How much help do the swans need?

[weevil]

Look mate I distinctly remember reading interviews with Mal saying that Brisbane was not his first choice at all and that he had to be convinced to come and that it was all extremely rushed.

I’m sure there may have been issues on the other side as well. But ultimately Collingwood were very happy with the trade.

As you have said yourself Eddie will spin the issue as much as he possibly can to suit his agenda. They could have very easily offered Mal a reduced contract and then thrown their hands up after the fact and said he wanted more money than they were prepared to offer. He was an elevated rookie, would have been on virtually nothing, his “promo” money was probably worth more than his contract. Collingwood were in the midst of a huge clean-out at the time and Mal was just swept up as one little part of it.

I’m totally happy to agree to disagree on this. I’m not interested in endlessly swapping ‘I reckon this’ and ‘I reckon that’ posts about events that took place 5 years ago. The truth is neither of us will ever know the true situation,

I will say that at the time Molly was rated way above Mal, that he was leaving Brisbane no matter what and that his side were the ones who initiated the trade.

...I’m not confusing any issues. Yes players can earn money in other pursuits outside of football or their football profile. Promotional allowance has nothing to do with this.

Yes there are more players in Melbourne and there are plenty of players in Melbourne who miss out, mostly players at low profile clubs. If you are a rookie at the Bulldogs, North or the Hawks you almost certainly miss out. If you are a rookie at Collingwood you get 50k a year bonus, simply because you are a Collingwood player. (As is said I think a rookie’s base payment is less than 50k, so that promo money certainly comes in very handy.)

3 times premiership winning champion players in Brisbane also totally miss out. There are only a tiny handful of players on the Brisbane list who get any. Aka gets loads but I believe more than half of it comes from Melbourne, Imagine how much he would make if he were a Collingwood player. He would be a mega star x 1000.

I’m not the slightest bit surprised you don’t know anything about this issue. Loads of Melbourne people can recite all sorts of figures about the relocation allowance, but when it comes to the promo allowance it is a blank sheet.

Headlines in Melbourne papers about northern clubs getting special benefits sell lots of papers. It is in the media’s interests to beat the drum as much as they can, there is nothing Victorians love more than a bit of interstate rivalry. It doesn’t matter how many press releases the Swans, Lions or AFL put out on the issue the relevant parts are almost always ignored or massively downplayed.

I’m not here trying to have a go at you or saying the situation is black and white good versus evil. I know a huge amount of unjustifiable crap gets written about Collingwood and Eddie.

All I am saying is that there is also a whole other side to the Brisbane and Sydney debate that most people have no idea of. The promo allowance stuff is 100% real, it just never gets talked about...and that leads to an extremely distorted view of the situation by many people.

 

[Bazmanau]

Dear Ferals
Who are the 2005 premiers not you pack of ********ers. Go Swans

 

[Lenny]

No, that isn't how it happened and not by a long way. The Swans with the retirement of Ball were desperate for a ruckman; via Hall (a friend and former teammate of Everitt) they start informal approaches to a contracted player which was then followed up in trade week. It is then reported in the media (by a not particularly respected journalist) that Everitt wants out of the Hawks and has chosen the Swans. A week previous Everitt had reiterated his loyalty to Hawthorn on 'White Line Fever' and had stated that he was happy with being involved in the rebuild that was occurring.

In most other sports if you attempt this type of approach on a contracted player you are heavily penalised financially. What compensation were the Swans prepared to offer Hawthorn as the holders of the contract if any deal were to occur - Jason Saddington most likely (a player the Swans have been attempting to trade for the last two years and will be delisted in a year's time).

Can't see how the approaches on Everitt it can be described as anything other then poaching. It has also made once and for all quite transparent that the salary cap advantage the Swans enjoy over the other clubs in the competition, is just that an unfair advantage.

Vanders, you could just about be the biggest **** trawling BigFooty.

Dumb Ar** Claim No. 1.
Sydney are not Adelaide and are not Perth. Sydney is a non-tradtional AFL town...ie NO THRIVING GRASS ROOTS FOOTY. Meaning we have to get blokes with modest house prices, modest school fees, modest restaurant prices from around the nation to come to Sydney where prices are high. Rent alone caused business to charge higher prices...we pay em.

