Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: #AFL Round 4 Weekly Discussion Thread

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    If you are saying/ thinking that GWS still get COLA, then that is not correct. It was abolished for both Sydney clubs and replaced with the accommodation allowance (subject to maximum salary test) paid directly by the AFL.

    A preliminary announcement early in the process of these changes seemed to imply that the Giants would continue to get COLA but thatís not what eventually happened.

    However GWS were not subject to the discriminatory trade ban that was inflicted on the Swans during the transitional phase of COLA abolition. You might have been referring to that.
    I was pointing out that each list does not get paid exactly the same amount - mostly due to the fact there is no obligation to spend your whole salary cap and partly because you can carry some unspent salary cap over into a subsequent year. For completeness I pointed out that COLA was abolished for all clubs but that Giants still had some kind of concession (didn't remember exact details). I was not referring to the trade ban.

  2. #62
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,510
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodspirit View Post
    For completeness I pointed out that COLA was abolished for all clubs but that Giants still had some kind of concession (didn't remember exact details). I was not referring to the trade ban.
    But, as Meg pointed out, the Giants don't have any concession other than that the Swans still have - ie a rental allowance for lower paid players.

  3. #63
    Thanks, I was missing the point that the Swans still get it too.

  4. #64
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    In hiding
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    What about the anomaly of those dreadful Melbourne lists under Mark Neeld being paid 95% of our list or Hawks list! Some seriously overpaid players there.

    I think having to pay a certain minimum % is rubbish for that very reason, clubs should be able to pay fair market rate for a player regardless of what the list totals up to. Having to over pay players to make the minimum %, what a joke, AFLPA at work!
    Totally and completely agree. Makes in near impossible to clear the decks and bring in a couple of quality players from other clubs. Carlton and Melbourne spend many seasons recruiting second rate players on first rate salary to make the minimum salary cap percentage.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

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