THE VETERANS' allowance is more likely to be phased out over time than cut immediately if it is scrapped as part of the AFL's equalisation push.
The allowance – which allows clubs to pay 10-year players $118,380 outside the salary cap – remains the subject of debate as the mid-term review of the Collective Bargaining Agreement moves nearer to completion.
The AFL advised clubs pre-season it wanted to abolish the veterans' allowance and replace it with an extra $400,000 in the salary cap to achieve its equalisation policy objective to remove draft anomalies.
However the AFL Players Association resisted the move and both parties are continuing to discuss whether or not it has a future.
Talks on the issue – one of a range of subjects being discussed as part of the review - continued this week.
There is a possibility a compromise will be reached, which might include phasing out the allowance over a couple of years and adding an equivalent dollar figure of what is lost to total player payments, however no agreement has been reached as yet.
Many clubs remain supportive of the current rule and list managers have developed strategies before this season based on it remaining in place.
There are fears that removing the rule would end the careers of players prematurely.
The Western Bulldogs' Daniel Giansiracusa – who kicked the club's winning goal on Saturday – is one player whose career has been able to continue because of the veterans' allowance.
Last season, the veterans' allowance was cut to a fixed amount per veteran but clubs can now list all of their 10-year players as veterans.
Up until the end of 2011, the rule allowed clubs to list just two veterans under the rule but were able to pay half their salary outside the cap. Some clubs still were still paying players under that rule – as they were allowed to – last season.
This year, Geelong boasts six veterans, which will enable it to pay its players an additional $710,280 above the salary cap this season. By comparison, Collingwood has two veterans.
The working party on equalisation argued that the rule gave some clubs too big an advantage over other clubs.
AFL.com.au understands that three clubs, St Kilda, the Brisbane Lions and the Western Bulldogs do not use the veterans' allowance to sit the payments of some eligible players outside its salary cap.
Such payments would not count towards the minimum requirements for clubs to pay 95 per cent of the total player payments cap. The expansion clubs do not have any veterans.
However the counter argument is that clubs who retain players – such as Geelong, Hawthorn and the Sydney Swans – should be rewarded for creating good environments and having playing groups that have been prepared to receive pay under market value during their career.
Some key industry figures are also concerned of the effect a change in the rule will have in clubs' willingness to keep older heads around the club.
An increase of three per cent in the total player payments must occur next season under the CBA.
Any increase beyond that mandated figure is expected to be minimised because of compromises made during equalisation discussions that led to revenue sharing measures being capped.
The cap on football department spend will slow an inflationary trend in club spending but any tax for going over that cap is not expected to cause significant dollars to be available for redistribution.
