|
macktheknife
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
Reduce squad size. Reduce total cap.
Make teams develop their youth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
asanchez
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
Misc wrote:Seems to me most people believe in a salary cap as a form of financial sustainability as opposed to evening of the competition? I think the minimum spend should be lowered and foreign sports increased. Squad sizes decreased and also maximum spend increased with marquee system demolished. IN an open market, the idea that wages decide sucess is faulty. This is shown by by Victory this season. If a club chooses to spend 600,000 on injecting three extra quality players into the team, rather than a hopeful one marquee, i see this as a benefit. The salary cap is both a form of financial sustainability while also keeping the competition even. The minimum spend on the cap probably should be lowered but not by much, or else then we'll have the issues of some clubs not being competitive due to tightening their belts financially and spending much less than others. This is the direct opposite of what a salary cap is in place for. Squad sizes cannot be lowered anymore, I feel they are at the bare minimum already. If 2 or 3 decent players from one club are injured, their clubs lower their quality on-field, and in turn devalues the product. Think of Brisbane 6 weeks back, without Broich or Henrique, they were not the Brisbane of old, and the Roar couldn't cover them. Squad sizes are too small. I like the buying a 3rd marquee example from the MLS where the other clubs are compensated, that seems like a logical idea for the A-league.
|
|
|
|
|
Misc
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Seems to me most people believe in a salary cap as a form of financial sustainability as opposed to evening of the competition? I think the minimum spend should be lowered and foreign sports increased. Squad sizes decreased and also maximum spend increased with marquee system demolished. IN an open market, the idea that wages decide sucess is faulty. This is shown by by Victory this season. If a club chooses to spend 600,000 on injecting three extra quality players into the team, rather than a hopeful one marquee, i see this as a benefit.
|
|
|
|
|
WastedYouth
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.3K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:nhub24 wrote:RedKat wrote:Would prefer actually the system whereby the richer teams can 'buy' another marquee spot and that gets redistributed to the other clubs in the league.
What it does is allow the richer clubs like Sydney FC, Melbourne Victory and you'd have to chuck in Gold Coast (I'd be amazed if clive didnt buy into it) and Brisbane Roar (due to their Indonesian owners) would be able to increase the profile of their club whilst helping to financially prop up the more financially insecure teams.
However if you do 'buy' another marquee, you lose entitlements to distribution of the cash when another team buys a marquee. So for example if Sydney bough Riquelme as an extra marquee and then Victory bought Giggs as a extra marquee, Sydney would not be entitled to the redistribution of cash from Victory buying another marquee. Wait, what? I quote: Quote:The 2010 changes:[7]
-The rule has no expiration date.
-For each Designated Player, $335,000 of his salary is charged to the salary cap and paid by the league, with any remaining salary being paid by the team's owner. This amount is halved for Designated Players signed in the middle of the season. The salary cap value of -Designated Players can also be reduced using allocation money. Finally, teams whose Designated Players transfer abroad in the middle of a season can recoup part of the Designated Players' salary cap value.
-Landon Donovan is no longer grandfathered into the rule and must be considered a Designated Player.
-Each team is allowed two Designated Player spots, and they can no longer trade their Designated Player spots. The New York Red Bulls will receive $70,000 in allocation money in return for the nullification of their 2007 trade with Chivas USA for an additional Designated Player spot. This means that both New York and Chivas USA will have two Designated Player spots for the 2010 season.
-Teams can pay a $250,000 "luxury tax" for the right to sign a third Designated Player. This $250,000 would be distributed equally to all MLS teams that have not signed a third Designated Player in the form of allocation money. On further research the only two teams that use it are: - LA Galaxy: Have Beckham, Keane and Donovan - Toronto FC: Have Frings, Koevermars and de Guzman Edited by RedKat: 24/1/2012 07:05:37 PM Thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
|
Benchwarmer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
For a more detailed look at the current Salary Cap http://www.pfa.net.au/fileadmin/user_upload/_temp_/PFA_-_Summary_A-League_CBA_09_Updated.pdfI voted for keeping it the same. The minimum is $1,997,500 compared to a maximum excluding the two marquees at $2,775,000 which I feel is a considerable gap. I enjoy both the closeness of the league and the professional standards of the league, which directly relate to the salary cap. In the future my opinion will probably change, but at the moment I think the FFA and PFA have got it right. A luxury tax on marquees is an interesting concept. I wonder how many clubs would choose a marquee knowing it was going to cost them an extra $250,000 or whatever. I can't see clubs going for it at this stage. Maybe in the future when finances are more secure. Perhaps that could be with the introduction of a 3rd marquee player.
|
|
|
|
|
WastedYouth
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.3K,
Visits: 0
|
aussieshorter wrote:If you'd asked this in the first season or two of the A-League I would have said abolish it, or at least increase it significantly.
I'm now of the opinion that we need it. And I'm not even talking about the financial stability (although it's a good point). I'm talking about the entertainment value provided by the competitiveness of the A-League. I love that it's almost impossible to predict the winner of any particular game. I love that a team can finish first one year and be fighting for the wooden spoon the next.
