Club Payments Crackdown

[Jim05]

Good on them for trying to do something about this scourge on our game.

Scourge?

Some people want to pay someone extra money to play at their club rather than another one because they consider that their value to them. That club has the issue that they are in a regional location so in order to recruit better players they need to make it a bit more attractive. How is this a scourge?

A truck driver may get paid $40k a year in Adelaide, but a mining site in Karratha needs a driver and is willing to pay $120k a year if he is willing to FIFO. Maybe the Australian Government should put in a cap on truck driver wages because Toll and Linfox are complaining that they are losing their best drivers to the mines, such a "scourge" it is on our trucking industry.

Excessive player payments is absolutely a scourge. It's the games biggest challenge at the grass roots level in my opinion.

Why do you think the AFL has a salary cap? Why does the NBA have one? SANFL? etc Why does nearly every single sporting competition that takes itself relatively serious have one? Research how and why these caps were put in place and you have your answer as to why this is a scourge on the game.

Put really simply, a salary cap helps protect the profitability of clubs by guiding payments to be sustainable and it provides a level playing field by ensuring each club has access to the same payment total. By doing those two things it keeps clubs competitive and helps protect the future of the game by providing an adequate level of access to the sport for the next generation.

As for your analogy to FIFO truck driving in the mining industry - yeah, nah, there are more holes in that than in my old undies:

1. No one is really complaining about players leaving City leagues for Country ones - that is perhaps the biggest straw man argument I've seen raised in this debate.
2. A mining company is a business, sporting clubs are clubs - the inherent difference in that is one is profit driven, the other is not. Ergo, trying to compare relative salaries and the sustainability therein is utterly moot.
3. A mining company has rules and regulations pertaining to what they pay their employees. A football club, currently, does not. Ergo, trying to compare relative salaries and the sustainability therein is utterly moot.

but, the biggest difference is:

4. A mining company does not have competitors which it is reliant upon to be able to mine and be profitable. You don't see BHP waiting for Rio Tinto to rock up to Roxby Downs so they can start digging. A football club does rely on its competitors to be sustainable. Ergo, trying to compare relative salaries and the sustainability therein is utterly moot.

And thats why most SANFL clubs are doing under the table deals.
As ive said all along, it wont affect the majority of clubs, will just have to resort to other avenues of payments.
The SANFL clubs have plenty of players working for sponsors or members for ridiculous ammounts, this is not illegal as ling as they are not paid by the club directly

[morell]

Yeah, and as has been repeatedly said, the measures are a start, the first step. It's not yet perfect. But you cannot argue that because people will flaunt the rules and that they're difficult to catch, that there shouldn't be something done.

Financial fraud is difficult to prove, there are lots of things that people shouldn't be doing that the authorities of various types have trouble policing. Doesn't mean we should just let it happen though.

It will only take one or two clubs to get pinched and for the penalty to be severe enough for the measures to begin to take effect. From there tweaking the points system will make clubs think more than twice. But you're right, it wont be enough to stop everyone.

In my mind the biggest challenge the administrators have in this space is changing the mindset and culture, as this board proves, it is still accepted in the footy world to out-pay your opponents and buy flags. It's deemed as "success".

What we need to do is change the culture so that over paying players beyond the salary cap is considered blatant cheating and is abhorrent. That way, you won't need to catch anyone and it will be a self-policing type process.

[sideview]

Morrell you keep referring to the locals having an opportunity to become involved / spend more time with locals / introduce more kids to the game well if you think country football teams don't already pursue every possible avenue to fill sides every Saturday you're way off the mark. The money has ballooned because of the APPS system. If you de regulate you can be selective in who you recruit. With the APPS players have you over a barrel. But in the SANFL /CFL's wisdom they believed the APPS would stop players leaving the SANFL which most likely has been instructed by the AFL to maintain the SANFL as a pathway to the AFL.

The other major issues we have in South Australia is 1. we are not affiliated with the AFL so we get no funding for grass roots football . Vic $15million, NSW $25million, Qld $28 million. 2. The SAAFL is stronger and more dominant than the SANFL and the CFL. 3. The SANFL spent the last 20years propping up the Crows and Power at the expense of local football. Now they have no licenses they are going to be playing catch up for along time. Now they are showing an interest in local football again because apart from Adelaide oval they have no income from the AFL teams. If the SANFL fails or the standard drops the AFL will be happy.

