SA Footy

The AFL Players Assosciation (AFLPA) is currently lobbying the AFL to have the salary cap increased by 10% as a return for the players involvment in the new TV rights deal.($780 odd million).

A 10% rise in the cap(about $660k) would take the salary cap over $7M.I would like to see this money,and this money alone used in what some might term a "free agent" type system.One where clubs could use this money to lure one,and only one player from another club without him having to enter the lottery known as the draft.This targeted player must of course be out of contract with his current club at seasons end.

I am sure most clubs are sick of losing players they have invested much time and money in,ie: Kane Johnson,Nick Stevens and co. and would like an opportunity to get something in return,with out having to wait years or worse still never get any compensation for this.

Great Idea Booney

Would add alot of interest to the current system.

You could even get around the father/son rule

Maybe add that a second or third round draft pick must be given or used if the free agent is taken.

Everitt is out of contract @ end of year - what would he get - dollars wise
Akermanis - I think is out of contract to and he seems to be well out of favour.

B.Gibbs ???

An increase in the cap would just see the same players getting more money. Good for them but it does nothing for the future of the game.

I would rather see a serious commitment by the AFL into developing the game further.

That means a national plan to improve the standard and participation in the sport not just at the top level.

Why don't the AFL introduce a cap- for the players? ie no player can earn above $x per season... Then introduc a couple of schemes... being able to bid for out of contact players, being able to bid for draft picks/draftees (1 per draft say)

doggies4eva wrote:An increase in the cap would just see the same players getting more money. Good for them but it does nothing for the future of the game.

I would rather see a serious commitment by the AFL into developing the game further.

That means a national plan to improve the standard and participation in the sport not just at the top level.

This is probably where I would like the money to go. Put more into football at grass roots level.

doggies4eva wrote:An increase in the cap would just see the same players getting more money. Good for them but it does nothing for the future of the game.

I would rather see a serious commitment by the AFL into developing the game further.

That means a national plan to improve the standard and participation in the sport not just at the top level.

OTM Doggies. There should be no increase in the salary cap as long as there are Victorian clubs lining up for handouts at the end of every season. Sixteen teams is just too many.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:
OTM Doggies. There should be no increase in the salary cap as long as there are Victorian clubs lining up for handouts at the end of every season. Sixteen teams is just too many.

regards,

REB

Yep, get rid of Geelong!

Punk Rooster wrote:

Rik E Boy wrote:
OTM Doggies. There should be no increase in the salary cap as long as there are Victorian clubs lining up for handouts at the end of every season. Sixteen teams is just too many.

regards,

REB

Yep, get rid of Geelong!

Yeah but who would notice the way we've been travelling

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:

doggies4eva wrote:An increase in the cap would just see the same players getting more money. Good for them but it does nothing for the future of the game.

I would rather see a serious commitment by the AFL into developing the game further.

That means a national plan to improve the standard and participation in the sport not just at the top level.

OTM Doggies. There should be no increase in the salary cap as long as there are Victorian clubs lining up for handouts at the end of every season. Sixteen teams is just too many.

regards,

REB

I dunno if its the number of teams - I think it is the geograhical distribution. Excluding Geelong (not because you support them but because I see Geelong as a distinct region) there are 9 clubs in an area with a population base of about 3m. Based on Adelaide and Perth (about 1m each) that means that about 6 teams would be right. I have excluded Sydney and Brisbane as they have competing codes. The problems will continue until another 2 or 3 Melbourne clubs relocate.

Course it is the number of teams. Relocated Melbourne teams wouldn't thrive. Where would they go? Brisbane, Sydney? Forget that because as soon as the Lie Ins or the Swines start dropping games so do the fans. Canberra? Tasmania? Not enough bums on seats. The sixteen team is too unwiedly and leads us to the lopsided nature of the competition. Two Vic teams must go or be merged but as anyone would say..as long as it isn't my mob!

regards,

REB

Im pretty sure this new TV deal now has that all 16 teams remain in the competition at least until 2012.

Blue Boy wrote:Im pretty sure this new TV deal now has that all 16 teams remain in the competition at least until 2012.

Thats right - TV is paying the big bucks so they get 8 games a week ie the AFL needs 16 teams just not in their present locations. Why can't they share a team - say play half their home games in Canberra and half in Sydney - that will give the Sydney fans almost a game evry week to attend.

Can't see it happening in the near future.