Salary Cap question

[White Winmar]

Just throwing this out there for anyone who knows. The Swines get an extra 800K or so in their salary cap as compensation for the supposedly greater cost of living in Sydney. Is the extra money evenly distributed among the entire list, e.g. everyone gets an extra 20K, or are the Swines free to use the extra cap money on recruits? I fear the latter is the case, and if so, it's another disgraceful example off the AFL's bias and determination to see the Swines succeed at any cost. Any thoughts or facts?

[shmic_s]

Impossible to answer. Just means they have a higher cap. It can be used how ever they want.
You could say Tommy Walsh is getting a portion, or that Josh Kennedy is getting the $800k.

Like saying that your mate earns an extra $2k a year. Did it buy him the TV he bought in March, the holiday in December or the fuel bill for his Monaro?

[bergholt]

Just throwing this out there for anyone who knows. The Swines get an extra 800K or so in their salary cap as compensation for the supposedly greater cost of living in Sydney. Is the extra money evenly distributed among the entire list, e.g. everyone gets an extra 20K, or are the Swines free to use the extra cap money on recruits? I fear the latter is the case, and if so, it's another disgraceful example off the AFL's bias and determination to see the Swines succeed at any cost. Any thoughts or facts?

Money's fungible, which means it all looks the same. If I give you a hundred bucks to pay a parking fine, we go out drinking and you spend that hundred bucks, then pay the parking fine from your credit card, does that mean you didn't spend my hundred bucks on the parking fine? Of course not.

Same with Sydney. I do believe, though, that their new draftee contracts - which are always set by the AFL + AFLPA - are a fixed percentage higher than everyone else's. But after that first contract the numbers are just the numbers.

[Dis Believer]

Just throwing this out there for anyone who knows. The Swines get an extra 800K or so in their salary cap as compensation for the supposedly greater cost of living in Sydney. Is the extra money evenly distributed among the entire list, e.g. everyone gets an extra 20K, or are the Swines free to use the extra cap money on recruits? I fear the latter is the case, and if so, it's another disgraceful example off the AFL's bias and determination to see the Swines succeed at any cost. Any thoughts or facts?

Money's fungible, which means it all looks the same. If I give you a hundred bucks to pay a parking fine, we go out drinking and you spend that hundred bucks, then pay the parking fine from your credit card, does that mean you didn't spend my hundred bucks on the parking fine? Of course not.

Same with Sydney. I do believe, though, that their new draftee contracts - which are always set by the AFL + AFLPA - are a fixed percentage higher than everyone else's. But after that first contract the numbers are just the numbers.

So 4 guys a year get an extra $10k and the other $760k goes into "consoilidated revenue" so to speak. Hmmm, that seems fair.......

[dragit]

I read from their CEO or president that 10% is added to every players contract... Meaning that Tippett would have been getting nearly 100 clams just to cover the rent difference and price of bread.

The only players that would need a cost of living allowance would be those earning under $100,000, which would be what? 8 players max?

[noob]

I know its unrelated but does the Sydney NRL teams get more in the salary cap than what Melbourne Storm do, based on that the Swans get more than the Victorian teams?

[saintspremiers]

It should just be the bottom quartile that get 10% extra. Surely that would be a lot less than $800K

It's crazy if a player on $300K gets an extra living allowance.

I assume the AFL aren't smart enough or care enough to structure it sensibly.

[fingers]

they can use it any wat they want. Some have called for greater transperancy in allocation. eg. Allocate the the regular salary cap and then if they have an extra 10% then everyone should get an extra 10% on top. So Goodes on $600,000 gets an extra $60k and some other guy on $150k gets an etra $15k. The gripe at the moment is that they can use the extra $800k to get an extra big name player.

[chook23]

they can use it any wat they want. Some have called for greater transperancy in allocation. eg. Allocate the the regular salary cap and then if they have an extra 10% then everyone should get an extra 10% on top. So Goodes on $600,000 gets an extra $60k and some other guy on $150k gets an etra $15k. The gripe at the moment is that they can use the extra $800k to get an extra big name player.

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.

[SaintPav]

Just throwing this out there for anyone who knows. The Swines get an extra 800K or so in their salary cap as compensation for the supposedly greater cost of living in Sydney. Is the extra money evenly distributed among the entire list, e.g. everyone gets an extra 20K, or are the Swines free to use the extra cap money on recruits? I fear the latter is the case, and if so, it's another disgraceful example off the AFL's bias and determination to see the Swines succeed at any cost. Any thoughts or facts?

Good question. If it was done properly then the salary cap would be the same as all teams and players would then get an extra 10% living allowance on top of what they are paid so it would be a pure allowance.

[dragit]

Just throwing this out there for anyone who knows. The Swines get an extra 800K or so in their salary cap as compensation for the supposedly greater cost of living in Sydney. Is the extra money evenly distributed among the entire list, e.g. everyone gets an extra 20K, or are the Swines free to use the extra cap money on recruits? I fear the latter is the case, and if so, it's another disgraceful example off the AFL's bias and determination to see the Swines succeed at any cost. Any thoughts or facts?

