|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xNot all the good players will go to the big clubs, some will opt for guaranteed playing time at smaller clubs over playing off the bench/being a rotation player at a big club. The occasional player will but most will want to be at one of the few clubs that could actually win silverware, even if they are a bench/squaddie. Demonstrably untrue. Go have a look at the national teams of China, Japan and Korea. All of these leagues have operated without a salary cap thus far. Of the domestic-based national team players (the "best" local players, you would assume), they are spread out over a number of clubs. You're suggesting that Sydney, Victory and City will hoover up all local talent and leave the other clubs with scraps, when this isn't in the case overseas. All of their national teams pick players from the variety of domestic clubs, so why do you think that if it doesn't occur overseas it is going to occur here? Just to add to that. Aussie players with ambition will push to Europe. That's not gonna make it easy for 3 big clubs. Look at City now. With all their support and financial firepower, they are rubbish. Also, even with the salary cap in place now, SFC and MV are consistently in the top 4. The current system is broken and we're better off adopting a model like the rest of the world rather than constantly trying to patch up a broken system. Sydney spent a few years in mediocrity. Victory have been successful because they're the best run club imo. CCM have struggled because they are poorly run and most of their employees who make the big decisions are incompetent. Didn't Perth struggled in the early years of the league due to issues off the pitch? So you're saying that regardless of salary cap, cream still rises to the top? What's the point of the cap then? I never said that. I said the best run clubs will be at the top, not the club with the biggest wallet. And by cream I assume you mean the richest clubs. I agree with you. Cream meant the best run clubs. The richest clubs do not always win the comp - the best run and coached teams are. Even in our flawed salary cap system, City now and SFC during ADP years are clear examples. All the cap does now is create a false sense of equality. If there was no cap, Adelaide wouldn't have won anything but because we do have one, we have as much silverware as Victory and SFC over the last few seasons (4 trophies each). We don't know what Adelaide (or any other club) would or would not have won over the past few years. Based on our statement, trophies over the last few seasons seem to have been concentrated at 3 clubs (MV, SFC and AU). So if the cap was meant to provide equality, why is success concentrated at 3 clubs? Victory and Sydney have been successful because they are the best run clubs at the moment. Adelaide have been a bit lucky and won the double in the 2015/16 season in spite of the owners. Perth are in the box seat this season because they got their recruitment right. Having Popa as manager also has made an impact as well. So being a well run club, luck, good recruitment and a good manager has more to do with trophies than being rich. So why do we need a cap? Being rich buys trophies which is why the richest clubs dominate nearly every league. We need a cap to put everyone on the same playing field. Then it's up to the club to make the most of what they have. The best run clubs will be successful most of the time. I want the best run clubs to be rewarded, not the club that is the richest. Money helps you buy trophies but throwing money at problem does not mean success. You also say nearly every league. What are the exceptions? We can look at those... More importantly, our current cap system does not put everyone on the same playing field. It's not doing that job at all. It's actually damaging football development at the moment (successful teams are ripped apart at the end of the season). That's the reason why I'm against it. The exception is Japan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gyfox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xNot all the good players will go to the big clubs, some will opt for guaranteed playing time at smaller clubs over playing off the bench/being a rotation player at a big club. The occasional player will but most will want to be at one of the few clubs that could actually win silverware, even if they are a bench/squaddie. Demonstrably untrue. Go have a look at the national teams of China, Japan and Korea. All of these leagues have operated without a salary cap thus far. Of the domestic-based national team players (the "best" local players, you would assume), they are spread out over a number of clubs. You're suggesting that Sydney, Victory and City will hoover up all local talent and leave the other clubs with scraps, when this isn't in the case overseas. All of their national teams pick players from the variety of domestic clubs, so why do you think that if it doesn't occur overseas it is going to occur here? Chinese NT has 7 players from Guangzhou Evergrande with 6 more being called up in the last year. Beijing Gouan has 4. Shandong has 4. Shanghai SIPG has 2. Had 3 before Wu Lei moved to Spain. Half of the Chinese NT are from two clubs and 15 of 23 players are from 3 clubs. I'd say that's a pretty good split. Sure, the top players tend to play for the top teams, but there is certainly some quality local players sprinkled throughout the rest of the league. The fact that over half the CSL is represented in the national team is encouraging and disproves the narrative that the big clubs will just buy up all local talent and leave the scraps for everyone. I think it proves it. 15 out of 23 at 3 clubs show that these club have an obvios monopoly on tf the talent. What would be your end-goal then? Every single club has 1-2 players in the national team? No one should have the incentive to go out, build a strong team of local talent to try and succeed? All this "everyone-gets-a-turn" mentality does is stifle growth and innovation. It's a suckers game playing with a salary cap in a global context. Have every club have the budget for spending on their squads. It's up to the clubs to make the most of what they have. Generally the best run clubs are the most successful. Melbourne Victory are a very well run club which is why they are successful. I want the best run clubs rewarded, not the club with the biggest wallet. Melbourne Victory are successful because every year they earn the most revenue and they spend it. Sydney is successful because their generous owner allows them to run at losses around the $6m mark.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. Leicester is rare but clubs can find success without money. But on your point, there has been a fair spread of titles in those comps. In Korea, during the professional era (from 1983), 9 clubs have been champions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_Korean_football_champions#Professional_era_(1983%E2%80%93present)In China, during the CSL era (from 2005), 7 clubs have been champions (although Evergrande dominated during the Lippi era) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_football_champions#Super_League_champions_(2004%E2%80%93present) Jeonbuk have won the league in 4 of last 5 years. The only year they didn’t win was when they got a points deduction. Guangzhou won 7 titles in a row before SIPG won last season.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. We already have that. The Victory/Sydney cartel has pretty much dominated the league since its inception, while Brisbane had a few good years in the middle - these 3 clubs have won 10 of the 13 championships in league history. We already have a select group of clubs who dominate the league, so it looks like the salary cap has failed in that aim. If it has failed in bringing about equality of outcome, why bother with it if its holding back the growth of the league?
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. We already have that. The Victory/Sydney cartel has pretty much dominated the league since its inception, while Brisbane had a few good years in the middle - these 3 clubs have won 10 of the 13 championships in league history. We already have a select group of clubs who dominate the league, so it looks like the salary cap has failed in that aim. If it has failed in bringing about equality of outcome, why bother with it if its holding back the growth of the league? But we don’t. Brisbane have had success, CCM have made 4 gf’s in 9 years, WSW made 3 in 4 years and I think Perth and Wellington will be competing for silverware in the next few years.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. We already have that. The Victory/Sydney cartel has pretty much dominated the league since its inception, while Brisbane had a few good years in the middle - these 3 clubs have won 10 of the 13 championships in league history. We already have a select group of clubs who dominate the league, so it looks like the salary cap has failed in that aim. If it has failed in bringing about equality of outcome, why bother with it if its holding back the growth of the league? But we don’t. Brisbane have had success, CCM have made 4 gf’s in 9 years, WSW made 3 in 4 years and I think Perth and Wellington will be competing for silverware in the next few years. I don't know how you can seriously argue in good faith that 3 clubs winning 75% of all possible championships is a "balanced competition". Cherry picking a few stats doesn't change the fact that we've basically had a Victory/Sydney/Brisbane dominated comp since the inception of the A-league - something the salary cap should have prevented.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. We already have that. The Victory/Sydney cartel has pretty much dominated the league since its inception, while Brisbane had a few good years in the middle - these 3 clubs have won 10 of the 13 championships in league history. We already have a select group of clubs who dominate the league, so it looks like the salary cap has failed in that aim. If it has failed in bringing about equality of outcome, why bother with it if its holding back the growth of the league? But we don’t. Brisbane have had success, CCM have made 4 gf’s in 9 years, WSW made 3 in 4 years and I think Perth and Wellington will be competing for silverware in the next few years. I don't know how you can seriously argue in good faith that 3 clubs winning 75% of all possible championships is a "balanced competition". Because most clubs have had periods of success or at least competing for silverware. The only clubs that haven’t are City, Nix and Glory. Glory are likely to win silverware this season while City would be competing for silverware if they had a competent manager. I think the Nix are on the verge of something special and I’ll think they’ll win some silverware in the next few seasons.