Where Do the Swans Go From Here?

[Hardhat11]

They've also got different tax levels state-by-state over there (both state and federal tax in most states), which is an added thing Australians don't have, although high earners still get taxed out the arse no matter where you are.

Yes and it seems to work ...bigger coin though

A team like San Antnio won five championships ....it's not a big city

Dellas won it too with dirk norwitzki

Cleveland had a chance too ...another smaller franchise .....

Golden state .....

My point has been the swans had massive advantage over everyone and frankly the afl wanted that for the purposes of getting GWS into the league

 

[skipper kelly]

The model of players being paid to say a rent top up allowance is fine so long as they are lower paid players

I'm sorry but in the NBA or NFL there no such thing

Californian teams or New York teams aren't allowed allowances for rent even those cities would be far pricier to live in than say Denver or Minnesota ........

It's just stupid .......

My belief all along has been the AFL WANTED a second team in Sydney and the only way to justify that was having the Swans winning flags or being very successful ....that's a a no brainer ......

That's fact and everyone knows it

The allowance was brought in many many years ago, was agreed to by all clubs and was valid and justified. The fact that clubs didn't speak up or the AFL didn't change the rules to suit the environment of the time (ie when the cost of living rose in WA or the increase in TPP across the board) for the next 20 years is no fault of Sydney.

Quite simply no one gave 2 craps about the allowances to Brisbane until they won flags against Vic clubs. No one gave 2 craps about the allowance to Sydney when they beat your mob in 2005. It only became an issue when Sydney beat 2 big Vic clubs on their way to the 2012 flag. Then all hell broke loose and eventuated in trade bans for following the rules.

 

[Damon_3388]

Yes and it seems to work ...bigger coin though

A team like San Antnio won five championships ....it's not a big city

Dellas won it too with dirk norwitzki

Cleveland had a chance too ...another smaller franchise .....

Golden state .....

My point has been the swans had massive advantage over everyone and frankly the afl wanted that for the purposes of getting GWS into the league

The Dallas and San Francisco metro areas are among the top 10 in population in the US, and rapidly growing. Cleveland and San Antonio are more mid-sized, but also rapidly growing.

 

[cherub]

Our land and car taxes are a lot more expensive here than new .....


Dental and medical costs are more expensive ....also consider everything has to be shipped into wa also from the eastern states ......general living items are imported and then travel to wa .......Adding more costs

Don't let facts stand in the way of your beliefs. I live in Perth and support my student daughter in Sydney. Sydney is way more expensive for utilities and transport. Medical and dental stuff is the same-more variation within the city than between cities. And don't get started about rents. Who pays land tax? Only people who can afford an investment or holiday property. You are clueless about the difficulty of maintaining an AFL team in a non-traditional state. Logic or reason will not influence your belief.

 

[Hardhat11]

The allowance was brought in many many years ago, was agreed to by all clubs and was valid and justified. The fact that clubs didn't speak up or the AFL didn't change the rules to suit the environment of the time (ie when the cost of living rose in WA or the increase in TPP across the board) for the next 20 years is no fault of Sydney.

Quite simply no one gave 2 craps about the allowances to Brisbane until they won flags against Vic clubs. No one gave 2 craps about the allowance to Sydney when they beat your mob in 2005. It only became an issue when Sydney beat 2 big Vic clubs on their way to the 2012 flag. Then all hell broke loose and eventuated in trade bans for following the rules.

Don't let facts stand in the way of your beliefs. I live in Perth and support my student daughter in Sydney. Sydney is way more expensive for utilities and transport. Medical and dental stuff is the same-more variation within the city than between cities. And don't get started about rents. Who pays land tax? Only people who can afford an investment or holiday property. You are clueless about the difficulty of maintaining an AFL team in a non-traditional state. Logic or reason will not influence your belief.

I have lived in Sydney and Perth but hey what the hell would I know .....

 

[hk89]

Quite simply no one gave 2 craps about the allowances to Brisbane until they won flags against Vic clubs. No one gave 2 craps about the allowance to Sydney when they beat your mob in 2005. It only became an issue when Sydney beat 2 big Vic clubs on their way to the 2012 flag. Then all hell broke loose and eventuated in trade bans for following the rules.

So the AFL backlash was all about Sydney beating 2 vic clubs for the flag in 2012? You really believe that? You don't think Tippet 2013, Buddy 2014, Rumoured Big fish 2015 had anything at all to do with that? The trade ban may have been harsh, but to believe Sydney were being victimised for beating two Vic clubs in 2012 is pure tin-foil material. Personally I think the trade ban was just as much about protecting Sydney from themselves, and making sure the AFL wouldn't be further propping them up to dig Sydney out of the mess created by their unwise trading decisions in 2013/14/(and if not stopped)15. Unsustainable, except in a world where the AFL is willing to step in to make sure a Sydney team stay afloat, and now GWS can do that for them so Sydney don't have anywhere near the leverage they once had with the AFL when going to them cap in hand. It always seems harsh come weaning time, but that is exactly what the AFL has done, weaned Sydney - perhaps a little abruptly - off the maternal teat, and helped them out with some tough love by not letting them further * up the club by irresponsibly mortgaging the next 10 years any more than has been done already.

 

[Rimmer]

What can you pick up from other clubs with say a $350,000 limit, at least in the next year or so. They are a good strong club who seem to bring out the best in any player they bring to the club. Maybe they will need to target very short term like Essendon have done picking up good players around 30 who might still have a year or two at top level in the tank. Cats seem to be a bit wishy washy about giving Stevie J another year .. he might sign for $350K for a 2 or 3 year contract somewhere else though I hope the Cats do extend his contract.

 

[Mootsy]

the words are coming out all weird where are you now when I need you..

 

[Bollox]

Tested over the last month+ and found wanting...showed we arent a likely threat this year.
As long as we can finish 4th i will back us to win any final though.

List is looking alright going forward with the regulation few holes needing to be filled.

Need to retire a few EARLY this year and send a message. Sick to death of looking and acting like socially engineered sooks.
Anyone wanting to talk about homoracialbitransrefugeesexuality s**t needs to be dropped immediately...not a single word that isnt about a focus on finishing 4th.

 

[HBF]

No Franklin again tonight. Be very interesting to see how they go against a Collingwood who looked good in patches last week.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

The allowance was brought in many many years ago, was agreed to by all clubs and was valid and justified. The fact that clubs didn't speak up or the AFL didn't change the rules to suit the environment of the time (ie when the cost of living rose in WA or the increase in TPP across the board) for the next 20 years is no fault of Sydney.

Quite simply no one gave 2 craps about the allowances to Brisbane until they won flags against Vic clubs. No one gave 2 craps about the allowance to Sydney when they beat your mob in 2005. It only became an issue when Sydney beat 2 big Vic clubs on their way to the 2012 flag. Then all hell broke loose and eventuated in trade bans for following the rules.

Yeah all that OR it was revised when the swans were top or near top of the table and recruited the years biggest and most expensive free agents. Two years in a row. On massive contracts.

 

[chookbilly]

Yeah all that OR it was revised when the swans were top or near top of the table and recruited the years biggest and most expensive free agents. Two years in a row. On massive contracts.

Big money offers from a successful club are always going to be attractive to players, just look at the number of high class free agents Hawthorn keep accumulating.

The thing people love to gloss over when mentioning how the swans recruited Tippett and Franklin, is how we culled a mass of players to fit them in.
It's called list management. Any club can do it, except now for the swans due to a vindictive trade ban.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Big money offers from a successful club are always going to be attractive to players, just look at the number of high class free agents Hawthorn keep accumulating.

The thing people love to gloss over when mentioning how the swans recruited Tippett and Franklin, is how we culled a mass of players to fit them in.
It's called list management. Any club can do it, except now for the swans due to a vindictive trade ban.

Exactly and you had more "big money" to offer.
Simple
I understand that you played within your rules and that the trade ban is harsh, but to say it's because of you guys beating Victorian clubs and not because you had a leg up that you Cleary no longer needed is crap.

 

[MarkT2]

Any club can do it better with more money to do it with.
That is entirely the issue with a differential salary cap.

The cap is a handcuff so it has to be equally tight.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Big money offers from a successful club are always going to be attractive to players, just look at the number of high class free agents Hawthorn keep accumulating.

The thing people love to gloss over when mentioning how the swans recruited Tippett and Franklin, is how we culled a mass of players to fit them in.
It's called list management. Any club can do it, except now for the swans due to a vindictive trade ban.

High-class free agents?
Frawley and....???

 

[chookbilly]

Any club can do it better with more money to do it with.
That is entirely the issue with a differential salary cap.

