Source
Interesting.....
Source
Interesting.....
To be honest I'd be cranky if they were given the concession - by all reports they KNEW cousins was on a bad path quite some time ago and they let it continue instead of stepping in early and bringing the problem under control - why should the League have to pay for their inability to manage their players' welfare?
I was trying to think of how to word it...you have summed up my thoughts perfectly.Originally Posted by swansrock4eva
Does God believe in Atheists?
I'm not a fan of cousins, but it sets a bad preceedent if clubs cant spend money on players in this type of instance. It would seemingly only encourage them not to act on behalf of the player where it may be considered necessary on a personal level.
Is there any allowance in salary caps for that type of expense in general?
He ate more cheese, than time allowed
But the club knew since at least July last year and let it go on without doing anything until it finally got to this big mess. If they'd stepped in when they found out, chances are it wouldn't be running up the tens (possibly even hundreds) of thousands of dollars it is now. If they can't financially help themselves after letting the mess develop and play out the way it has, then why should the league cop the cost? If they had been proactive rather than reactive chances are we'd have seen Cousins on the field against us 2 weeks ago rather than getting on a plane to go to rehab and this wouldn't be an issue. Instead, the club is now saying "we wouldn't look after our player when he needed us, so we're trying to make do now - can you help us?" The only precedent that sets is that clubs can get away with not taking care of issues early in the piece, because the AFL will help them cover the cost when it gets bigger and more damaging.
As I read it, they have not asked for money. They have asked to exclude the payments from salary cap calculations. Or does 'relief' mean they want reimbursment? Not a very clear article.
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."
Agree. A very confusing article.
"As everyone knows our style of football is defensive and unattractive, and as such I have completely forgotten how to mark or kick over the years" - Brett Kirk
IMO the E-girls should get nothing all they are is friggin drug cheats.
MADNow this is a thread that i would expect on the ego -centric, wank session that is redandwhiteonline.com...
Pushin Limits
If clubs have to include the cost of drug treatment for players in their salary cap, wouldn't that dissuade them from helping the players. Effectively, WC are playing with a 500k less valuable playing list than other clubs at the moment, so I reckon it's fair to ask that the "fringe benefit" of drug treatment doesn't count toward the cap, meaning they'll be 560k short.
Last edited by Airbanjo; 12th April 2007 at 03:05 PM.
I read it to mean they dont want the money they have spent on his rehabilitation to be included in the cap.
If they want the money back they can get stuffed, but that's not how I understood it.
He ate more cheese, than time allowed
They'll probably get that money back from more crappy merchandise and a new "home" jersey.
Benny's salary should've paid for all the expenses.
I only support one team: The SYDNEY SWANS!!!!!
Yes, that's they way I read it and I think it's fair enough.
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks