STICKY WICKET: LOCAL CRICKET SALARY CAP DEBATE
Many have welcomed the move, others have shaken their heads in disgust. But a proposal by the Geelong Cricket Association to increase the salary cap by $5000 has divided the cricket community.
The GCA has asked clubs to consider a potential increase to $15,000 in player payment spending in season 2020-21, with a move to lift the cap on the amount of “professional” players.
It has been met with a mixed response from some of the region’s respected cricket minds, who have welcomed the move in theory but insist it won’t bring an end to the “black economy”. In fact, some critics are adamant underthe-table payments will only increase, placing further financial strain on clubs and — in the current climate — bring about their demise.
LEADING Geelong cricket officials fear an increased salary cap could have a crippling affect on the competition.
While a host of coaches and captains have welcomed the move, a number of respected club volunteers have cast doubt on the need to expand the cap amid the current global crisis.
Those critics also believe a $5000 rise in player payments — from $10,000 to $15,000 — will do nothing to prevent some clubs from cheating the salary cap.
As businesses continue to bleed money as the coronavirus pandemic deepens, club officials have genuine fears for the future.
Marshall president Russell Menzies is concerned clubs will spend “beyond their means”, leading to their demise.
Menzies is also adamant an increased cap won’t end “black economy” spending, with wealthy clubs raising the bar in player payments, while struggling clubs continue to suffer.
South Barwon coach Bill Dixon called for more regulatory measures to be put in place, believing increased spending will only have a detrimental impact on the competition.
Newtown & Chilwell director of coaching Dev Royce urged clubs to proceed with caution in the current climate, while St Peter’s coach Anthony Ford questioned the timing of the proposal.
“I did see that the GCA was considering that as a potential move and staggered that even would be a discussion point at this stage,” Ford said.
“I think a lot of clubs are going to struggle through this financially anyway for various reasons.
“At the end of the day, I think it will allow the richer clubs to poach players a lot easier and the clubs that are battling financially will battle in the end.
“I know our club has never been a big payer of players — that’s not our focus anyway — but it would make it harder to continue to be able to compete with other clubs.”
While supportive of the proposal to increase the cap in theory, Royce urged clubs to be responsible in uncertain times.
“If we look ahead to next season and the changing world, I’d be very, very careful as a club as to how much I was forking out,” Royce said.
“There’s going to be a lot of financial stress on people in the next six months and there will certainly be a lot of small businesses who will reassess their sponsorship with clubs while tightening their belts.
“I don’t think any responsible clubs will be committing to any big outlays on players next year, and if they are, they are being pretty irresponsible.
“Unless they’ve got great benefactors who are willing to fork out big money, I’d suggest sponsorship will be really tough for cricket clubs next year.”
Should restrictions ease on the amount of “professional” players, Royce believes his club would be prepared to move with the times.
“We’re certainly not one that has historically paid out big dollars,” Royce said.
“We’ve paid for coaches at some stage, we’ve paid for overseas players and a professional, but it depends on the cattle that you have.
“Dylan Hodge is our professional player at the moment, but in terms of coaching, I’ve been director of cricket over the last four years and I certainly don’t get paid.
“But sometimes you’ve got to get with the times and if you can pay three guys and share the love around a bit, I’m not against that at all.”
BELL Park playing coach Michael Lymer was in favour of raising the salary cap and opening the door for more players to fill their pockets.
“I think we’re moving with the times,” he said.
“There’s a similar theme in local football: the cost of living and everything else has gone up, so a $5000 increase allows clubs to get stronger. I don’t think it’s a bad thing as long as the points system stays in place.”
Lymer recently spoke of his desire to recruit another “professional” player but admitted his club was hamstrung by GCA laws.
Now the Dragons are back in the market for a key player, especially if they earn promotion to GCA1 after winning the Division 2 flag.
“We’re still limited in bringing over an overseas player, but it would create a competitive market place,” Lymer said.
“If everyone’s armed with the same expense, we can all essentially go shopping for the player we need, so I don’t see that as a bad thing because clubs would all be in the same position.”
Menzies, the long-time leader of the Bears, described a pending cap increase as “irrelevant”.
“It’s about what clubs can afford to pay, and prudent management of finances is imperative to making sure you are sustainable,” he said.
“The underlining thing is, with the points cap, you can’t hide. Everyone knows they can have a marquee player that will cost them money, but you can’t live outside your means.
“Maybe clubs should be charged with using a percentage of that cap on junior development … think outside the square. Traditional ways of running businesses and clubs is obsolete, especially in times like this.”
If the proposal is approved at board level, Menzies believes wealthier clubs will continue to spend big dollars on players, while cash-strapped clubs will be caught behind.
“If you can’t afford to spend the increased money, you will become less competitive. If you’re not as competitive, what that means is you struggle to fill sides and attract people to social functions,” Menzies said.
“It becomes this arms race on who has the biggest war chest to spend and recruit bigname players.
“I still think $15,000 is quite a reasonable figure, but if you’re not attracting players to social events and you become less competitive then you will see the demise of clubs.
“If they come to your club for money, they will leave your club for money. And that’s a fact. You can go and recruit a marquee player, but if somebody offers them more money, they will leave. They are driven by money. Sometimes it’s the only piece of the puzzle that you need to fill and money is the only way to achieve it.”
