Page 11 of 266 FirstFirst ... 7891011121314152161111 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 132 of 3192

Thread: 2017 trading, drafting, list management

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by YvonneH View Post
    On AFL tonight last night Jake Niall said that only Sydney were to blame for their position now by using COLA to buy Tippett and Buddy which left no money for others. That is why we lost Mitchell. No one feels sorry for us (or words to that effect).
    Jake Niall is a deadset weirdo but there is an ounce of truth in that statement

    Losing Mitchell is the pain we feel for the Tippett deal. We thought we wouldn't miss him but we do bit even if he was in the side it wouldn't have made much difference. Nanka left because of a lack of opportunities as much as anything so we can blame the Sinclair trade on that as we clearly didn't rate his prospects that high

  2. #122
    I thought that we weren't allowed to use COLA to buy Buddy[/QUOTE]

    Just another reporter telling 'porkies'. They seem to get it wrong on most occasions regarding 'COLA'.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by YvonneH View Post
    I thought that we weren't allowed to use COLA to buy Buddy
    Just another reporter telling 'porkies'. They seem to get it wrong on most occasions regarding 'COLA'.[/QUOTE]

    As bad as King the other night on AFL360 having another cry. "They'll get 1 to 2 academy boys every year" lol technically he's right if you count the rookie list but apart from Heeney n Mills it's basically been picks in the rookie draft. Or Mr I love the way he goes about it saying Sydney got Tippet n Franklin with COLA and a few have jumped on board. Billy Bogan n Barbara Bogan from Melbourne laps this @@@@@ up every day of the week,

  4. #124
    COLA did give us the capacity to pay players more. Yes we added it onto all contracts but it did give us a greater TPP than other clubs.

    Anyone that doesn't think that helped us sign Buddy is also deluded

  5. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    COLA did give us the capacity to pay players more. Yes we added it onto all contracts but it did give us a greater TPP than other clubs.

    Anyone that doesn't think that helped us sign Buddy is also deluded
    Disagree. It was added to each players contract, payed for by the AFL and signed off by the AFL. It was the same argument that got sprouted after signing Tippet. "COLA payed for him" then a year later we're supposedly using the same money to pay for Franklin, I'd love to know how you spend a dollar twice. The club took a gamble to have a top end TPP just like what was done with Lynch in Brisbane. Also does anyone seriously think a player manager will accept lower dollars from a club for their client to help out a club when the manager recieves a % of the players contract. Because that's always been the suggestion. The club with the collusion of not just player managers but also the AFL lie and helped to get not just Tippet but also Franklin. It's a laughable Suggestion. It was put out there to try n hide Fitzptrickd aggression towards the club & the vindictiveness he had towards the club because Franklin wanted to go to Sydney not GWS. If you want to believe the propaganda that's up to you but I won't. Cheers.

  6. #126
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    275
    Our only error has been the drafting of Tippett. Which is more down to his injury prone body than anything else.
    When he is fit and has continuity he has been a very good player for us.
    We have lost GF's because umps or teams have been better on the day.
    Buddy has bought unprecedented Media coverage/ Memberships and Sponsorship that has positioned the swans as a powerhouse in Australian sport.
    The downside is the mug punter no longer has a soft spot for the Swans
    (who cares)
    I for one am glad we are a proactive club always looking to better our position.
    The wins will return and with game time for the kids this year 2018/9 we will be amongst again

  7. #127
    I'll also add just like Brisbanes retention allowance & Sydney COLA it was there to add fairness to a competition when it came to 3rd party payments. E.g a club paying a player who sounds like he struggled to pass grade 3 crayon getting paid very good money to appear on a football show. Or if you want google what was offered to Brown to leave Brisbane to come to Collingwood, a big part of the offer was 3rd party deals appearing on television shows. Or Judds Mrs suddenly appearing as a newsreader on the news in WA. Or the laughable commercials of Tippet n the balfer pies. No advantage just an evening of 3rd party payments.

  8. #128
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    Jake Niall is a deadset weirdo but there is an ounce of truth in that statement

    Losing Mitchell is the pain we feel for the Tippett deal. We thought we wouldn't miss him but we do bit even if he was in the side it wouldn't have made much difference. Nanka left because of a lack of opportunities as much as anything so we can blame the Sinclair trade on that as we clearly didn't rate his prospects that high
    Jake Niall is an ignorant cretin if he thinks that the club were able to take the extra 10% to go out a buy a marquis player . It is pure BS that is the same propaganda that has led to a lot of unjustified Swans hate. The 10 year deal might have had a lot more to do with it but we will never know if the extra swung the deal for Buddy.

    It was the AFL's fault that they didn't think that the percentage based bonus might equate to a better deal for marquis players. We literally had to follow their rules and they punished us for trying to do the best for the club.

