PDA

View Full Version : Roos Tells Eddie The Facts About Life In Sydney



Beaussie
28th June 2003, 01:32 AM
Why salary cap bonus must stay
By MICHELANGELO RUCCI
26jun03

PAUL Roos paid $27 to park for an hour in Sydney this week. He challenges Collingwood president Eddie McGuire and Essendon counterpart Graeme McMahon to come to Sydney to prove why the Swans should not get an extra 15 per cent allowance on their salary cap to cover the higher cost of living in the Harbour City.

Roos, defying the notion coaches should avoid the political brawling that consumes AFL football, boldly stepped into the fray last year when McGuire threatened court action ? and won the battle ? against the AFL Commission's plan on draft concessions to the Swans and Brisbane. He even sent out his mobile telephone number for anyone wanting to note his side of the debate.
Roos is no less reluctant to argue the point on salary cap bonuses to the Swans and Lions, who this season have an extra $900,000 and $600,000 in their wage bills.

"It is a ridiculous argument," says Roos. "I'd love someone to make a documentary on how the Sydney players and coaches live ? and then compare it with the Essendon and Collingwood players.

"The sizes of the houses the Sydney players have are a damn size smaller than those of the Essendon and Collingwood players. We're not living high on the hog here.

"I never hear facts from Melbourne, just how the AFL pumps up Sydney. If they stick to the facts, there is only one resolution ? the salary cap bonus stays."

Roos is blessed with appreciating two football cultures, that of traditional Melbourne (where he was a champion player with Fitzroy) and the contrast of Sydney, where the Swans have played since 1982 and with Roos as a creative defender from 1995 to 1998. This makes him an ideal coach for Sydney.

"In Sydney," notes Roos, "our players, after a loss, wake up the next morning, go buy the paper and can read it over lunch in peace and quiet. In Melbourne and Adelaide, if players there lose, they go out with a balaclava because they are going to cop it from the guy who sells the paper, the girl who serves them coffee and lunch and in the street from when they wake up until they go to bed.

"The difference ? the lack of public attention ? may be good for the players in Sydney but it is frustrating from a coaching point of view. In Adelaide and Melbourne, many people are giving the players messages. In Sydney, it is just the coaches ? and the message can get very old very quickly.

"That's the difference in culture. And it is no coincidence that the best players to come to Sydney are those who grew up with the full-on football culture in Melbourne and then appreciated the anonymity of Sydney ? Tony Lockett from St Kilda, Wayne Schwass from the Kangaroos, Craig O'Brien from Essendon and St Kilda, Stuart Maxfield from Richmond, Kevin Dyson from Melbourne . . ."

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/footy03/story_page/0,8747,6660912%255E25397,00.html

Snowy
28th June 2003, 07:24 AM
But it also costs a lot to park your car down here in Melbourne. In fact a lot more than in Adelaide or Perth, so maybe Vic clubs should get an allowance over those clubs. Maybe it should all be tiered according to states. Personally I think it should be a level playing field and then there can be no whingeing. Or if for example the Swans or Lions were in danger of losing a player because they were after more money because they wanted to go home or found they needed more money to live up north they could get a special allowance for that player, then the rule would not be open to exploitation which it possibly is today. I think there is merit in some comments which suggest that if Sydney doesn't need the extra 15% this year why does it need it in other years. West Coast might argue they need more money to retain Judd this year for instance. I am sure we benefited from Davis wanting to come home and Collingwood having a smaller cap. We wouldn't be happy for eg. I don't think if we stood to lose Goodes and had to settle for a lesser deal such as second draft pick for him.

NMWBloods
28th June 2003, 09:36 AM
But it also costs a lot to park your car down here in Melbourne. In fact a lot more than in Adelaide or Perth, so maybe Vic clubs should get an allowance over those clubs.

This is a strawman argument in relation to Sydney. That Melbourne costs more than Perth or Adelaide is irrelevant to Sydney. This argument could be used to support a higher cap in Melbourne vis a vis Perth and Adelaide, but not a lower cap in Sydney.



Maybe it should all be tiered according to states. Personally I think it should be a level playing field and then there can be no whingeing.

But then Sydney would have a legitimate gripe.



Or if for example the Swans or Lions were in danger of losing a player because they were after more money because they wanted to go home or found they needed more money to live up north they could get a special allowance for that player, then the rule would not be open to exploitation which it possibly is today.

How has it been exploited thus far? This solution doesn't cover living costs anyway.



I think there is merit in some comments which suggest that if Sydney doesn't need the extra 15% this year why does it need it in other years.

In what way is there merit in this argument?



West Coast might argue they need more money to retain Judd this year for instance.

They compete on a level playing field with Melbourne. In fact they might be better off because, as you say, Perth has a cheaper cost of living.



I am sure we benefited from Davis wanting to come home and Collingwood having a smaller cap.

In what way? As you've already said we haven't spent our extra allowance.

RogueSwan
28th June 2003, 09:48 AM
Nicely dissected there Bloods:D

Mike_B
28th June 2003, 11:37 AM
IMHO the problem with this additional 15% lies in the way it can be used. It's an additional 15% to be spent overall, not an additional 15% to be spent on each player. If the AFL stipulated that the Swans salary cap was the same as other clubs, and then after they fit under that, EVERY player receives an additional 15% to cover COL expenses, things would be much neater. That way, a rookie who would get 40,000 in Melb, would get 46,000 in Sydney, the extra 6,000 covering the higher costs, rather than the rookie still receiving 40,000 in Sydney, and the additional 6,000 being put in a pool for buying/retaining a high profile player.

If this kind of thing didn't shut the Victorians up, well then, we may as well go back to the VFL!

Gunn
28th June 2003, 01:30 PM
I don't understand why the emaphasis is on cost of living. It is undeniable in my opionion that it costs a heap more for a young player to relocate to Sydney. Buying a house is more expensive as well as renting and general living. If the AFL wants Sydney to be competitive in recruiting and holding players is must make an allowance for higher costs.

There is another and more important reason for a higher cap in my opinion and I rarely see it mentioned. Sydney players are not celebrities in Sydney as Melbourne players are in Melbourne. In Melbourne every player is "someone to be admired" as being an AFL footballer. This 'celebrity' gives Melbourne players 'marketability' and the opportunity to make excellent money outside football. Look at Buckleys TAC ads for example. Whether the players are doing TV ads, selling cars, doing lanscape gardening or even mowing lawns they can do it more lucratively in Melbourne. Few Melbourne families would not get a kick out of having Buckley, Hird etc mow there lawns or sell them a car. How many Sydney people would care if Maxfield or Hall was doing the same in Sydney. Are there any Sydney players doing TAC ads or there equivelant in Sydney?

Sydney have much more difficulty attracting top players than Melbourne clubs do. Sydney was Tony Locketts 3rd choice after Carlton and Collingwood. There was no 4th choice.

A top player that has the choice of going to Sydney or Melbourne,where he can supplement his income substantially and be a celebrity (free tickets, meals etc) will prefer Melbourne. Players from WA, Adelaide and Tassy would also prefer Melbourne as it is closer to home. For Sydney to attract and hold good players they have to pay more. It is much more than a cost of living argument.

liz
28th June 2003, 01:48 PM
I think the younger players (ie those who's contract is stipulated by the AFL under the AFLPA agreement) do get an extra 15% compared to their counterparts elsewhere in the country. The additional allowance thus is spread across the player list. For the older players it is obviously a lot harder to say definitively that they are getting 15% more than equivalent players elsewhere because their "base value" is so subjective.

Jon
28th June 2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by lizz
I think the younger players (ie those who's contract is stipulated by the AFL under the AFLPA agreement) do get an extra 15% compared to their counterparts elsewhere in the country. The additional allowance thus is spread across the player list. For the older players it is obviously a lot harder to say definitively that they are getting 15% more than equivalent players elsewhere because their "base value" is so subjective.

I think the low end of the list is where the cost of living thing does come in. Schneider is already quoted as saying he's had problems making ends meet.

It could be argued that a player on 300k isn't in the same need of living allowance of 45k to survive. But a player on 40k REALLY needs that 6k to ease the pain of relocation.

Perhaps if the 15% was a seperate fund that the club administered for all to see the rumblings might ease.

But I'm skeptical. I can see the Swans under immense pressure every time a contract gets renegotiated. With a presumed bias built into the Salary cap, we already hear Victorian Presidents scoffing about Magic being the highest paid player in footy. Every year they beat us around the head with this sort fact.

We're still regarded down south as having a Mercenary Culture of retirment padders who (perhaps harshly) were seen as only playing here for the money.

That kind of cynicism hurts the code here.

Another argument for the 15% has been to address the drain of quality players back to Victoria. This was a bug bear in NSW footy, and in QLD too.

Better players with a market value of 300k/yr (especially if they are originally fromk Victoria) might find the pull of a 400k contract down south irresistable considering it gives a "bonus" 480k for the ex-Syd player over a 3 yr period in "real" terms. That kind of sum can really set you up. And think what what a top player like Magic could be reaping?

Reggi
28th June 2003, 04:35 PM
You're interpreting "cost of living" incorrectly - whether someone can live on 45K or not is irrelevant. What matters is the price of everything in one place versus another - what matters is the house and others services etc that players purchase in Sydney are higher than the comparable ones. It is one of the basic tenants of economics.

If Sydney players did not have the 15% many of them would say "I can get more for my dollar in Melb, Perth and Adelaide" - and it would influence people to move. It was happening before the 15% was introduced.

Mike_B
28th June 2003, 04:49 PM
Which is exactly why I was saying add the 15% on AFTER everything is calculated (including whether the cluyb is under the salary cap or not). That way, the same offer can be made, be it a club in Melb, or sydney, or wherever. Then, as a result of the player living in Sydney, they get 15% additional, purely because it costs more to live in Sydney. But the key point is EVERY player gets an additional 15%, not selected players, meaning that we could pool some of the money from that extra 15% that isn't being paid to some players, to make a bigger offer to another player.

