Generally good points, but the salary cap is actually
$160,000.
It's a little oversimplistic to say that WAFC money "does not get directed to the WAFL clubs". The WAFC 'service grant' to the clubs is $320,000 annually (see the full report linked from the above page). I'm open to correction, but I think the SANFL gives the clubs in the low $400,000s each. The SANFL hands out more, obviously; as a proportion of the salary cap, though, the WAFC is generous compared with the SANFL.
The review recommended the salary cap stay at $160,000 until the end of 2009 (which considering inflation, means in real terms a small
cut each year) "in order to focus on improving club finances in the short term". That is to say, most clubs can't afford even $160,000 each. Beyond the WAFC grants, they seem not to have the revenue streams. (Although the clubs rejected that recommendation and the salary cap amount remains up in the air at the moment.)
The review notes that interstate transfer fees for each player have just been increased from $4,000 to $10,000 (and recommends that the WAFC ask the AFL to increase them to $20,000). Which is really attacking the problem from the wrong angle. It keeps depth in the local comp by preventing a mass exodus (you're not going to pay that kind of money for a speculative or fringe player); but will provide no disincentive to SANFL clubs looking to pick up better players. The WAFC seems to think that the answer is to become more insular, both maintaining a maximum 6-interstate-player-per-club limit for WAFL teams, and trying to stop WA players from going interstate by recommending large hikes in transfer fees. Even more bizarrely, they're recommending that a bonus above the base $320,000 be given to clubs who have 70% local players (i.e. from their own district) in their league side. You can imagine the financial controller at a struggling club calling the coach and selection committee: 'It's worth 10,000 bucks to us to play two more locals for the next few rounds. Aw c'mon, we're probably going to miss the finals anyway.' Not the greatest way of improving the standard of the comp. At the same time, they're happily taking and dividing up the AFL draft fees-- money which only comes because they're participating in a national market. Guys, building the Berlin Wall just made the East Germans want to get out even more badly; it didn't stop too many West Germans from breaking in.
I can't believe that the amateur-hour level of finances at WAFL clubs compared with SANFL is caused by pokies and only pokies. The review notes declining attendances (which I understand are well below SANFL's); however, it doesn't actually discuss what might stabilise or increase them beyond talking generally of 'branding', marketing and promotion. 'Assessing the value of the WAFL brand and its current perception in WA' (one of the recommendations) isn't the same thing as developing a plan to get more people to actually go to the footy. The level of support for the Weagles and Freo (not to mention the huge number of West Australians taken in the draft) doesn't give much support to the theory that there's generally less interest in Aussie rules over in the West.
Interesting proposals in the review for reforming the 'incoming AFL draftees' mini-draft to increase evenness of the comp, too. Priority picks for teams who win 4 games or less (similar to what the AFL has just curtailed), and finalists don't participate at all. The clubs approved those changes in an 8:1 vote, surprisingly.
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:48 am