Dumb Ar** Claim No. 2.
How is it that with very few, yes even fewer than Hawthorn, very few stars you can claim we're taking full advantage of our Salary Cap and just using the balance to attract another "star". Who did we get you buffoon? Paul Chambers! The "star" we poached last year was Darren Jolly. Gee, weren't Dees fans livid with Sydney 12 months ago??? NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

So for the rest of you whiners, listen up. Why don't you give your mouths a go? In the other hole...put a plug!

 

[CharlieG]

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.

False. The extra cap space hasn't been needed for the past three years, so it hasn't been used. Simple as that - it isn't being used to target other players, because we aren't using it.

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.

Absolutely false. In 1986, when the draft was formed, Sydney was flying with a large number of Edelsten era recruits, and no awareness at that stage that the good times would be short-lived. Brisbane was in the process of being formed.

This is becoming somewhat amateurish.

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.

And in other news, Paul Roos was the man on the grassy knoll when JFK was shot. A Herald Sun photographer got a perfect shot (as did Paul), but was paid out by the then VFL because they were concerned about the game's image in 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.

'Fact'? There is no fact. Only wild assumptions and gratuitous whinging.

 

[Vandenbergfan]

False. The extra cap space hasn't been needed for the past three years, so it hasn't been used. Simple as that - it isn't being used to target other players, because we aren't using it.

It that case you don't need the additional salary space and it should be taken away. Try competing on the same basis as all the other sides in the competition. The salary space was also the reason why you were able to make an offer on Everitt, even if it hasn't been used in previous years.

So what happened in the approaches on Everitt. A contracted player - contract implies between two parties, the individual and the club. The Swans via intermediaries get to Everitt and convince him to throw his lot in with the Swans. Approaches, that are penalised in other sports as predatory behaviour ie. poaching. Pelchen said at the start of the week that Hawthorn was not interested in trading Everitt. I don't see a lot of room under those circumstances for a trade to proceed.

The Swans persisted with their approaches and on the Friday it is revealed by Ireland that they have offered Hawthorn a package of players. None of them in the Swans premiership team; it was reported Doyle was one of the players. I wouldn't have thought Doyle and another player that isn't making your firsts side is adequate compensation for a ruckman who has gone all Australian in the last two years. I mean talk about having your values all mixed up you gave up pick 19 for Richards and he was a reserve grade footballer at Essendon more often than not. I mean if Hawthorn were to offer Steven Greene and Doug Scott for Barry Hall what do you think the chances would be of the trade eventuating.

At the end of the day you were not prepared to offer anything of value to get the trade done on Everitt so there was nothing to discuss. Come back next year and offer something that is approximate to Everitt's value, that is your first two draft picks and then the trade could be a possibility.

 

[iameviljez]

Quite frankly, if they're the difference between the Eagles winning a Grand Final and the Eagles not winning a Grand Final, I'll give them all the help it takes...

 

[lazy]

False. The extra cap space hasn't been needed for the past three years, so it hasn't been used. Simple as that - it isn't being used to target other players, because we aren't using it.



Why are the Swans not using it? ie. Cannot afford too or not needed with the current list or are saving it in case Judd wants to leave country australia and move to a city?

 

[konstas_87]

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.

northern clubs need it!
looks at us now: we could barely keep Luke Power, The kids are playing arounds eeing how much more they could get elsewhere, and we couldnt lure Marc Murphy.
the stay at home/go home factor is very real, victorians have to start appreciating it for what it is.

AND sydney really is expensive to live.

 

[Bloods Rule!]

northern clubs need it!
looks at us now: we could barely keep Luke Power, The kids are playing arounds eeing how much more they could get elsewhere, and we couldnt lure Marc Murphy.
the stay at home/go home factor is very real, victorians have to start appreciating it for what it is.

AND sydney really is expensive to live.