As the A-League grows I think we should increase it slowly, to a point where we can be both financially sound and also be more competitive with other Asian leagues, but I'd like to see it remain in some form. The last thing I want to see is one or two teams dominate every year (ala Spain). This. Last sentence I do not agree with though, that's going to happen, look at every league in the world. Tell me an established league that doesn't have dominating teams. MLS = A-League in that sense atm.
|
|
|
|
|
aussieshorter
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.2K,
Visits: 93
|
If you'd asked this in the first season or two of the A-League I would have said abolish it, or at least increase it significantly. I'm now of the opinion that we need it. And I'm not even talking about the financial stability (although it's a good point). I'm talking about the entertainment value provided by the competitiveness of the A-League. I love that it's almost impossible to predict the winner of any particular game. I love that a team can finish first one year and be fighting for the wooden spoon the next. As the A-League grows I think we should increase it slowly, to a point where we can be both financially sound and also be more competitive with other Asian leagues, but I'd like to see it remain in some form. The last thing I want to see is one or two teams dominate every year (ala Spain).
____________________________________________________________________________ TPO Rankings - the FIFA World Rankings for Australian football clubs 
|
|
|
|
|
WastedYouth
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.3K,
Visits: 0
|
RedKat wrote:Would prefer actually the system whereby the richer teams can 'buy' another marquee spot and that gets redistributed to the other clubs in the league.
What it does is allow the richer clubs like Sydney FC, Melbourne Victory and you'd have to chuck in Gold Coast (I'd be amazed if clive didnt buy into it) and Brisbane Roar (due to their Indonesian owners) would be able to increase the profile of their club whilst helping to financially prop up the more financially insecure teams.
However if you do 'buy' another marquee, you lose entitlements to distribution of the cash when another team buys a marquee. So for example if Sydney bough Riquelme as an extra marquee and then Victory bought Giggs as a extra marquee, Sydney would not be entitled to the redistribution of cash from Victory buying another marquee. Wait, what?
|
|
|
|
|
WastedYouth
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Our A-League is just financially unstable at the moment to abolish the cap. If we do we can see a few more NQF's coming about. Give it 5 years for more stability then the FFA can debate this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
I wouldn't mind seeing a limited form of the US system where the league purchases the marquee, maybe be one per club might be a good move...or even just make it an option for clubs ie. it would help the smaller clubs but the bigger clubs may choose to buy their own.
|
|
|
|
|
MichaelB
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.9K,
Visits: 0
|
melbourne_terrace wrote:i'm of the opinion that since we are not in a closed league like the other codes and are actually in a world market, the cap at the very least needs to be reviewed to reflect this status. It's too hard to compete regularly in Asia with this restriction plus the other ffa financial ones on sponsorships. Any new contract requirements for a talented youth player will generally push him over the cap and generally ends up in him leaving, sometimes for nothing (Robbie Kruse). One of the reasons J-League teams do particularly well is that they are able to retain their quality young players for longer than their breakout season. If a club has the ability and financial competence to spend within their means, they shouldn't be punished by others that aren't. Good point but you run into the dilemma of clubs buying championships. Without an established supporter base clubs permanently on the bottom with little finances can run into real problems trying to build support. Not saying that I don't agree with what you are saying just this may be a bit of a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
redsfan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.4K,
Visits: 0
|
lowering or keeping the min spend where it is when raising the top end of the cap is essential for the clubs in smaller markets to survive. The clubs should be able to spend the money where they need rather than being forced into spending it on player salaries.
|
|
|
|
|
Heart_fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8K,
Visits: 0
|
I'd also like to see it frozen for a couple of years, but not reduced. Dropping the minimum spend would help some clubs, and may actually make sum clubs concentrate more on youth development.
Strengthening the bottom line is important at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
melbourne_terrace
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
i'm of the opinion that since we are not in a closed league like the other codes and are actually in a world market, the cap at the very least needs to be reviewed to reflect this status. It's too hard to compete regularly in Asia with this restriction plus the other ffa financial ones on sponsorships. Any new contract requirements for a talented youth player will generally push him over the cap and generally ends up in him leaving, sometimes for nothing (Robbie Kruse). One of the reasons J-League teams do particularly well is that they are able to retain their quality young players for longer than their breakout season. If a club has the ability and financial competence to spend within their means, they shouldn't be punished by others that aren't.
Viennese Vuck
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:For the 2010-11 season, each club has a salary cap of A$2.35 million (excluding Marquee, guest and replacement players) on top of Additional Services Agreements (ASA's) that can be worth up to A$275,000[21] – much less than the millions of dollars a year that individual star players earn in Europe's top football leagues. The average annual salary for an A-league player excluding Marquee players is $102,174 and the minimum salary is A$46,215.[21][23] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_A-League#Squad_and_salary_cap Edited by Joffa: 26/12/2011 07:32:32 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
what should the FFA do with the Hyundai A-League's salary cap?
I would like to see the FFA leave the maximum of the cap where it is now but lower the minimum spend of the salary cap to assist clubs by allowing them greater flexibility in managing their playing rosters.
Edited by Joffa: 26/12/2011 07:28:43 PM
|
|
|
|