Why is there no salary cap for coaching staff?

[The Who]

The Swans Chairman Richard Collis today warns that AFL will be dominated by clubs that spend the most of coaches. Apparently Collingwood has 10 full-time coaches. Just like the NRL, the AFL has a salary cap on players but no restriction on how much you can pay coaches.

Why are players’ earnings restricted yet not that of coaches? We’ve seen in the Olympics how important coaches are.

Doesn’t the NRL pride itself on its salary cap evening out the competition? In reality it is only a partial salary cap until they include coaching staff.

 

[The Who]

The Swans Chairman Richard Collis today warns that AFL will be dominated by clubs that spend the most of coaches. Apparently Collingwood has 10 full-time coaches. Just like the NRL, the AFL has a salary cap on players but no restriction on how much you can pay coaches.

Why are players’ earnings restricted yet not that of coaches? We’ve seen in the Olympics how important coaches are.

Doesn’t the NRL pride itself on its salary cap evening out the competition? In reality it is only a partial salary cap until they include coaching staff.

 

[Dan]

The Swans Chairman Richard Collis today warns that AFL will be dominated by clubs that spend the most of coaches. Apparently Collingwood has 10 full-time coaches. Just like the NRL, the AFL has a salary cap on players but no restriction on how much you can pay coaches.

Why are players’ earnings restricted yet not that of coaches? We’ve seen in the Olympics how important coaches are.

Doesn’t the NRL pride itself on its salary cap evening out the competition? In reality it is only a partial salary cap until they include coaching staff.

because the player pool are contracted differently to coaches and are more or less the talent. The idea is to restrict and even the playing roster, but restricting the coaching roster is a different story.

 

[Dan]

The Swans Chairman Richard Collis today warns that AFL will be dominated by clubs that spend the most of coaches. Apparently Collingwood has 10 full-time coaches. Just like the NRL, the AFL has a salary cap on players but no restriction on how much you can pay coaches.

Why are players’ earnings restricted yet not that of coaches? We’ve seen in the Olympics how important coaches are.

Doesn’t the NRL pride itself on its salary cap evening out the competition? In reality it is only a partial salary cap until they include coaching staff.

because the player pool are contracted differently to coaches and are more or less the talent. The idea is to restrict and even the playing roster, but restricting the coaching roster is a different story.

 

[Frogz]

You want tehe good coaches going off to England also.
Coaches should never come under the salary cap.....If a club buys a cr@p coach bad luck to them.....lets not force them out of being successful with one club, thats the luck of the draw.

 

[Frogz]

You want tehe good coaches going off to England also.
Coaches should never come under the salary cap.....If a club buys a cr@p coach bad luck to them.....lets not force them out of being successful with one club, thats the luck of the draw.

 

[eagle-rock08]

Good question but you won't get an answer frmo the NRL.

The NRL doesn't even acknowledge the fan base as a stake holder in the game. (It sort of reminds me of an old-style company board. Smoking cigars and drinking port in the board room complaining that the workers aren't working hard enough.)

 

[eagle-rock08]

Good question but you won't get an answer frmo the NRL.

The NRL doesn't even acknowledge the fan base as a stake holder in the game. (It sort of reminds me of an old-style company board. Smoking cigars and drinking port in the board room complaining that the workers aren't working hard enough.)

 

[globaleagle]

'cause they'd get upset when no club uses the whole cap!

 

[globaleagle]

'cause they'd get upset when no club uses the whole cap!

 

[weev]

This is a good point worth making.

It's not just the coach but the coaching staff and facilities that also needs to be considered.

The future death of clubs will not come about because the club can't meet the cap but because the players will choose to go where they get the best treatment and chance to win, for example, going to a specialises sports institute with trainers, conditioners and coaches, plural.

Melbourne Storm were losing something like 8 million bucks a year back then they were winning titles. News Ltd, the owner, has deep pockets. But the point is the Storm wouldn't exist without a rich benefactor and their players benefit in kind from these riches (so it appears).

But wait, there's more. The new dilemma is one we are all too much aware of, pioneered by Des Hasler.

In the future it wouldn't be hard to imagine a coaching group moving from club to club. After all its team effort off the the field too. Des's current success is because he is working with people he's worked with before in work processes already established.

The cap makes teams more even but the rub will come in the likes of clubs the Dogs, who have the backing of a leagues club that earns more in poker machine profits than any other club in NSW and can splash the money around off the field as well.

Nowadays, calling Manly the silvertails is a complete anachronism, unless its talking about on field success, in which we are the high flying silvertails with a full trophy cabinet. We achieve despite being rich. Hopefully, people won't remember these as the 'good old days'.

 

[weev]

This is a good point worth making.

It's not just the coach but the coaching staff and facilities that also needs to be considered.

The future death of clubs will not come about because the club can't meet the cap but because the players will choose to go where they get the best treatment and chance to win, for example, going to a specialises sports institute with trainers, conditioners and coaches, plural.

Melbourne Storm were losing something like 8 million bucks a year back then they were winning titles. News Ltd, the owner, has deep pockets. But the point is the Storm wouldn't exist without a rich benefactor and their players benefit in kind from these riches (so it appears).

But wait, there's more. The new dilemma is one we are all too much aware of, pioneered by Des Hasler.

In the future it wouldn't be hard to imagine a coaching group moving from club to club. After all its team effort off the the field too. Des's current success is because he is working with people he's worked with before in work processes already established.

The cap makes teams more even but the rub will come in the likes of clubs the Dogs, who have the backing of a leagues club that earns more in poker machine profits than any other club in NSW and can splash the money around off the field as well.

Nowadays, calling Manly the silvertails is a complete anachronism, unless its talking about on field success, in which we are the high flying silvertails with a full trophy cabinet. We achieve despite being rich. Hopefully, people won't remember these as the 'good old days'.

 

[Rex]

Interesting question. The coaches are the talent just as much as the players are. Less visible at game-time, but no less important.

 

[Rex]

Interesting question. The coaches are the talent just as much as the players are. Less visible at game-time, but no less important.

 

[Frogz]

And there is a lesser number of talented coaches around. Imagine if we had to get rid of Toovery because of Salary cap pressure and could only afford/fit David Furner or Steve Price......God help us!!!!

 

[Frogz]

And there is a lesser number of talented coaches around. Imagine if we had to get rid of Toovery because of Salary cap pressure and could only afford/fit David Furner or Steve Price......God help us!!!!

 

[Kager]

I am a bit different as I think if you try to even out everything too much it further restricts your ability to retain talent or intellectual property you have built up.

You bring staff through your program and put all resources and info into them and then they do well and you see them leave because you can't keep them under the cap. It doesn't mean teams with less money get the staff just whoever is under the cap at the time.

Imagine if we train up top replacements for Toovs and they go elsewhere before Toovs retires as we can't pay them, then we either have to throw new guys in the deep end or go to the market and overpay someone else who has not come up knowing our systems and players.

This board has enough trigger points with for and against players at the moment do we really need a couple of pages discussing the assistant coaches coming through who is better?

 

[Kager]

I am a bit different as I think if you try to even out everything too much it further restricts your ability to retain talent or intellectual property you have built up.

You bring staff through your program and put all resources and info into them and then they do well and you see them leave because you can't keep them under the cap. It doesn't mean teams with less money get the staff just whoever is under the cap at the time.

Imagine if we train up top replacements for Toovs and they go elsewhere before Toovs retires as we can't pay them, then we either have to throw new guys in the deep end or go to the market and overpay someone else who has not come up knowing our systems and players.

This board has enough trigger points with for and against players at the moment do we really need a couple of pages discussing the assistant coaches coming through who is better?

 

[jabroni]

What about back room staff. Surely we should limit the numbers of staff and their salaries. It's not really fair that the broncos and bulldogs have so many members and sponsors that need servicing, as well as generate enough income to support them, and have to employ extra staff to do so. They should be made to shrink their operations to that of the poorest performing clubs. And no consideration given to living costs of where any of these staff are based, cos when we look at average salaries for specific industries, they're all even around the country.

Seriously. This thread is a joke. Let's penalise the clubs that manage their business well even further than what the salary cap does. Absolute goose!

 

[jabroni]

What about back room staff. Surely we should limit the numbers of staff and their salaries. It's not really fair that the broncos and bulldogs have so many members and sponsors that need servicing, as well as generate enough income to support them, and have to employ extra staff to do so. They should be made to shrink their operations to that of the poorest performing clubs. And no consideration given to living costs of where any of these staff are based, cos when we look at average salaries for specific industries, they're all even around the country.

Seriously. This thread is a joke. Let's penalise the clubs that manage their business well even further than what the salary cap does. Absolute goose!