Rumour Real reason Sydney got trade ban.

Remove this Banner Ad

According to OP:

Andrew Ireland: "We have just secured Paddy Ryder to come to the Swans in 2015"
Gill McLaughlin: "Yeah, nah, get ****ed mate, that ain't happening. Because of this you get banned for 2 years from trading."
Andrew Ireland: "Yeah, alright, fair call mate."
 
cryptor said:
Also I was under the impression that COLA was an allowance paid to players directly by the AFL and it wasn't something tied into their playing contract with the Swans. (ie. If a Swans player signs a contract with Sydney for $500k/year they are paid $500k/year by the Swans and an additional $49k (9.8%) is paid by the AFL.
Click to expand...
The new top-up for young players will come directly from the AFL, but COLA was just a bigger salary cap.

As for the OP, it was suggested prior to Ryder leaking his Brisbane nomination through his management (so well before settling on Port) that Sydney were right into him, and prior to the trade ban being announced that head office had put the kibosh on any Ryder deal. Doesn't seem too much of a stretch to tie it all together.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

fodzilla said:
The new top-up for young players will come directly from the AFL, but COLA was just a bigger salary cap. As for the OP, it was suggested prior to Ryder nominating Brisbane (so well before Port) and the trade ban being announced that Sydney were right into him, and that head office had put the kibosh on the deal. Doesn't seem too much of a stretch to tie it all together.
Click to expand...
Nope, that's wrong too.
 
replicant said:
Nope, that's wrong too.
Click to expand...
You can hide it behind whatever "every player gets 9.8% on top of their contract" spin you like, but other than a premium over the minimum wage for draftees, the rest can be spent however they like.

Player A has a market value of $200k, Sydney offer him "$190k", he takes home $208.6k, and there's still $11k in the kitty. Run that over 30 players and you've got your Franklin premium. Everyone's a winner! Apart from the rest of the competition, that is.
 
fodzilla said:
You can hide it behind whatever "every player gets 9.8% on top of their contract" spin you like, but other than a premium over the minimum wage for draftees, the rest can be spent however they like.

Player A has a market value of $200k, Sydney offer him "$190k", he takes home $208.6k, and there's still $11k in the kitty. Run that over 30 players and you've got your Franklin premium. Everyone's a winner! Apart from the rest of the competition, that is.
Click to expand...
It's fine. Most of us have given up correcting the logical fallacy of your argument. It's not worth my time to try again to convince someone to change their deeply-held beliefs.
 
AlbertonBloke said:
Have you seen the prices on houses in Sydney,they deserve an extra 20% lol
Click to expand...

hmmm but many people on 80k p.a. are loan approved for Sydney, an AFL player can probably set up over 6 properties there at once and pay for it with society's tax dollars. For perspective base wage of an AFL player is 200-300k and they could probably go 97% LVR with that income.
 
El_Scorcho said:
This is the most obvious situation.

AFL ask Sydney to wind back the COLA

Sydney say "okay but we'll need a few years because of existing contracts etc"

AFL say okay

Sydney then approach the AFL with the intention of signing a free agent to a significant contract (I assume once they knew Malceski was gone) and the AFL flip their lids and ban trading until they fall in line with the rest of the competition.

It's the only way it could have played out like it did with Sydney not really publicly contesting the decision. Sydney said they were annoyed but basically copped it on the chin. If everything Sydney was doing was above board they would have screamed bloody murder at being told they couldn't trade.

I don't really have a problem with the way either party has acted in the situation and I think a fair solution has been reached.
Click to expand...


What?

We lose Malceski but can't bring in Ryder, allowing Port to get him?

I see what you mean!:rolleyes:
 
No one apart from Andrew Ireland really knows how the COLA is really used and applied.
I'm not naive enough to believe what is said in the media to defend COLA and how it's applied is gospel.
There is a lot of grey area in it's application.
 
Ryder to Sydney always made the most sense from a footy point of view.

Pyke 30 and definitely slowing down. Sydney could have offered up Hannebery (due to out of contract) or Mitchell in return.

In the end, the AFL screwed both Essendon and Sydney. WIN WIN for them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

baz_machine said:
Pyke 30 and definitely slowing down. Sydney could have offered up Hannebery (due to out of contract) or Mitchell in return.
Click to expand...

There was a delay in resigning Pyke from memory.
Infact there was a stall in his talks during the year.
No doubt Ryder was in the frame and it impacted on these talks.
 
fodzilla said:
You can hide it behind whatever "every player gets 9.8% on top of their contract" spin you like, but other than a premium over the minimum wage for draftees, the rest can be spent however they like.

Player A has a market value of $200k, Sydney offer him "$190k", he takes home $208.6k, and there's still $11k in the kitty. Run that over 30 players and you've got your Franklin premium. Everyone's a winner! Apart from the rest of the competition, that is.
Click to expand...

Yeah except that there are a dozen player managers who would all be saying "Get F*cked". Player X is worth $200k, therefore he gets $200k plus COLA.
 
Upgrayedd said:
Silly, Im going to work today and demanding extra money because i drive a nicer car and it is worth more so i paid more,
Click to expand...
This is the thing about the COLA that makes no sense. The market is supply and demand.

If Sydney is more expensive it's because it's a nicer place to live. Players shouldn't get that AND more get paid extra for it.

Thank Christ it's going soon
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
No one is moving interstate for $10k. And not a single contract with COLA attached has been written since Buddy signed.
Click to expand...

What if that player buys property in Sydney & is able to make more money from his property investment than he is in Melbourne?
 
Didn't the AFL basically announce the reason? The AFL wanted to dump the COLA immediately. But Sydney said that they want two years to phase it out and said that they wouldn't poach anyone over that time. The AFL then agreed to that and took Sydney's comment about poaching players and made it a trade ban. In effect, the trade ban was the quid pro quo for allowing two years of extra COLA. Seems that Sydney could have avoided the trade ban by agreeing to remove COLA immediately. In the end, Sydney went with the lesser of two evils in the trade ban.

Not sure if there is anything more in it than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

windyhill
Rumour Aker real estate
2 3
Replies
51
Views
9K
Soups
Soups
SuperMal
Rumour MacKay to Sydney, if Himmelberg & De Koning miss the bus….
Replies
17
Views
3K
SuperMal
SuperMal
Tugga27
Scandal Sydney Stack......again
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
18K
golfnfooty
golfnfooty

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top