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. We already have that. The Victory/Sydney cartel has pretty much dominated the league since its inception, while Brisbane had a few good years in the middle - these 3 clubs have won 10 of the 13 championships in league history. We already have a select group of clubs who dominate the league, so it looks like the salary cap has failed in that aim. If it has failed in bringing about equality of outcome, why bother with it if its holding back the growth of the league? But we don’t. Brisbane have had success, CCM have made 4 gf’s in 9 years, WSW made 3 in 4 years and I think Perth and Wellington will be competing for silverware in the next few years. I don't know how you can seriously argue in good faith that 3 clubs winning 75% of all possible championships is a "balanced competition". Cherry picking a few stats doesn't change the fact that we've basically had a Victory/Sydney/Brisbane dominated comp since the inception of the A-league - something the salary cap should have prevented. Saying that most clubs have had success or at least have been competing for success isn’t cherry picking at all. It’s evidence that the cap has somewhat equalised the league, thus doing it’s job.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. We already have that. The Victory/Sydney cartel has pretty much dominated the league since its inception, while Brisbane had a few good years in the middle - these 3 clubs have won 10 of the 13 championships in league history. We already have a select group of clubs who dominate the league, so it looks like the salary cap has failed in that aim. If it has failed in bringing about equality of outcome, why bother with it if its holding back the growth of the league? But we don’t. Brisbane have had success, CCM have made 4 gf’s in 9 years, WSW made 3 in 4 years and I think Perth and Wellington will be competing for silverware in the next few years. I don't know how you can seriously argue in good faith that 3 clubs winning 75% of all possible championships is a "balanced competition". Because most clubs have had periods of success or at least competing for silverware. The only clubs that haven’t are City, Nix and Glory. Glory are likely to win silverware this season while City would be competing for silverware if they had a competent manager. I think the Nix are on the verge of something special and I’ll think they’ll win some silverware in the next few seasons. I don't know why you think clubs wouldn't have periods of success in a league with a relaxed salary cap. It happens all over the world. But hey, if you're happy for the league to be internationally regarded as a backwater joke and soon to be overtaken in AFC coefficient by the likes of Thailand then sure - atleast everyone will be equally shit I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
Davstar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. We already have that. The Victory/Sydney cartel has pretty much dominated the league since its inception, while Brisbane had a few good years in the middle - these 3 clubs have won 10 of the 13 championships in league history. We already have a select group of clubs who dominate the league, so it looks like the salary cap has failed in that aim. If it has failed in bringing about equality of outcome, why bother with it if its holding back the growth of the league? But we don’t. Brisbane have had success, CCM have made 4 gf’s in 9 years, WSW made 3 in 4 years and I think Perth and Wellington will be competing for silverware in the next few years. There is also no point of a salary cap if you are going to have two marquees that can be paid outside of it. Your argument for the cap is so flawed because there is way around it to both spend more (Victory - max the sal cap and marquees) or spend less (CCM - only spend the sal flaw). The salary floor and salary cap are both a colossal failure anyone who cant see that is ignorant and stupid because the fact is it isnt working Making finals in itself is also flawed football is a league table game not this stupid 'finals series' that we have taken from the AFL/NRL set up. Football needs to have a league cup and a regular season that is all the final series has done more damage to the sport then people seem to realise because people seems to only pay attention when it is on and have ZERO f**ks for the regular season - (in fairness this is my attitude to NRL)... ------------------------------------ All arguments for the salary cap equalising the league, go out the door when you look at the clubs that usually take advantage of the marquee system MVFC and SFC and the clubs that dont ie CCM, Nix - as said more then half the 'major winners' trophies have gone to those two clubs Remove the salary cap and salary flaw just have rules that clubs can only spend % in relation to there total earnings it will force small teams to develop players, big clubs to pay T/F fees for well develop players and would raise the overall quality of the HAL because we wouldnt have so much talent drain to other Asian leagues
these Kangaroos can play football -
Ange P. (Intercontinental WC Play-offs 2017)
KEEP POLITICS OUT OF FOOTBALL
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xNot all the good players will go to the big clubs, some will opt for guaranteed playing time at smaller clubs over playing off the bench/being a rotation player at a big club. The occasional player will but most will want to be at one of the few clubs that could actually win silverware, even if they are a bench/squaddie. Demonstrably untrue. Go have a look at the national teams of China, Japan and Korea. All of these leagues have operated without a salary cap thus far. Of the domestic-based national team players (the "best" local players, you would assume), they are spread out over a number of clubs. You're suggesting that Sydney, Victory and City will hoover up all local talent and leave the other clubs with scraps, when this isn't in the case overseas. All of their national teams pick players from the variety of domestic clubs, so why do you think that if it doesn't occur overseas it is going to occur here? Just to add to that. Aussie players with ambition will push to Europe. That's not gonna make it easy for 3 big clubs. Look at City now. With