The ability to pay more players per season is also an attractive proposition, according to Menzies, but not every club will be in a position to play more than three players.
“You have to make those decisions based on your finances,” he said. “We’re in a solid financial position, but the money becomes irrelevant because you can only pay what you can afford to pay because it’s the points (cap) that balances it up.”
SOUTH Barwon coach Bill Dixon supports the proposed $15,000 cap, but only if adequate measures were in place to monitor club spending.
“In essence, if we’re trying to make the competition more transparent, then in theory it makes sense,” Dixon said.
“I think the GCA is being progressive on the call, but in the current environment, it
will just be a matter of whether the vehicle works because we don’t know how we’re going to come out of COVID-19 and be able to generate revenue for the salary cap.”
Dixon is also fearful recruiters will open the chequebook for players, potentially placing a financial burden on the club.
“If it’s open and transparent like footy, and you’ve got to submit your contracts, at the end of the day if you overcommit, it will come back on you if you can’t pay that player or you put your club under duress,” Dixon said.
“I would hope it’s a bit more regulatory because the clubs that struggle a bit are going to pay overs to get guys to their club because they need good cricketers. We see if in footy already where bottom clubs have to pay overs to get good players to their club.
“Good players want to go to good clubs, inevitably, to win games of cricket and succeed and I don’t see that changing much.”
Dixon strongly believes that some clubs will continue to bend the rules, irrespective of what cap is placed in front of them.
“Unless you’ve got a watchdog policing the competition or it’s regulated, how do you prove it?” he said.
“And what’s the disincentive? Realistically, it’s great to have it and the theory is good, but how you police it I don’t know because the GCA doesn’t have the resources to go and audit books and make clubs accountable.
“In the amateur footy leagues, if you get caught (cheating the salary cap), you get relegated for two seasons, stripped of points and it’s catastrophic for your club if you choose to do it.”
Ford stressed that player payments were already out of control, with a proposed increase likely to lift the bar another notch.
“The clubs that choose not to abide by the rules, it gives them incentive to go that little bit above the $15,000,” Ford said.
“I’m all for stronger policing of it because it’s got out of hand now. When you try to get players across, the numbers that you speak to them about are extraordinary.
“And when you did a bit of maths, you think, ‘ How are you fitting under the cap?’
“Rather than putting the cap up, let’s tighten what we’ve got now and get everyone on an even playing field.
“Then we can potentially put the salary cup up and it will eventually make the competition stronger.
“But until it’s even and everyone’s doing the right thing, it’s a waste of time.”
EAST Belmont playing coach Chris Williams is among the coaches and players who have welcomed the move, believing an increase of the salary cap is “a sensible idea”.
But he stressed it was no longer an effective tool in maintaining a level playing field.
“What the salary cap does is protects clubs from themselves and that’s why it’s a good idea,” Williams said.
“I think the points cap alone avoids that mercenary culture of players all going to ‘X’ club to win a flag or take a heap of cash because you just can’t fit them in the side.
“We’ve found, even in the last 18 months or so, picking our team is hard. Once you have a Pom in the side and a couple of young players who have come from the Bellarine or GCA2, it becomes really difficult to fit everyone in. So the points cap is enough of an equalisation measure and I don’t think the salary cap works as an equalisation measure because of the way it can easily be circumvented.”
Bell Post Hill president Mark Brady has backed the proposal, declaring it will improve the quality of talent in the competition.
“I don’t have a problem with the salary cap (increase),” Brady said. “I’m all for bringing great players into our region, and to bring great players in, we have to raise the salary cap.
“There’s clubs who want to get rid of the salary cap. If we do that, it will be a six- or eightteam sport because clubs couldn’t afford to compete with some of them going around.
“I believe we need the salary cap and the points system.”
Brady acknowledged the GCA was powerless to stop clubs dodging the cap.
“Unless the GCA appoints an administrator for each club, you just can’t do it,” he said.
“The old paper bag on the front tyre or a sponsor paying the player, it’s always going to happen.
“So unless clubs are brutally honest — and we know not all of them are — it doesn’t matter what they do to stop it. But you can’t cheat a point system.”
Newcomb & District captain-coach Andrew Webb said an amended salary cap was “a good thing for the GCA”.
“There’s a lot of money getting throw around in the local football leagues and there’s a big discrepancy in what we (cricket) get and what they get.
“I think it was bound to happen, to be honest.”
Webb said an extra $5000 would enable his club to target more high-profile recruits.
“It would certainly help with recruiting,” he said.
“If you get a guy like Matty Harrison, it’s obviously going to cost you a little bit of money and then you don’t have much to spend on other guys.
“But we don’t pay many people anyway. We’re not a big-paying club and we never have been.
“I don’t want to buy players just to come to our club, especially when they’re only there for the next pay cheque and they nick off.”
Webb is not convinced, however, that clubs will stick to the new $15,000 limit.
“We’re forever hearing that clubs are doing the under-thetable stuff,” Webb said.
“That’s something we can hang our hat on … we usually can’t pay anyone, especially under the table, because we’re an honest club.
“I think it would help us in the long run if we continue to offer free memberships to players. I usually offer blokes a membership and a little bit of apparel because then there’s more incentive for them to come and play for free and they’re not breaking the bank and they’re not there just for the money.”