Football department soft cap [merged]

[one-eyed]

Big clubs go hard on soft cap restrictions

AFL.com.au
Nick Bowen
Nov 23, 2018

WEALTHY clubs including Hawthorn, Collingwood and Richmond are pushing to have welfare spending removed from the football department soft cap.

The soft cap was one of the main agenda items when the AFL met separately with club CEOs and football managers in Melbourne on Thursday ahead of the NAB AFL Draft.

The cap was introduced in 2015 to reduce spiraling football department spending among clubs (excluding player salaries, which were already constrained by the salary cap).

With mental health becomingly an increasingly big issue in football, the Hawks, Magpies and Tigers are among a group of powerhouse clubs arguing that spending on welfare staff and programs should be removed from the soft cap.

There were up to six clubs whose football department spending sat close to, or on, the soft cap limit of $9.5 million this year, with Sydney understood to be among them.

Other clubs, however, oppose any change. In their view, there is sufficient room in the soft cap to invest appropriately in welfare.

One football manager told AFL.com.au any club tempted to scrimp on welfare clearly had its football department priorities out of whack.

The debate will remain unresolved for now, with welfare spending set to stay in the soft cap at least for 2019. 

The AFL also flagged on Thursday the possible reduction of match-day staff in the coach's box, interchange bench and on the ground.

Restrictions have already been placed on runners, who from next season can only enter the playing surface after a goal has been kicked, and water carriers, who are not permitted to enter the ground during live play.

The fact the AFL is considering imposing further match-day restrictions on clubs' off-field staff underlines its determination to remove any possible distractions to the on-field spectacle.

In 2018, clubs were allowed 26 staff who could access the ground during games, including coaches, fitness staff, interchange stewards, doctors, physiotherapists, data analysists and property stewards.

Under the football department soft cap, clubs have to pay a 100 per cent tax for every dollar they spend over the designated limit.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-22/big-clubs-go-hard-on-soft-cap-restrictions

[one-eyed]

The AFL ripped $63m from clubs. Now they’re split on how they want it paid back

Tom Morris
Fox Sports
May 11th, 2021 1:52 pm[/i]

AFL clubs are divided on the football department tax for 2022 — and the solutions for the AFL are complex and sure to create unrest.

Foxfooty.com.au understands all 18 teams have submitted formal applications detailing a range of requests to the league and there is a clear split among rival organisations.

Travis Auld, David Grossman and others at the AFL are working through the demands ahead of an announcement later in the season.

West Coast, Geelong and Richmond argued for the soft cap to increase by more than $1 million. Others, such as St Kilda and Gold Coast, would prefer a more modest rise of a few hundred thousand dollars at most.

And North Melbourne wants the soft cap to remain where it has been since COVID-19 saw drastic cuts last year: At $6.132 million. In an ideal world, not a cent more.

These examples provide a snapshot of the broad spectrum of perspectives that exists in club land. It’s reaching a boiling point.

THE HAVES

West Coast and Richmond are two of the richest clubs in the AFL. Remarkably, both boasted six-figure memberships in 2020, despite the pandemic.

Their submissions to the AFL argued for the soft cap to be increased by at least $1 million to $7.5 million, which would still be well below the pre-virus numbers but a big jump nonetheless.

These powerful teams can afford it and want scope to attract the best coaches to their organisations.

The Eagles, which other clubs say have fought hardest for a significant soft cap increase, argued they travel at least 10 times every season, costing the club considerably more than a Victorian side that may only leave the state three or four times per season.

On any given weekend in the first month of the year, the club fielded a WAFL team, an AFLW side and a senior men’s outfit. Providing staff for all sides at a reasonable wage is a challenge at the best of times, let alone when the soft cap is 30 per cent lower than previous campaigns.

The Eagles are an unequivocal ‘have’ team. They are as close to financially immune as any sporting organisation in the country. Although they say they lost $2 million when crowds were banned in Round 7, it was hardly the blow it would have been had St Kilda suffered the same fate.

The Giants would also like the soft cap to increase by around $1 million, as do Geelong and Sydney. The Tigers are on board too.

EXTRA PRESSURES

Recently, clubs were asked to restart their community clinic programs. Under the old structure, this would not have been an issue. But right now, one football boss said finding staff to organise anything outside of football is a stretch, let alone spend a day visiting schools in their area.

Not all clubs agreed, but some said the league is asking too much of them just months after huge chunks of their employees were cut.

On Tuesday morning, former Richmond assistant and Brisbane senior coach Justin Leppitsch was asked for his take.

“A lot of guys were offered the same wages they were offered 12 years ago,” Leppitsch said on SEN’s Whateley program.

“A lot of assistant coaches are thinking they are better off just being a teacher and coaching their local footy club.”

The main concern, according to one club chief, is the health and wellbeing of their people. He said burnout and mental health concerns are growing as the weeks pass.

Another worry is how fewer staff could impact players and the game in general. Foxfooty.com.au spoke to multiple clubs which said they feel like they are cutting money out of expenditure which will eventually impact the overall product.

THE HAVE NOTS

North Melbourne likes the current soft cap. Insiders see it as a competitive advantage against the fat cats: West Coast, Richmond etc.