The go home factor is huge and has been overlooked over the past few years. The Lions stayed together largely through on field success and if they have another year like 2005 may have the old battle of keeping/getting players. The Swans have picked up quite a lot of players that other clubs haven't wanted so they haven't had to use their extra cap allowance. But if either club drops down into the bottom eight for a few years, the problem will re-emerge. Who would want to move to expensive Sydney if the Swans had a few years battling for the spoon? Sydney may have problems enough when its premiership players come off contract and find out how much other teams will now offer for them.

 

[CharlieG]

It that case you don't need the additional salary space and it should be taken away.

LOL. Nice little U-turn there, mate. Why should it be taken away just because we haven't used it in the past three years (note, we did in the three before that)? How do you go, logically, from point A to point B?

Your whinge about the cap, and Sydney's use or otherwise, are completely unrelated. You've proven that by the sheer fact that you had no idea how the Swans use it.

Try competing on the same basis as all the other sides in the competition. The salary space was also the reason why you were able to make an offer on Everitt, even if it hasn't been used in previous years.

False. We were able to make an offer to Spida because we had players retire that were collectively being payed a million dollars or more. We had an abundance of space in the ordinary cap.

So what happened in the approaches on Everitt. A contracted player - contract implies between two parties, the individual and the club. The Swans via intermediaries get to Everitt and convince him to throw his lot in with the Swans. Approaches, that are penalised in other sports as predatory behaviour ie. poaching. Pelchen said at the start of the week that Hawthorn was not interested in trading Everitt. I don't see a lot of room under those circumstances for a trade to proceed.

If you think that contracted players aren't spoken to by all clubs throughout the year, you are delusional. By the way, the only 'intermediary' that has been reported to have participated was Everitt's former manager... who Spida appointed to act on his behalf.

The Swans persisted with their approaches and on the Friday it is revealed by Ireland that they have offered Hawthorn a package of players. None of them in the Swans premiership team; it was reported Doyle was one of the players. I wouldn't have thought Doyle and another player that isn't making your firsts side is adequate compensation for a ruckman who has gone all Australian in the last two years. I mean talk about having your values all mixed up you gave up pick 19 for Richards and he was a reserve grade footballer at Essendon more often than not. I mean if Hawthorn were to offer Steven Greene and Doug Scott for Barry Hall what do you think the chances would be of the trade eventuating.

So your issue isn't with the salary cap or anti-tampering rules... it's that you didn't like the offer? No worries - don't trade. Oh, wait... that's what the Hawks actually DID!

Seriously mate, find yourself a box of tissues. I recommend the aloe vera type.

At the end of the day you were not prepared to offer anything of value to get the trade done on Everitt so there was nothing to discuss. Come back next year and offer something that is approximate to Everitt's value, that is your first two draft picks and then the trade could be a possibility.

Not going to happen, but I agree there's nothing to discuss. Not until you work out what your argument is.

 

[InformedOpinion]

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.

A 20% loading on the salary cap so they can aford a basic house within 10kms of the city (median price $1mill), plus an extra 10% for the lack of marketing income opportunities outside of the game, less 10% for not having to put up with ill-informed tools like you.

So to answer your question about an extra 10-15% above what the Swans are able to play players now. This would put the Swans back on even terms with the likes of the Haks.

 

[Tuco]

It that case you don't need the additional salary space and it should be taken away. Try competing on the same basis as all the other sides in the competition. The salary space was also the reason why you were able to make an offer on Everitt, even if it hasn't been used in previous years.

So what happened in the approaches on Everitt. A contracted player - contract implies between two parties, the individual and the club. The Swans via intermediaries get to Everitt and convince him to throw his lot in with the Swans. Approaches, that are penalised in other sports as predatory behaviour ie. poaching. Pelchen said at the start of the week that Hawthorn was not interested in trading Everitt. I don't see a lot of room under those circumstances for a trade to proceed.

The Swans persisted with their approaches and on the Friday it is revealed by Ireland that they have offered Hawthorn a package of players. None of them in the Swans premiership team; it was reported Doyle was one of the players. I wouldn't have thought Doyle and another player that isn't making your firsts side is adequate compensation for a ruckman who has gone all Australian in the last two years. I mean talk about having your values all mixed up you gave up pick 19 for Richards and he was a reserve grade footballer at Essendon more often than not. I mean if Hawthorn were to offer Steven Greene and Doug Scott for Barry Hall what do you think the chances would be of the trade eventuating.

