  thats not to say St Kilda wont ever improve, but that is what happens when teams dont have the means to make a change (short or long term).  

 

at least in the AFL they have a draft system and salary cap that force clubs to both top and bottom out every few years.  only the really well managed clubs stay up for longer than they should, but even then just Geelong.  they have been great for the best part of a decade, but even they are now bottoming out.

Edited by mattyh001
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097

Teams won't go broke, they may well be priced out of being competitive though. But teams like CCM and Newcastle will never have the finances of the big city teams, keeping the salary cap in place for a few more years won't change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mattyh001    398

Teams won't go broke, they may well be priced out of being competitive though. But teams like CCM and Newcastle will never have the finances of the big city teams, keeping the salary cap in place for a few more years won't change that.

 

for the most part we might have to agree to disagree here.

 

have a look in Europe - how often do you here of clubs going broke / requiring take over as part of the respective club gambling on a squad only to see the team under perform?  

 

then think about why UEFA has brought in the Financial Fair Play.  in part it is to help have a evener set of comps across Europe, but ultimately its to stop clubs from trying to buy a title and overspending against their revenue streams in the process.

 

what you say with regards to CCM and Newcastle never really having the money is true barring a massive buyout.  ultimately, i see two issues here:

 

1. you will always have some poor teams and some rich teams given the comparative nature of wealth.  the only real way to stop the comparatively "bigger" clubs from always bending over the smaller clubs is to have restrictions on spending.  can't be fully stopped (ie the tards getting Berisha) but at least the A League has minimised for the most part.

 

2. the sporting scene in Australia makes it hard for football to not have teams in places like CCM and Newcastle while the FFA and the A League is starting out / is still quite young.  there are too many other sports and other sporting clubs for football to waltz in and be big from the get go.  the game here has to steadily grow. 

 

having gone to both Newcastle and Gosford this season they are lovely places but they just struggle to have significant big business around the place (where sponsors and owners can more easily change and not negatively impact the game / force a club to become too reliant on one sponsor / owner) the way Melbourne and Sydney do.  will never happen for the regional areas.  

 

this puts the game in a bit of a catch 22.  you want the teams where the money is so they get the commercial investment and have very financially stable clubs, but the time it takes to build a brand indicates that over diluted markets in Melbourne, Sydney, etc., are comparative to what the regional areas can offer opportunities.  regional clubs will always have their limitations (as you point out) leading towards a bit of trouble surrounding long term viability

Edited by mattyh001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Semper Cor    68

The salary cap is favourable for reasons previously mentioned (albeit an increased cap to allow those teams who can to attract and retain better quality players), but as long it is policed properly and enforced by the FFA with transparency and consistency.

 

Integrity is a key part in running any organisation.  If the FFA cannot guarantee that all clubs are salary cap equalled, and so far it hasn’t with the likes of Sydney, Perth, MV and the Jets (and these are the ones we know of), then at the very least a review of the cap and its’ auditing process is required (whistle blowers don’t count).  If not, the integrity of the cap and the HAL can be called into question.

 

FFP isn’t an equalising measure if anything it has ensured that the ‘big’ clubs stay top of the spending tree while putting up brick walls to other clubs who aspire to grow, therefore limiting the prospect of a breakaway super league which was touted by the now defunct G14 (something UEFA was vehemently against because of lost $).

 

Yes it does force clubs to spend within their means, although a lot of clubs still operate in the red, but it does nothing to ensure competitiveness as the top clubs are still buying titles.

 

At the end of the day, a good portion of success really comes down to good management, whether you’re in a salary capped league or not [insert QPR wage bill here].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shahanga    3,507

lol if the loan rule gets changed for next season. Clearly just targeted at Lampard. Unbelievable isn't the right word, perhaps "typical" is more apt.

Honestly that article was hilarious. If you brought in all those salary cap "concessions" it would be a hell of a lot simpler just to scrap the salary cap. I reckon you either have a cap or you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dylan    4,132

lol if the loan rule gets changed for next season. Clearly just targeted at Lampard.Unbelievable isn't the right word, perhaps "typical" is more apt.

Honestly that article was hilarious. If you brought in all those salary cap "concessions" it would be a hell of a lot simpler just to scrap the salary cap. I reckon you either have a cap or you don't.