The league is aware of the Kangaroos’ preference, but it would take a brave decision to listen to North Melbourne over the rest of the competition, even if it meant the league could use that money elsewhere.

The balanced resolution probably sits halfway between North and West Coast, according to club CEOs.

Essendon and Hawthorn have similar perspectives, arguing for marginal increases, while Port Adelaide and the Western Bulldogs expect the soft cap to rise by about $500,000 at the most.

The gluttonous clubs can’t believe other teams wouldn’t want to beef up their staff, while the smaller clubs secretly see the COVID-19 cuts as a much-needed recasting of burgeoning finances that were beginning to get out of hand.

One club football boss told foxfooty.com.au anyone who is complaining about a reduced soft cap hasn’t prepared adequately. In essence, don’t complain because you haven’t managed the situation well.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-news-2021-soft-cap-football-department-coach-salaries-wage-gillon-mclachlan-tom-morris/news-story/853ad533c737419e4879c9628723ddb6

[one-eyed]

Dimma in his presser didn't miss having a swipe at AFL HQ over the reduced soft cap.

- They love to talk about consistency .... not too sure where they get that.
- Look at the rate of injuries and the staff and player walking away from the game due to mental health.
- The strain on players and staff is enormous. It's 24/7. Feels like round 18 rather than round 9.
- We have reduced staff but the same number of players so you're going to miss players.
- 37% pay cuts and staff reductions is really challenging at the moment.
- No longer world leader regarding sporting performance & player and staff welfare due to the reduced cap. We're coming back to the pack.

Source: https://www.richmondfc.com.au/video/935361/hardwick-previews-gws

[one-eyed]

With covid, the club’s soft cap next year will only increase by $200,000 to $300,000. It’ll be finalised at the next meeting. On today’s call, lots of clubs were against a push to exclude a portion of senior coaches salaries.

https://twitter.com/TomBrowne7/status/1417409322426847232

Tom Morris on AFL Tonight just said it could raise by up to $500k. That still won't please the bigger clubs like Richmond, West Coast, etc.

[one-eyed]

Clubs expecting soft cap rise for 2022

The AFL speaks to club bosses regarding a boost to football department spend

By Callum Twomey
afl.com.au
21 July 2021

CLUBS are anticipating a rise of up to $250,000 in their football department soft caps next year as the AFL continues to deal with the fallout of another COVID-19 struck season.

The AFL spoke to club bosses on Tuesday for a briefing that included an update on soft cap spending, which relates to football department staffers including coaches, recruiting and list management and fitness and medical areas.

They were informed they were likely to receive a spike of $200-250,000 per club in football department spending for 2022 but no specific details were passed on as the League works through another challenging campaign.

The indications from the League will assist clubs in their planning for how their football departments will be constructed for next year.

The soft cap was slashed dramatically last season by the League as part of the drastic measures to keep the game moving as COVID-19 hit, with club spending cut from $9.7 million to $6.2.

That saw a magnitude of assistant coaches, recruiters and football department staffers lose their roles at clubs during the first year of the pandemic.

While some clubs had pushed for a larger increase in soft cap spending, there is largely an understanding of the financial implications on the competition in recent weeks due to more COVID-19 outbreaks around the country that has seen expenditure rise in relocating clubs to different states for blocks of time.

There was understood to be little support for a proposal for some of the senior coach's salary to be placed outside of the cap depending on how long the coach had been at the respective club.

Clubs were also briefed on the mental health challenges facing their people and staff in what is proving another delicate season across the game as the finals edges closer.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/651271/clubs-expecting-soft-cap-rise-for-2022

[Andyy]

There was understood to be little support for a proposal for some of the senior coach's salary to be placed outside of the cap depending on how long the coach had been at the respective club.

So basically Richmond tried to pay Dimma outside the cap so they could get another assistant but the other clubs were not in favour.

Hard to swallow, being at the top and watching the AFL cut our resources because the minnow clubs can't survive.

[WilliamPowell]

There was understood to be little support for a proposal for some of the senior coach's salary to be placed outside of the cap depending on how long the coach had been at the respective club.

So basically Richmond tried to pay Dimma outside the cap so they could get another assistant but the other clubs were not in favour.

Hard to swallow, being at the top and watching the AFL cut our resources because the minnow clubs can't survive.

Not just the Tigers wanted that a number,ber of other clubswanted it too.... seems to me the "have nots" and HQ aren't supportive

What a joke clubs being punished because they've made themselves strong off the field

[one-eyed]

Hardwick weighs in on soft cap

Jon Pierik
The Age
6 June 2022

Hardwick has added his voice to growing agitation over the soft football department cap, declaring clubs for the first time are losing top off-field talent but need to be more unified in their bid for greater funding.

While other areas of football departments, and league executive salaries, have returned to pre-COVID levels, football department spending has not been allowed to snap back, sparking suggestions it could limit a club’s ability to lure four-time premiership coach Alastair Clarkson back into the fold.

The league introduced cuts of about $3 million per club in 2020, meaning staffing levels, including coaching and fitness, often remain under-resourced, the flow on being those still there are under greater stress with a demanding workload.