all their support and financial firepower, they are rubbish. Also, even with the salary cap in place now, SFC and MV are consistently in the top 4. The current system is broken and we're better off adopting a model like the rest of the world rather than constantly trying to patch up a broken system. Sydney spent a few years in mediocrity. Victory have been successful because they're the best run club imo. CCM have struggled because they are poorly run and most of their employees who make the big decisions are incompetent. Didn't Perth struggled in the early years of the league due to issues off the pitch? So you're saying that regardless of salary cap, cream still rises to the top? What's the point of the cap then? I never said that. I said the best run clubs will be at the top, not the club with the biggest wallet. And by cream I assume you mean the richest clubs. I agree with you. Cream meant the best run clubs. The richest clubs do not always win the comp - the best run and coached teams are. Even in our flawed salary cap system, City now and SFC during ADP years are clear examples. All the cap does now is create a false sense of equality. If there was no cap, Adelaide wouldn't have won anything but because we do have one, we have as much silverware as Victory and SFC over the last few seasons (4 trophies each). If Bolt gave me a 99 meter head start, I could beat Bolt
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xThe players are paid out of the TV money, otherwise there would not be a league.The clubs get an equal share. Whether that share is correct is a different question. Removing the cap in Toto will send some clubs/franchises to bankruptcy However, Charlesworth has been banking the difference between the cap and the floor by spending at the cap floor only and not investing in his clubs squad. He is supposed to spend the banked amount in a prescribed period which I think is 2 years. Players will always ask for more money whether or not they deserve it. Let em die. -PB The clubs that will die will be poorly run ambitious clubs. The bottom clubs will continue to function as removing the cap doesn't have any effect on their spending or business model. And thus the cream rises to the top. I.e. the whole point of removing the cap and promotion/relegation. -PB It will, as long as we can live with a flow of clubs falling by the wayside, no probs at all. They'll have a lower cost second division to survive in until their prepared to spend the money to get back to the top. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
Burztur
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.1K,
Visits: 0
|
One thing to add about abolishing the cap is that other system changes need to be made as well.
That is, transfer fees and second division etc.
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. We already have that. The Victory/Sydney cartel has pretty much dominated the league since its inception, while Brisbane had a few good years in the middle - these 3 clubs have won 10 of the 13 championships in league history. We already have a select group of clubs who dominate the league, so it looks like the salary cap has failed in that aim. If it has failed in bringing about equality of outcome, why bother with it if its holding back the growth of the league? But we don’t. Brisbane have had success, CCM have made 4 gf’s in 9 years, WSW made 3 in 4 years and I think Perth and Wellington will be competing for silverware in the next few years. There is also no point of a salary cap if you are going to have two marquees that can be paid outside of it. Your argument for the cap is so flawed because there is way around it to both spend more (Victory - max the sal cap and marquees) or spend less (CCM - only spend the sal flaw). The salary floor and salary cap are both a colossal failure anyone who cant see that is ignorant and stupid because the fact is it isnt working
Making finals in itself is also flawed football is a league table game not this stupid 'finals series' that we have taken from the AFL/NRL set up. Football needs to have a league cup and a regular season that is all the final series has done more damage to the sport then people seem to realise because people seems to only pay attention when it is on and have ZERO f**ks for the regular season - (in fairness this is my attitude to NRL)...------------------------------------ All arguments for the salary cap equalising the league, go out the door when you look at the clubs that usually take advantage of the marquee system MVFC and SFC and the clubs that dont ie CCM, Nix - as said more then half the 'major winners' trophies have gone to those two clubs Remove the salary cap and salary flaw just have rules that clubs can only spend % in relation to there total earnings it will force small teams to develop players, big clubs to pay T/F fees for well develop players and would raise the overall quality of the HAL because we wouldnt have so much talent drain to other Asian leagues Praise Davstar in bold. We stupidly to appease to the general bogan (in the hope increasing the "metrics" I expect for the future, little that has helped) had to have a Finals Series because its so unique, its Straylian because of the tuff aussie kulcha gayfl/nrl/aru - hey the Minor Prem means nothing its the GF winna is all that matters. Yer were unique alright and worse football supporters argue its great now lol....... The cap, we will keep struggling as it currently is, want to play ACL ? How can you compete well enough to their budgets, Korea/Japan/China for eg. Yes exceptions to the rule but barring WSW's win can't see any our clubs getting to the Finals let alone getting out of the groups. Just last week SFC @ $5M vsing Ulsan $25M.......