All visa players exempt. All aus payers under 21 exempt. 3mil cap for the rest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dylan    4,132

Apparently this 'loyalty allowance' is going to be approved. So we get additional cap space as compensation along with WSW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    6,984

Apparently this 'loyalty allowance' is going to be approved. So we get additional cap space as compensation along with WSW.

How is this supposed to work? I thought it was directed at long-serving players e.g. Geelong Victory and Archie Thompson - they are allowed to go over the salary cap by $200,00 for him without him being Australian Marquee because he's been with them for however many seasons?

So I thought it was actually a penalty for us and WSW...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
malloy    3,114

How is this supposed to work? I thought it was directed at long-serving players e.g. Geelong Victory and Archie Thompson - they are allowed to go over the salary cap by $200,00 for him without him being Australian Marquee because he's been with them for however many seasons?

So I thought it was actually a penalty for us and WSW...?

he is saying that as we are penalised by this new rule due to us not being around very long, we will receive a larger salary cap as compensation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    6,984

Just another FFA "rule" that clubs will find a way around.

Just increase the salary cap by the $200,000 and be done with it and let the clubs spend the extra how they wish (or not spend it if they don't).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
n i k o    4,818

Just another FFA "rule" that clubs will find a way around.

Just increase the salary cap by the $200,000 and be done with it and let the clubs spend the extra how they wish (or not spend it if they don't).

That's too simple and rational. Pull your head in. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    6,984

The current debate on whether to elevate Fornoroli to marquee status next season, and the way he and Novillo have changed the whole vibe around the way City are playing just emphasises how FFA needs to change its thinking on the various restrictions applying to the A-League at the moment.

For starters I think we should increase the number of allowed marquees to three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dylan    4,132
7 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

The current debate on whether to elevate Fornoroli to marquee status next season, and the way he and Novillo have changed the whole vibe around the way City are playing just emphasises how FFA needs to change its thinking on the various restrictions applying to the A-League at the moment.

For starters I think we should increase the number of allowed marquees to three.

Id be more inclined to make all Visa spots out of the cap and move to a 3+1

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    6,984
53 minutes ago, Dylan said:

Id be more inclined to make all Visa spots out of the cap and move to a 3+1

I'd be happy with that too. More than happy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tesla    8,097
6 hours ago, Dylan said:

Id be more inclined to make all Visa spots out of the cap and move to a 3+1

All visa players outside of cap and 1 Australian player outside the cap (marquee).

Obviously the cap would have to be adjusted.

But then you basically ensure that the visa players coming over are really good ones since it's the main way teams can gain an advantage over others. You also ensure a fairly equal distribution of Australian talent as that's where the wealthier clubs can most flex their financial muscle. Makes a lot more sense than the current system.

Though I don't like 3+1, obviously the advantage is aligning our rules with Asia, but I think we need more foreigners than that. I wouldn't mind 4+1 though, I think we definitely do need a +1 for an Asian player in our rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xXJawsaXx    343
6 minutes ago, Tesla said:

All visa players outside of cap and 1 Australian player outside the cap (marquee).

Obviously the cap would have to be adjusted.

But then you basically ensure that the visa players coming over are really good ones since it's the main way teams can gain an advantage over others. You also ensure a fairly equal distribution of Australian talent as that's where the wealthier clubs can most flex their financial muscle. Makes a lot more sense than the current system.

Though I don't like 3+1, obviously the advantage is aligning our rules with Asia, but I think we need more foreigners than that. I wouldn't mind 4+1 though, I think we definitely do need a +1 for an Asian player in our rules.

China uses 4+1 if I remember correctly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewConvert    708
17 hours ago, Dylan said:

Id be more inclined to make all Visa spots out of the cap and move to a 3+1

Not sure on this. That would be an advantage for the four financial powerhouses of WSW, Sydney, MV and MC but that would leave the rest of the competition to fight for fifth and sixth spot. The competition is already lopsided enough although eleven seasons still not enough to make a definitive judgement on that.

As far as development of the local players, I am not sure how much benefit they would derive from this. I don't look towards the ME with all their petro dollars and reknowned players developing players of world stature, nor China for that matter. I look towards the Japanese and South Korean leagues and I don't see big name players being lured there but I do see development.

Then of course what would happen if we did get some huge names who still can play - would that make JVS a better manager? It certainly would hide some of the flaws. And newbies would swamp this forum telling us how great JVS is.

Also, even if you did have a spectacular four visa players (say including Honda) it could possibly become a case of pass the ball to Honda and be done with it. Coming over from the AFL I still recall Saint supporters screaming kick it to Lockett or Magpies screaming kick it to Buckley. And we saw some of that when ADP first arrived in Sydney. So I don't believe that it would be that beneficial.

In one aspect this would be kowtowing to the Euro snobs because they would then come along to see the big names whose salary are outside the cap.

I do believe that the +1 rule, that is,  a visa player should be from the AFC and that would bring some benefit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jw1739    6,984

I think you have to ask yourself where growth of the league - in any sense, clubs, quality, crowds etc. -  is going to come from if we simply jog along under the present highly-regulated system, which, despite those regulations designed to "protect" the supposedly smaller clubs still sees at least one requiring financial assistance from FFA on a regular basis - currently it's Newcastle (wholly owned by FFA). IMO we see from what has happened so far with Melbourne City (e.g. "Lampard") that new investment in the league is likely to be hindered by the highly-regulated system, which acts as a disincentive to such investment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deviant    1,491
29 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I think you have to ask yourself where growth of the league - in any sense, clubs, quality, crowds etc. -  is going to come from if we simply jog along under the present highly-regulated system, which, despite those regulations designed to "protect" the supposedly smaller clubs still sees at least one requiring financial assistance from FFA on a regular basis - currently it's Newcastle (wholly owned by FFA). IMO we see from what has happened so far with Melbourne City (e.g. "Lampard") that new investment in the league is likely to be hindered by the highly-regulated system, which acts as a disincentive to such investment.

Unfortunately, we can only move forward at the rate of our slowest member. In this case it's Newy.

Now there's talks of Carney moving to Sydney FC. FFA must want some money back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NewConvert    708
41 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I think you have to ask yourself where growth of the league - in any sense, clubs, quality, crowds etc. -  is going to come from if we simply jog along under the present highly-regulated system, which, despite those regulations designed to "protect" the supposedly smaller clubs still sees at least one requiring financial assistance from FFA on a regular basis - currently it's Newcastle (wholly owned by FFA). IMO we see from what has happened so far with Melbourne City (e.g. "Lampard") that new investment in the league is likely to be hindered by the highly-regulated system, which acts as a disincentive to such investment.

In my head there are two models for boosting growth of the A-League: the get international stars to generate enough momentum model (similar to what the MLS did) or to grow organically (which is what we are experiencing now).

The first model had two attempts with the first one ending up unsuccessful but the second one succeeding. This also came in with the ability to build stadiums.

The second model can be successful as the average attendance figure for MV show when in the first season they had an average attendance of 16K and last season 25K (source wikipedia); MC has also had an up ward trajectory but both clubs have had their ups and downs. Sydney seems to be all over the place.

Can the first model succeed in Australia? Hard to know but the risks are quite substantial in that if the losses are massive then the whole A-League will go broke. basketball suffered a similar fate and these days they are a semi-professional league.

The second model changes the type of risk into one of stagnation - eventually leading to financial risk. This can be seen in the case of CCM/NJ/PG.

For me the first approach carries too much financial risk and the A-League does not have a sugar daddy like the MLS did to carry the losses.

The second model is failing. Here, however it can be fixed because a primary root cause is the people at the FFA and A-League in the names of Gallop and De Brohun. On a personal note, my sister in law was working in a senior position at a particular NGO and one of the fund raisers was a bloke who was well connected in money circles but the amounts being raised were not good enough. So they took a big risk by bringing in an English bloke with no connections in Australia but had worked for the NGO in England for many years. In his first year he had tripled the amount of money raised.

I seriously believe that we need to bring in someone from Europe to run the FFA and the A-League. Someone with serious nous. My preference would be an administrator from the EPL because they know about Murdoch. They could also look at the rules and stop the ad-hoc rule making. I don't mind if they change the rules at the end of the season but not on the run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×