“The man who played against Ronaldo for 13 minutes back in 2009 has done it again, absolutely world class from the import!”
Read it without hearing either speed or slater’s voice, I dare you.
3 Likes
Looks like the deal to sign the Panamanian CB fell though. Tae-wook looks a pretty decent signing- 150 games in the K-League
This is a strange one…
Paulsen to Auckland perhaps?
Ive read this twice and I’m not following at all. Maybe it’s too early in the morning for my pre-coffee brain?
They’re very clear with what the old rules were:
The ‘Caceres Clause’ currently prevents the APL from registering a player if a multi-club ownership/partnership (MCO) club purchases a player from an A-Leagues Club and attempts to transfer/loan such player to the MCO’s related A-League Club until the earlier of the:
- end of the term that was otherwise remaining on the player’s A-Leagues contract; or
- expiry of two (2) transfer windows, inclusive of the transfer window the player moved in.
But then:
The update:
Clubs supported the motion to adapt the clause for the current player registration period, which will include player registration and salary cap treatment guardrails that balance development of the Isuzu UTE A-League while ensuring competition integrity.
At the end of every season, the APL reviews the Player Contract Regulations and Competition Policies and Regulations in line with feedback from key stakeholders.
Any rule change is subject to approval by Football Australia as part of the formal review process of the Player Contract Regulations and Competition Policies and Regulations with the APL that occurs ahead of each season.
Did the motion only agree that at some point in the future (at the end of the season?) they would adap the rules to some TBD change?
Or did the motion already adapt the rule to some specific proposal? If so, why not tell us to what?
Pretty efficient review…
2 Likes
Probably bad for the integrity of the competition, but it seems the league isn’t in any position to make life any more difficult for our multi-club masters.
I have no issue with it, so long as the transfer fee paid is significant.
Personally, just allow open transfers between clubs. Maybe introduce a ‘tax’ of sorts on transfers that force a minimum amount for inter-club transfers.
It’s honestly a bit fucked unless Welly didn’t oppose it?
“We’re reviewing the Caceres Clause, which exists for good reason, but are allowing the exact same situation to occur here now”. 
Seems like you are on the money
A bit of spice to the NZ derby, good to see
2 Likes
The league is not in a comfortable position to discourage these parent/feeder club relationships. I feel like these kind of relationships are only going to become more common as dollars become more difficult to come by, and the league’s focus continues on youth development and selling the good kids for good money.
And no, it doesn’t mean I like the parent/feeder club relationships in this league, especially with the possibility for cap shenanigans. I just see it becoming more and more of a thing.
The main concern is less around bypassing transfer restrictions and more that the cap arrangements of loaning from the parent club essentially amount to a cap rort.
The Rogić Rule (introduced after Melby loaned Rogić and Troisi back for minimum-wage in 2013-14) states that
The amount included in the salary cap would be the higher of:
a) the actual amount paid by the Club in relation to that Player (including amounts paid to the parent club and amounts paid directly to that Player); and
b) 50% of that Player’s Salary with the parent club.
50% was presumably there because FFA wanted ALM clubs to be able to loan back out-of-favour Aussies abroad, and full European wages couldn’t fit inside the cap.
But this gives Multi-Club Ownership arrangements a unique cap exploit - one which CFG immediately sought to do when they acquired Heart with the transfers of Brattan and Cáceres (who, with all due respect and love, weren’t signed to challenge De Bruyne, Silva, Toure and Gündoğan for game time), prior to the introduction of the Cáceres Clause which prohibited the loan back.
You can sign players intended for the ALM team to the parent club, pay the players out of those books, loan them back to the ALM team and only have a 50% cost under the salary cap.
That is, supposing Paulsen is on say $150k at WelPho. Black Knight can lure him over with a ⅓ raise (paid from Bournemouth’s books, and reimbursed through some other financial arrangement like IP or consultation or shared scouting/resources), and then loan him back to Auckland at just ⅔ of his cap cost at Wellington - all while retaining ownership within the MCO.
1 Like
I’d be comfortable with an amendment to the Cáceres Clause which allows MCO organisations to loan players back to their ALM subsidiary, but the salary cap cost should be the FULL remuneration that the player receives across the MCO.
This prevents clubs from luring players “overseas” for the sole purpose of loaning them to the ALM club for the cap benefit. It also doesn’t prevent a foreign club which genuinely signed an Australian player who has since fallen out of favour from loaning them back to ALM for the game time (with the 50% discount to make it workable within the cap) - but it has to be another A-League club that they don’t also own.
Had APL had come out and announced that, I would have no real issues. It’s the lack of transparency (again) which is concerning. Particularly in light of WelPho’s response.
2 Likes
This is the correct answer. There are enough cap concessions as is with the 2 x marquee and 2 x designated player spots? If the Brattan or Caceres examples took up one of those spots under the current rules then no problems.
Yup that’s the easiest way to handle it. Not sure why that isn’t already a thing if it’s the case. I thought that was just the base rule for loans and the salary cap. Did it change at some point?