Nico
28th June 2003, 06:44 PM
Gunn, you make the best argument I have seen yet.

Nathan Buckley is on the Footy Show on a permanent/contract basis and he is a collywobbles player. If McGuire was not running the Footy Show what would Buckley's situation be. Others on the show are in the same situation.

How many interstate players are permanent fixtures on the show?

Perth and Adelaide players have miles more opportunities than Sydney and Brisbane players to get endorsements that don't come under the salary cap.

Take away the extra dosh for the 2 northern states and the comp dies. Players will not have their hearts in staying in Sydney and the disatisfaction and reluctance of draftees will be breathtaking.

Reggi
28th June 2003, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Nico
Gunn, you make the best argument I have seen yet.

Nathan Buckley is on the Footy Show on a permanent/contract basis and he is a collywobbles player. If McGuire was not running the Footy Show what would Buckley's situation be. Others on the show are in the same situation.

How many interstate players are permanent fixtures on the show?

Perth and Adelaide players have miles more opportunities than Sydney and Brisbane players to get endorsements that don't come under the salary cap.

Take away the extra dosh for the 2 northern states and the comp dies. Players will not have their hearts in staying in Sydney and the disatisfaction and reluctance of draftees will be breathtaking.

Don't want to sound insulting but it is an irrelevant point - Sydney was granted the concession in 1993 because of the COL - if people keep throwing up this issue and that issue it simply clouds the central poin that Sydney has and will be a more expensive place to live.

If people keep throwing up these types of arguements you just make more openings for the likes of Eddie McGuire - who put up every idiotic theory under the sun - for instance Plugger made a fortune from endorsements and Sponsorships in Sydney - more than he would have in Melb.

Besides it has nothing to do with the cost of getting players out on the field to play football.

http://www.austimmigration.com.au/costs.htm



This is just a handy link if you put in the dollar that year earn it shows how much you would need to earn in the other city in Australia to maintain the same standard of livinghttp://www.yourcalculators.com.au/v1/cost_of_living%5Bjs%5D/calcwor2.htm

scurrilous
28th June 2003, 07:01 PM
NMWB you rock my world :D

I was going to dump a truckload of doodoo on Snowy's post, in my own not so pleasant fashion of course, but you bet me to it. And you had the cheek to do it so eloquently too! :eek: Pfft. spoiled my fun :(

scurrilous
28th June 2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Mike_B
IMHO the problem with this additional 15% lies in the way it can be used. It's an additional 15% to be spent overall, not an additional 15% to be spent on each player. If the AFL stipulated that the Swans salary cap was the same as other clubs, and then after they fit under that, EVERY player receives an additional 15% to cover COL expenses, things would be much neater. That way, a rookie who would get 40,000 in Melb, would get 46,000 in Sydney, the extra 6,000 covering the higher costs, rather than the rookie still receiving 40,000 in Sydney, and the additional 6,000 being put in a pool for buying/retaining a high profile player.

If this kind of thing didn't shut the Victorians up, well then, we may as well go back to the VFL!
But that's all those dastardly, dispicable, Victorians are really seeking Mike_B :rolleyes:

Angelic Upstart
28th June 2003, 07:06 PM
The reason why this has become a big issue again - apart from Eddie's need to get himself in the headlines all the time - is because Sydney is doing so well. At the beginning of the season most 'experts' rated our team list as one of the worst in the league, which logically would mean we were over-paying a bunch of second-raters. But now that we are doing well, suddenly everyone's crying unfair advantage.
The only way our critics will be satisfied is if we have a mediocre football team and we're no threat to the other clubs.

scurrilous
28th June 2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Reggi
You're interpreting "cost of living" incorrectly - whether someone can live on 45K or not is irrelevant. What matters is the price of everything in one place versus another - what matters is the house and others services etc that players purchase in Sydney are higher than the comparable ones. It is one of the basic tenants of economics.

If Sydney players did not have the 15% many of them would say "I can get more for my dollar in Melb, Perth and Adelaide" - and it would influence people to move. It was happening before the 15% was introduced.
Aaaah it is good to see the sane, smarter Reggi back. Well done.

Reggi
28th June 2003, 07:23 PM
Yep

More links on this issue - I 've decided to bore people to death with the facts

Unions making the same claim as the Swans

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s534969.htm

Recent study confirming what we knew

http://finance.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6603450%255E462,00.html

Gunn
28th June 2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Reggi
Don't want to sound insulting but it is an irrelevant point - Sydney was granted the concession in 1993 because of the COL - if people keep throwing up this issue and that issue it simply clouds the central poin that Sydney has and will be a more expensive place to live.

If people keep throwing up these types of arguements you just make more openings for the likes of Eddie McGuire - who put up every idiotic theory under the sun - for instance Plugger made a fortune from endorsements and Sponsorships in Sydney - more than he would have in Melb.

Besides it has nothing to do with the cost of getting players out on the field to play football.


It is extremely relevant IMO. I believe when the salary cap allowance was made we were told that it was to cover the extra cost of living in Sydney. At the time there was a discussion going on about how Sydney could 'retain' players as we had lost a lot of returnees. We were also dragging out backside on the bottom and in real danger of going under. It was more 'polically correct' to give the cost of living as a reason for the extra money rather than the other disadvantages I referred to above. People have forgotten the background. If it was simply a cost of living problem then the relatively cheaper COL in SA and WA would have been mentioned and allowed for at the time.

Isn't it strange that the cheaper COL in SA and WA is now being discussed when it wasn't before?

The cost of getting players out on the field to play football is all about how much you have to pay them to want to relocate and play for you. It is more than COL. It is more about the total NET income of the player after the COL and the fact that in Melbourne a player is a celebrity with all the attendant perks. In Sydney the players largely say they live their lives unrecognised.

Regarding the money Lockett made, he is an exception to the rule. He is the greatest goal kicker of all time and he just happened to want some anonymity (in the early stages at least) due to his unfortunate history at Stkilda. It is funny that he became more of a public (advertising) figure in Sydney than he ever was in Melbourne. Moving to Sydney suited him but it must be said we were his third choice and he only went to us after Carlton and Collingwood turned him down. He had no other offers. Why is it that a player like Lockett who genuinely wanted the anonymity that Sydney offered made us his third choice? No other Melbourne transplant has ever done nearly as well in Sydney.

NMWBloods
28th June 2003, 07:58 PM
http://finance.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6603450%255E462,00.html

Thanks for that - this one is critical due to this part...

"Sydney jumped 28 places to the 67th most expensive city.

Melbourne was up 16 to rank 111, Brisbane jumped 13 to 121, Adelaide was up 14 to 124 and Perth 11 to 126. "

It shows that in terms of CoL, Sydney is miles ahead of the other cities, which aren't too dissimilar relatively speaking.

Jon
28th June 2003, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by Reggi
Yep

More links on this issue - I 've decided to bore people to death with the facts

Unions making the same claim as the Swans

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s534969.htm

Recent study confirming what we knew

http://finance.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6603450%255E462,00.html

Oh My god! A fact! Has anyone been notified? :D

Thanks for posting those.

Stupid thing is...those in know have far more comprehensive figures in their hands...but some in the media (who shall remain nameless) find it more entertaining to just skirt the issue and thump the tub.

NMWBloods
28th June 2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by scurrilous
NMWB you rock my world :D

I was going to dump a truckload of doodoo on Snowy's post, in my own not so pleasant fashion of course, but you bet me to it. And you had the cheek to do it so eloquently too! :eek: Pfft. spoiled my fun :(

Thanks Scurrilous - head onto BigPotty er... BigFooty - plenty of truckloads needed there!! :)

Reggi
28th June 2003, 10:10 PM
Yeah I'd prefer not to get caught in it or mentioned actually.

I've kind of argued this to death on other boards

But I'm more than happy to pass the ammunition:D

neored
28th June 2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by NMWBloods
This is a strawman argument in relation to Sydney. That Melbourne costs more than Perth or Adelaide is irrelevant to Sydney. This argument could be used to support a higher cap in Melbourne vis a vis Perth and Adelaide, but not a lower cap in Sydney.

What a CONVENIENT argument you make. In fact it has everything to do with Sydney...and Brisbane for that matter. It illustrates the duplicitous nature of the AFL when it comes to these two teams. Applying rules arbitrarily to give two sides an unfair advantage


But then Sydney would have a legitimate gripe.

No one is denying that the Sydney should be compensated for its higher cost of living. The argument lies with the mode being used to compensate your club. Simply adding 15% to the salary cap is a simplistic solution, a better way could be found if the AFL had the necessary will.


How has it been exploited thus far? This solution doesn't cover living costs anyway.

(resists bursting into a fit of laughter) Its been exploited continuously by your club over the years. You nearly bought a premiership in 1996.


They compete on a level playing field with Melbourne. In fact they might be better off because, as you say, Perth has a cheaper cost of living.

In principle they might, but your assuming that Judd is financially motivated. It might just be that he misses his family and friends and wants to come home.


In what way? As you've already said we haven't spent our extra allowance.

Not because you dont want to , but because it would be financial lunacy to do so. Familiar with the word insolvency?

In any case the argument for Melbourne receiving some extra salary cap space has been rejected by the AFL. The AFL's argument is that the different b/w Melbourne Adelaide and Perth isn't as substantial as it is in the case of Melbourne and Sydney. So a difference exists but not as substantial, therefore the law can only apply to Sydney.

Well with that type of logic I'll soon be writing a letter to the Premier Of Victoria urging him to abolish the speeding laws in Victoria as our road toll is less than yours. I'll be eagerly awaiting a reply.

