Club chiefs heard the proposal at Mt Lofty House in the Adelaide Hills as part of a range of measures designed to support equalisation.
The figure of $400,000 is the average amount spent on veterans each season.
The working party believed it was necessary to remove any anomalies in the draft system that may favour some clubs over others.
Last season, the veterans' allowance was cut to a fixed amount per veteran – $118,380 in 2014 – but clubs can now list all of their 10-year players as veterans.
Up until the end of 2011, clubs could only list two veterans under the rule.
This year, Geelong boasts a league-high six veterans – down from a remarkable nine in 2012 – which will enable them to pay an additional $710,280 more than the salary cap in 2014.
The AFL Players' Association said last week it was concerned at the move to remove the veterans' allowance because of the potential cultural impact on clubs of losing senior players. Player agents also expressed concern at a forum with the AFLPA.
However the equalisation working party is hopeful that free agency will ensure that veterans who are still attractive in the marketplace will be able to continue their careers at other clubs and potentially help poorer-performing clubs.
This year players such as Daniel Cross, Paul Chapman and Dylan Addison have extended their careers through free agency.
However it is still expected that veterans will have to accept less money than they did in their prime if they are to stay with their clubs.
There is a view that if the environment is good veterans will be prepared to do so, which will make their transition easier.
Players listed as veterans include the Brisbane Lions' Jonathan Brown, Collingwood's Nick Maxwell, Hawthorn's Sam Mitchell, Geelong's Corey Enright and the Western Bulldogs' Daniel Giansiracusa.
At the equalisation meeting the clubs also debated the revenue tax, with agreement that any redistribution from wealthier clubs will be capped at $500,000. There is still much discussion to be had on which revenue streams should be subject to a tax.
Clubs which receive compensation are likely to be subject to stringent compliance requirements, which may even include a peer review system.
The football department tax proposed was 37.5 cents in every dollar over an agreed minimum in the first season and 75 cents in seasons two and three. There has been some leeway built in while clubs adjust. Clubs will also need to consider the impact of such a tax on their bottom line.
While many clubs are expected to curb spending to avoid the tax, it will ensure decisions to spend more are assessed rigorously and slow the inflationary trend hitting football departments in recent seasons.