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
kaufusi
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Everyone is thinking based on how the league is, not what it needs to be. We need new owners, richer owners, hometown owners and foreign billionaires that just want to win.
The aleague is stagnating because most aleague owners count the pennies constantly trying to minimise losses. Football isn't about making profit. Sure you can try, and having effective business models you can generate lots of revenue from sponsors and merch sales.
But for the most part football clubs lose money! How many clubs in Europe make profits? In Asia or South America?? Owners need to be accepting of this and be happy to pour money down the drain in a vein battle of egos to be number one. Or just for the satisfaction of matching the big boys.
Rich foreigners still want to own clubs like Leicester, Burnley etc. They don't expect to win, but they enjoy the challenge of competing with the clubs with much larger budgets. And big budgets don't always equal success.
Of course there needs to be the setup for clubs to deem it worthwhile investing in players, which there isn't at present.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. We already have that. The Victory/Sydney cartel has pretty much dominated the league since its inception, while Brisbane had a few good years in the middle - these 3 clubs have won 10 of the 13 championships in league history. We already have a select group of clubs who dominate the league, so it looks like the salary cap has failed in that aim. If it has failed in bringing about equality of outcome, why bother with it if its holding back the growth of the league? But we don’t. Brisbane have had success, CCM have made 4 gf’s in 9 years, WSW made 3 in 4 years and I think Perth and Wellington will be competing for silverware in the next few years. There is also no point of a salary cap if you are going to have two marquees that can be paid outside of it. Your argument for the cap is so flawed because there is way around it to both spend more (Victory - max the sal cap and marquees) or spend less (CCM - only spend the sal flaw). The salary floor and salary cap are both a colossal failure anyone who cant see that is ignorant and stupid because the fact is it isnt working
Making finals in itself is also flawed football is a league table game not this stupid 'finals series' that we have taken from the AFL/NRL set up. Football needs to have a league cup and a regular season that is all the final series has done more damage to the sport then people seem to realise because people seems to only pay attention when it is on and have ZERO f**ks for the regular season - (in fairness this is my attitude to NRL)...------------------------------------ All arguments for the salary cap equalising the league, go out the door when you look at the clubs that usually take advantage of the marquee system MVFC and SFC and the clubs that dont ie CCM, Nix - as said more then half the 'major winners' trophies have gone to those two clubs Remove the salary cap and salary flaw just have rules that clubs can only spend % in relation to there total earnings it will force small teams to develop players, big clubs to pay T/F fees for well develop players and would raise the overall quality of the HAL because we wouldnt have so much talent drain to other Asian leagues Just last week SFC @ $5M vsing Ulsan $25M....... I call bullshit on that. The average wage for the A-League and K-League is about the same. I highly doubt Ulsan’s wage budget is anything close to 25 million.