NMWBloods
29th June 2003, 12:03 AM
(resists bursting into a fit of laughter) Its been exploited continuously by your club over the years. You nearly bought a premiership in 1996.

Oh rubbish. Lockett chose Sydney as a third choice, so it's hardly likely we lured him in here due to our expansive salary benefits. Sure we recruited Roos, but every team recruits a few big names. Given our side was bereft of big-name players, it's not surprising we could fit in a couple of extra. Who have we lured to Sydney since?



In any case the argument for Melbourne receiving some extra salary cap space has been rejected by the AFL. The AFL's argument is that the different b/w Melbourne Adelaide and Perth isn't as substantial as it is in the case of Melbourne and Sydney. So a difference exists but not as substantial, therefore the law can only apply to Sydney.

Well with that type of logic I'll soon be writing a letter to the Premier Of Victoria urging him to abolish the speeding laws in Victoria as our road toll is less than yours. I'll be eagerly awaiting a reply.

What a completely non sequitur argument.

The difference between Sydney and Melbourne, is much larger than the difference between Melbourne and the other states.

If Melbourne salary cap is the base at 100% and Sydney gets 115%, the comparative allowances for the other cities, based on CoL, would be Adelaide 94%, Brisbane 98%, and Perth 97%.

Snowy
29th June 2003, 06:37 AM
I said you could argue we have exploited it by recruiting the likes of Hall and Bolton. By having that extra money available in the cap we were able to outbid other clubs. Regarding Davis C'wood wasn't given money to retain him and we allegedly told him to go into Dec. draft because we could better anything they could afford. This year we are not using the 115% which shows players can survive without it, but next year for eg. we may target Aker and thus use it. Nothing illogical about my argument there I suggest. Nobody can actually prove if what we pay is related to COL or used to get ahead of the pack. I can see where they are coming from.

Reggi
29th June 2003, 09:41 AM
Neored and Snowy you are spouting utter crap.

How is Sydney recruiting Lockett etc any different from St Kilda recruiting Hamill Gehrig Powell Lawrence Black etc or Collingwood recruiting Woewoden (after they made a GF) Molloy Wakelin Clement Holland Freeborn O'Bree or Port Adelaide every year going out and snaring a Pickett Hardwick Cochrane Cockatoo Collins Wakelin or Montgomery.

In some cases as with Sydney those clubs were able to go on sprees cause they had space in their cap given a poor list - no other reason. If you are claiming Sydney has an advantage you are just spouting biased bull****.

They clubs with Salary cap advantage are the Adeliade clubs Port for example have finished top 4 in the past two years and still been able to poach top players from other clubs.

Why?

Because players returning to Adelaide don't put in huge pay demands because they don't need a huge income to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

The AFL introduced the concession in Sydney - because Sydney had salary cap problems and an utterly crap side - ordinary players demanded a higher salary - without the 15% allowance Sydney would quickly return to being uncompetitive.

All it does is put Sydney on a reasonably even position with the non NSW clubs.

Here is the list of the amount of players that each club has on its list that it obtained from other clubs. Please tell us how this shows Sydney has any kind of advantage from the salary cap concession.

Collingwood 12
Adelaide 12
Port Adelaide 11
St Kilda 11
Richmond 11
Kangaroos 11
Fremantle 10
Carlton 9
Sydney 8
Melbourne 8
Geelong 7
Dogs 7
Brisbane 6
Hawthorn 6
Eagles 5
S&Don 4

Sydney can't even make the top 8

Doctor J.
29th June 2003, 02:50 PM
Damn it Reggi, you have put an end to a good link.

A link where the stupid and believers of rhetoric were just about to hang themselves with the rope they had in their hand, and you come in and show them exactly how stupid their arguements are.

And I was having so much fun :frown

scurrilous
29th June 2003, 04:44 PM
Yeah Reggi, since when has anyone on this site stooped so low as to back up their arguments with factual information? Your lower than a footprint mate

neored
29th June 2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by Reggi
Neored and Snowy you are spouting utter crap.

How is Sydney recruiting Lockett etc any different from St Kilda recruiting Hamill Gehrig Powell Lawrence Black etc or Collingwood recruiting Woewoden (after they made a GF) Molloy Wakelin Clement Holland Freeborn O'Bree or Port Adelaide every year going out and snaring a Pickett Hardwick Cochrane Cockatoo Collins Wakelin or Montgomery.

Have you actually followed football for more than 5 years or are you blinded by your own bias. Just to illustrate the idiocy of your own argument I'll go through the players you listed:

Hamill - wanted to stay with Carlton left after a bust up with the president.
Gehrig - wanted to come home
Powell - salary cap pressures on Melbourne
Lawrence - not wanted by Brisbane
Black - wanted to come home

woewoedin - didn't want to leave Melbourne, forced out
Molloy - traded (Michael)
Wakelin - not wanted
clement - not wanted (very good trade)
Holland - not wanted (poor player)
Freeborn - not wanted.
O'Bree - very yound when he went to Collingwood , very homesick.

Apart from Gehrig and to a lesser exten Powell, all the other players weren't lured financially.

As for P.Adelaide , well again you are just reinforcing my argument that the AFL favours Sydney. If the AFL applied the laws across the board then Melbourne clubs who'd receive some breathing space.


In some cases as with Sydney those clubs were able to go on sprees cause they had space in their cap given a poor list - no other reason. If you are claiming Sydney has an advantage you are just spouting biased bull****.

But the fact is those teams had to suffer 2 or 3 bad seasons to take their list to such a poor level. Are you blind you have an extra 15 % on top of the salary cap, of course you have an advantage.


They clubs with Salary cap advantage are the Adeliade clubs Port for example have finished top 4 in the past two years and still been able to poach top players from other clubs.

Why?

Because players returning to Adelaide don't put in huge pay demands because they don't need a huge income to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

Again, you are merely reinforcing my argument that the AFL favours Sydney. see above point.


The AFL introduced the concession in Sydney - because Sydney had salary cap problems and an utterly crap side - ordinary players demanded a higher salary - without the 15% allowance Sydney would quickly return to being uncompetitive.

There are better and fairer ways to compensate your club then merely adding 15 % to the salary cap. The current situation is totally unbalanced.

All it does is put Sydney on a reasonably even position with the non NSW clubs.

Here is the list of the amount of players that each club has on its list that it obtained from other clubs. Please tell us how this shows Sydney has any kind of advantage from the salary cap concession.


Collingwood 12
Adelaide 12
Port Adelaide 11
St Kilda 11
Richmond 11
Kangaroos 11
Fremantle 10
Carlton 9
Sydney 8
Melbourne 8
Geelong 7
Dogs 7
Brisbane 6
Hawthorn 6
Eagles 5
S&Don 4


And... teams recruit players all the time, most are delisted and merely switch clubs. The fact is that you have an extra 15 % and when used properly it gives you an unfair advantage.

Sydney can't even make the top 8 [/B][/QUOTE]

neored
29th June 2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by NMWBloods
Oh rubbish. Lockett chose Sydney as a third choice, so it's hardly likely we lured him in here due to our expansive salary benefits. Sure we recruited Roos, but every team recruits a few big names. Given our side was bereft of big-name players, it's not surprising we could fit in a couple of extra. Who have we lured to Sydney since?

Oh so two champions of the game is insufficient is it?

<cough> Hall <cough>



What a completely non sequitur argument.

How so?


The difference between Sydney and Melbourne, is much larger than the difference between Melbourne and the other states.

If Melbourne salary cap is the base at 100% and Sydney gets 115%, the comparative allowances for the other cities, based on CoL, would be Adelaide 94%, Brisbane 98%, and Perth 97%.

The margin in irrelevant, the principle should be that if a law exists then it should be applied across the board. We have a word for such a situation its called discrimmination.

But why should clubs be punished/rewarded for something that they cannot control? Its not Adelaide's fault that they are located in a city with a lower cost of living. Every city has its own advantages and disadvantages and it should just be the case that clubs must make do.

The NBA doesn't grant the New York Nicks extra salary cap space just because the franchise is located in New York.

And in any case a better method could be found to address any inbalances in the system if the AFL was willing to do so. The fact is however the AFL isn't interested in making the system more equitable, the extra 15 % is there to assist Sydney to buy a premiership, much like Brisbane has. Its all just a facade, but the Victorian people wont put up with it for much longer.

liz
29th June 2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by neored


But why should clubs be punished/rewarded for something that they cannot control? Its not Adelaide's fault that they are located in a city with a lower cost of living. Every city has its own advantages and disadvantages and it should just be the case that clubs must make do.

The NBA doesn't grant the New York Nicks extra salary cap space just because the franchise is located in New York.

And in any case a better method could be found to address any inbalances in the system if the AFL was willing to do so. The fact is however the AFL isn't interested in making the system more equitable, the extra 15 % is there to assist Sydney to buy a premiership, much like Brisbane has. Its all just a facade, but the Victorian people wont put up with it for much longer.

LOL - have to admire your persistance Neo.

Who says the system is about punishing or rewarding any club? It's about trying to even out a massive disadvantage that Sydney would otherwise face, thereby trying to make things more even. If it were about trying to allow Sydney to buy a premiership, why hasn't it worked? Simply because it just brings us to a level where we can compete fairly, that's why!

If a better system can be found, fine. Why don't you find it? And what are the Victorian people going to do about it? Boycott the AFL? March on Federation Square - or whatever it's called? Storm the SCG?

Snowy
29th June 2003, 07:16 PM
The problem is that certain officials of Melbourne clubs overheard Swans officials 'privately' suggesting that every couple of years they target a player from another club with the extra money they have. Hall, Willo and Davis comes to mind though he was homesick. It is statistically flawed to put up lists of all the clubs and the numbers they have obtained from other clubs - most were rejects. If we outbid others for Aker, at a time when we are meant to be financially under pressure eyebrows will be raised. The Dons had to offload three premiership players just to remain under the cap. We would be squealing for extra room if that happened to us. If Reggi places so much faith in his figures why are we paying over 100% this year? Are these figures fluid?

liz
29th June 2003, 07:31 PM
Originally posted by Snowy
It is statistically flawed to put up lists of all the clubs and the numbers they have obtained from other clubs - most were rejects. If we outbid others for Aker, at a time when we are meant to be financially under pressure eyebrows will be raised. The Dons had to offload three premiership players just to remain under the cap. We would be squealing for extra room if that happened to us. If Reggi places so much faith in his figures why are we paying over 100% this year? Are these figures fluid?

Rocca, Grant, O'Farrell and Gaspar certainly weren't rejects. They were all first round picks who walked out on Sydney after two or three year's on their list for a combination of returning to their home city and/or getting more money.

It is because of examples like this that the Swans have had the capacity and need to recruit established players from other clubs. But as Reggi's figures point out, every club does that. We've just had the ability to recruit some high quality players because our own top youngsters have, in the past, decided not to stay.

I find it really amusing that the Melbourne football mafia reckons Sydney has an ordinary list with no good players, yet at the same time accuses the club of using its salary cap to poach lots of stars. Which is it gonna be?

The answer is neither, of course. Sydney has a middle of the road team with some quality players recruited from other clubs and some that they have developed themselves, but other than Goodes and possibly Williams, how many Sydney players would find themselves in most pundits' top 50 player lists at the moment, despite the fact we are currently sitting 4th?

The Dons' situation was very different. They had lots of highly paid players on their list because they had just won a premiership and because they gambled on changes to the veterans list and it backfired.

swansrock4eva
29th June 2003, 07:49 PM
Williams and Collingwood were a split couple and he was always going to leave - we most certainly did not wave an extra few hundred thousand around to entice him. Iirc it cost us a very nice draft pick and a player or two as well to get him in the first place. So there goes that argument.

And which officials were heard and by whom?

And the dons offloading premiership players was really their own mess to deal with - Brisbane had the nous to realise that by keeping players on lower payments for a bit longer, there would be a bit more room to work with when they did start wanting the big bucks. If Essendon can't manage their players with 100% what makes you think they can manage them at 115%? They'd just end up with the same problems again, only with bigger figures involved.

The problem seems to be that so many Victorians are so bloody scared of losing a grip on a so-called NATIONAL competition that they will accept any drivel out of anyone's mouth that tells them that we must be evil up here and that the victorians are so terribly disadvantaged. The fact of the matter is, players would NOT be willing to stay up here with comparatively LOWER incomes, which is what 100% would give. In this day and age, where the motivation to play is more often than not things other than a love of the game or the team, money plays a huge part in it and living in Sydney means there is certainly a lot less value for money than you'd find in any other capital city. Until you come up here to live, you can NEVER comment on how tough or not tough it is because quite frankly, you are talking straight out of your backside if you try.

NMWBloods
29th June 2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by neored
[B]Oh so two champions of the game is insufficient is it?

<cough> Hall <cough>


As Lizz comments, I love how, in one breath, the Melbourne press and others comments that our list is poor and bereft of champions, yet in another breath they comment they the extra salary cap is allowing us to poach champions!!

The important thing is not just how many "champions" you poach but how many you have on the list as you still have to them every year after they join. So in the past 9 years you've managed to name three champions. Over that time period, how many have other clubs had...?




How so?


I am staggered that you actually think this is a relevant analogy. Here's a simple explanation - speeding laws help reduce road tolls, so if you dropped them your road toll would rise. That your road toll is lower doesn't mean you can drop it. How does that relate to salary caps though?

You say that the AFL is unfair as it says the differences between Melbourne and the other cities is not large enough to warrant a higher salary cap. You think 2-5% is going to make a huge difference to the performance of the Melbourne teams?



The margin in irrelevant, the principle should be that if a law exists then it should be applied across the board. We have a word for such a situation its called discrimmination.


Rubbish it's discrimination. Are you suggesting that paying people different amounts to reflect cost of living is discrimination?



But why should clubs be punished/rewarded for something that they cannot control? Its not Adelaide's fault that they are located in a city with a lower cost of living.

How are other clubs being punished relative to Sydney? I don't think you understand purchasing power. It is Sydney that would be punished without the extra 15%. You think someone earning $100K in Melbourne is the same as someone earning $100K in Sydney?


Every city has its own advantages and disadvantages and it should just be the case that clubs must make do.

What are Sydney's inherent advantages?



The NBA doesn't grant the New York Nicks extra salary cap space just because the franchise is located in New York.

Well they do actually. The salary cap isn't rigorously enforced in the NBA and the New York payroll is significantly higher than most of the rest of the league and over twice the cap level.



And in any case a better method could be found to address any inbalances in the system if the AFL was willing to do so. The fact is however the AFL isn't interested in making the system more equitable, the extra 15 % is there to assist Sydney to buy a premiership, much like Brisbane has. Its all just a facade, but the Victorian people wont put up with it for much longer.

And your evidence for this assertion...? BTW - what are Victorians going to do about it?

Jon
29th June 2003, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Snowy
It is statistically flawed to put up lists of all the clubs and the numbers they have obtained from other clubs - most were rejects. If we outbid others for Aker, at a time when we are meant to be financially under pressure eyebrows will be raised. The Dons had to offload three premiership players just to remain under the cap. We would be squealing for extra room if that happened to us. If Reggi places so much faith in his figures why are we paying over 100% this year? Are these figures fluid?

If it is statistically flawed to to put up lists of all the clubs...then why are people using lists in arguments against us? They can't have it both ways.

Player poaching by Sydney is a myth - or at the very least much exagerated.

Clubs don't agressively throw money at a player to "buy" him. Seems to me, the norm at the moment is for a player to talk with his club about concerns he might have. He may be homesick (like N. Davis, A. Rocca etc) or he might be having a paycut forced down his throat (as many players have had in the last two years), he may be having a personality clash or is unhappy for some reason (Willo, Carey) or he may simply want a breath of fresh air at a new club (T. Lockett).

Having made a decision, the player then instructs his manager that he wants to leave. The manager comes up with a list of interested parties. The player then nominates the club he's trying to land in, and the clubs then negotiate a way to make it happen that is mutually beneficial.

In the end, the club has the final say...and if a trade doesn't eventuate the player lands up in the draft risking a move he doesn't want (like Scotty Russell faced when he was forced to come to Syd).

You don't see win/lose situations. You don't see one club gazzumping another and then doing some kind of silly victory dance while the vaquished tear at their hair. You see very sophisticated agreements, where sometimes as many as three of four clubs pull together to all get something out of a deal.

The Barry Hall trade was a perfect example.

You can't have people citing Hall as an example of player poaching and conveniently ignore the way the other clubs involved have benefited from that trade.

Now...what is NOT a myth, is that if Syd was on parity with the Victorian clubs, they wouldn't HAVE to offer our players more money...an identical contract would be worth enough to make the move south worthwhile...especially if that player is from Victoria in the first place.

If a player wants to go home, there's nothing a club can really do. But by giving Syd that 15%, the money side is equalised, making it LESS of a factor to go.

NMWBloods
29th June 2003, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Snowy
The problem is that certain officials of Melbourne clubs overheard Swans officials 'privately' suggesting that every couple of years they target a player from another club with the extra money they have.

You know this? How?



Hall, Willo and Davis comes to mind though he was homesick. It is statistically flawed to put up lists of all the clubs and the numbers they have obtained from other clubs - most were rejects.

Firstly, players coming home to us homesick, are more than offset than players going the other way. Secondly, would you care to put some substance behind your assertion that players on other lists are rejects. Finally, salary cap is not just used to lure players but also to pay them. Therefore it's important to also consider highly-paid "champions" on other lists, and there are many teams ahead of us.

Reggi
29th June 2003, 10:51 PM
How when or why players leave is irrelevant - the only issue that matters in regard to the salary cap is whether clubs can afford to pay players.

Please explain to us how Sydney - still waiting - you are making this claims NEORED - please back up your statements.

"Are you blind" is no explanation.

Or are you just another one of these salary cap whingers with no substance?

Clubs in the US - particularly NFL don't pay anywhere near there salary cap. Besides if you look through those comp you will not that the rules regarding the salary cap are extrememly complicated.

Reggi
29th June 2003, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by Snowy
It is statistically flawed to put up lists of all the clubs and the numbers they have obtained from other clubs - most were rejects.

Nope - famously Roy Morgan the founder of Roy Morgan Research was asked why you do public polling his answer was that it prevents Journalists - Politicians etc talking "on behalf of the people" - in other words just making up factless lies.

If there was any skeric of truth in the crap about Sydney having a salary cap advantage it would show up in those numbers - I don't cause there ain't no such thing.

Actually the only genuine conclusion you can draw is that the Adelaide clubs are advantaged by the lower COL in Adelaide.

As the great John Patterson said "I love it when statistics confirm my prejudices".

omnipotent
30th June 2003, 02:42 AM
I can answer maybe that bit about certain officials, it was reported in the press that a certain Swan official said that he targets out of contract players every few years, thus the clubs like Essendon who have lost players due to not fitting them into their cap are obviously saying Swans are luring not retaining players. I don't know about rejects but I guess if you look through the lists the players from other clubs on many other lists have gone there in trades not being lured with the exception of a guy such as Woewodin yet it appeared Melbourne could not afford to pay him. With homesickness I think recently it has affected most clubs evenly. We have not had anyone since the days of Rocca and Grant who never wanted to come here. We have more from interstate than most but then again they haven't got the cap space to retain any of their homesick ones.

scurrilous
30th June 2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by neored
Have you actually followed football for more than 5 years or are you blinded by your own bias. Just to illustrate the idiocy of your own argument I'll go through the players you listed:

Hamill - wanted to stay with Carlton left after a bust up with the president.
Gehrig - wanted to come home
Powell - salary cap pressures on Melbourne
Lawrence - not wanted by Brisbane
Black - wanted to come home

woewoedin - didn't want to leave Melbourne, forced out
Molloy - traded (Michael)
Wakelin - not wanted
clement - not wanted (very good trade)
Holland - not wanted (poor player)
Freeborn - not wanted.
O'Bree - very yound when he went to Collingwood , very homesick.

Apart from Gehrig and to a lesser exten Powell, all the other players weren't lured financially.


Oh yeah that really proves your point. I could make up the same sort of stories for every single AFL player ever traded to another club. The real fact here is that you and I both don't know jack**** when it comes to individual motivations for leaving/joining another club.

So stop trying to prove a point that you obviously can not comprehend in your less than immense grey matter. But never fear, I'd have the same level of comprehension myself. I'm just not stupid enough to make such outlandish comments as you did.

I think you should have just taken the blue pill and been done with it.

scurrilous
30th June 2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by lizz
LOL - have to admire your persistance Neo.

Who says the system is about punishing or rewarding any club? It's about trying to even out a massive disadvantage that Sydney would otherwise face, thereby trying to make things more even. If it were about trying to allow Sydney to buy a premiership, why hasn't it worked? Simply because it just brings us to a level where we can compete fairly, that's why!

If a better system can be found, fine. Why don't you find it? And what are the Victorian people going to do about it? Boycott the AFL? March on Federation Square - or whatever it's called? Storm the SCG?

I've decided I'm going to start a fight with a haughty taught NSWelshman the day the Swans win a GF. It would give me so much satisfaction knocking their teeth out.

scurrilous
30th June 2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by lizz

I find it really amusing that the Melbourne football mafia...


Oh another example! I'm going to be getting lots of money from the tooth fairy the day after the big one :)

scurrilous
30th June 2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Reggi
How when or why players leave is irrelevant - the only issue that matters in regard to the salary cap is whether clubs can afford to pay players.


Reggi is the sartest person on this board!
edit: rofl make that sMartest

penga
30th June 2003, 12:36 PM
i found the hipocracy hilarious when davis told the pies that he didnt want to stay and the pies came out and said that they couldnt keep him because they were unfairly disadvantaged coz they couldnt offer them as much as what we could, and then they land woewodin...

but of course the pies couldnt keep davis coz they had salary cap problems :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

salary cap has little to do with advantages, we are around the top 4 atm and we r running at 87%...

"but its that 13% that is giving u that advantage of course"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Tractor2003
30th June 2003, 02:15 PM
What about the fact Nick Davis is on less money at Sydney than he was getting for the Pies.

Eddie's got a short memory..........you didnt see Sydney kicking up as much stink as they did when Anthony Rocca wanted to go back to mummies place.

What goes around comes around Eddie........

neored
30th June 2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by NMWBloods
]As Lizz comments, I love how, in one breath, the Melbourne press and others comments that our list is poor and bereft of champions, yet in another breath they comment they the extra salary cap is allowing us to poach champions!!

But you see you've just illustrated an advantage that your club has. In Melbourne there is far more scrutiny and focus placed on Melbourne players. Even the average - good players are recognised, in the end this means that Melbourne clubs have to pay more to keep them on the list, because recognition = reputation = larger contract.

In 1999 for example Caracella. Blumfield we're playing just their second/third season of football. But because they were being noticed week in week out, their reputation was growing. At the end of the season they were being pursued by a number of clubs, including yours which meant we had to pay above what they were worth. As a result we won a premiership, but we ended up losing them because we could no fit them under the salary cap.

You often claim that your players aren't given due credit by the Melbourne media, thats an advantage as their market price doesn't inflate at the same rate as Melbourne players.

And as I mentioned in an earlier the post, the fact that you have been unable to lure players to your club is due to your dire financial situation, not because you are unwilling to do so.



The important thing is not just how many "champions" you poach but how many you have on the list as you still have to them every year after they join. So in the past 9 years you've managed to name three champions. Over that time period, how many have other clubs had...?

Yes, but these are players that you have lured, not that you have developed. Goodes is still on your list, as is Saddington, O Loughlin. How many champions have my club lured?.... I dare you to name one.



I am staggered that you actually think this is a relevant analogy. Here's a simple explanation - speeding laws help reduce road tolls, so if you dropped them your road toll would rise. That your road toll is lower doesn't mean you can drop it. How does that relate to salary caps though?

But you see it is, figures are irrelevant its the principal that matters. If a law exists it should be applied across the board, being selective merely discrimminates.


You say that the AFL is unfair as it says the differences between Melbourne and the other cities is not large enough to warrant a higher salary cap. You think 2-5% is going to make a huge difference to the performance of the Melbourne teams?

2 to 5 % will make a difference it'll add 100,000 to 250,00 to the overall salary cap. But even if it didnt make a difference, isn't beneficial for the AFL to be even handed. Issues like these merely detract from what really matter, the game. By granting a very slight increase for Victorian clubs, the AFL will silence the critics and ensure that Sydney isn't seen as an enemy. It will also mean you wont have to put up with people like me badgering your club.




Rubbish it's discrimination. Are you suggesting that paying people different amounts to reflect cost of living is discrimination?

I fail to see how you cannot call it discrimmination. Applying a rule to one or two circumstances and staunchly refusing to apply it evenly is by definition discrimmination.




How are other clubs being punished relative to Sydney? I don't think you understand purchasing power. It is Sydney that would be punished without the extra 15%. You think someone earning $100K in Melbourne is the same as someone earning $100K in Sydney?

But I've already made it clear that your club should be compensated. Just not in the current manner. Adding 15% to every player payment is one way, or building up business networks allowing players to receive discounts on certain items is another. The point is that if COL was the real reason for the extra salary cap space then other methods could be found that would compensate your club whilst mantaining an even playing ground.



What are Sydney's inherent advantages?

There are many : the fact that players can escape the football culture of Melbourne. The fact that kids that grow up following AFL in Sydney will most likely support the Swans, better lifestyle. I could think up more but you get my drift, every city has its benefits.




Well they do actually. The salary cap isn't rigorously enforced in the NBA and the New York payroll is significantly higher than most of the rest of the league and over twice the cap level.

The fact that certain clubs circumvent the system is irrelevant , the principle remains. New York is given no extra space despite the fact it is located in a city with a substantial COL.




And your evidence for this assertion...? BTW - what are Victorians going to do about it?

How do you account for Brisbane being able to afford Caracella? Caracella was on $300,000 at Essendon and since his contract was not renegotiated when he was traded to Brisbane , we are to assume he is on the same amount. Headland was definitely not on that amount of money as he emerged during the season.

Many like me will choose not to renew their AFL membership. And if gate receipt sharing is reintroduced they will not attend matches involving interstate clubs. Victorians wont sit idly by whilst their clubs are beimg screwed.

neored
30th June 2003, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by penga
i found the hipocracy hilarious when davis told the pies that he didnt want to stay and the pies came out and said that they couldnt keep him because they were unfairly disadvantaged coz they couldnt offer them as much as what we could, and then they land woewodin...

but of course the pies couldnt keep davis coz they had salary cap problems :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

salary cap has little to do with advantages, we are around the top 4 atm and we r running at 87%...

"but its that 13% that is giving u that advantage of course"

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Its impossible to run at 87 %. The current CBA does not allow for this.

neored
30th June 2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by scurrilous
Oh yeah that really proves your point. I could make up the same sort of stories for every single AFL player ever traded to another club. The real fact here is that you and I both don't know jack**** when it comes to individual motivations for leaving/joining another club.

So stop trying to prove a point that you obviously can not comprehend in your less than immense grey matter. But never fear, I'd have the same level of comprehension myself. I'm just not stupid enough to make such outlandish comments as you did.

I think you should have just taken the blue pill and been done with it.

Rubbish, if the main motives for a player leaving are financial then they most often then not nominate for the preseason draft as an uncontracted player.

Some of the players listed were delisted, others were duds , only a few were what you could call high priced recruits.

neored
30th June 2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by lizz
LOL - have to admire your persistance Neo.

I consider it my civic duty as a Victorian to awaken you from this malaise[/QUOTE]


Who says the system is about punishing or rewarding any club? It's about trying to even out a massive disadvantage that Sydney would otherwise face, thereby trying to make things more even. If it were about trying to allow Sydney to buy a premiership, why hasn't it worked? Simply because it just brings us to a level where we can compete fairly, that's why!

If its about evening up the competition then its failed miserably. The fact that you haven't been able to win a premiership is due more to bad coaching/recruiting/management then anything else. Really most clubs should be able to win a premiership at least once every 10 years.


If a better system can be found, fine. Why don't you find it? And what are the Victorian people going to do about it? Boycott the AFL? March on Federation Square - or whatever it's called? Storm the SCG?

Many alternate ideas have been proposed and rejected, because its not about cost of living. Its about giving Sydney a few free kicks.

Storm the SCG ? Only as a last resort. I'll be the first in line with a Victorian flag draped around my shoulders. Viva le resistance!!!

undy
30th June 2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by neored

If its about evening up the competition then its failed miserably. The fact that you haven't been able to win a premiership is due more to bad coaching/recruiting/management then anything else. Really most clubs should be able to win a premiership at least once every 10 years.
<blah>


Really ? There are (currently) 16 clubs. Lets generously assume that by "most", you mean 75%, rather than 90%, that would be 12 clubs who should each be winning "at least" one of the 10 premierships.

Snowy
30th June 2003, 06:17 PM
I think though that Melbourne clubs argue that every time Sydney has lost a good player through homesickness they have been adequately compensated, note Rocca and WS/Grant deal. Bitching started last year because Sydney were trying to get Davis for nothing via the December draft when most felt he was a promising young player who was worth at least a first draft pick. That was how it was reported here anyway. Melbourne clubs argue that if someone wants to be traded to Melbourne ten clubs must compete for that player, making it hard to snare him and pushing up the price. If a player wants to go to Sydney for whatever reason they have no competitors, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane are similarly advantaged.

swansrock4eva
30th June 2003, 06:41 PM
yes but there are far more players wanting to go TO melbourne than LEAVE it because there are far more players coming out of melbourne and victoria in general than there are out of NSW! THAT is where the gripe is. The swans have had to put a @@@@@@load of money into building up the support networks around the players to help them settle in and make them feel comfortable up here, which is a reason why the likes of Grant etc went back to melbourne originally - at that point in time there was nothing of the sort. Having to pump that money in also creates hardship for the club financially.

And Sydney is not the only team to try to get the system to work in their favour over the years, if in fact they were serious about wanting davis to go into the draft. And, besides, what happened to the good old red herring during negotiations? When did everything that gets reported become the definitive word of the time? Just look at the likes of Kevin Sheedy and Mick Malthouse - over half the stuff that comes out of their mouths is complete garbage designed to psych out the opposition and hopefully alter conditions in their favour. During trade talks that ALWAYS happens because the team losing a player wants to get top dollar but the team wanting the player never wants to pay that.

scurrilous
30th June 2003, 07:38 PM
anyhow, just driving home from work todayand heard on the ABC that Sydney will now only get 7%(??around that figure??) for rent/buying assistance.

I know exactly what neored was implying, I just like to stir the pot a bit, but in all honesty that 7%ish figure that's been announced is rather inadequate.

But I think the swans have probably dug their own graves on this one by misusing the previously allotted 15%. Well, probably not misuse, but definitely not applying it the way it should have been, and that is across the board.

Reggi
30th June 2003, 07:50 PM
Originally posted by neored
But you see you've just illustrated an advantage that your club has. In Melbourne there is far more scrutiny and focus placed on Melbourne players. Even the average - good players are recognised, in the end this means that Melbourne clubs have to pay more to keep them on the list, because recognition = reputation = larger contract.

.




Yes, but these are players that you have lured, not that you have developed. Goodes is still on your list, as is Saddington, O Loughlin. How many champions have my club lured?.... I dare you to name one.






I fail to see how you cannot call it discrimmination. Applying a rule to one or two circumstances and staunchly refusing to apply it evenly is by definition discrimmination.



First point is utterly irrelavant is this a salary cap or a popularity contest.

Discrimination would be if Sydney players were forced not to have the same real incomes as other football players in Australia. That is why it is refered to as compensation

neored
30th June 2003, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Reggi
First point is utterly irrelavant is this a salary cap or a popularity contest.

Discrimination would be if Sydney players were forced not to have the same real incomes as other football players in Australia. That is why it is refered to as compensation


But your players do and would still receive the same amount as their Victorian counterparts even if the 15% extra didn't exist.. Your clubs argument has been that $200,000 in Sydney is worth less than $200,000 in Melbourne. Having lived in Sydney for 4 months a few years ago theres no doubt that Sydney is a far more pricey city.

The argument is that simply lumping on 15% is 1. simplistic 2.discrimminatory, because Melbourne doesn't get the same deal 3. thus leading to an uneven playing field.

scurrilous
30th June 2003, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by Reggi
First point is utterly irrelavant is this a salary cap or a popularity contest.

Discrimination would be if Sydney players were forced not to have the same real incomes as other football players in Australia. That is why it is refered to as compensation
they just don't get that "real disposable y" theory do they Reggi

neored
30th June 2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by undy
Really ? There are (currently) 16 clubs. Lets generously assume that by "most", you mean 75%, rather than 90%, that would be 12 clubs who should each be winning "at least" one of the 10 premierships.

By most I mean a majority which could be 9,10.

And thats assuming that the club is well run, has a good recruiting department and a good coach.

So a premiership every 10 years is definitely the benchmark for most sides.

scurrilous
30th June 2003, 08:58 PM
oh and that also implies a club that vehemently breaks their salary cap too :D

NMWBloods
30th June 2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by neored
By most I mean a majority which could be 9,10.

And thats assuming that the club is well run, has a good recruiting department and a good coach.

So a premiership every 10 years is definitely the benchmark for most sides.

You said that 9-10 teams should win a premiership every ten years. So who has managed that over an extended period of time?

Well, Carlton did it from 68-95, but had a gap in the 50s and 20s and look like they'll miss again now.

Essendon did it from 84-00, but had gaps in the 70s and 30s.

Collingwood had a gap from 58 until 90 and are missing again.

Well, that's the most successful flag teams. After that no one has done it regularly since the war and there are many many patches. So obviously there are lots of unsuccessful teams out there.

Angelic Upstart
30th June 2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by neored
In fact it has everything to do with Sydney...and Brisbane for that matter. It illustrates the duplicitous nature of the AFL when it comes to these two teams. Applying rules arbitrarily to give two sides an unfair advantage

Nice to see youre so concerned about fairness and equity in the competition. Very noble sentiments - pity you ignored them when you were arguing in another thread for a final at the MCG every week, even if it disadvantages non Victorian teams. Hypocrite.

robbieando
30th June 2003, 11:44 PM
(resists bursting into a fit of laughter) Its been exploited continuously by your club over the years. You nearly bought a premiership in 1996.

Really, I would however like to point out that of the 21 players who lined up for the Swans in the 1996 Grand Final only 6 of the team were from other clubs.

They were (and how we got them)

Paul Roos (Number 1 1995 Pre Season Draft - he left Fitzroy at the end of 1994 and stated that he was willing to go anywhere, we had the first pick in the draft thanks to winning the 1994 Wooden Spoon)

Tony Lockett (Left St Kilda at the end of 1994 and picked to go to Collingwood, however the Coll board rejected going after him. He then picked Richmond, however Richmond couldn't work out a trade with St Kilda. He then picked Sydney and we worked a fair and reasonable trade with St Kilda)

Craig O'Brien (Traded to Sydney. Was under contract at the time)

Stuart Maxfield (Sydney had 2 uncontracted player selections in 1995 the first went on Maxfield. Had higher offers to stay in Melbourne but wanted to go to Sydney to get more game time. Was a bench player at Richmond. In return Richmond got a draft pick from us as compensation)

Kevin Dyson (Same as Maxfield, was a bench player at Melbourne and was out of contract. Wasn't offered a new contract by the Dee's and had no other offers)

Derek Kickett (Quit Essendon after a falling out with Sheedy in 1993, picked up by the Swans in the 1994 Pre Season draft)

So Neored just how did we nearly BUY a premiership in 1996, or are you starting to believe the myths?????

liz
1st July 2003, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by neored

If its about evening up the competition then its failed miserably. The fact that you haven't been able to win a premiership is due more to bad coaching/recruiting/management then anything else. Really most clubs should be able to win a premiership at least once every 10 years.



Which side are you arguing?

I can assure you no-one is more frustrated that Sydney / South Melbourne haven't won a flag since 1993 than posters on this board. And maybe it is down to bad coaching etc. But that isn't really the point of this thread. Certainly the Swans past record provides no evidence that it is possible to buy a premiership through having an additional cap allowance. What it maybe provides evidence of is that a team who consistently finished at or near the bottom for years can now field a team that consistently finishes mid-table - ie is competitive without having achieved that "something special" that it takes to win a premiership.

And by your argument, the Lions' success is not evidence either because it is only to be expected that teams will have their share of periods of strength. You'd have to wait another year or two of Lions dominance before any evidence emerges that their cap allowance has anything to do with it. Thus far their period of success is similar to that enjoyed by your team from 1999-2001 in terms of ability to win H&A games - or if anything they haven't had the same level of success. The difference is that they managed to win two grand finals in that time and maybe have a shot at another one.

neored
1st July 2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by NMWBloods
You said that 9-10 teams should win a premiership every ten years. So who has managed that over an extended period of time?

Well, Carlton did it from 68-95, but had a gap in the 50s and 20s and look like they'll miss again now.

Essendon did it from 84-00, but had gaps in the 70s and 30s.

Collingwood had a gap from 58 until 90 and are missing again.

Well, that's the most successful flag teams. After that no one has done it regularly since the war and there are many many patches. So obviously there are lots of unsuccessful teams out there.

I still stand by my point. Look at the teams that have not won a premiership for 10 years or more and look at the circumstances behind the lack of success.

Coll - Badly managed in the mid 90's, recovering under McGuire and Malthouse and should unfortunately win a premiership in the next few years.

W.Bulldogs - Busy staving off extinction.

Geelong - Perrenial chokers, now recovering from financial debt.

Hawthorn - Great success in the 80's and early 90's but merger talks proved devisive.

Melbourne - debt ridden, nearly merged, disorganised, huge internal strife

St. Kilda - AFL basket case

Sydney - Made a critical error after 1996 grand final , overestimated list capacity.


I fail to see how my point is flawed, a well administrated club, with good recruiting and most importantly a good coach should be winning a premiership every ten years.

In any one year there will be 4 or 5 well managed clubs, whilst the rest go through a rebuilding process.

neored
1st July 2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by lizz
Which side are you arguing?

I can assure you no-one is more frustrated that Sydney / South Melbourne haven't won a flag since 1993 than posters on this board. And maybe it is down to bad coaching etc. But that isn't really the point of this thread. Certainly the Swans past record provides no evidence that it is possible to buy a premiership through having an additional cap allowance. What it maybe provides evidence of is that a team who consistently finished at or near the bottom for years can now field a team that consistently finishes mid-table - ie is competitive without having achieved that "something special" that it takes to win a premiership.

Someone pointed out earlier in the post that if the salary cap concessions were so helpful then why haven't the swans won a premiership. I was illustrating how bad coaching/recruiting/management have affected your chances.


And by your argument, the Lions' success is not evidence either because it is only to be expected that teams will have their share of periods of strength. You'd have to wait another year or two of Lions dominance before any evidence emerges that their cap allowance has anything to do with it. Thus far their period of success is similar to that enjoyed by your team from 1999-2001 in terms of ability to win H&A games - or if anything they haven't had the same level of success. The difference is that they managed to win two grand finals in that time and maybe have a shot at another one.

Of course they've been more successful than our side. Premierships are the ultimate measuring stick. The difference is that they've been able to mantain their list, aided by the extra salary cap space. So whilst they've maintained their core we've lost ours in Hardwick , Heffernan, Caracella, Blumfield.

The fact that they were able to fit Caracella under their salary cap is testament to how the extra salary cap space. favours them.

neored
1st July 2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Angelic Upstart
Nice to see youre so concerned about fairness and equity in the competition. Very noble sentiments - pity you ignored them when you were arguing in another thread for a final at the MCG every week, even if it disadvantages non Victorian teams. Hypocrite.

So tell me, how does it feel to be discrimminated against?

Not so merry , when the shoe is on the other foot .Is it?

sharp9
2nd July 2003, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by neored


Many alternate ideas have been proposed and rejected, because its not about cost of living. Its about giving Sydney a few free kicks.


I can't decide whether you are so pathetically undeveloped mentally that you don't understand the concept of fair play....or is it that you really are so stupid that you really think that the AFL is trying to engineer a premiership for Sydney.

Come on, which is it? Are you a *#@!ing tosser or a ***@@#ing idiot?

Either way you are unwell - and boring

robbieando
2nd July 2003, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by neored
Of course they've been more successful than our side. Premierships are the ultimate measuring stick. The difference is that they've been able to mantain their list, aided by the extra salary cap space. So whilst they've maintained their core we've lost ours in Hardwick , Heffernan, Caracella, Blumfield.

The fact that they were able to fit Caracella under their salary cap is testament to how the extra salary cap space. favours them.

If this is the case why then did North manage to keep all its good players, why did Adelaide do the same????? Face it the extra room Brisbane have has little bearing on what Brisbane have been able to do as their playing group was willing to all take pay cuts to stay together, with or without the extra room. The same goes with North and Adelaide, they were able to keep their squad together despite winning 2 flags.

Face it, the Essendon squad were not willing to take paycuts to stay together nor did the club plan well, because what sort of club pays Mercuci $500,000 for 5 years????? Admit it the reason Essendon are in the position they find themselves is because you stuffed up, the extra room would of done little to keep the squad together because the group as a whole weren't willing to take cuts.

The reason Brisbane could fit Caracella under their cap is because they had traded Headland and Cupido and the players having taken cuts.

Don't blame Brisbane because of Essendon list mismanagement.

robbieando
2nd July 2003, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by neored
Its impossible to run at 87 %. The current CBA does not allow for this.

87% of our allowable salary cap (115%), which comes in at 92.5% of the normal salary cap (100%)

robbieando
2nd July 2003, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by neored
Many alternate ideas have been proposed and rejected, because its not about cost of living. Its about giving Sydney a few free kicks.

Well you have been proven wrong on this point because ALL clubs including your own have agreed to 7% COL plus the extra deal (12 players get an extra $30,000 on top of what they get), so in fact we get to play with 114% from now on.

Hope it was worth it because we only lost 1% of what we had.

scurrilous
2nd July 2003, 10:33 AM
Hey neored...

Robbie 3
Neo 0

:P

liz
2nd July 2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by robbieando
87% of our allowable salary cap (115%), which comes in at 92.5% of the normal salary cap (100%)

I know this isn't the subject of the thread, but can't let those maths pass. 87% of our allowable cap is actually equivalent to 100% of the normal cap, which is about what the Swans are reportedly paying this year.

TheHood
2nd July 2003, 12:11 PM
The Dons have a history of poor maths! I seem to recall fines issues, draft picks withdrawn after a salary cap breach.

Thats the Don's way though, if they won't give it to us, we'll just take it anyway.

The classic irony was the Kevin was moaning about the 1999 Carlton side using players with a busted salary cap, the year they knocked the Don's on the head in the Elimination, however Kevin had been winning games with a busted cap for years anyway!

liz
2nd July 2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by TheHood

The classic irony was the Kevin was moaning about the 1999 Carlton side using players with a busted salary cap, the year they knocked the Don's on the head in the Elimination, however Kevin had been winning games with a busted cap for years anyway!

I reckon it was matched by Elliott's comments in the Blues' rooms during the 2000 finals that Essendon were cheats due to their salary cap transgressions!

Jon
2nd July 2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by lizz
I reckon it was matched by Elliott's comments in the Blues' rooms during the 2000 finals that Essendon were cheats due to their salary cap transgressions!

:D (wipe tear from eye) that one still makes me laugh!

TheHood
2nd July 2003, 01:01 PM
It was almost vaudevillian.

neored
2nd July 2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by robbieando
[B]If this is the case why then did North manage to keep all its good players, why did Adelaide do the same????? Face it the extra room Brisbane have has little bearing on what Brisbane have been able to do as their playing group was willing to all take pay cuts to stay together, with or without the extra room. The same goes with North and Adelaide, they were able to keep their squad together despite winning 2 flags.

Really?? Freeborn went to Collingwood for more money, and Bell ended up leaving. And as is widely acknowledged that North team of 1996 , 1999 weren't the most talented , just played with a lot of team spirit.

AS for Adelaide they won their Premiersips in 97/98, salaries had just started to inflate. Add to this the fact that most players come from Adelaide and dont often move.

Of course the extra cap space gives Brisbane an advantage, irregardless of the margin.


Face it, the Essendon squad were not willing to take paycuts to stay together nor did the club plan well, because what sort of club pays Mercuci $500,000 for 5 years????? Admit it the reason Essendon are in the position they find themselves is because you stuffed up, the extra room would of done little to keep the squad together because the group as a whole weren't willing to take cuts.

The Essendon tema DID take pay cuts, over $400,000 dollars worth. You really should read up on your history.

Theres no doubt signing Mercuri for 500,000 for extra 3 years on top of his existing 2 year contract was a bad idea. But put it into context, he finished runner up in the Brownlow, had a fantastic year and clubs were chasing him. Looking back it was a stupid move , but overall we have been excellent when it comes to list management.

Oh and BTW Mercuri has sacrificed $150,000 of his pay in recent years.


The reason Brisbane could fit Caracella under their cap is because they had traded Headland and Cupido and the players having taken cuts.

Don't blame Brisbane because of Essendon list mismanagement.

Headland was on an existing contract, and Cupido was not being paid anywhere near that amount, he has signed for us on a minimum contract.

They were able to fit Caracella because they were able to place the salaries of the Victorian based players under the salary cap retention allowance, thereby releasing money in their cap to spend on other players.

Face it the extra cap makes a difference , there's no use debating it.

neored
2nd July 2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by robbieando
Well you have been proven wrong on this point because ALL clubs including your own have agreed to 7% COL plus the extra deal (12 players get an extra $30,000 on top of what they get), so in fact we get to play with 114% from now on.

Hope it was worth it because we only lost 1% of what we had.


Clubs haven't agreed to anything, theres been cautious support up to this point. The report is very lengthy so dont expect any major responses from Clubs any time soon.

In any case one of my major arguments have been vindicated. Now every club will have access to extra allowance depending on the make up of their list. The rule has been extended for all clubs not just one or two.

neored
2nd July 2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by robbieando
87% of our allowable salary cap (115%), which comes in at 92.5% of the normal salary cap (100%)

As an earlier poster pointed out , you need to brush up on your maths.

87 X 115 = 10005

10005 /100 = 100.5

In any case you're still wrong, under the current CBA, clubs are allowed a minimum of 95%.

The AFL under special circumstances can authorise clubs to go down to 92.5 % if they receive special assistance from the AFL.

And since this years salary cap is calculated from October last year, and you're not receiving special assistance(yet) the minimum your able to pay is 95%

The new CBA which is not yet operating will allow clubs to go down to 92.5.

neored
2nd July 2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by sharp9
I can't decide whether you are so pathetically undeveloped mentally that you don't understand the concept of fair play....or is it that you really are so stupid that you really think that the AFL is trying to engineer a premiership for Sydney.

Come on, which is it? Are you a *#@!ing tosser or a ***@@#ing idiot?

Either way you are unwell - and boring


Fair play would be applying rules for all ... dimwit

liz
2nd July 2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by neored


In any case you're still wrong, under the current CBA, clubs are allowed a minimum of 95%.

The AFL under special circumstances can authorise clubs to go down to 92.5 % if they receive special assistance from the AFL.



I believe you're incorrect here, and that clubs are currently permitted (and even encouraged, in some cases) to pay just 92.5% of the cap under the current agreement without any special dispensation from the AFL. In fact, if the agreement with the AFLPA was 95%, I don't see how the AFL would be permitted to vary this - after all, it is a binding contract!

scurrilous
2nd July 2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by TheHood
The Dons have a history of poor maths! I seem to recall fines issues, draft picks withdrawn after a salary cap breach.

Thats the Don's way though, if they won't give it to us, we'll just take it anyway.

The classic irony was the Kevin was moaning about the 1999 Carlton side using players with a busted salary cap, the year they knocked the Don's on the head in the Elimination, however Kevin had been winning games with a busted cap for years anyway!
Exactly my point previously.

And neo, my violin's playing for you buddy http://www.ausforum.com/images/smilies/new/bawling.gif

neored
2nd July 2003, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by lizz
I believe you're incorrect here, and that clubs are currently permitted (and even encouraged, in some cases) to pay just 92.5% of the cap under the current agreement without any special dispensation from the AFL. In fact, if the agreement with the AFLPA was 95%, I don't see how the AFL would be permitted to vary this - after all, it is a binding contract!


Nope,

Scroll to the last paragraph and you'll see that clubs can spend NO LESS than 95%

The new CBA will allow clubs to go down to 92.5% without AFL approval.

The current CBA is actually on the web so take a look:

AFLPA WEBSITE CBA (http://www.aflpa.com.au/CBA/default.asp?page=25)

neored
2nd July 2003, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by scurrilous
Exactly my point previously.

And neo, my violin's playing for you buddy http://www.ausforum.com/images/smilies/new/bawling.gif


Rest assured if Sydney play a perliminary final at the MCG despite finishing in the top 4 , I'll be feeling the same amount of pain that you are.

Isn't it funny that those who lay into us about our salary cap breaches miss a few points.

a) we weren't the only club over the cap

b) If we had told the AFL of our breaches during the Amnesty we would of been let off.

c} One of the people responsible for our breaches is a current member of the commission.

d} That person is heavily in favour of Sydney keeping its concessions. So what better way for you swannies fans to demonstrate your disgust than to campaign for his removal.

robbieando
3rd July 2003, 12:33 AM
neored the entire commission is heavily in favour of the extention so removing one bad apple won't change things.

On playing the Prelim Final at the G, I haven't got a problem and our club hasn't been outspoken on this issue because they know we have a huge following in Melbourne. Plus I don't have to pay $200 just make it up to Sydney. Still I bet you were real happy coming up here in 96

Who cares if you could of got off, you still cheated not the other way around.

liz
3rd July 2003, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by neored
Nope,

Scroll to the last paragraph and you'll see that clubs can spend NO LESS than 95%

The new CBA will allow clubs to go down to 92.5% without AFL approval.

The current CBA is actually on the web so take a look:

AFLPA WEBSITE CBA (http://www.aflpa.com.au/CBA/default.asp?page=25)

I may very well be mistaken, but I thought I recalled that the minimum was brought down from the 95% to 92.5% for last season as a reaction to suggestions it was daft to expect the top and bottom clubs to be paying within such a narrow band. If you read the CBA as posted, it only includes specifics for the first couple of years, with subsequent increases in the TPP to be determined subsequently - as seems to happen in an annual renegotiation with the AFLPA.

It has certainly been widely reported that clubs like the Bulldogs are currently paying only around 92.5% of the cap.

Reggi
3rd July 2003, 08:06 AM
Bryan Wood
Geoff Raines
Rene Kink
Anthony Daniher
Ben Doolan

Reggi
3rd July 2003, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by neored

Yes, but these are players that you have lured, not that you have developed. Goodes is still on your list, as is Saddington, O Loughlin. How many champions have my club lured?.... I dare you to name one.






How's five do ya!

omnipotent
3rd July 2003, 05:55 PM
I think that everyone is a winner. Sydney keeps a reasonable concession, Brisbane some concession but more watered down than Swans, all other clubs are now in the position where they get compensated if local content falls below a certain %. Maybe clubs will be encouraged to recruit more from out of town to be eligible for this allowance.

neored
3rd July 2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by lizz
I may very well be mistaken, but I thought I recalled that the minimum was brought down from the 95% to 92.5% for last season as a reaction to suggestions it was daft to expect the top and bottom clubs to be paying within such a narrow band. If you read the CBA as posted, it only includes specifics for the first couple of years, with subsequent increases in the TPP to be determined subsequently - as seems to happen in an annual renegotiation with the AFLPA.

It has certainly been widely reported that clubs like the Bulldogs are currently paying only around 92.5% of the cap.


I'm not disputing that a few clubs are paying 92.5%, but in order to do this and not have to pay the difference they must ask the AFL.

So what happens is that a club will decide that is wants to pay less than the minimum amount. As part of the agreement the club must pay the difference over the list , so paying 92.5 % would mean the club having to pay $100,000 over the list.

So the club goes to the AFL and requests the special assistance package. As part of the financial compensation the AFL pays the difference. Thats why clubs must go to the AFL, otherwise they must pay the difference themselves.

neored
3rd July 2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Reggi
Bryan Wood
Geoff Raines
Rene Kink
Anthony Daniher
Ben Doolan

Anybody in the last decade?


And in any case the majority were involved in trades. I might well be wrong but I dont remember any of them being high priced recruits.

Ben Doolan... he was shocking !!! who are you trying to kid?

You could of at least mentioned Denham, then your argument might have some merit.

Bear
3rd July 2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by neored
Clubs haven't agreed to anything, theres been cautious support up to this point. The report is very lengthy so dont expect any major responses from Clubs any time soon.

In any case one of my major arguments have been vindicated. Now every club will have access to extra allowance depending on the make up of their list. The rule has been extended for all clubs not just one or two.

Has it REALLY though? When is the next time Ess will have enough players from interstate to take advantage of the rule??

It was a token change to keep a rule that simply goes SOME way to evening the playing field. Our players are still worse off in real terms to players in Melb, Adel, etc, and our club has to pay more (and hence be less profitable) just to go SOME way to keeping players' pay and conditions competitive in real terms.

robbieando
3rd July 2003, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by neored
And in any case the majority were involved in trades.

And the difference is??????

4/5 of the big names we got since 1995 came via trades as well

neored
3rd July 2003, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by robbieando
neored the entire commission is heavily in favour of the extention so removing one bad apple won't change things.

I was being facetious, some people were having a go at my club for breaking the salary cap rules, whilst the man responsible is on the board.


On playing the Prelim Final at the G, I haven't got a problem and our club hasn't been outspoken on this issue because they know we have a huge following in Melbourne. Plus I don't have to pay $200 just make it up to Sydney. Still I bet you were real happy coming up here in 96

Thats very selfish of you. After all most Swans supporters are in Sydney and deserve to see their club play a final there... See I dont dispute that your clubs should have a pre-lim IF it deserves one. My point has been that if we are going to have one injustice ie.salary cap then Sydney supporters should be made to understand as to how it feels to be discrimminated against.

And as for going to Sydney, hey that was fine. I encourage my club to travel around Australia promoting its brand. So no problem there. And remember we were only a bees dick away from making it into the GF.


Who cares if you could of got off, you still cheated not the other way around.

No argument here , we were over the cap and got punished for it(SEVERELY). But despite that we still ended up winning a premiership a few years later...

neored
3rd July 2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Bear
Has it REALLY though? When is the next time Ess will have enough players from interstate to take advantage of the rule??

I'm not sure, but there are quite a few Vic clubs that a hovering around the 55 - 65 % mark. So a few players either way will allow them to make use of the law.


It was a token change to keep a rule that simply goes SOME way to evening the playing field. Our players are still worse off in real terms to players in Melb, Adel, etc, and our club has to pay more (and hence be less profitable) just to go SOME way to keeping players' pay and conditions competitive in real terms.

The overall change may be very small, but fact is the law is now applicable to all clubs and that is a very substantial shift in terms of AFL Policy.

And as for your players being worse off, Why? You're still being compensated in terms of COS. The only difference is that the extra funds will hinge on how many players from interstate you have on your list. I think this is quite a reasonable change.

robbieando
3rd July 2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by neored
Thats very selfish of you. After all most Swans supporters are in Sydney and deserve to see their club play a final there... See I dont dispute that your clubs should have a pre-lim IF it deserves one. My point has been that if we are going to have one injustice ie.salary cap then Sydney supporters should be made to understand as to how it feels to be discrimminated against.


It might be selfish but I like to watch my team play LIVE something I don't get to do that offen anymore thanks to the Swans playing 5 games in Melbourne. Personally I don't have a problem with the MCC contract because I know it was an important part of getting the Southern Stand built.

On the extra room in our salary cap, thats hardly an injustice

Reggi
4th July 2003, 08:27 AM
Originally posted by neored
Anybody in the last decade?


And in any case the majority were involved in trades. I might well be wrong but I dont remember any of them being high priced recruits.

Ben Doolan... he was shocking !!! who are you trying to kid?

You could of at least mentioned Denham, then your argument might have some merit.

May have been a dud - but S&Don lured him away with big $$$$ - was one of your top (if not the top) paid players as a 19 YO in a premiership year (papers reported it as over $100K very big in 1992-93).

Don't give us this crap that S&Don haven't lured players away - he was 19 and had played 25 odd games for Sydney - at the time it was generally thought he would turn out OK.

Sheedy has also said that he did his best to get Anthony Rocca from Sydney but Anna Rocca wouldn't have anything to do with it.

neored
4th July 2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Reggi
May have been a dud - but S&Don lured him away with big $$$$ - was one of your top (if not the top) paid players as a 19 YO in a premiership year (papers reported it as over $100K very big in 1992-93).

Don't give us this crap that S&Don haven't lured players away - he was 19 and had played 25 odd games for Sydney - at the time it was generally thought he would turn out OK.

Sheedy has also said that he did his best to get Anthony Rocca from Sydney but Anna Rocca wouldn't have anything to do with it.

Anthony Rocca had decided to come back home and a number of clubs were after him.

If you are going to include players we were unsuccessful in luring then I can draw up a list of around 30 in regards to your side.

Additionally lets not get into the 80's and relive some of the great memories under the great Dr. Or do you need reminding?