Money buys skill, fitness and flags

[perfectionist]

It's hardly news, but was underlined in red yesterday. Here is the revenue list per club for 2018:

West Coast – $82,265,015
Collingwood – $82,074,011
Richmond – $79,777,837
Hawthorn – $74,339,727
Geelong – $67,944,647
Essendon – $65,092,072
Carlton – $ 61,627,141
Port Adelaide – $59,000,643
Fremantle – $58,390,623
Adelaide – $ 56,060,913
Brisbane – $55,605,874
St Kilda – $53,864,218
Sydney – $54,084,840
Western Bulldogs – $51,576,289
Melbourne – $49,010,456
GWS – $43,453,413
Gold Coast – $40,042,853
North Melbourne – $39,618,239

These amounts include the extra payments for the "weaker" clubs and so actually mask a larger club fund-raising differential. The salary cap is supposed to mean that richer clubs can't spend that extra money on player salaries. That's the theory. The problem is not so much the salary cap, as the salary floor. The worst club with the worst players must still pay those players at least 95% of the amount that the premiership players receive. Because you have to pay duds so much, there is little room to pay stars from other clubs any more. One or two of such players will be the maximum. The draft is supposed to be the other "leveler". Unfortunately, our talent scouts in recent times seem to have been recruited from the RVIB.

So if rich clubs can't use their extra revenue on player payments, what do they do with the money? Take the differential between us and Richmond - in 2018 it was $26 million. For that amount, every player could his own fitness instructor, his own skill developer and even his own "social worker". I guess it's not quite as good as that, but the level of fitness difference between Richmond and GWS was there for all to see. It was strength and pace to go with skill. He's been talked about ad nauseam, but Marlion Pickett illustrated so much. His major advantage yesterday was that he was 27 and not 18. He had played hundreds of games not dozens. However, his fitness level was remarkable for someone who wasn't even on the list of around 40 to start with. And so was his skill - very good handball - very good on his preferred and a more than adequate get-out-of-jail kick on his non-preferred. Most of our team can't kick on their preferred let alone on their non preferred. And, in comparison with Richmond, our fitness levels are pathetic.

Five of the top revenue earners featured in this year's finals, and Hawthorn weren't that far away, and have won 4 flags in the last 12 years anyway. The Bulldogs are the only ray of hope for the bottom 7. What really needs to be done is to reduce the maximum amount that has to be paid to the worst performing club's players. It should really drop to 80%, but even a drop to 90% will give some hope that weaker clubs can buy good players rather than waiting for a "lucky occurrence" of good draft picks. With 18 clubs now vying for talent from a static pool of talent, lucky draft picks are harder to find, unless you can pay to have eyes at every ground looking for potential. I guess that's something else that Richmond can spend their extra $26 million on. However, I won't hold my breath for any change as the powerful Players Association would not countenance such a change even if it was part of a massive increase in overall salaries.

[Sainter_Dad]

Thanks Perfectionist - a very logical argument - and one that I think is exactly what we should be considering - after all - and I summarise - if you only have to pay 80% of the $12.76 mill it would be $10.2 mill leaving $2.5 in the war chest each year instead of only $600K. Even if we were to approach 2 players at $800K each and we have the cash - at present we would need to cut $1 mill from the minimum (If we are paying that) - and that means we would need to cut players who were on the fringe but possibly being paid too much. If we could reduce these 'extra payments' then we could approach 3 of these players without even affecting what the rest are being paid.

[gringo]

It would be good if the equalisation addressed free agency benefits to the top clubs and the zones for academies are really uneven and unfair. If we could bank money in a war chest it would make rebuilding quicker as you could blow top teams away with big front loaded contracts to tempt players across.

[SaintPav]

Actually surprised our revenue is that high.

Must include AFL funding?

[ausfatcat]

"95% of the amount that the premiership players receive"


huh? I thought they got rid of the floor or allowed teams to bank a little of it

[ausfatcat]

Actually surprised our revenue is that high.

Must include AFL funding?

might include 10 mil for linton st

[saintsRrising]

" I thought they got rid of the floor or allowed teams to bank a little of it

Banking just means that if you go under in a maximum of two years, you can use the unders in those two years to go over in another year.

This allows teams to fine-tune over a several years, rather than have rigidly be in 95%-100% every year.

[saintsRrising]

It's hardly news, but was underlined in red yesterday. Here is the revenue list per club for 2018:

West Coast – $82,265,015
Collingwood – $82,074,011
Richmond – $79,777,837
Hawthorn – $74,339,727
Geelong – $67,944,647
Essendon – $65,092,072
Carlton – $ 61,627,141
Port Adelaide – $59,000,643
Fremantle – $58,390,623
Adelaide – $ 56,060,913
Brisbane – $55,605,874
St Kilda – $53,864,218
Sydney – $54,084,840
Western Bulldogs – $51,576,289
Melbourne – $49,010,456
GWS – $43,453,413
Gold Coast – $40,042,853
North Melbourne – $39,618,239

It would be interesting to know where the Tigers ranked back when their CEO Gayle announced their plan for the future. He was ridiculed for it, but I think has exceeded every benchmark quite easily.

[Spinner]

Great post Perfectionist!

[Dis Believer]

To be fair, Pickett did spend two years perfecting that get out of jail kick.....

[BarryGrogan]

The teams with the most revenue are the ines with the biggest supporter bases, and subsequently the ones that the AFL give primetime fixtures to.

Adelaide, GWS, Bulldogs have in GFs in the past 3 years haven't they?

[BarryGrogan]

It would be good if the equalisation addressed free agency benefits to the top clubs and the zones for academies are really uneven and unfair. If we could bank money in a war chest it would make rebuilding quicker as you could blow top teams away with big front loaded contracts to tempt players across.

Money doesn't get them though.

We've tried it, North has tried it. It's the big games on the G that lures players.

We can't provide that. Never will.

[B.M]

Western Bulldogs 2016?

Good decisions and good players win premierships

[Spinner]

Western Bulldogs 2016?

Good decisions and good players win premierships

Good sample size.

[spert]

The team that beats all the other teams, win the premiership!

[B.M]

Not really

The team that wins the grand final wins the premiership.

We beat the dogs in 2016 and Richmond in 2017

[spert]

Not really

The team that wins the grand final wins the premiership.

We beat the dogs in 2016 and Richmond in 2017

Yeah bad wording on my behalf, but at the start of a season, every team has a chance to win the premiership- it just works out better for some teams than others.

[B.M]

Yep

Those with the best lists x the least injuries