How much help do the swans need?

Vandenbergfan · Oct 6, 2005

Presently, they get an extra $600K in the salary cap, ostensibly because its to help players with living expenses. Yet, this extra money that they say they need to maintain their list, is used as a financial inducement to attract contracted players, that is to pull apart the list of other teams. It makes you wonder how the Swans would react if clubs targeted Goodes, O'loughlin or Hall, despite the fact that they are contracted.

The draft was introduced to enable Sydney and Brisbane to put together decent lists, when clearly it would be better for the 14 other clubs if they went back to zones. It would stop this situation whereby clubs put big investments into players only to find themselves heading back to their home state after two years ie. Fergus Watts.

They get to play on a ground that is really isn't suited to AFL and then reduce the game to rugby with their lock-down style of play. Complete with taggers those approach seems to be to hold key players of opposition sides off the ball. On the rare occasions their players go to the tribunal they get to have their cases heard by a sympathetic AFL administration keen to have a premiership head to Sydney.

The fact that Sydney has used their salary cap advantage to unfairly target key players in opposition sides is proof that it isn't needed; and the socialist football system that was introduced to make the Swans and the Lions competitive with the draft and salary cap should also be removed.

lazy · Oct 6, 2005

Mate, sell your house and then come up here and see what you can buy and then tell me if extra money isnt needed for living allowance.

Then send us back Shannon Grant and A Rocca and P Licuria (nah dont worry about him) who left because they left their heart in San Fran Melbourne.

Why do i feel like a Brisbane supporter talking to a Pies supporter?

Vandenbergfan · Oct 6, 2005

Targeting contracted players threatens to bring the whole AFL player-club relationship down. The extra money (probably by way of the AFL competitive fund) in the salary cap is to maintain players not to steal players.

Presently Hawthorn needs KPPs, midfielders and a backup ruckman; maybe they should target the Swans list. Hang on most of those players are contracted so unless a suitable deal, in which all parties agree on, nothing can go ahead.

More then happy to return to abolishing the draft and the salary cap, with the two sides that have the most to lose being Sydney and Brisbane.

butchy · Oct 6, 2005

i have no probs with the extra money for living, as it is needed in sydney. prices for everything up there is a joke.
but i dont agree with it being in the salary cap. it should be an extra payment outside of the salary cap.

Syd · Oct 6, 2005

Van dud bergfan said:
Targeting contracted players threatens to bring the whole AFL player-club relationship down....

So talking to players who have clearly expressed a desire to leave a club to determine if they are worth attempting to arrange a trade for is not in the spirit of trade week???

lazy · Oct 6, 2005

Vandenbergfan said:
Targeting contracted players threatens to bring the whole AFL player-club relationship down. The extra money (probably by way of the AFL competitive fund) in the salary cap is to maintain players not to steal players.

Presently Hawthorn needs KPPs, midfielders and a backup ruckman; maybe they should target the Swans list. Hang on most of those players are contracted so unless a suitable deal, in which all parties agree on, nothing can go ahead.

More then happy to return to abolishing the draft and the salary cap, with the two sides that have the most to lose being Sydney and Brisbane.

Mate - first of all this happens all the time with all clubs - so grow up and live in the real world. Secondy if you read the news Spida was given the go ahead to talk to other clubs during their year-end review. Hawks would trade if Swans could come up with a suitable ruck man - they have named Charman etc.

We dont want any of your other hacks so why are you worried?

All in all I am happier if we dont get Spida as I heard something about him having cancer or something

littleduck · Oct 6, 2005

If they AFL want $700 million for broadcast rights the Sydney Swans need all the help they can get to ensure they never fall outside of the top 8 and are always earning home finals and challenging for the flag. Nothing is more important for the security of AFLs financial future at $700 million. You might find there is more assistance and more rail-roading in future..

Longy413 · Oct 6, 2005

butchy said:
i have no probs with the extra money for living, as it is needed in sydney. prices for everything up there is a joke.
but i dont agree with it being in the salary cap. it should be an extra payment outside of the salary cap.

Yup. Same salary cap, % increase for every player on the list.

lazy · Oct 6, 2005

Longy413 said:
Yup. Same salary cap, % increase for every player on the list.

Im fine with that. Im sure Eddie will be turning his poison towards us now.

daddy_4_eyes · Oct 6, 2005

lazy said:
Mate, sell your house and then come up here and see what you can buy and then tell me if extra money isnt needed for living allowance.

Are the swans distributing the extra money evenly amongst the playing squad, to help with their higher cost of living? Or are they using the money to throw big contracts around during trade week?

daddy_4_eyes · Oct 6, 2005

daddy_4_eyes said:
Are the swans distributing the extra money evenly amongst the playing squad, to help with their higher cost of living? Or are they using the money to throw big contracts around during trade week?

Ok, I type slow. Just saw Longy413's post. Nevermind.

Longy413 · Oct 6, 2005

lazy said:
Im fine with that. Im sure Eddie will be turning his poison towards us now.

It just seems the right/fair way to do it.

I have no doubt Sydney need the increase and I'm by no means against it. But I just don't think it is done in the right manner.

If it is genuinely for cost of living purposes then every player on the list should share the same % of it and I can't for the lift of me think why the AFL hasn't done it that way.

No doubt Ed will have his say sooner or later.

lazy · Oct 6, 2005

daddy_4_eyes said:
Are the swans distributing the extra money evenly amongst the playing squad, to help with their higher cost of living? Or are they using the money to throw big contracts around during trade week?

At the end of the day I dont think it makes that much difference how the extra dollars are paid to them - but I am willing for the change if it stops the whining. It would be done as a percentage anyway. They could give everyone say 15% more on their contract.

Shivers in Perth you can buy a house on your credit card so I wouldnt whinge too much.

Vandenbergfan · Oct 6, 2005

Syd said:
So talking to players who have clearly expressed a desire to leave a club to determine if they are worth attempting to arrange a trade for is not in the spirit of trade week???

I think you've got the chronology of events confused. Everitt allegedlys sat down with Crawford and Hay and they were asked their views on their future given that the position of the club is one of seeking long-term success. Hay apparently, couldn't give categorical support of that position, the other two did.

Subsequently, Everitt went on White Line Fever and reiterated that his future was with Hawthorn and seeing out his contract. Since then Roos and Hall have managed to convince Spida to change his mind allegedly based on the lure of financial and immediate on-field success. At the end of the day the bloke is contracted and the Swans would be penalised if this were any other code.

If the Swans want to play open slather on these type of things thats fine, they've got the most to lose - the bulk of their team is WA, SA and VIC players.

Syd · Oct 6, 2005

Vandenbergfan said:
I think you've got the chronology of events confused. Everitt allegedlys sat down with Crawford and Hay and they were asked their views on their future given that the position of the club is one of seeking long-term success. Hay apparently, couldn't give categorical support of that position, the other two did.

Subsequently, Everitt went on White Line Fever and reiterated that his future was with Hawthorn and seeing out his contract. Since then Roos and Hall have managed to convince Spida to change his mind allegedly based on the lure of financial and immediate on-field success. At the end of the day the bloke is contracted and the Swans would be penalised if this were any other code.

If the Swans want to play open slather on these type of things thats fine, they've got the most to lose - the bulk of their team is WA, SA and VIC players.

And, Evertt saw success, an opening thanks to Ball's retirement and changed his mind and his stance.

FWIW, I hope he stays at Whoreforn, you deserve each other.

Oh we're a happy team ......

dee_molisher · Oct 6, 2005

Rules should be changed. The money should only be available to keep contracted players. No its all a load of crap. All fotballers are overpaid as it is. You telling me that they couldn't afford to buy a house on their wages. I know people living in Sydney on far less and buying their houses by working hard. A load of crap. The field should be even or no salary craps at all.

lazy · Oct 6, 2005

dee_molisher said:
Rules should be changed. The money should only be available to keep contracted players. No its all a load of crap. All fotballers are overpaid as it is. You telling me that they couldn't afford to buy a house on their wages. I know people living in Sydney on far less and buying their houses by working hard. A load of crap. The field should be even or no salary craps at all.

