Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

So making things unequal
Soon all your players are belong to us.

I haven't commented on the Sydney COLA in this thread. You assume just because McGuire is President of my club that I automatically agree 100% with everything he says re: Sydney...
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
What exactly are the rules regarding 3rd party deals? Ireland said on 360 that deals had already been worked out for Buddy, in so many words.
No one actually believes he will play for 9 years do they?
Won't happen but he'll still get the 10m.
You were defending him, so I assumed you were in support of what he said.
There is no way clubs should be allowed to "use their contacts" to pay players outside of the cap. That is a terrible idea.
The rules are you can have 3rd party deals unless your name is Chris Judd.
The rules were you can't have 3rd party deals, unless your name is Judd. Till they removed the Judd exception.
Getting a real good laugh out of the McGuire bashers, youre embarrassing yourselves
So no club sponsors or benefactors then should be allowed to get anything in return for their investment into the club (eg. players appearing in advertising for their product)? Seems a bit restrictive, and would rule out a lot of avenues for income and for players to establish themselves and their individual branding outside of football.
If he retires does it?
Wouldn't any endorsement deal a player has technically be a "3rd party deal"?
This, coming from a Collingwood supporter is amusing.
Didn't Eddie vote to keep the clubs on 'drip feed' at 95% of the cap? Yet, still publicly claim how Collingwood floats the AFL boat?
I R confused
Do you think Judd's Visy deal was fair and was good for equality in the competition?
A 3rd party deal is arranged by a club and a player with a 3rd party. So, the club uses its contacts, rather than the player just has their own arrangement.

Lot's of people are bringing American sports into this stating there is no COLA which is true, they do have luxury taxes though
Nine year contract - good luck with that.
What, and you and your Collingwood deniers aren't? It's LOL funny!Getting a real good laugh out of the McGuire bashers, youre embarrassing yourselves

The rules were you can't have 3rd party deals, unless your name is Judd. Till they removed the Judd exception.
Can't believe some of the things I am reading in here from swans fans. Do not try for a second to compare the fact that the pies etc spend more on their footy department to Sydney having extra cash in the salary cap. Every club has the opportunity to spend more on their footy department etc, just not all can afford it. That is business. Are Coles only allowed to spend a certain amount of $$$ on marketing because IGA can't afford to spend as much as them? Of course not.
But clubs are restricted by how much they can spend on players, yet Sydney get to spend more. It is crazy. It is in fact, a restraint of trade. Hawthorn (and other clubs) can't afford to match Sydney's offer because they have less money available to them to spend. What is the point of having a salary cap if it is tailored to suit the AFL's marketing purposes? This could be taken to court and the salary cap would be ditched in 5 minutes, but clubs won't because it is (if used fairly) good for the competition.
And don't compare collingwoods draw to others. Let's not forget Sydney (last years reigning premiers) got handed a draw that was (difficulty wise) middle of the road despite the AFL telling us that the difficulty of the draw is based on previous seasons finishing position. If Sydney got north's draw this season, they may have missed finals as north did.