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
I think it is a mistake to look at spending $4million on Del Piero, for example, as purely a financial loss. After ADP, Sydney has increased revenue, membership, attendances etc, to the point that I believe they now break even. So they went from small revenue big loss to big revenue small loss. We have to start looking at the complete pay offs in investing in our clubs, our league and our players. Simply saying that everyone can spend this small amount of money is stagnation.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. We already have that. The Victory/Sydney cartel has pretty much dominated the league since its inception, while Brisbane had a few good years in the middle - these 3 clubs have won 10 of the 13 championships in league history. We already have a select group of clubs who dominate the league, so it looks like the salary cap has failed in that aim. If it has failed in bringing about equality of outcome, why bother with it if its holding back the growth of the league? But we don’t. Brisbane have had success, CCM have made 4 gf’s in 9 years, WSW made 3 in 4 years and I think Perth and Wellington will be competing for silverware in the next few years. There is also no point of a salary cap if you are going to have two marquees that can be paid outside of it. Your argument for the cap is so flawed because there is way around it to both spend more (Victory - max the sal cap and marquees) or spend less (CCM - only spend the sal flaw). The salary floor and salary cap are both a colossal failure anyone who cant see that is ignorant and stupid because the fact is it isnt working
Making finals in itself is also flawed football is a league table game not this stupid 'finals series' that we have taken from the AFL/NRL set up. Football needs to have a league cup and a regular season that is all the final series has done more damage to the sport then people seem to realise because people seems to only pay attention when it is on and have ZERO f**ks for the regular season - (in fairness this is my attitude to NRL)...------------------------------------ All arguments for the salary cap equalising the league, go out the door when you look at the clubs that usually take advantage of the marquee system MVFC and SFC and the clubs that dont ie CCM, Nix - as said more then half the 'major winners' trophies have gone to those two clubs Remove the salary cap and salary flaw just have rules that clubs can only spend % in relation to there total earnings it will force small teams to develop players, big clubs to pay T/F fees for well develop players and would raise the overall quality of the HAL because we wouldnt have so much talent drain to other Asian leagues Just last week SFC @ $5M vsing Ulsan $25M....... I call bullshit on that. The average wage for the A-League and K-League is about the same. I highly doubt Ulsan’s wage budget is anything close to 25 million. It's true, mentioned on Foxsport....take it up with them.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Because of the 3+1 rule it doesnt matter what other ACL clubs are spending on their players. If we suddenly spent $25m on our squads it isn't going to make them play better Our failure in the ACL comes down to the distribution of players. If the salary cap is doing its job then 80% of our best players are not in the ACL If the salary cap was removed most likely we would see the big teams paying $6m-$7m for the bulk of the squad instead of $3m. And smaller clubs might be spending as little as $2m for largely youth and state league players Our $7m plus imports wont match the spending of other ACL teams. It will boil down to whether the best available Australian players can beat the best available Chinese, Korean or Japanese
|
|
|
|
|
someguyjc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+xEveryone is thinking based on how the league is, not what it needs to be. We need new owners, richer owners, hometown owners and foreign billionaires that just want to win. The aleague is stagnating because most aleague owners count the pennies constantly trying to minimise losses. Football isn't about making profit. Sure you can try, and having effective business models you can generate lots of revenue from sponsors and merch sales. But for the most part football clubs lose money! How many clubs in Europe make profits? In Asia or South America?? Owners need to be accepting of this and be happy to pour money down the drain in a vein battle of egos to be number one. Or just for the satisfaction of matching the big boys. Rich foreigners still want to own clubs like Leicester, Burnley etc. They don't expect to win, but they enjoy the challenge of competing with the clubs with much larger budgets. And big budgets don't always equal success. Of course there needs to be the setup for clubs to deem it worthwhile investing in players, which there isn't at present. Overseas there are far more incentives though. Firstly there is P&R which is self explanatory. Then there is prize money for the various competitions. UEFA Champions league pays each club €15.25M (AU$24.33M) just for entering and then €2.85M (AU$4.85M) for each win and €0.8M (AU$1.28M) for a draw. Then there is the share of the champions league TV money which is based on rank. In the 2016/17 