Morrell agree something needed to be looked at but to have both a salary cap and the APPS with no phase in period will be the demise of a number of teams. Which might have to happen going forward due to population but spare a thought for those communities that will not have a football team or may have to drive 3 and 4 hours to play.

The SANFL have had total access to players in South Australia but have failed dismally to promote the game, promote junior football, build a strong foundation of grass roots football in this state they have been far more interested in the AFL teams.

So Morrell really all any community wants is to be able to play and support their football on the weekend if that costs them some $$ that they have raised or had contributed by sponsors can you blame them.

[Jim05]

Yeah, and as has been repeatedly said, the measures are a start, the first step. It's not yet perfect. But you cannot argue that because people will flaunt the rules and that they're difficult to catch, that there shouldn't be something done.

Financial fraud is difficult to prove, there are lots of things that people shouldn't be doing that the authorities of various types have trouble policing. Doesn't mean we should just let it happen though.

It will only take one or two clubs to get pinched and for the penalty to be severe enough for the measures to begin to take effect. From there tweaking the points system will make clubs think more than twice. But you're right, it wont be enough to stop everyone.

In my mind the biggest challenge the administrators have in this space is changing the mindset and culture, as this board proves, it is still accepted in the footy world to out-pay your opponents and buy flags. It's deemed as "success".

What we need to do is change the culture so that over paying players beyond the salary cap is considered blatant cheating and is abhorrent. That way, you won't need to catch anyone and it will be a self-policing type process.

But its not financial fraud!
If I own a business and want to pay a bloke $40k a year to work for me thats my choice, whether he actually rocks up or not is no ones business as long as taxes are declared.
No rules are been broken

[Mr Beefy]

The other major issues we have in South Australia is 1. we are not affiliated with the AFL so we get no funding for grass roots football .

Isn't affiliation is through your league -> SACFL -> SANFL -> AFL. We got funding from AFL.

[morell]

Yeah, and as has been repeatedly said, the measures are a start, the first step. It's not yet perfect. But you cannot argue that because people will flaunt the rules and that they're difficult to catch, that there shouldn't be something done.

Financial fraud is difficult to prove, there are lots of things that people shouldn't be doing that the authorities of various types have trouble policing. Doesn't mean we should just let it happen though.

It will only take one or two clubs to get pinched and for the penalty to be severe enough for the measures to begin to take effect. From there tweaking the points system will make clubs think more than twice. But you're right, it wont be enough to stop everyone.

In my mind the biggest challenge the administrators have in this space is changing the mindset and culture, as this board proves, it is still accepted in the footy world to out-pay your opponents and buy flags. It's deemed as "success".

What we need to do is change the culture so that over paying players beyond the salary cap is considered blatant cheating and is abhorrent. That way, you won't need to catch anyone and it will be a self-policing type process.

But its not financial fraud!
If I own a business and want to pay a bloke $40k a year to work for me thats my choice, whether he actually rocks up or not is no ones business as long as taxes are declared.
No rules are been broken

I know it's not financial fraud, that was an analogy.

The overall point you keep missing is - just because something is difficult to prove or tough to police, doesn't mean there shouldn't be regulation in place to try and stop it.

[Dogwatcher]

The $$$$ in footy was going up before the Apps came in.
The $$$$ inflation was being caused by population drift and the need to survive.

[morell]

Morrell you keep referring to the locals having an opportunity to become involved / spend more time with locals / introduce more kids to the game well if you think country football teams don't already pursue every possible avenue to fill sides every Saturday you're way off the mark.

I understand that you're doing everything in your power, I am also saying the implementation of a salary cap won't affect your ability to field a side. It might affect the quality of your side in the short term but over time it would correct back.

So many people are thinking this cap is only to be applied to them, it's also applied to your direct competitor as well, you do realise that?

The money has ballooned because of the APPS system.

The money was ballooning well before APPS.

If you de regulate you can be selective in who you recruit. With the APPS players have you over a barrel.

How so? I would have thought a system which overtly restricts player movement would result in less power for the players.

But in the SANFL /CFL's wisdom they believed the APPS would stop players leaving the SANFL which most likely has been instructed by the AFL to maintain the SANFL as a pathway to the AFL.

