There is no "buddy money"

[QuietB]

Bulldogs get over 3million a year from the AFL mate, number of Melbourne clubs would cease to exist without AFL support.

And if the Bulldogs got an extra $1m salary cap payed for by head office they'd be a powerhouse as well.

We all know that other clubs are reliant on the AFL to subsidise their existence like Sydney is. Only one club gets the 9.8% extra salary cap advantage though which directly equates to increased on field success.

If you gave that advantage to any club in the league they would be as successful as Sydney given a bit of time.

 

[QuietB]

what the selling home games.
the hand outs from the governments thanks to jeff
the hand outs from the AFL giving you VFL park, then mirvac renovate them for you for nothing.


the actural financial structure of the swans and hawks, are vastly different. the swans are very financially sound.
whoretorn needs to sell games in tassie & 1/3 of their revenue comes from poke machines, something the swans own none of

Its pretty funny that the Hawks can leverage such good deals for themselves and Essendon get walked over by a bowls club. Yeah, we are shattered

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

And if the Bulldogs got an extra $1m salary cap payed for by head office they'd be a powerhouse as well.

We all know that other clubs are reliant on the AFL to subsidise their existence like Sydney is. Only one club gets the 9.8% extra salary cap advantage though which directly equates to increased on field success.

If you gave that advantage to any club in the league they would be as successful as Sydney given a bit of time.

"If Sydney had to operate under the same conditions as a Western Bulldogs, they wouldn't survive"

That was the quote i replied to so i don't think COLA is the requirement of a club to survive that would be leaning towards equalization payments which every club gets for poor stadium deals/timeslots etc..

Im not going to change your mind on how COLA is distributed so i will leave it at that.

 

[QuietB]

"If Sydney had to operate under the same conditions as a Western Bulldogs, they wouldn't survive"

That was the quote i replied to so i don't think COLA is the requirement of a club to survive that would be leaning towards equalization payments which every club gets for poor stadium deals/timeslots etc..

Im not going to change your mind on how COLA is distributed so i will leave it at that.

But the problem is everything changes with success. If the Bulldogs were consistently successful they would have a much higher profile. They would have much better scheduling. They would be much appealing to corporate sponsorship. Would a 9.8% salary cap increase help the Bulldogs be consistently successful. And I don't care how it is distributed, it is 9.8% more.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

But the problem is everything changes with success. If the Bulldogs were consistently successful they would have a much higher profile. They would have much better scheduling. They would be much appealing to corporate sponsorship. Would a 9.8% salary cap increase help the Bulldogs be consistently successful. And I don't care how it is distributed, it is 9.8% more.

Looking through the Bulldogs list if they couldn't find a way to pay a player like Tippett 700-800k a season then there is something fundamentally wrong.

The way its distributed i would of thought is a pretty big deal since its said we can buy players with it.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Either way its not enough to get a big fish recruit. Plenty of meloburne clubs have a lot more in the bank including Geelong and Collingwood

Do you actually know anything about this or are you just extracting faeces from your arse?

We got plenty money.

 

[QuietB]

Looking through the Bulldogs list if they couldn't find a way to pay a player like Tippett 700-800k a season then there is something fundamentally wrong.

The way its distributed i would of thought is a pretty big deal since its said we can buy players with it.

Well you can buy players with it. If you can afford to offer Tippett $800k, the same deal for the bulldogs is $728k. So where is Tippett going?

 

[master bate]

Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead, Hodge, Gibson, Gunston, Burgoyne should all be paid like the stars that they are. The average wage for these guys should really be 700k.

That's 7 players better than Melbourne's best player and several other teams have only one or two players in that category.

Then there's the likes of Lake, Hill, Smith, Birchall, Breust, Rioli. If the others are A graders then these guys are A- at worst. That's 6 more and you'd say they are worth 400k minimum.

Add up 7 players at 700k (4.9mil)and 6 players at 400k (2.4mil) and you get 7.3mil right there.

Pretty much there is something wrong with the salary cap if Hawthorn can fit all those guys in and not be severely under the pump.

With Sewell the only player likely to retire and none of the others dropping off too much there really should be pressure on for someone to leave the Hawks. Good luck to them if they've forged a culture so strong that players take massive unders. But it's not really helping the equalisation of the comp.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead, Hodge, Gibson, Gunston, Burgoyne should all be paid like the stars that they are. The average wage for these guys should really be 700k.

That's 7 players better than Melbourne's best player and several other teams have only one or two players in that category.

Then there's the likes of Lake, Hill, Smith, Birchall, Breust, Rioli. If the others are A graders then these guys are A- at worst. That's 6 more and you'd say they are worth 400k minimum.

Add up 7 players at 700k (4.9mil)and 6 players at 400k (2.4mil) and you get 7.3mil right there.