The cap is a handcuff so it has to be equally tight.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm in agreement with the salary cap being even across all clubs going forward.

The problem being that the COLA was already being phased out in an agreed manner over a number of years. So not only have the AFL performed an about face on said agreement, but they have also severely and unethically hindered the swans ability to manage their list as they see fit.

And FYI as reported on numerous occasions the COLA is applied to every swans player contract, so was never a lump sum to throw at a big name.

 

[chookbilly]

High-class free agents?
Frawley and....???

You win. What I meant to say was high class players hawthorn are accumulating. Essentially the same thing.

Not having a go at Hawthorn at all. But it's a given that most players want to play for winning teams.

 

[MarkT2]

I understand what you're saying, and I'm in agreement with the salary cap being even across all clubs going forward.

The problem being that the COLA was already being phased out in an agreed manner over a number of years. So not only have the AFL performed an about face on said agreement, but they have also severely and unethically hindered the swans ability to manage their list as they see fit.

And FYI as reported on numerous occasions the COLA is applied to every swans player contract, so was never a lump sum to throw at a big name.

It was effectively a lump sum which is exactly the issue. Salaries are negotiated on a gross basis, regardless of the composition is or who writes the cheques. That's the problem with a differential cap no matter how it is administered. Whether the AFL were justified is legitimately debatable. whether they act and always have acted vindictively and are motivated by agenda isn't debateable IMO. They are a conflicted, agenda driven and poorly lead and have been for a long time - probably since inception and as a continuation of the Aylett era pre Commission.

 

[Kwality]

Seems AFL Sydney El Presidente has teed off on the AFL over the trade ban, pointing out a request to the AFL at the end of March to deal with the facts only was ignored - this might be just another step by Sydney into embarassing head office into overturning the ban.
Richard Colless comments looking good.

 

[Grongey]

Does Brisbane Lioned mean propped you up for years artificially to ensure you don't go broke again?

You can talk! Hawthorn has the entire state of Tasmania propping them up, with a five year $19 million government handout. Talk about double standards! The Swans aren't even allowed to have a crummy academy without the Victorian clubs moaning.

One rule for Collingwood and Hawthorn, another rule for the Swans.

Tasmanian Government signs new five-year deal with Hawthorn
BRETT STUBBS, SPORTS EDITOR MERCURY AUGUST 01, 2015
http://www.themercury.com.au/sport/...al-with-hawthorn/story-fnj4f7h7-1227465237561

TASMANIA’S quest for its own AFL team remains on hold until 2021 at least, after the State Government recommitted to a five-year $19 million deal with Hawthorn. Premier Will Hodgman announced the contract extension at the president’s dinner at the MCG before the Hawthorn-Richmond clash last night....

 

[Skeparovic]

They go on the attack from the top down... about bloody time Pridham came out and said what Swans fans have wanted for almost 10 months. Diplomatic channels useless with AFL so the return broadside has FINALLY been delivered by Swans executive.
http://m.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2015-08-14/pridham-calls-for-removal-of-trade-ban

 

[hk89]

You can talk! Hawthorn has the entire state of Tasmania propping them up, with a five year $19 million government handout.

I realise you've had your reality skewed by being the only AFL team in a populous northern state where viewing numbers are crucial to boost TV rights prices, but we have a name for that kind of 'handout' down south. We call it "sponsorship". From all accounts a very smart deal by the Tassie government given the independent valuations of the benefit to the state that is derived by their "sponsorship" dollars. The same can probably be said for the money the AFL invested in COLA over the years, increased the TV rights funds by quite a sum I'd imagine (and something the other clubs should be grateful for).

 

[Paul Kersey]

Look terrible tonight. Won't get near the other top 4 teams imo.

 

[Substance]

Look terrible tonight. Won't get near the other top 4 teams imo.

They aren't top 4

 

[Slax]

Yes and it seems to work ...bigger coin though

A team like San Antnio won five championships ....it's not a big city

Dellas won it too with dirk norwitzki

Cleveland had a chance too ...another smaller franchise .....

Golden state .....

My point has been the swans had massive advantage over everyone and frankly the afl wanted that for the purposes of getting GWS into the league

San Antonio and Cleveland were also paying the luxury tax for going over the salary cap. So trying to call them a small franchise is BS.

On your basis then Green Bay Packers must be the smallest franchise in the USA because the stadium at Green Bay holds almost as many people as live in the town.