I think you're making assumption on half truths and misconceptions. My understanding of the APPS was to reduce mass-exodux and mass-influx of players from club to club witch destabilises the evenness of the competitions.

The other major issues we have in South Australia is 1. we are not affiliated with the AFL so we get no funding for grass roots football . Vic $15million, NSW $25million, Qld $28 million. 2. The SAAFL is stronger and more dominant than the SANFL and the CFL. 3. The SANFL spent the last 20years propping up the Crows and Power at the expense of local football. Now they have no licenses they are going to be playing catch up for along time. Now they are showing an interest in local football again because apart from Adelaide oval they have no income from the AFL teams. If the SANFL fails or the standard drops the AFL will be happy.

Don't disagree with any of this. Not sure of the significance to this debate.

Morrell agree something needed to be looked at but to have both a salary cap and the APPS with no phase in period will be the demise of a number of teams. Which might have to happen going forward due to population but spare a thought for those communities that will not have a football team or may have to drive 3 and 4 hours to play.

Perhaps a phase in might be a good idea or a "grace period" for adjustment, but I see it as the exact opposite, the clubs which were going to fall over because the huge increase in costs to remain competitive will now be able to survive because of these measures.

The SANFL have had total access to players in South Australia but have failed dismally to promote the game, promote junior football, build a strong foundation of grass roots football in this state they have been far more interested in the AFL teams.

Don't disagree with any of this either. Those that know me know I am no fan of the $ANFL.

So Morrell really all any community wants is to be able to play and support their football on the weekend if that costs them some $$ that they have raised or had contributed by sponsors can you blame them.

No I don't blame them at all. And they can still raise cash and spend it on their footy club, if clubs want to pay the maximum it's going to equate to about $4k a game, in a 10 team comp that's $80k a season plus finals ... just for players. If you're spending more than that you really are contributing to the lack of sustainability in the sport and it should be corrected.

As a side note: no-one is stopping you raising millions and spending it on club rooms, or millions and spending it on junior development or raising millions and spending it on light towers or better grass or training equipment or new car parks or etc etc

[LaughingKookaburra]

Must say I don't agree that AAPS has balooned match payments. I personally know blokes who were on well over 1k per week over 10 years ago in the country where as 20 years ago the guns were pulling in $4-500 a week. Seems like Country Clubs striving to be the best are trying to go one further every year and this evolves in to greater costs over time.

[daysofourlives]

Ok Morrell answer me this.
Ill use a couple close leagues as an example. The BL&G has 3 teams based in Gawler then also has 3 in the Barossa Valley. If clubs are only allowed to offer the same money and I think we all agree that the $500 is likely to be both the minimum and maximum how are the Barossa clubs going to attract a guy to drive 30 minutes further for the same money? Lets say the guy lives in the Northern suburbs, the 50c a km round trip @120km is an extra $60. Is that attractive enough to sit in your car for an extra hour a trip? is there a limit on this travel allowance? ie is Tanunda now going to be training 7 days a week?
Extend that further to the RFL and same thing, why is anyone going to travel to Renmark when they can get the same money at Waikerie. It would be an extra $100 per trip to go to Renmark. Every league in the state will have the same issues. So clubs geographically closer to the city have an enormous leg up just because of their location.
Make it $1or $1.50 per km and it may be getting close to balancing the scales

[Q.]

Ok Morrell answer me this.
Ill use a couple close leagues as an example. The BL&G has 3 teams based in Gawler then also has 3 in the Barossa Valley. If clubs are only allowed to offer the same money and I think we all agree that the $500 is likely to be both the minimum and maximum how are the Barossa clubs going to attract a guy to drive 30 minutes further for the same money? Lets say the guy lives in the Northern suburbs, the 50c a km round trip @120km is an extra $60. Is that attractive enough to sit in your car for an extra hour a trip? is there a limit on this travel allowance? ie is Tanunda now going to be training 7 days a week?
Extend that further to the RFL and same thing, why is anyone going to travel to Renmark when they can get the same money at Waikerie. It would be an extra $100 per trip to go to Renmark. Every league in the state will have the same issues. So clubs geographically closer to the city have an enormous leg up just because of their location.
Make it $1or $1.50 per km and it may be getting close to balancing the scales

Offer a better 'football club experience' than the club 30 minutes closer.

[Jetters]

Ok Morrell answer me this.
Ill use a couple close leagues as an example. The BL&G has 3 teams based in Gawler then also has 3 in the Barossa Valley. If clubs are only allowed to offer the same money and I think we all agree that the $500 is likely to be both the minimum and maximum how are the Barossa clubs going to attract a guy to drive 30 minutes further for the same money? Lets say the guy lives in the Northern suburbs, the 50c a km round trip @120km is an extra $60. Is that attractive enough to sit in your car for an extra hour a trip? is there a limit on this travel allowance? ie is Tanunda now going to be training 7 days a week?
Extend that further to the RFL and same thing, why is anyone going to travel to Renmark when they can get the same money at Waikerie. It would be an extra $100 per trip to go to Renmark. Every league in the state will have the same issues. So clubs geographically closer to the city have an enormous leg up just because of their location.
Make it $1or $1.50 per km and it may be getting close to balancing the scales

Offer a better 'football club experience' than the club 30 minutes closer.

FFS if your footy club can't offer an experience worth 30mins of driving you are a sh!t football club and have bigger problems than any salary cap issue.

[Look Good In Leather]

Must say I don't agree that AAPS has balooned match payments. I personally know blokes who were on well over 1k per week over 10 years ago in the country where as 20 years ago the guns were pulling in $4-500 a week. Seems like Country Clubs striving to be the best are trying to go one further every year and this evolves in to greater costs over time.

If that is what was going around then, we hardly have an issue now. Certainly not "spiralling out of control" like some have suggested.
Considering inflation, it looks like less is being spent now.

[Dogwatcher]

Ok Morrell answer me this.
Ill use a couple close leagues as an example. The BL&G has 3 teams based in Gawler then also has 3 in the Barossa Valley. If clubs are only allowed to offer the same money and I think we all agree that the $500 is likely to be both the minimum and maximum how are the Barossa clubs going to attract a guy to drive 30 minutes further for the same money? Lets say the guy lives in the Northern suburbs, the 50c a km round trip @120km is an extra $60. Is that attractive enough to sit in your car for an extra hour a trip? is there a limit on this travel allowance? ie is Tanunda now going to be training 7 days a week?
Extend that further to the RFL and same thing, why is anyone going to travel to Renmark when they can get the same money at Waikerie. It would be an extra $100 per trip to go to Renmark. Every league in the state will have the same issues. So clubs geographically closer to the city have an enormous leg up just because of their location.
Make it $1or $1.50 per km and it may be getting close to balancing the scales

People were travelling, for example, to the Riverland to play football before these high wages came in.
They were also travelling to Tanunda and Freeling to do the same. In fact, I know blokes from Adelaide who played in the BL&G and then in the Riverland - before the high wages came into play.
All clubs will be restricted on what $$$ they can spend, so if blokes want to play footy for $$$, they will still do so. They will just get less. And clubs might now not be paying some of the absolute 'Average Joes' who are getting paid now - surely that's a win for all clubs.

[cracka]

Is it correct that a playing coach & assistant coaches can only be paid max $250 a game but an unlimited amount to coach. Gonna be a lot of assistant coaches playing in country leagues if true.

[morell]

Ok Morrell answer me this.
Ill use a couple close leagues as an example. The BL&G has 3 teams based in Gawler then also has 3 in the Barossa Valley. If clubs are only allowed to offer the same money and I think we all agree that the $500 is likely to be both the minimum and maximum how are the Barossa clubs going to attract a guy to drive 30 minutes further for the same money? Lets say the guy lives in the Northern suburbs, the 50c a km round trip @120km is an extra $60. Is that attractive enough to sit in your car for an extra hour a trip? is there a limit on this travel allowance? ie is Tanunda now going to be training 7 days a week?
Extend that further to the RFL and same thing, why is anyone going to travel to Renmark when they can get the same money at Waikerie. It would be an extra $100 per trip to go to Renmark. Every league in the state will have the same issues. So clubs geographically closer to the city have an enormous leg up just because of their location.
Make it $1or $1.50 per km and it may be getting close to balancing the scales

As others have said, if you're losing recruits because your competitor is 30 minutes closer, than a salary cap is not going to be your biggest problem I wouldn't have thought. We have guys who live an hour away and drive past about 30 clubs to play for us. We also have people that sometimes have to throw footballs back over the fence who play for clubs that are miles away. I am sure most clubs would be the same.

But ... if it turns out that the clubs which are more geographically isolated are losing out because of that inherent difficulty, then perhaps an increase in the petrol allowance or a sliding scale based on their location could be implemented. Solving that issue isn't exactly going to be put on the Millennium Prize list I don't think.

[morell]

Must say I don't agree that AAPS has balooned match payments. I personally know blokes who were on well over 1k per week over 10 years ago in the country where as 20 years ago the guns were pulling in $4-500 a week. Seems like Country Clubs striving to be the best are trying to go one further every year and this evolves in to greater costs over time.

If that is what was going around then, we hardly have an issue now. Certainly not "spiralling out of control" like some have suggested.
Considering inflation, it looks like less is being spent now.

C'mon LGIL.

Sustainable

1. Able to be maintained at a certain rate or level.

That's what everyone is saying, these payments that have been going on for yonks are no longer sustainable and need to be capped.

[oyster]

All of this discussion seems irrelevant. Three leagues have apparently or allegedly already voted (according to the bush telegraph) and other will vote on Thursday or Friday night. The rules as they are currently written or drafted, with just $3,000 per side, just won't happen. End of story. I wonder what will happen when the 3 big country leagues vote? Interesting to see what the Adelaide Hills, Barossa and Great Southern Leagues do?

[morell]

Article from last year, sums everything up quite well:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... ty/5756410

AFL Victoria has set up a committee to investigate ways in which to rein in player payments, South Australia's country football league is following suit, and Western Australia's league has an eye on proceedings as local communities battle with the economics of player payments.

Chairman of the Community Football Board of SA David Shipway says it's one of the biggest issues facing country football.

And unlike what oyster is saying, according to this article there is reasonable support in the leagues:

There is a really strong feeling amongst people that are putting money into clubs that they've had enough. We get that it's a community base and it drives a lot of the wellbeing of the community, but it has escalated to the point where we don't think it's sustainable, ' he said.

'The local clubs are hurting, trying to outbid the bigger towns, and the big towns that have the sustainable football competition are spending money too, depriving their locals of getting a game.'

'We've had people come to us saying 'we are on a merry-go-round of spending and we want to stop' but they have to keep going because the town down the road is spending more than they are.'

[oyster]

Article from last year, sums everything up quite well:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... ty/5756410

AFL Victoria has set up a committee to investigate ways in which to rein in player payments, South Australia's country football league is following suit, and Western Australia's league has an eye on proceedings as local communities battle with the economics of player payments.

Chairman of the Community Football Board of SA David Shipway says it's one of the biggest issues facing country football.

And unlike what oyster is saying, according to this article there is reasonable support in the leagues:

There is a really strong feeling amongst people that are putting money into clubs that they've had enough. We get that it's a community base and it drives a lot of the wellbeing of the community, but it has escalated to the point where we don't think it's sustainable, ' he said.

'The local clubs are hurting, trying to outbid the bigger towns, and the big towns that have the sustainable football competition are spending money too, depriving their locals of getting a game.'

'We've had people come to us saying 'we are on a merry-go-round of spending and we want to stop' but they have to keep going because the town down the road is spending more than they are.'

Clubs and leagues are not saying a word in that article Morrell. It is David Shipway doing the talking. Nowhere in the article does it say, what you are eluding to. Actually the Yarawonga president, is saying completely opposite to message you are trying to drive home. You could not have picked a worse article, in a terrible attempt to back up your stance.

Reading your comments, over pages and pages and pages, tells me you are obviously against player payments. You are, by the club logo on your name, involved with a very, very low division club so this won't effect you at all, so why get your knickers in a twist. Your club clearly doesn't pay players and won't in future, so it has no effect on you at all. Your view is based around players getting no payment for their time, efforts and skill. Thankfully, that does not reflect the view that 95% percent of clubs have in this state. If you want to keep living in the 1953 thats fantastic, but you are one of the absolute minority living in a time warp. Next time though, try and use a better snippet and quotes to support your argument. This snippet you posted actually did completely opposite to supporting your stance.