Pretty much there is something wrong with the salary cap if Hawthorn can fit all those guys in and not be severely under the pump.

With Sewell the only player likely to retire and none of the others dropping off too much there really should be pressure on for someone to leave the Hawks. Good luck to them if they've forged a culture so strong that players take massive unders. But it's not really helping the equalisation of the comp.

Because you are just guessing the salaries the players are on untill they are made public like other sports its all guesswork just like how everyone thinks Buddy/Tippett are close to 2m a season where Ireland has said both of them combined are slightly over 1million with each getting between 20-40k of COLA.

 

[Crankyhawk]

what the selling home games.
the hand outs from the governments thanks to jeff
the hand outs from the AFL giving you VFL park, then mirvac renovate them for you for nothing.


the actural financial structure of the swans and hawks, are vastly different. the swans are very financially sound.
whoretorn needs to sell games in tassie & 1/3 of their revenue comes from poke machines, something the swans own none of

What handout did Jeff give us when he was premier? That was between 1992 and 1999, the time where we nearly got merged off. About all the government did (and was before Jeff) was to allow pokie machines which most afl clubs use.
Waverley is listed on historical building register (main grandstand and oval) so mirvac not allowed to build over it. Commercial decision to lease it to hawthorn and use it to help sell rest of houses.
So it's just you are annoyed that we got paid money by afl for afl selling off waverley. A move which cost us about 10 to 15 k members as it became an extra 1 to 2 hour trip to get from home to docklands.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Looking through the Bulldogs list if they couldn't find a way to pay a player like Tippett 700-800k a season then there is something fundamentally wrong.

The way its distributed i would of thought is a pretty big deal since its said we can buy players with it.

Dogs stuck paying 95% of cap doesn't leave much wiggle room. Honest question - during COLA years could swans minimum cap payment (cola included) go down to the 95% (cola inclusive) - if so gives more flexibility to arranging contracts so if you miss getting a big recruit you don't stress as much meeting the minimum cap spend.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Mitchell, Lewis, Roughead, Hodge, Gibson, Gunston, Burgoyne should all be paid like the stars that they are. The average wage for these guys should really be 700k.

That's 7 players better than Melbourne's best player and several other teams have only one or two players in that category.

Then there's the likes of Lake, Hill, Smith, Birchall, Breust, Rioli. If the others are A graders then these guys are A- at worst. That's 6 more and you'd say they are worth 400k minimum.

Add up 7 players at 700k (4.9mil)and 6 players at 400k (2.4mil) and you get 7.3mil right there.

Pretty much there is something wrong with the salary cap if Hawthorn can fit all those guys in and not be severely under the pump.

With Sewell the only player likely to retire and none of the others dropping off too much there really should be pressure on for someone to leave the Hawks. Good luck to them if they've forged a culture so strong that players take massive unders. But it's not really helping the equalisation of the comp.

Hodge, Mitchell, lake probably on less due to age and the feeling that they are lower risk to leave. Unfortunately flight risk does push payments up.

 

[B4Bear]

If a club front loads a contract using the following example:

$2.0 Million over four years.

800k 1st year

300k Years 2-4

If a player is then traded at the end of his 3rd year, does he have to pay back the 200k he received for his fourth year in his first year?

And also, what happens if they get injured and has to retire, does the club have to pay them out? Does it still count towards a salary cap for the remaining years he would have played?

 

[Syd]

Dogs stuck paying 95% of cap doesn't leave much wiggle room. Honest question - during COLA years could swans minimum cap payment (cola included) go down to the 95% (cola inclusive) - if so gives more flexibility to arranging contracts so if you miss getting a big recruit you don't stress as much meeting the minimum cap spend.

From memory, it was stated a few years back that we weren't paying 100% of the cap (had no big names save Goodes at the time) and also that a flat 9.8% was applied to each contract, not "stockpiled as a war chest" to buy individual players

 

[Hawker55]

Good luck to them if they've forged a culture so strong that players take massive unders. But it's not really helping the equalisation of the comp.

Lake's on a smidgeon over $200k. The others are on massive unders - Roughead didn't even renegotiate his last contract, just kept going on existing terms. Hodge/Mitch are on about $400k - Burgoyne even less.

If you create a successful environment then players will take unders for success.

 

[Syd]

If a club front loads a contract using the following example:

$2.0 Million over four years.

800k 1st year

300k Years 2-4

If a player is then traded at the end of his 3rd year, does he have to pay back the 200k he received for his fourth year in his first year?

And also, what happens if they get injured and has to retire, does the club have to pay them out? Does it still count towards a salary cap for the remaining years he would have played?

No, they don't have to repay the front loaded bit as that was the scale agreed to and earned.

Yes, it does count to the cap and they are still entitled to payments. We had to carry Bradshaw's salary for awhile after his retirement.

 

[EBERT THE KING]

Roughead worth around 800K on the open market now. wouldnt be getting out of bed for less than 600k a year.

 

[hk89]

what the selling home games.
the hand outs from the governments thanks to jeff

It is called sponsorship. What about all these handouts the other clubs are getting from the corporate sector? Shocking.

the hand outs from the AFL giving you VFL park, then mirvac renovate them for you for nothing.

The AFL didn't give us VFL park you misinformed tool. The AFL sold VFL park. Mirvac bought it, and the local council put restrictions on its usage which required an ongoing football related usage, Mirvac needed us on board for that reason, and so offered us the tenancy. Lucky yes. Handout no.

the actural financial structure of the swans and hawks, are vastly different.

Correct, we have been very profitable for several years now. Years in which Sydney has barely broken even or made small profits.

the swans are very financially sound.

Compared to which clubs?

whoretorn needs to sell games in tassie & 1/3 of their revenue comes from poke machines, something the swans own none of

That is because Sydney had to sell their pokie machine venue, because nobody visited it. Competing in Sydney against the established NRL pokie was too hard for them, and their pokie venue had to close. Their football club would have closed too if it wasn't for unprecedented AFL support. If Fitzroy was the only club in a non-AFL state no doubt they would be still around too.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Roughead worth around 800K on the open market now. wouldnt be getting out of bed for less than 600k a year.

You have no idea what you are talking about and would be best placed to leave the discussion. If you actually do a little bit of research you might find that you will be able to argue from a more educated position.

 

[hk89]

Lets juts wait and see if you land Cotchin or Dangerfield and we will see from there. 100% wont happen

So I should start a thread "Freemantle bankrupt". And when you call bullshit, I'll bring up your inability to land Selwood and Hodge as evidence? That post with the image of you spelling cat was highly generous, you actually used a 'c' instead of 'k'.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I don't want to derail the thread into a COLA thing but
a) 10% isn't a pissy amount
b) If we're talking Cost of Living then the Perth clubs have a decent argument to mount considering Perth is the most expensive city in Aus + getting anywhere else in Australia from there is crazy expensive.

I agree it shouldn't be derailed. Certainly wasn't me or you that raised it!

So, to answer your two points, my final word:

a) From memory, it works out about $20K extra per player. Hardly a deal clincher, is it?

(And anyone accusing Sydney of hoarding it all to pay to Franklin is making a very serious accusation and should probably table some actual evidence, or shut up.)

b) I fail to recall a single instance where the Swans have ever objected to an allowance being applied to other deserving clubs, so I don't know how this oversight is somehow our fault. Surely it was the job of the WA clubs to raise this.

 

[Hawker55]

I agree it shouldn't be derailed. Certainly wasn't me or you that raised it!

So, to answer your two points, my final word:

a) From memory, it works out about $20K extra per player. Hardly a deal clincher, is it?

(And anyone accusing Sydney of hoarding it all to pay to Franklin is making a very serious accusation and should probably table some actual evidence, or shut up.)

b) I fail to recall a single instance where the Swans have ever objected to an allowance being applied to other deserving clubs, so I don't know how this oversight is somehow our fault. Surely it was the job of the WA clubs to raise this.

I was digging on this just after you posted and found this

http://www.smh.com.au/news/AFL/Swan...s/2004/11/24/1101219620868.html?from=storylhs

Not COLA related but this comment made me laugh.

"The match review panel is aimed at introducing a greater degree of consistency to the reporting process," Anderson said. "Having a publicly available table of offences as to what penalty will apply to a player will introduce a greater transparency and certainty to the process."

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Lets juts wait and see if you land Cotchin or Dangerfield and we will see from there. 100% wont happen

Yes, that will definitely tell us the state of our salary cap.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I was digging on this just after you posted and found this

http://www.smh.com.au/news/AFL/Swan...s/2004/11/24/1101219620868.html?from=storylhs

Not COLA related but this comment made me laugh.

"The match review panel is aimed at introducing a greater degree of consistency to the reporting process," Anderson said. "Having a publicly available table of offences as to what penalty will apply to a player will introduce a greater transparency and certainty to the process."

Sorry, this is a reference to the Boomer Harvey saga?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

I was digging on this just after you posted and found this

http://www.smh.com.au/news/AFL/Swan...s/2004/11/24/1101219620868.html?from=storylhs

Not COLA related but this comment made me laugh.

"The match review panel is aimed at introducing a greater degree of consistency to the reporting process," Anderson said. "Having a publicly available table of offences as to what penalty will apply to a player will introduce a greater transparency and certainty to the process."

Jesus H Christ, the show is being run by the clowns.