Good question. If it was done properly then the salary cap would be the same as all teams and players would then get an extra 10% living allowance on top of what they are paid so it would be a pure allowance.

This is how it working currently, but still doesn't make sense, a $700,000 player getting an extra $70,000 per year - for cost of living difference? WTF.

The cost of rent and food is not an issue for most people earning over $100,000, let alone blokes earning well over $500,000.

[bergholt]

they can use it any wat they want. Some have called for greater transperancy in allocation. eg. Allocate the the regular salary cap and then if they have an extra 10% then everyone should get an extra 10% on top. So Goodes on $600,000 gets an extra $60k and some other guy on $150k gets an etra $15k.

That makes no sense. So you think they'll say to Goodes: "OK mate, you're signing for $600k", and he'll accept that, and then when it comes to payday he'll be surprised that he actually got $660k?

Nope. If Goodes negotiates a deal of $600k then they'll sign him for $545k or so and then adding the 10% will make it $600k again. So they'll still have the $800k to spend however they like.

[Sainter_Dad]

What astounds me is that most of these guys would have bought property - which may be more expensive - but when they sell it at the end of their contract, they get more for it. They don't give that back - I would think swings and roundabouts - 5% capital growth on a property in Sydney yields higher returns than 5% in Craigieburn (in a purely dollar format) so if they need to put their extra 10% towards buying a higher priced piece of real estate - they should have to give it back when it is sold.

Take away the cost of living allowance - or better still cap it at what an average footballers spends on the basket of goods (staples, electricity etc) but exclude any and all payments that go towards real estate or savings.

[fingers]

they can use it any wat they want. Some have called for greater transperancy in allocation. eg. Allocate the the regular salary cap and then if they have an extra 10% then everyone should get an extra 10% on top. So Goodes on $600,000 gets an extra $60k and some other guy on $150k gets an etra $15k.

That makes no sense. So you think they'll say to Goodes: "OK mate, you're signing for $600k", and he'll accept that, and then when it comes to payday he'll be surprised that he actually got $660k?

Nope. If Goodes negotiates a deal of $600k then they'll sign him for $545k or so and then adding the 10% will make it $600k again. So they'll still have the $800k to spend however they like.

It's not hard - it depends on the rules that the AFL puts around the extra 10% - can they do what they want with it or do they have to share it amongst ALL players equally since they are all impacted by the so called "increased cost of living" ?. Do the swans need to negotiate their salary cap at the same level as all other clubs - and THEN add the 10% to everyone's pay packet or do they use the extra 10% however they want.

The issue that other clubs have is that there seems to be no rules on the how the extra 10% is used which means if they wanted to they could use it to get an extra big name player.

Do you really think that they would add 10% to someone's pay packet without everyone knowing it was going to happen??

[ace]

Just throwing this out there for anyone who knows. The Swines get an extra 800K or so in their salary cap as compensation for the supposedly greater cost of living in Sydney. Is the extra money evenly distributed among the entire list, e.g. everyone gets an extra 20K, or are the Swines free to use the extra cap money on recruits? I fear the latter is the case, and if so, it's another disgraceful example off the AFL's bias and determination to see the Swines succeed at any cost. Any thoughts or facts?

Good question. If it was done properly then the salary cap would be the same as all teams and players would then get an extra 10% living allowance on top of what they are paid so it would be a pure allowance.

Except that the club would offer to under pay every player by 9.09% knowing that the difference would be made up by the 10% allowance.

[bergholt]

Do the swans need to negotiate their salary cap at the same level as all other clubs - and THEN add the 10% to everyone's pay packet or do they use the extra 10% however they want.

There's no difference there.

Pretend we're negotiating your salary, and you think you're worth $110k. We each know that 10% will be added to whatever we agree on. So I say $80k and you think it's too low. Then I say $90k and you still think it's too low. Then I say $100k. You know that's actually going to be $110k, so surely you accept? You don't hold out for the $110k that you're "worth" and then actually get $121k, which is more than you'd settle for? I might just walk away from that table before you get there. You'll take the $100k and then the 10% will be added.

It's all just money. If you look at the salaries, you can't tell the difference between 10% on everybody's pay packet or 10% used on a single player. There's just no way to tell.

[Bernard Shakey]

What astounds me is that most of these guys would have bought property - which may be more expensive - but when they sell it at the end of their contract, they get more for it. They don't give that back - I would think swings and roundabouts - 5% capital growth on a property in Sydney yields higher returns than 5% in Craigieburn (in a purely dollar format) so if they need to put their extra 10% towards buying a higher priced piece of real estate - they should have to give it back when it is sold.

Take away the cost of living allowance - or better still cap it at what an average footballers spends on the basket of goods (staples, electricity etc) but exclude any and all payments that go towards real estate or savings.

Good to see you comparing like for like. Sydney v Craigieburn?

[fingers]

Do the swans need to negotiate their salary cap at the same level as all other clubs - and THEN add the 10% to everyone's pay packet or do they use the extra 10% however they want.

There's no difference there.

Pretend we're negotiating your salary, and you think you're worth $110k. We each know that 10% will be added to whatever we agree on. So I say $80k and you think it's too low. Then I say $90k and you still think it's too low. Then I say $100k. You know that's actually going to be $110k, so surely you accept? You don't hold out for the $110k that you're "worth" and then actually get $121k, which is more than you'd settle for? I might just walk away from that table before you get there. You'll take the $100k and then the 10% will be added.

It's all just money. If you look at the salaries, you can't tell the difference between 10% on everybody's pay packet or 10% used on a single player. There's just no way to tell.

Yes there is. If the AFL mandated that the Swans had to submit their TPP for approval within the $8m that every other club has to (or whatever the number is). The club is then allowed to distribute the 10% ($800k) across the whole population of players equally. Then we all know what happened to the 10%.

So the club & the AFL sign off on the same salary cap as everyone else. Then the AFL add the 10%.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[Stephen Theodore]

Do the swans need to negotiate their salary cap at the same level as all other clubs - and THEN add the 10% to everyone's pay packet or do they use the extra 10% however they want.

There's no difference there.

Pretend we're negotiating your salary, and you think you're worth $110k. We each know that 10% will be added to whatever we agree on. So I say $80k and you think it's too low. Then I say $90k and you still think it's too low. Then I say $100k. You know that's actually going to be $110k, so surely you accept? You don't hold out for the $110k that you're "worth" and then actually get $121k, which is more than you'd settle for? I might just walk away from that table before you get there. You'll take the $100k and then the 10% will be added.

It's all just money. If you look at the salaries, you can't tell the difference between 10% on everybody's pay packet or 10% used on a single player. There's just no way to tell.

Sorry Champ, but if we're negotiating and you say $80k, and I'm the employer, I'm not going to say too low, I'm going to say ........okay, was thinking $70k, butb will settle for $80k....

[|Andy|]

I think the point is that regardless of how you submit your TTP before 10% is added, the guys in charge of the money will still use the $800k on getting a marquee player regardless. This is because clubs can just work it in by reducing everyone's payment by 10% and just add that money onto the marquee player's salary.

So say market price of 3 players are $50k, $50k and $100k - with the $100k being the marquee player. With the 10% rule you would get an extra $20k and you add that on to each player normally right? $55, $55 and $110. That's how it's supposed to work.

Clubs will know this will happen, and instead of negotiating for $50k for the two cheaper players, they'd just negotiate with the players for $45.5k, $45.5k and $109k. And submit that to the AFL. Will the AFL pick up on a player worth $50k only getting $45.5 if he's agreed to it and thinks it's his value?

As some were suggesting, the AFL will add 10% to each player equally, making it $50.05k, $50.05k, 119.9k. Round that to $50k, $50k, $120k - the club will have still followed the 10% rule and managed to give the whole $20k to the marquee player anyways after approval and 10% added by the AFL.

[dragit]

If it's necessary at all (which it isn't), then maybe the cost of living bonus should have a cutoff point, where all Sydney players earning under $150,000, get an extra $10,000 PA. There is no way that the cost of living difference between Sydney and Melbourne would be more than $10,000… the price of buying real estate should not really be a factor unless we are going to judge every city and and adjust the caps accordingly… Geelong, Adelaide & Brisbane would get smaller caps, ridiculous.

Brisbane won 3 flags with a bloated cap, Sydney have now won 2, do we have to wait for GWS or GCS to win 4 in a row before the AFL 're-examine' the salary cap situation? The father-son rule adjustment came about 10 years too late for us… hopefully they can iron this one out before we challenge next, would hate to be pipped on GF day by a side with a literal 10% salary cap advantage. In a game of inches, 10% is just massive.

[ace]

What you all seem to have missed is how Sydney has structured their senior list.
A club must have 38, no more and no less players on the list.
But a club can increase the total number of senior players by up to 2 by nominating up to 2 veterans who are not counted on the list.
Most clubs use this to have a total of 40 senior players.

Sydney normally includes their veterans on their list thus limiting themselves to 38 senior players.
Of course like most clubs they nominate 2 players as veterans for whom only half their payments count against the cap.

Sydney then has the salaries of 2 more players to offer up to their senior players of choice.

St Kilda used this trick in 2012, only having 39 senior players to stay within the cap.

If you need more than 38 players in a season then you are doomed anyhow.
It is simply a matter of making good choices.
I am sure that we could all name two players who we regard as list cloggers, it is a matter of the clubs managing contracts and their lists to eliminate these cloggers.

[bergholt]

I think the point is that regardless of how you submit your TTP before 10% is added, the guys in charge of the money will still use the $800k on getting a marquee player regardless. This is because clubs can just work it in by reducing everyone's payment by 10% and just add that money onto the marquee player's salary.

Exactly. I'm obviously having trouble explaining it but we're on the same page here.