Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Injury Marquee
First of all, congratulations to the Central Coast Mariners for securing the most sought-after signature in Australian football...that of John "Citizenship Test" Aloisi.
Now to the point. Should they have been able to sign him, given the presence of a marquee player (Tony Vidmar) at the club already? The same question, incidentally, could be asked of Sydney FC, re their acquisition of Michael Bridges as a replacement for the crocked Mike Enfield.
Here is an account of the loophole that has allowed both clubs to make a rather expensive signing despite both possessing a marquee player already:
Significantly, Aloisi's contract will not be included in the club's salary cap - even though he has not signed as a marquee player.
The Mariners already have a marquee player in former Australian defender Tony Vidmar, but Aloisi has instead been recruited as a long-term injury replacement for Matthew Osman, who is out for the season with a knee injury.
Under A-League rules, long-term injury replacements are not included in the cap. In signing both Vidmar and Aloisi, some could argue the Mariners have found a clever way to have two marquee players on their books for the season.
Some could indeed argue that. And thanks to the deep pockets of John Singleton and the Mariners' high-profile new investor, ex-Sydney FC fan hero Peter Turnbull, the Mariners appear to have been able to meet Aloisi's wage demands without breaking the bank.
I feel that it's been a mistake to allow players signed as injury cover not to come under the cap. Surely the dual purpose of a salary cap is to ensure a relatively level playing field, and to encourage fiscal prudence; it would be unfortunate for the league if clubs were to begin over-reaching themselves in the search for "injury marquees".
Set against that is the entertainment value that may accrue from having two players of marquee quality in each side. But if the FFA is prepared to allow those clubs fortunate enough to have a player ruled out for the season to circumvent the cap in such an obvious manner, why not simply go the whole hog and allow two marquee players per team?
Either that, or require the clubs to keep the injury replacements under the cap (discounting, for the time being, the salary of the long-term casualty).
Now to the point. Should they have been able to sign him, given the presence of a marquee player (Tony Vidmar) at the club already? The same question, incidentally, could be asked of Sydney FC, re their acquisition of Michael Bridges as a replacement for the crocked Mike Enfield.
Here is an account of the loophole that has allowed both clubs to make a rather expensive signing despite both possessing a marquee player already:
Significantly, Aloisi's contract will not be included in the club's salary cap - even though he has not signed as a marquee player.
The Mariners already have a marquee player in former Australian defender Tony Vidmar, but Aloisi has instead been recruited as a long-term injury replacement for Matthew Osman, who is out for the season with a knee injury.
Under A-League rules, long-term injury replacements are not included in the cap. In signing both Vidmar and Aloisi, some could argue the Mariners have found a clever way to have two marquee players on their books for the season.
Some could indeed argue that. And thanks to the deep pockets of John Singleton and the Mariners' high-profile new investor, ex-Sydney FC fan hero Peter Turnbull, the Mariners appear to have been able to meet Aloisi's wage demands without breaking the bank.
I feel that it's been a mistake to allow players signed as injury cover not to come under the cap. Surely the dual purpose of a salary cap is to ensure a relatively level playing field, and to encourage fiscal prudence; it would be unfortunate for the league if clubs were to begin over-reaching themselves in the search for "injury marquees".
Set against that is the entertainment value that may accrue from having two players of marquee quality in each side. But if the FFA is prepared to allow those clubs fortunate enough to have a player ruled out for the season to circumvent the cap in such an obvious manner, why not simply go the whole hog and allow two marquee players per team?
Either that, or require the clubs to keep the injury replacements under the cap (discounting, for the time being, the salary of the long-term casualty).
Comments:
<< Home
Thought this was going to be a about Juninho, Mikey. I'm sure FFA are going to scrap this loophole at the next available opportunity so it's something of a moot point, but yes, SFC and CCM are really game-ing the system at the moment, CCM in particular (though they may end up needing a replacement for Aloisi). Still, I'm gonna catch the next Mariners - Pheonix if only to hear the complete 'Wrong Aloisi' chant XD
I have no problems with the replacement player being outside the salary cap because that makes sense otherwise it will be difficult to fit in the replacement player especially if you were using your whole salary cap allocation.
However, I think what should happen is that the replacement player should earn up to what the replaced player earned because that way you are replacing like with like. There is no point replacing a player with another player who earns far much more than the injured player because then you have suddenly become a better team.
This loop hole needs to closed as soon as possible.
However, I think what should happen is that the replacement player should earn up to what the replaced player earned because that way you are replacing like with like. There is no point replacing a player with another player who earns far much more than the injured player because then you have suddenly become a better team.
This loop hole needs to closed as soon as possible.
# posted by 
: October 22, 2007 at 10:45 AM
: October 22, 2007 at 10:45 AM
...However, I think what should happen is that the replacement player should earn up to what the replaced player earned because that way you are replacing like with like....
That was essentially my second suggestion in the main piece Wes:
Either that, or require the clubs to keep the injury replacements under the cap (discounting, for the time being, the salary of the long-term casualty).
Would probably be the ideal solution.
Post a Comment
That was essentially my second suggestion in the main piece Wes:
Either that, or require the clubs to keep the injury replacements under the cap (discounting, for the time being, the salary of the long-term casualty).
Would probably be the ideal solution.
<< Home