season Leicester actually received more TV money than Real Madrid even though Real won the comp. Leicester received €49M (AU78.2M) compared to Reals €26M (AU$41.5M) share of the TV money. Then if we look at the EPL the prize money is also a huge incentive. In the 2017/18 season, West Brom finished 20th and still pocketed £94.7m (AU$174.63M) which is a combination of prize money, tv money and league share money. Their total player salary bill for that season was approx £57M (AU$105.1M). There are genuine incentives overseas for spending money. In Australia there is nothing. Until we have proper financial incentives, club owners are not going to spend big bucks, even with the cap gone. Simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. I still think it's like comparing apples to oranges. In Europe you have the world's best leagues with a lot of foreign players and worldwide interest and EU regulations like all EU players are counted as locals and salary caps are forbidden etc, whereas Asian leagues are only really followed by those who live in the country the league is based in and the ACL has strict foreign player quotas. We can and should be doing better in the ACL, even with a salary cap. But your argument is that we are nothing and we will never be anything, so it is hard to make an argument for ambition and growth with you. I didn't say we will never be anything. I said we aren't like Europe and we aren't competing with Europe. Also the league is improving and will continue to improve. I think he have some talented youngsters coming through and the Visa players are better than ever. These two points are why even in an uncapped league, being the richest club doesn't guarantee success. A good academy and good scouting (and a good coach) will mean that poorer clubs can be competitive against rich clubs. It is very rare for a club to do what Leicester did a few years ago. Nearly every league is dominated by a select few clubs. Korea has Jeonbuk, Ulsan and Suwon, China has Guangzhou Evergrande and Shanghai SIPG, the list goes on. We already have that. The Victory/Sydney cartel has pretty much dominated the league since its inception, while Brisbane had a few good years in the middle - these 3 clubs have won 10 of the 13 championships in league history. We already have a select group of clubs who dominate the league, so it looks like the salary cap has failed in that aim. If it has failed in bringing about equality of outcome, why bother with it if its holding back the growth of the league? But we don’t. Brisbane have had success, CCM have made 4 gf’s in 9 years, WSW made 3 in 4 years and I think Perth and Wellington will be competing for silverware in the next few years. There is also no point of a salary cap if you are going to have two marquees that can be paid outside of it. Your argument for the cap is so flawed because there is way around it to both spend more (Victory - max the sal cap and marquees) or spend less (CCM - only spend the sal flaw). The salary floor and salary cap are both a colossal failure anyone who cant see that is ignorant and stupid because the fact is it isnt working
Making finals in itself is also flawed football is a league table game not this stupid 'finals series' that we have taken from the AFL/NRL set up. Football needs to have a league cup and a regular season that is all the final series has done more damage to the sport then people seem to realise because people seems to only pay attention when it is on and have ZERO f**ks for the regular season - (in fairness this is my attitude to NRL)...------------------------------------ All arguments for the salary cap equalising the league, go out the door when you look at the clubs that usually take advantage of the marquee system MVFC and SFC and the clubs that dont ie CCM, Nix - as said more then half the 'major winners' trophies have gone to those two clubs Remove the salary cap and salary flaw just have rules that clubs can only spend % in relation to there total earnings it will force small teams to develop players, big clubs to pay T/F fees for well develop players and would raise the overall quality of the HAL because we wouldnt have so much talent drain to other Asian leagues Just last week SFC @ $5M vsing Ulsan $25M....... I call bullshit on that. The average wage for the A-League and K-League is about the same. I highly doubt Ulsan’s wage budget is anything close to 25 million. It's true, mentioned on Foxsport....take it up with them. Thanks mate, I knew that is what was quoted by Fox team whilst watching..
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
Feed_The_Brox
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI'm pointing out that the cap is anti competition, England competes with Europe we compete with Asia. I have said on these boards that I would be fine with a cap of $20 million, others have said anywhere between $6 and 10 million, that's fine but the cap as it stands is doing nothing but destroying the league......as an insufficient cap would do in England. i would say the right amount for the cap is $5 or $6 million. make the floor 50% while we have the single tier and remove it once pro/rel starts. keep the 2 marquee's and add an AFC marquee spot to provide an incentive for clubs to entice AFC players here. change the visa rules to 4+1.
