No, they just love themselves.....and to hell with everybody else, especially the vulnerable.Originally Posted by barry
No, they just love themselves.....and to hell with everybody else, especially the vulnerable.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/841328/t...e-trade-period
Usual AFL.com.au garbage, but this part made for interesting reading. I hope this is not where the game heads - but I guess it will happen - and I feel like the example given was a little too convenient just to be made up on the spot....
During last year's Trade Period, some clubs enquired with the League about whether they could directly pay contracts of players who remain at other clubs in exchange for a draft pick.
They weren't allowed, but it is clearly where clubs see things heading.
As an example, it could allow Essendon to use its salary cap room to pay $500,000 of Luke Parker's deal at Sydney in exchange for one of the Swans' first-round picks. It would alleviate any salary cap pressure faced at the Swans, make use of the Dons' money and also see them buy a pick.
Restrictions could be enforced to ensure the best teams do eventually hit their cap – for example, a limit of one player per club having their salary paid by another – but it is the clear next step in the trade marketplace.
Expect it to be a topic in coming weeks as clubs use cap space to get deals done.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
At what does the cap become null and void if clubs take on salaries like that? Although it Is a form of equalisation.
Not a form of equalisation likely to create 18 fairly even lists each year.
Maybe it makes sense in the big US leagues where players are mostly drafted at age 21 after a few years in a high level college programme, but our draft remains a crapshoot of 18 year olds who still have a huge way to go in their physical development. If a club is willing to sell a significant portion of its salary cap just to get a draft pick, they're giving an opponent a leg up to retain its existing proven players and/or go after a free agent, all for a kid who may or may not be any good in a few years time. You only have to look back at past drafts to realise that the correlation between draft pick and great player isn't that strong.
If the league wanted a proper salary cap it should move the other way. Stop clubs picking up part of the contract value of a player they are trading away. So, for example, Collingwood would need to either live with the monster contract it signed Grundy to barely a year or two ago, or find another club willing to take the whole thing off their hands.
And then maybe limit the extent to which clubs can front or back load contracts.
(That's ignoring other potential inequalities of the cap, including the much higher cost of living in Sydney, retention issues of the newer clubs, side-deals etc).
I think it might help clubs rebound faster when they’ve got a younger, cheaper list as they can effectively buy draft picks from clubs in the window with bulging salary caps.
But on the other hand Mark, it also then may facilitate the best teams 'loading up' on even more elite talent when they are at the top and facing a salary cap squeeze. Yes it would be a case of selling the future farm for the case of immediate success - but if that means you can win 3,4,5 flags in a premiership window, clubs will do it.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
For once I think this favours the poorer clubs because they don’t have to dump salary and can pick and choose. The clubs who have to shed $$ less so when they offload players who aren’t earning their chunk of the salary cap e.g. Hanners, Grundy etc.
If the club with space picks well they can get a pick and a player e.g. Brodie and pick 19 for a future second rounder.
The danger is that clubs park players on their list for a year or two before offloading them
They can limit how much salary is paid by another team, and how many draft picks can be sold, like they have rules that require you to use a number of first draft picks every couple of years (so you can't keep trading them away).
We are a young team that doesn't need a lot of draft picks given our age profile, so why not sell one of our first or second rounders to Brisbane for example and get some money to square away Papley next year.
I see Tanner Bruhn wants to go to Geelong - surprise, surprise! The team with the endless salary cap and a list full of players who are apparently happy to play for hundreds of thousands less than they can get elsewhere. I once lived in Geelong - its not that great!
It must be so frustrating for GWS to lose a relatively early draft pick player (12) after just two years.
In-demand Giants young gun keen on Geelong move - In-demand Giants young gun Tanner Bruhn keen on Geelong move
Everyone knows about the can't fail property developments that Bruhn will get into once at Geelong. Everyone plays for unders at Geelong!
Salary cap fiddles that have been discussed in earlier posts are allowed by the AFL because it promotes player movement. Clubs are keen for picks for cap, clubs also keen on pick trading in RD, MSD, PSD, and trade picks without having to be in the same draft. So a club that wants pick 1 in the MSD could trade it in for a pick in the ND. Just let it rip I say, the smart clubs will benefit as they do currently.
I've got no idea why any club (I'm looking at you Dees) would want to assist the Pies who are now flag contenders by taking on Grundy, even if Pies do pay a portion of his massive salary. Let the Pies stew in their own mess I say.
GWS will end up with a mighty ND hand this year albeit on the downside of losing required players
I can't believe the AFL "allows" them as it totally undermines the competition equalisation procedures that they have in place. The AFL are either not aware of these deals, or feel its too hard to prove them when girlfriends/relatives/trusted friends and external parties like club sponsors are involved.
While receiving early draft picks is some compensation for losing young stars, it can lead to an endless cycle of player development followed by requests to be drafted elsewhere once the player has 2 to 5 years experience. In some cases, the player stays in return for a huge long-term contract like Kelly, Coniglio etc. That's not a recipe for building a premiership team. GWS and Gold Coast know all about this but are almost helpless to prevent it.
Good points Liz.
In the EPL and European soccer, they have the possibility to loan players who are under contract for up to a year, and sometimes with an option to then buy the player if they wish. During the loan period the loaned club pays the players salary. Could the AFL introduce such a system, or a variation? I don’t like the idea of contracted players switching clubs unless they are not given fair opportunities and can get games at a “lesser” club.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks