Ed Considine's day out - Round 3, 16th April 1995.
11 Kicks, 13 Handballs, 8 Marks, 1 Goal, 1 Behind, 1 Tackle, 1 Hitout, 3 Brownlow votes (his only votes)
Ed = God
With the COLA ruling the Swans will have to trade out some players in the coming years to remain within the cap!
As fans we all have this misguided notion that players at Sydney want to stay here so badly that they will work for sub standard wages!
Players will look at Mummy's $650,000 wage figure at another club and the recent treatment of ROK to know that footballers have a short productive life span and have to get the best deal for themselves! Not all former footballers have the talent of a Leo Barry to transition well to another career and there is not the room in the commentary or football systems for all former footballers to remain in the game. Some will know this and will take the best deal to protect there later lives after football!
I'm not a naysayer, but a realist. Why should a good Swans player cop $ 350,000 when they could get $650,000 at another club! It's a huge difference over three years! This will happen more with good Swans players if we are not a top four side and as the fallout to the treatment of ROK gathers momentum!
Matt80, your misunderstanding how the COLA is applied if you think we will have to trade players to 'remain within the cap'. The removal of the COLA has no impact on our cap situation (unless we have been doing dodgy things), as it is simply reflected in the fact we pay COLA on top of their actual contracted amount as required under the cap. It is not included as part of the Salary Cap per say. Therefore, the removal of the COLA will not force us to trade players to remain within the cap. If we want to trade players, or players can get better deals elsewhere, that is a different story.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Thanks for clarifying the COLA. Does that mean that if a club has a COLA allocation of 10% the number works as follows!
Player earning $100,000 a year gets $110,000 ($10,000 extra living in Sydney costs)
Player earning $200,000 a year gets $220,000 ($20,000 extra living in Sydney costs)
Player earning $900,000 a year gets $990,000 ($90,000 extra living in Sydney costs)
I would assume that its possible that a Sydney player on $200,000 a year will be uspset to lose that extra $20,000?
That's my understanding of how it is supposed to work Matt80. That is waht bugs me most abotu the whole COLA argument - the players might get the extra $$$ on top, but their actual contracted amounts (i.e. before COLA) are still all within the Cap. You'd think, listening to the squeal from Melbourne based clubs (and that goose that runs Collingwood), that we have had the 10%ish extra in our cap to spend.
I'm sure players in Sydney will not be happy losing the extra top up they recieve, and it may affect contract negotiations etc. But it doesn't mean we have to shed players to stay within the cap when COLA is gone, because we are already inside the cap anyway!
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
What treatment of ROK? As far as I've heard he was not in the initial team selection because of match ups, its not like Longmire publically said that he needs to learn his place, or we're not happy with his attitude.
Do you know something the rest of us don't or are you simply assuming?
I have no insider knowledge! The man is a Norm Smith Medallist and a Club Great, and he would feel shattered to be originally selected in the reserves for the last week?s game. He wants to play on in 2015 and earn another contract, and this will most likely not happen at the Swans if he is in and out of the team in 2014. His only hope then is to be picked up by another team in 2015, which is harder for him to do if he is in and out of the team and is turning 34.
I don?t think ROK treatment is unfair, just the reality of AFL players in their mid-30s trying to keep pace with a game that quickens every year. This is why it?s important for players to maximise their earnings in their peak years, because whether ROK can play AFL in 2015 is now very much in doubt! Not playing in 2015 would probably cost him between $200,000 - $300,000.
Other players who are in their peak years, who are playing for less than their open market rate, would be taking note of the ROK developments.
Liam Pickerings negotiation of Lance Franklins contract is a master stroke because he will be earning good money when he is 35, despite injuries and the game potentialy quickening around him.
In these days of professional sportspeople being on very good coin, players in all sorts of sports are less enthusiastic to retire. In the olden days a player would retire and then go and get a 'proper job' so they could earn a living. Nowadays it's the other way round and as players age/slow down/become susceptible to injuries etc, they often have to be managed out. This is not always accepted by the players in question or the fans, but it's a fact of life in professional sport in the 21st century. ROK is in this situation now.
We should be looking to pick up one of these young gun midfielders from gws or gc. Our midfield worries me.
Bookmarks