As the AFL Coaches Association prepares to take its complaint to the AFL, Hardwick said clubs were now losing great people to other aspects of the sporting environment.

“One thing we would say is, a lot of us travel overseas, the coaches and the resources we have available in AFL land are second to none, no question, but the fact of the matter is, with a cap in place, people are starting to leave the environment, which we have never seen before,” Hardwick said.

“It used to be the environment where people would come but because [they] are being paid more money elsewhere, they are getting dragged out.”

Collingwood president Jeff Browne and Swans chairman Andrew Pridham have called for a soft cap rise of at least $500,000.

Pridham pointed out staff - including medical and fitness staff - could earn more elsewhere, a key point when living in Sydney where cost-of-living pressures, particularly house prices and/or renting, are most expensive.

“You have a capped environment where you are in an open marketplace. Players are a bit different because they are either playing football or playing some other sport … but the reality is, it is a significant disadvantage to the two clubs based in Sydney,” Pridham told 3AW.

One suggestion is for 50 per cent of a senior coach salary to sit outside the cap.

Hardwick agreed with this plan, for he felt the Tigers were at a particular disadvantage because they had been so successful, and had to pay more to retain top talent.

“No question. That to me is how we gain parity in the competition. I don’t think my players should come in and be at a disadvantage just because we have been successful over a period of time. We should be entitled to have the same resources as every other club,” he said.

The AFL’s soft cap this year is $6.5 million - up about $300,000 from last year but still more than $3 million below the 2019 limit of $9.7 million. Few clubs, including the wealthy ones, pay over that amount, choosing to avoid a hefty tax if they spend more.

However, not all clubs are in unison when it comes to lobbying AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan for an increase.

“To be fair, I think Gill has a great understanding of what our desires are and probably agrees with them,” Hardwick said.

“The fact of the matter is, there are clubs out there that probably are in disagreement. Probably, we have got to get all of our ducks in a row at club land and figure out exactly what we need and what we want.”

Hardwick pointed to what shapes as a bumper new broadcast rights deal to help improve league finances, while noting “wages have increased back across various other aspects of the business but for people within football departments it hasn’t”.

Clarkson, should he return to coaching next season, could command a seven-figure salary, but Hardwick said his great mate would accept less.

“He will come back in, no question. Alastair Clarkson is worth an exorbitant amount of money with his knowledge and the IP [intellectual property] he has, but he is that sort of guy, like most of us are, that will take less to make sure we get the right people around us. Guys like Alastair Clarkson don’t grow on trees,” Hardwick said.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/lynch-to-remain-on-sidelines-for-another-week-hardwick-fears-staff-departures-over-soft-cap-20220606-p5araz.html

[Knighter]

Hardwick won't criticize the umpiring, MRP or rule changes but instead decides to draw a line in the sand over his coin!

FMD no wonder our club is going nowhere these days.   

[Tigeritis™©®]

Hardwick won't criticize the umpiring, MRP or rule changes but instead decides to draw a line in the sand over his coin!

FMD no wonder our club is going nowhere these days.   

Divorce is expensive 

[WilliamPowell]

Hardwick won't criticize the umpiring, MRP or rule changes but instead decides to draw a line in the sand over his coin!

FMD no wonder our club is going nowhere these days.   

He was asked a question, he didn't raise the topic

And isn't interesting that the story only contains the bits to make a headline and no mention that he did actually saying in the presser that he like a number of others have taken less $$ to free up more cap space to allow the clubs to try and hold onto staff in their footy departments

Funny that

[Tigeritis™©®]

Watching the VFL something must be done.

What I don’t understand is why clubs that fail to get 2 men and a dog to games haven’t skimped like we seem to have since Covid wreaked havoc.

Our development has suffered as a result and aren’t improving as you’d expect. Some seem to have gone backwards.

[WilliamPowell]

Watching the VFL something must be done.

What I don’t understand is why clubs that fail to get 2 men and a dog to games haven’t skimped like we seen to have since Covid wreaked havoc.

Our development has suffered as a result and aren’t improving as you’d expect some seem to have gone backwards.

Interesting point you raise

It was actually something Dimma touched on in his presser. Don't think you will like the answer (comment)

He pointed out that all clubs have the same cap.

But less successful clubs usually pay their coaches less than the successful clubs. This actually makes sense when you think about it. Noble and say Mitchell wouldn't be getting the $$$ that say Dimma, Scott or Longmire. So for those less successful the difference in senior coach salary means they can employ more heads and stay within the cap. How much

It was also mentioned that NO club is paying more than the cap.

The soft cap needs to be returned to what it was pre COVID or at least increased by $1.5mill.

The $3 million cut was simply unfair on all Clubs but especially the successful ones.

[wayne]

Doesn't Scott give himself a reduced wage to help pay for more assistants?

[WilliamPowell]

Doesn't Scott give himself a reduced wage to help pay for more assistants?

yep as does Dimma (he said that in the presser too). It is one of the reasons why more people weren't put off when the $3 million was cut from the cap

But the point I think he was trying to make was Clubs who pay less to their senior coach & assistants have more room in their cap to have more heads in their footy dept.