The house across the road from me is on sale for 1.6 million.

Your friends must live in a nice trailer.

OB1 · Oct 6, 2005

lazy said:
Mate, sell your house and then come up here and see what you can buy and then tell me if extra money isnt needed for living allowance.

Then send us back Shannon Grant and A Rocca and P Licuria (nah dont worry about him) who left because they left their heart in San Fran Melbourne.

Why do i feel like a Brisbane supporter talking to a Pies supporter?

Or he could sell his house in Melb & buy 2 in Adelaide hey????? This crap about Sydney is such a smoke screen. Yes the average house price in Sydney is higher than Melb but it is greatly inflated by the higher end properties. Melbourne doesn't have the harbour side homes worth millions but by the same token houses in the suburbs are not that different to here. There's nothing compelling Sydney players to live on Darling Harbour or somewhere with views of Manly beach. The other way to look at it is pretty simple...yes they may cost a bit more but they are also worth more so its relative. The overall difference is about 6-7% (not the 15% extra cap) anyway. Perhaps Geelong should get the least salary cap because houses are a fair bit cheaper there than in Melb. You can try to paint it any way you like but there's no doubt in mine & others minds that the extra cap for Brissy & Sydney were simply designed by the AFL to try to promote success for those clubs & increase the exposure for footy in non-footy states. It stands to reason that the cap was introduced to even up the competition so therefore paying above it would be an advantage. As a business plan it has worked brilliantly. No it didn't win you the flag, hard work & great coaching did that (plus the tribunal

) but it did assist your club in acquiring & maintianing your team.
Sydney talk about losing Rocca who was always going to end up at Collingwood no matter who drafted him but seem to forget about players like Wanganeen who left Essendon or Picket who left North or Carr & Stephens who left Port, White who left Freo & Brown left the Bullies. Players leave clubs every year for a variety of reasons so Sydney & Brisbane certainly aren't alone in having problems retaining players so why should they be the only ones given an advantage? Its all about the $$ & as much as I hate it the reality is that the AFL have continually compromised the integrity of the competetion in order to maximise its earning potential.

Stumpy Pete · Oct 6, 2005

lazy said:
Mate, sell your house and then come up here and see what you can buy and then tell me if extra money isnt needed for living allowance.

Then send us back Shannon Grant and A Rocca and P Licuria (nah dont worry about him) who left because they left their heart in San Fran Melbourne.

Why do i feel like a Brisbane supporter talking to a Pies supporter?

You can send us back Nick Davis then.

Works both ways my friend.

Regards

S. Pete

weevil · Oct 6, 2005

Stumpy Pete said:
You can send us back Nick Davis then.

Works both ways my friend.

Regards

S. Pete

Trickles one way was a flood in the other.

grayham · Oct 6, 2005

Its an outrage. The Cost of living difference between Sydney and the rest of australia is more like 30%, yet we only get a pultry 7%. Who decided 7% ? Was it based on any statistical evidence or just finger in the air?

We, the swans, are being severly screwed.

Eagle87 · Oct 6, 2005

lazy said:
At the end of the day I dont think it makes that much difference how the extra dollars are paid to them - but I am willing for the change if it stops the whining. It would be done as a percentage anyway. They could give everyone say 15% more on their contract.

Shivers in Perth you can buy a house on your credit card so I wouldnt whinge too much.

Demonstrating your fantastic understanding of all things over here. Not. As you are clearly not aware, we are currently the fastest growing city in Oz and the only one without any downturn in Property prices. We continue to see house price growth of greater than 10% per annum.

Economics lesson aside, your comment raises the real nonsense of this additional living expense allowance for Sydney. Melbourne living costs (specifically housing) are significantly higher than Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane - so why no living allowance for Melbourne clubs?

If you are going to identify one market as having high living costs, surely you need to apply that principal to all markets. Alternatively, it is just a slush fund to enable Sydney to remain up or near the top of the ladder.