    Also Mug I don't think you would be complaining about the loss of Mitchell if Heeney and Jack were fit for the start of the year and Naismith and Tippett were not injured.We would have won at least 2 games and would still be in the hunt. I'll wager the decision to release Mitchell was based on an assessment of our midfield needs rather than purely salary cap and based on reasonable expectations for the season.

    We couldn't have predicted that lousy start we have had. Its been @@@@@.
    We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!

  9. #129
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Boddo View Post
    I'll also add just like Brisbanes retention allowance & Sydney COLA it was there to add fairness to a competition when it came to 3rd party payments. E.g a club paying a player who sounds like he struggled to pass grade 3 crayon getting paid very good money to appear on a football show. Or if you want google what was offered to Brown to leave Brisbane to come to Collingwood, a big part of the offer was 3rd party deals appearing on television shows. Or Judds Mrs suddenly appearing as a newsreader on the news in WA. Or the laughable commercials of Tippet n the balfer pies. No advantage just an evening of 3rd party payments.
    Not even just 3rd party deals. It somewhere got lost that the cost of living is significantly higher in Sydney than in other cities in Australia. Perth came close at the height of the mining boom but has now receded somewhat. For the highest paid players, the impact might be trivial but even earning up to $300k or so, it does make a difference. And that's not saying that you can't live comfortably in Sydney on a significantly lower salary. Just that a higher proportion of your salary does go on the basics and when the Swans were competing with other clubs to attract and maintain players, the COLA helped to address the differential.

    And of course, COLA wasn't abolished. Those towards the lower end of the salary range still get a rental allowance to recognise the higher cost of living - particularly property - in Sydney.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Mug Punter View Post
    Jake Niall is a deadset weirdo but there is an ounce of truth in that statement

    Losing Mitchell is the pain we feel for the Tippett deal.
    With all the talk re: Tippett's contract, I wonder if it's actually accurate to to say we'd have a lot more room in our salary cap now if we hadn't signed him.

    Had we not, we would very likely had recruited another player at the end of 2012 - albeit perhaps on half the money.

    But the big one is the Franklin contract - without Tippett, I think you'd find we would have probably offered the same amount on a p.a. basis (if not more), over a shorter period. In the end we offered $10m for 9 years, without Tippett's salary we wouldn't have needed to stretch it across 9 years and might have offered $8m for 6 years.

    I think that's conservative - which would mean the more money to Franklin, plus another mid-range recruit (or perhaps upgrading Mumford's contract to stay) would have taken up a lot (if not most) of what Tippett is earning. Which still means losing Mitchell, and our current cap still being very tight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boddo View Post
    Just another reporter telling 'porkies'. They seem to get it wrong on most occasions regarding 'COLA'.

    As bad as King the other night on AFL360 having another cry. "They'll get 1 to 2 academy boys every year" lol technically he's right if you count the rookie list but apart from Heeney n Mills it's basically been picks in the rookie draft.
    I was borderline with King until now, but he's lost all credibility now with that comment - absolute ignorance and careless analysis.

    I guess they're never going to embarrass one of their own panelists directly, but it would have been nice for Healy or Brown to challenge King and say something like "but is it a gold mine year-in, year-out - who were Sydney's academy recruits before Heeney and Mills, and who did they pick last year...".

  11. #131
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Rai
    Posts
    5,563
    Quote Originally Posted by YvonneH View Post
    On AFL tonight last night Jake Niall said that only Sydney were to blame for their position now by using COLA to buy Tippett and Buddy which left no money for others. That is why we lost Mitchell. No one feels sorry for us (or words to that effect).
    Of course the AFL put the squeeze on us by taking away the COLA even though these high priced players were contracted under a COLA regime. We had to work our way out of this conundrum by letting go of some players.

    Half the pundits are saying we're playing poorly because we lost Mitchell and the other half are saying we're playing poorly because our midfield is too slow. I wonder which one it is?

    It seems a done deal the new CBA will raise the salary cap by 20% or thereabouts which will get us through this salary cap squeeze. After 2018 Tippett will get a sizable pay cut or even more likely, cut from the team. That should get us past loss of COLA crisis.

    Given the number of high quality players that Adelaide have lost over the past 5 years, plus the death of their coach last year, it would be easy to see them languishing at the bottom of the ladder and everyone could demonstrate why this had happened. After the effects are seen, the causes are created.

    I think the club has done a great job in rejuvenating the list during this period. We have drafted or signed at least 3 AFL quality players capable of playing more than 150 games every year for the past 5 years. A fair number are A grade players who should have long careers. We may be in a slump atm, but it should be only short term as just the weight of numbers of quality players brings us back to the top 4.

  12. #132
    Also we knew Buddy was coming 12 months out so I would assume they front ended other contracts knowing what was coming

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO