Auckland Pride - Make Auckland Great Again

mjp2 wrote:
I'd hazard a pretty confident guess that Auckland have used the two marquee players and two designated players, all outside the cap, plus have used the average of the legacy sort of allowances over all clubs.

I'd also hazard a guess that Welnix have spent the cap and not much more. Comments they've made over the years tend to suggest that's about where they pitch their spend. 

If everybody is reduced to simply one player outside the cap, that's three players likely all on $300k plus each that AFC can't retain. $900k of spend they need to ditch.

And I'd hazard a guess we won't need to reduce our spend at all.

That might be a simple but accurate enough way to look at it?

I could be wrong - happy to be corrected - but I'm quite looking forward to seeing if that gives us a much more level playing field against them next year.

AucklandPhoenix wrote:
The interesting part is the following years proposal where salaries will form a percentage of revenue.

It seems rather random to implement a hard salary cap for just one year and then move to this model.

Now most revenue would come from attendances and sponsorship.

Unless some very creative accounting is used by some clubs regarding revenue, that system will greatly benefit  Sydney, Victory and Auckland.


 

andrewvoerman wrote:

 mjp2 wrote:
I'd hazard a pretty confident guess that Auckland have used the two marquee players and two designated players, all outside the cap, plus have used the average of the legacy sort of allowances over all clubs.

I'd also hazard a guess that Welnix have spent the cap and not much more. Comments they've made over the years tend to suggest that's about where they pitch their spend. 

If everybody is reduced to simply one player outside the cap, that's three players likely all on $300k plus each that AFC can't retain. $900k of spend they need to ditch.

And I'd hazard a guess we won't need to reduce our spend at all.

That might be a simple but accurate enough way to look at it?

I could be wrong - happy to be corrected - but I'm quite looking forward to seeing if that gives us a much more level playing field against them next year.

This is the smartest post on the salary cap situation in this thread, but I gather it's closer to $500k each/$1.5m total of spend that needs to be cut in Auckland's case if indeed it goes from four fully-exempt slots (two marquees/two DPs) to one

The other big change proposed re: the salary cap was that scholarship contracts would have to fit inside the cap, which would be another $250k total, roughly

AucklandPhoenix wrote:
Would take the radio nz article with a grain of salt. They have said it before and are repeating it again. I have heard that they initially figured that out by looking at transfermarket one day. An actual quote from someone at the club would be more accurate.

Director of football Terry McFlynn told Stuff last week they were spending “nowhere near twice as much” as the figure of AU$3m (NZ$3.2m) that Australian Professional Leagues wants to institute as hard salary cap from the 2026-27 season, with a lone exception for one marquee player.
“I think there are clubs that are spending double the salary cap and more, but I think we’re about fourth or fifth across the league, from what we can understand.”
The salary cap is AU$2.6m (NZ$2.79m) this season, though Auckland were allowed to spend roughly $400,000 extra, because as a brand-new club, they don’t have access to the exceptions for loyal or homegrown players other clubs do.
“The APL’s metric they used was a blended average across the other 12 clubs in the competition and what that spend looked like outside of the cap and that's what we were afforded,” McFlynn said. “It was the same when Western United and Macarthur joined a couple of years ago.”
Auckland have made full use of the exceptions for marquee players (two players whose salaries don’t count against the cap at all) and designated players (two players whose salaries – between AU$300,000 and AU$600,000 – don’t count against the cap).

Bullion wrote:

 AucklandPhoenix wrote:
Would take the radio nz article with a grain of salt. They have said it before and are repeating it again. I have heard that they initially figured that out by looking at transfermarket one day. An actual quote from someone at the club would be more accurate.

Director of football Terry McFlynn told Stuff last week they were spending “nowhere near twice as much” as the figure of AU$3m (NZ$3.2m) that Australian Professional Leagues wants to institute as hard salary cap from the 2026-27 season, with a lone exception for one marquee player.
“I think there are clubs that are spending double the salary cap and more, but I think we’re about fourth or fifth across the league, from what we can understand.”
The salary cap is AU$2.6m (NZ$2.79m) this season, though Auckland were allowed to spend roughly $400,000 extra, because as a brand-new club, they don’t have access to the exceptions for loyal or homegrown players other clubs do.
“The APL’s metric they used was a blended average across the other 12 clubs in the competition and what that spend looked like outside of the cap and that's what we were afforded,” McFlynn said. “It was the same when Western United and Macarthur joined a couple of years ago.”
Auckland have made full use of the exceptions for marquee players (two players whose salaries don’t count against the cap at all) and designated players (two players whose salaries – between AU$300,000 and AU$600,000 – don’t count against the cap).

Two marquees and two designated players and you're possibly at 80% the salary cap level with 4 players - chuck in the $400k quoted exemptions (for like loyalty players) and you have almost an entire salary cap worth not in the cap. The Nix only have 2 players eligible for loyalty exemptions, Rufer the only one the full 50% (I assume the period where he wasn't renewed and had to trial doesn’t reset the clock) and Payne who was eligible for 20% this year. Even if the Nix used them, Rufer and Payne's deals would be nowhere near enough to get $400k outside of the cap. Its also convenient the calculation allowing afc to spend more was when all clubs were aud$1.5m wealthier, certainly impacting average spend across the league.