I think we all know that it is the latter. So why not just call it that and be done with it?

Cheers.

Andrew Mc · Oct 6, 2005

Eagle87 said:
Demonstrating your fantastic understanding of all things over here. Not. As you are clearly not aware, we are currently the fastest growing city in Oz and the only one without any downturn in Property prices. We continue to see house price growth of greater than 10% per annum.

Median property value in Sydney - $550k
Median property value in Perth - $270k

A 2 for 1 sale perhaps? And then some change...

Source: http://www.commbank.com.au/propertyvalueguide/

Vandenbergfan · Oct 6, 2005

grayham said:
Its an outrage. The Cost of living difference between Sydney and the rest of australia is more like 30%, yet we only get a pultry 7%. Who decided 7% ? Was it based on any statistical evidence or just finger in the air?

We, the swans, are being severly screwed.

Completely miss the point, don't you. The extra 600K is justified by Sydney saying they need the additional salary cap space to maintain their list due to cost of living, but here it is being used to attack another team's list by luring a player for financial reasons.

Here we have a side with an additional 600K, which the AFL whacks in a fair share of, so as to allegedly maintain a level competition. Instead the side with this advantage having just won the premiership chooses to use this leverage to try and lure a player from the third bottom side (by offering inducement to their most influential player), despite that player being on contract. Not only is the additional salary cap space not being used for its stated purpose but the whole reason it has been used to make it fairer for Sydney has been abused, in a manner to attack the fairness of the competition.

When Essendon won the flag in 2000 they found that they couldn't keep their side together, due to salary cap pressure. A levelling device introduced by the AFL to help weaker sides like Sydney. In the Everitt situation you have a side that has just won the premiership, who should have close to one of the best lists, able to maintain their list and financially attack the list of the side that came third bottom. Somehow the whole concept of levelling the competition via all the concessions granted to non-AFL state sides, is being used to deliver AFL pre-determined results.

The extra 600K, salary capIt is an unfair advantage which is being misused and should be abolished.

Barry Schneider · Oct 6, 2005

Vandenbergfan said:
Completely miss the point, don't you. The extra 600K is justified by Sydney saying they need the additional salary cap space to maintain their list due to cost of living, but here it is being used to attack another team's list by luring a player for financial reasons.

Here we have a side with an additional 600K, which the AFL whacks in a fair share of, so as to allegedly maintain a level competition. Instead the side with this advantage having just won the premiership chooses to use this leverage to try and lure a player from the third bottom side (by offering inducement to their most influential player), despite that player being on contract. Not only is the additional salary cap space not being used for its stated purpose but the whole reason it has been used to make it fairer for Sydney has been abused, in a manner to attack the fairness of the competition.

When Essendon won the flag in 2000 they found that they couldn't keep their side together, due to salary cap pressure. A levelling device introduced by the AFL to help weaker sides like Sydney. In the Everitt situation you have a side that has just won the premiership, who should have close to one of the best lists, able to maintain their list and financially attack the list of the side that came third bottom. Somehow the whole concept of levelling the competition via all the concessions granted to non-AFL state sides, is being used to deliver AFL pre-determined results.

The extra 600K, salary capIt is an unfair advantage which is being misused and should be abolished.

Just a minor correction.Sydney have about $1 million extra to spend this year because of the retirements of Ball,Schauble ,Maxfield and Nicks not because of the salary cap concessions.

Log In or Create New Account

Ashes: 5th Test: Jan 4-8, SCGDay 4

How much help do the swans need?

Team Captain

Norm Smith Medallist

Team Captain

All Australian

Kiss my Assterisk*

Norm Smith Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Norm Smith Medallist

Team Captain

Kiss my Assterisk*

Club Legend

Norm Smith Medallist

Club Legend

Premiership Player

Brownlow Medallist

Cancelled

Brownlow Medallist

Brownlow Medallist

Team Captain

Club Legend

How much help do the swans need?

Similar threads

Ashes: 5th Test: Jan 4-8, SCG
Day 4