MaliMate Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 As I've said 100 times before, there is a perfectly simple solution: Dump the salary cap. I reckon a Luxury Tax for a decade or 2 before completely eliminating a cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinnamon Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 I'm all for relaxing the cap but I can't see the ffa going too quickly on it until the league has expanded to a size (no. of clubs wise) that they would consider the long term goal. I imagine they would consider the cap as a form of protection for newly established teams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonyboozeadams Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 I wonder if they see a removal of the cap as a long term strategy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 I wonder if they see a removal of the cap as a long term strategy But that would be immoral and perhaps even worse... not inclusive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestr Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Salary cap to start the comp in Australia was a necessary equalizer. 10 years on and FFA must begin to relax the rules or at minimum lift the cap by 50% Total removal by 2020 or its always going to be Micky mouse league 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofhearts Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Keep the salary cap because then teams have to actually work on becoming successful rather then just buying success. We don't want to turn into the league La Liga for instance where only 2 clubs have a chance of winning the league each year. 'But money doesn't always buy success' Sure but it's a good place to start isn't it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red or Dead Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Keep the salary cap because then teams have to actually work on becoming successful rather then just buying success. We don't want to turn into the league La Liga for instance where only 2 clubs have a chance of winning the league each year. 'But money doesn't always buy success' Sure but it's a good place to start isn't it? Atletico? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) Keep the salary cap because then teams have to actually work on becoming successful rather then just buying success. We don't want to turn into the league La Liga for instance where only 2 clubs have a chance of winning the league each year. 'But money doesn't always buy success' Sure but it's a good place to start isn't it? Who gives a fuck if the other shitty clubs in the comp like West Sydney and Adelaide can't win the league with no Salary Cap in place... We still could and that is all that matters to me. Edited August 15, 2014 by cadete 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-aram92 Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 The question I have is did FFA only decide to change this rule once they got wind of Lampard coming as well as Villa ? ... It seems so otherwise the club wouldn't have tried for Lampard and that is what is farked ! If the loan player arrangements was really such an issue then what should have happened is they should have changed the rule at the conclusion of last season and then publicised it then along with their reasons. It's not as if they didn't know the ownership model for our club and what it potentially meant in terms of access to players across teams when last season ended. It is reactive FFA bullshit like this whereby they change things on the fly to try and stamp their authority all over our club, which really sucks and is probably the reason things haven't happened as much as we would have liked during this off season. It was often said we needed Sydney's accountants. We then inherited undoubtedly the best money men money can buy ... so FFA go and change the rules midstream. Double standards at play and I just hope CFG is taking note and planning on doing what is required to ultimately stick it up FFA and make our club a powerhouse. That's what I'm thinking too. The FFA never had a problem with the loan deals until we flirt the idea of getting Lampard. Behich was ok. Troisi was ok. Rogic was ok. But hold on hold on. Lampard's too good, we better stop this! The FFA should have stamped this out at the conclusion of last season because it's not a loophole that's just been discovered. It's simply a loophole that hasn't been able to be fully exploited because of the financial limitations of each club. Now that we have no real financial limitations, we can exploit the rule as much as we like and that is when the FFA decide to change it! It's ridiculous because you either have an issue with the loans or you don't. You don't just change the rules because one potential loan player is too good and will give us an unfair advantage. They're pretty much saying 'we don't mind Victory getting Rogic because we feel that he isn't good enough to really give Victory an advantage and make the league unfair for everyone else. But Lampard, no he will give Melbourne too much of an advantage and we can't have that! Either you go to Sydney, or we change the rule!' All in all, I'm not saying I disagree with this change in the rule by any means, I'm simply saying that their reasons for changing it are wrong! As said above, the rule should have been changed end of last season and not simply because a team other than Sydney is able to get someone like Lampard on loan. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiro Kompiro Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Apparantly Roar owners tried to loan on of their Indonesian club players for nothing before we tried with Lampard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinnamon Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Apparantly Roar owners tried to loan on of their Indonesian club players for nothing before we tried with Lampard. Tbf that might have been market value 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofhearts Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Keep the salary cap because then teams have to actually work on becoming successful rather then just buying success. We don't want to turn into the league La Liga for instance where only 2 clubs have a chance of winning the league each year. 'But money doesn't always buy success' Sure but it's a good place to start isn't it? Who gives a fuck if the other shitty clubs in the comp like West Sydney and Adelaide can't win the league with no Salary Cap in place... We still could and that is all that matters to me. Fair enough but kiss goodbye players like mauk and garrucio because why would we bother with any youth players when we can just buy a winning team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyheart Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Just shits me that they do this yet at the same time were reportedly putting money up for Sydney to bring Cahill home. Promotion of the league etc, Double standards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewmac Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Salary cap is sooooo AFL no decent football competition in the world has one & also if u finish top at the end of season you are champions none of this play off Shiite either !! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofhearts Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Salary cap is sooooo AFL no decent football competition in the world has one & also if u finish top at the end of season you are champions none of this play off Shiite either !! Keep the grand final and lets have a draft too, more afl the better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cadete Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) Keep the salary cap because then teams have to actually work on becoming successful rather then just buying success. We don't want to turn into the league La Liga for instance where only 2 clubs have a chance of winning the league each year. 'But money doesn't always buy success' Sure but it's a good place to start isn't it? Who gives a fuck if the other shitty clubs in the comp like West Sydney and Adelaide can't win the league with no Salary Cap in place... We still could and that is all that matters to me. Fair enough but kiss goodbye players like mauk and garrucio because why would we bother with any youth players when we can just buy a winning team? I really fail to see your point. I do not care at all who it is that has to leave this new club in order for it to win more of it games and claim trophies. Edited August 15, 2014 by cadete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Keep the salary cap because then teams have to actually work on becoming successful rather then just buying success. We don't want to turn into the league La Liga for instance where only 2 clubs have a chance of winning the league each year. 'But money doesn't always buy success' Sure but it's a good place to start isn't it?Who gives a fuck if the other shitty clubs in the comp like West Sydney and Adelaide can't win the league with no Salary Cap in place... We still could and that is all that matters to me. Fair enough but kiss goodbye players like mauk and garrucio because why would we bother with any youth players when we can just buy a winning team?I don't know why people assume ridiculous scenarios like this just because the restriction of the salary cap will be remove.We actually don't really have a salary "cap" as two players can already be paid unlimited $ outside of the cap, thus making our potential salary expenditure unlimited, just like clubs all over the world.And just like clubs all over the world, who potentially can spend unlimited $ if they so wished and had the resources to, we still have a player salary budget.For most clubs in the league, I doubt their salary budget would change much regardless of the salary cap being in place or not, just the way it will be used will probably differ. For us, you could argue it would be higher because we did want to bring in a guy like lampard and spend more than we're going to end up spending, but I still doubt it will be much more than we are currently spending on player salaries.So to say there is no place for young players, or even squad players, just because the salary cap is removed is ridiculous. Especially given that youth development is part of Man City's interest in buying us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewmelbcity Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Keep the salary cap because then teams have to actually work on becoming successful rather then just buying success. We don't want to turn into the league La Liga for instance where only 2 clubs have a chance of winning the league each year. 'But money doesn't always buy success' Sure but it's a good place to start isn't it?Who gives a fuck if the other shitty clubs in the comp like West Sydney and Adelaide can't win the league with no Salary Cap in place... We still could and that is all that matters to me. Fair enough but kiss goodbye players like mauk and garrucio because why would we bother with any youth players when we can just buy a winning team? I don't know why people assume ridiculous scenarios like this just because the restriction of the salary cap will be remove. We actually don't really have a salary "cap" as two players can already be paid unlimited $ outside of the cap, thus making our potential salary expenditure unlimited, just like clubs all over the world. And just like clubs all over the world, who potentially can spend unlimited $ if they so wished and had the resources to, we still have a player salary budget. For most clubs in the league, I doubt their salary budget would change much regardless of the salary cap being in place or not, just the way it will be used will probably differ. For us, you could argue it would be higher because we did want to bring in a guy like lampard and spend more than we're going to end up spending, but I still doubt it will be much more than we are currently spending on player salaries. So to say there is no place for young players, or even squad players, just because the salary cap is removed is ridiculous. Especially given that youth development is part of Man City's interest in buying us. Especially if there is still only four foreign spots, not as if we can load our team up with players like koren and duff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofhearts Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Keep the salary cap because then teams have to actually work on becoming successful rather then just buying success. We don't want to turn into the league La Liga for instance where only 2 clubs have a chance of winning the league each year. 'But money doesn't always buy success' Sure but it's a good place to start isn't it? Who gives a fuck if the other shitty clubs in the comp like West Sydney and Adelaide can't win the league with no Salary Cap in place... We still could and that is all that matters to me. Fair enough but kiss goodbye players like mauk and garrucio because why would we bother with any youth players when we can just buy a winning team? I really fail to see your point. I do not care at all who it is that has to leave this new club in order for it to win more of it games and claim trophies. A salary cap forces clubs to promote and play local talent, due to the fact you can't just sign any player you won't from overseas. I was talking in regards with the national team, if we don't keep the salary cap on we'll end up like the English national team, due to the fact clubs will also choose to buy success rather then put time and effort into developing players. you don't really care about the national team so I guess this doesn't really apply to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulhollanddrive Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 How come nobody wanted the salary cap gone before Feb 2014? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiro Kompiro Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 How come nobody wanted the salary cap gone before Feb 2014? Because were poor. Now we're rich, thats other people's problem. The PPP- the poor people's problem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drewmelbcity Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 How come nobody wanted the salary cap gone before Feb 2014? Because were poor. Now we're rich, thats other people's problem. The PPP- the poor people's problem. I agree we are rich I want a title, and I want to see better players in our league either with us or against us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) A salary cap forces clubs to promote and play local talent, due to the fact you can't just sign any player you won't from overseas. I was talking in regards with the national team, if we don't keep the salary cap on we'll end up like the English national team, due to the fact clubs will also choose to buy success rather then put time and effort into developing players.1. See the post above yours, it's not the salary cap that stops any player from overseas being signed, but the visa player limits.2. What's wrong with the English NT? They have the best group of young talent they've had in a long time.3. I'd argue England have better limits on foreign players than we do TBH, you actually have to be a good player to get a visa there, here basically anyone can be signed as a visa player as long as the club stays within it's quota.4. #2 & #3 are actually irrelevant because of #1. How come nobody wanted the salary cap gone before Feb 2014?I did. Edited August 15, 2014 by Tesla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombegongal Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Keep the salary cap because then teams have to actually work on becoming successful rather then just buying success. We don't want to turn into the league La Liga for instance where only 2 clubs have a chance of winning the league each year. 'But money doesn't always buy success' Sure but it's a good place to start isn't it? Who gives a fuck if the other shitty clubs in the comp like West Sydney and Adelaide can't win the league with no Salary Cap in place... We still could and that is all that matters to me. Fair enough but kiss goodbye players like mauk and garrucio because why would we bother with any youth players when we can just buy a winning team? I really fail to see your point. I do not care at all who it is that has to leave this new club in order for it to win more of it games and claim trophies. A salary cap forces clubs to promote and play local talent, due to the fact you can't just sign any player you won't from overseas. I was talking in regards with the national team, if we don't keep the salary cap on we'll end up like the English national team, due to the fact clubs will also choose to buy success rather then put time and effort into developing players. you don't really care about the national team so I guess this doesn't really apply to you. The english team is terrible due the ratio of international players to english players. Simply put there should be no cap on the 4 visa spots. A cap should be maintained for Australian players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
belaguttman Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) As I've said 100 times before, there is a perfectly simple solution: Dump the salary cap. this. the best leagues aren't capped In the absence of promotion/relegation, removing the salary cap would quickly divide the teams into rich and poor. The quality at the top would go up but the quality at the bottom wouldn't. I think that this would adversely affect growth in cities that had teams that never had a hope of winning but also never had to fight relegation. It would also make it very hard for future new teams to be competitive unless they were bankrolled by a money bags from the beginning. It certainly has disadvantages, especially when competing in the AFC however it creates a pretty even competition and on balance I'm for it. Edited August 15, 2014 by belaguttman 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted August 15, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) What a bloody pathetic move by the FFA. Effectively killing off well paid loan players in the A League because their parent clubs don't have to fit their wages into a paltry $2.5 million salary cap and it will be impossible for the A League club to have them because the salary they are paid by their parent club has to fit into this pathetically low FFA mandated salary cap. Another bloody pathetic move by FFA to lower the quality of the A League. The AFL must be laughing at this! We have administrators in charge of the A League putting in pathetic, non competitive restrictions preventing clubs from getting to their true potential. Where is their experience with the EPL, Serie A etc? Or is their experience with a one nation professional code such as Aussie Rules or with Rugby - again hardly a professional worldwide game. Now how do A League clubs go about challenging these administrators? Edited August 15, 2014 by Parrot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heart of Melbourne Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 Introduce peptides and we have a circus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonyboozeadams Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 and players betting against their own teams, and players raping women............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yelawolf Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 surely they could do a dodgy e.g. give Lampard a contract worth peanuts, while he played here, then once he goes to new york or wherever the cunt is going give him more $$$$ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 The key question is:How the fuck is the FFA going to know what he is being paid by New York?Surely this is an easy rule to get around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n i k o Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 To be honest I don't want us to get around it. If we need lampard to win matches then that's pathetic. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malloy Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 The key question is: How the fuck is the FFA going to know what he is being paid by New York? Surely this is an easy rule to get around. They would probably bring in some centrelinkesque deeming rules. Where if the player is on significantly lower wages then the ffa determines their market value wages. Whilst I do agree the salary cap should go, I do think it should be lifted incrementally so as to not cause a large shock or disparity between clubs. I also think it is time to allow transfer fees between clubs albeit capped. Around 300k would be reasonable to start off with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulhollanddrive Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 He and Villa won't be around for finals anyway, so no point being good enough for a couple of months then fall away to nothing like 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesla Posted August 15, 2014 Report Share Posted August 15, 2014 (edited) The key question is:How the fuck is the FFA going to know what he is being paid by New York?Surely this is an easy rule to get around.They would probably bring in some centrelinkesque deeming rules. Where if the player is on significantly lower wages then the ffa determines their market value wages. Whilst I do agree the salary cap should go, I do think it should be lifted incrementally so as to not cause a large shock or disparity between clubs. I also think it is time to allow transfer fees between clubs albeit capped. Around 300k would be reasonable to start off with.I agree about the salary cap going incrementally, I have mentioned the idea of an Asian marquee previously, which would be another marquee that can be from any AFC nation (including Australia). Or you can just increase the actual cap amount, but that's no fun.Could also do something like let teams buy an extra marquee spot for $250k or something and that's distributed amongst the other teams, helping with equality.Transfer fees and salary cap are incompatible IMO, so should only happen when the salary cap is gone, or at least almost gone (if we go down an incremental route) Edited August 15, 2014 by Tesla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted August 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) FFA have made it clear they have the right to deem what an appropriate salary is for the player on loan, which effectively rules out all A League clubs from bringing in well paid players on loans. So no sooner are overseas clubs deeming the A League is strong enough to send their players to A League clubs on loan then our administrators kill off a way to improve the quality of our competition. Absolutely bloody ridiculous. I cannot believe it. Imagine the massive amount of free promotion worth a small fortune plus the added interest in the A League if Lampard was coming to the A League on loan. We need new administrators with administrative experience in a non salary capped football environment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but when it comes to experience all we have are ex AFL people - absolutely useless because AFL is only played professionally in one country or ex Australian Rugby people. Rugby is only played professionally in a few countries, unlike football. Edited August 16, 2014 by Parrot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSK_47 Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Surely this is an easy rule to get around. The FFA make shit up as they go along. So they would create some new rule preventing it regardless, even if the same ruling didnt apply somebody else at another club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-aram92 Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 That's right ksk. They have their own agenda. If they see something they don't like, they make a new rule against it. It's like I was saying before, the loan rule isn't new. It's been around for years and teams have been using the rule consistently. So why now? Why when a player like lampard is able to come here, you now decide that the rule has to change? They fail to see the upside in lampard coming here and that's only inhibiting the growth of the league. Salary caps and finals series are definitely too much like afl. This sport is not afl. As exciting as a finals series is, all it does is potentially lead to the best team not winning the title because they may have one bad game at the end. The best team over the course of the season is the champion IMO, not who performs better in one game at the end 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofhearts Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 That's right ksk. They have their own agenda. If they see something they don't like, they make a new rule against it. It's like I was saying before, the loan rule isn't new. It's been around for years and teams have been using the rule consistently. So why now? Why when a player like lampard is able to come here, you now decide that the rule has to change? They fail to see the upside in lampard coming here and that's only inhibiting the growth of the league. Salary caps and finals series are definitely too much like afl. This sport is not afl. As exciting as a finals series is, all it does is potentially lead to the best team not winning the title because they may have one bad game at the end. The best team over the course of the season is the champion IMO, not who performs better in one game at the end If you're really the best team over the course of the season, you should be able to step up when it counts most in the finals, or quite clearly you are not the best team. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedaik Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) That's right ksk. They have their own agenda. If they see something they don't like, they make a new rule against it. It's like I was saying before, the loan rule isn't new. It's been around for years and teams have been using the rule consistently. So why now? Why when a player like lampard is able to come here, you now decide that the rule has to change? They fail to see the upside in lampard coming here and that's only inhibiting the growth of the league. Salary caps and finals series are definitely too much like afl. This sport is not afl. As exciting as a finals series is, all it does is potentially lead to the best team not winning the title because they may have one bad game at the end. The best team over the course of the season is the champion IMO, not who performs better in one game at the end If you're really the best team over the course of the season, you should be able to step up when it counts most in the finals, or quite clearly you are not the best team. Not necessarily. With such low scoring, the best team doesnt always win in soccer. Finals are great, but winning the GF shouldn't be more prestigious than finishing on top of the ladder at the end of the season. Edited August 16, 2014 by hedaik 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted August 16, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 It's just a pity those who prevented Lampard from joining us on loan aren't forced to pay out of their own pockets the hundreds of thousands of dollars in free mainstream media publicity the A League would have received. We need some quality, experienced football administrators for the A League who have worked previously in an overseas professional football environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.