|
|
|
|
|
Bocca
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xBecause of the 3+1 rule it doesnt matter what other ACL clubs are spending on their players. If we suddenly spent $25m on our squads it isn't going to make them play better Our failure in the ACL comes down to the distribution of players. If the salary cap is doing its job then 80% of our best players are not in the ACL If the salary cap was removed most likely we would see the big teams paying $6m-$7m for the bulk of the squad instead of $3m. And smaller clubs might be spending as little as $2m for largely youth and state league players Our $7m plus imports wont match the spending of other ACL teams. It will boil down to whether the best available Australian players can beat the best available Chinese, Korean or Japanese I have no idea why some people don't understand this argument. The only way we can compete in Asia is to have our best players concentrated in the teams playing in Asia. The salary cap makes this impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xBecause of the 3+1 rule it doesnt matter what other ACL clubs are spending on their players. If we suddenly spent $25m on our squads it isn't going to make them play better Our failure in the ACL comes down to the distribution of players. If the salary cap is doing its job then 80% of our best players are not in the ACL If the salary cap was removed most likely we would see the big teams paying $6m-$7m for the bulk of the squad instead of $3m. And smaller clubs might be spending as little as $2m for largely youth and state league players Our $7m plus imports wont match the spending of other ACL teams. It will boil down to whether the best available Australian players can beat the best available Chinese, Korean or Japanese I have no idea why some people don't understand this argument. The only way we can compete in Asia is to have our best players concentrated in the teams playing in Asia. The salary cap makes this impossible. Not only possible, it's literally by design that that the best players are dispersed throughout the clubs. Would an uncapped (or with a dramatically increased capped) Melbourne Victory be taking a backline of Brown - Donachie - Deng - Roux against the best of Asia? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xBecause of the 3+1 rule it doesnt matter what other ACL clubs are spending on their players. If we suddenly spent $25m on our squads it isn't going to make them play better Our failure in the ACL comes down to the distribution of players. If the salary cap is doing its job then 80% of our best players are not in the ACL If the salary cap was removed most likely we would see the big teams paying $6m-$7m for the bulk of the squad instead of $3m. And smaller clubs might be spending as little as $2m for largely youth and state league players Our $7m plus imports wont match the spending of other ACL teams. It will boil down to whether the best available Australian players can beat the best available Chinese, Korean or Japanese I have no idea why some people don't understand this argument. The only way we can compete in Asia is to have our best players concentrated in the teams playing in Asia. The salary cap makes this impossible. So it should. Want better players? Actually develop them instead of poaching everyone else's.
|
|
|
|
jlm8695
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Here’s a shocker. When playing standards rise in an open market without all the bullshit restrictions, clubs will get better at developing youth because
A) It will be the best way for some clubs to compete against those with more means
B) It’s a viable way to stay self sufficient thanks to transfer fees
The salary cap as it stands is absolute bullshit and hindering growth in all areas of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHere’s a shocker. When playing standards rise in an open market without all the bullshit restrictions, clubs will get better at developing youth because A) It will be the best way for some clubs to compete against those with more meansB) It’s a viable way to stay self sufficient thanks to transfer feesThe salary cap as it stands is absolute bullshit and hindering growth in all areas of the game. It won't because all of the smaller teams have their best players poached. The open market is designed to keep the rich at the top and crush everyone else. There's nothing stopping clubs from selling players overseas. I'd rather clubs do this then allowing a player to join a rival club.
|
|
|
|
jlm8695
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
The smaller teams have their players poached already.
Overseas transfer fees are minimal because clubs can’t afford to sign players to longer contracts with the nature of the cap.
The open market isn’t designed for anything. Every club is free to try and be what it wants to be.
Domestic transfer fees are a pillar of football worldwide, yet franchise nations like ourselves and the Us ignore it because we’re ‘unique’.
Much better system we have now where players just get ‘mutual releases’. Definitely working with all of our amazing youth coming through to support our fantastic national team.
There are players out there who are good enough for Australian teams to pay for (visa restrictions etc) but not good enough for overseas teams to bother.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThe smaller teams have their players poached already.Overseas transfer fees are minimal because clubs can’t afford to sign players to longer contracts with the nature of the cap.The open market isn’t designed for anything. Every club is free to try and be what it wants to be.Domestic transfer fees are a pillar of football worldwide, yet franchise nations like ourselves and the Us ignore it because we’re ‘unique’.Much better system we have now where players just get ‘mutual releases’. Definitely working with all of our amazing youth coming through to support our fantastic national team.There are players out there who are good enough for Australian teams to pay for (visa restrictions etc) but not good enough for overseas teams to bother. I'm not against transfer fees and I think we should have transfer fees and a cap. As for smaller teams having their players poached by other HAL clubs, name ONE young player in recent seasons who has signed for another HAL club solely because of the salary cap. When it does happen, it's for other reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
"The open market isn’t designed for anything."
Do you not know how unregulated capitalism works?
|
|
|
|