At the end of the day you were not prepared to offer anything of value to get the trade done on Everitt so there was nothing to discuss. Come back next year and offer something that is approximate to Everitt's value, that is your first two draft picks and then the trade could be a possibility.

ok. Let's try this again. Here is a comparison of the Cost Of Living (COL) of Sydney and Melb.

Syd is officially 19% more expensive when ALL factors considered (not just housing, and not just in a 10 km radius of the SCG)

www.finfacts.com/costofliving3.htm

We're doing ok. And we're not whingeing. And we're not asking for more than we have.

However, if you want to go down the line of having true "parity" in the League, then I think you'll find the extra in our salary cap is in fact not enough as it is.

cheers

 

[OB1]

ok. Let's try this again. Here is a comparison of the Cost Of Living (COL) of Sydney and Melb.

Syd is officially 19% more expensive when ALL factors considered (not just housing, and not just in a 10 km radius of the SCG)

www.finfacts.com/costofliving3.htm

We're doing ok. And we're not whingeing. And we're not asking for more than we have.

However, if you want to go down the line of having true "parity" in the League, then I think you'll find the extra in our salary cap is in fact not enough as it is.

cheers

I'm not sure how they come up with those figures but I severely doubt the accuracy. However, going by those figures do you think it would be fair for Brisbane to get 7% less than Melb, Adelaide 8% less & Perth 9% less?
I'm not sure if you can get the figures for Geelong but they'd have to get less as well.
It really shouldn't be that hard for you Swans & Lions fans to understand. Both clubs were basket cases & the AFL decided to prop them up in order to help make them be succesful. It was obvious that without onfield sucess the teams would forever struggle to survive in non AFL surroundings. Rather than spend decades & squillions of $$ trying to win hearts & minds of locals it was patently obvious that on-field success was the only thing that could fast track the games development. From a business perspective it was a great plan & it has worked perfectly. If I was a neutral supporter I would hail it as the greatest achievemnt the AFL has made. There's only 1 problem though, this is not just a business its a competition & a competition that most here have grown up with & love. You cannot possibly make any rules that advantage 1 or 2 sides without by definition disadvantaging the others.

 

[Michaelg]

Put very simply, the so-called "concessions" are designed to give the Swans and Lions a rough equality with the other clubs, not an advantage over them. They are an attempt to address a variety of disadvantages intrinsic to football clubs in non-Aussie Rules states. They have worked OK so far, but that doesn't mean they can be taken away. Ever. Or at least not for a very long time. To do so would be to put them back where they were - basket cases. They were basket cases not essentially because of maladministration or mismanagement (although that has been a complicating factor at times), but because of their intrinsic disadvantages, which are still there.

 

[crimson]

I'm not sure how they come up with those figures but I severely doubt the accuracy. However, going by those figures do you think it would be fair for Brisbane to get 7% less than Melb, Adelaide 8% less & Perth 9% less?
I'm not sure if you can get the figures for Geelong but they'd have to get less as well.
It really shouldn't be that hard for you Swans & Lions fans to understand. Both clubs were basket cases & the AFL decided to prop them up in order to help make them be succesful. It was obvious that without onfield sucess the teams would forever struggle to survive in non AFL surroundings. Rather than spend decades & squillions of $$ trying to win hearts & minds of locals it was patently obvious that on-field success was the only thing that could fast track the games development. From a business perspective it was a great plan & it has worked perfectly. If I was a neutral supporter I would hail it as the greatest achievemnt the AFL has made. There's only 1 problem though, this is not just a business its a competition & a competition that most here have grown up with & love. You cannot possibly make any rules that advantage 1 or 2 sides without by definition disadvantaging the others.

Q. Why is it that the AFL is asking for $120 million a season for TV rights?

A. So Vic clubs can exist!!! Without successful interstate clubs you can all go back to metro grounds on a Saturday afternoon. ...and forget TV stations like Foxfooty.

 

[Bloods Rule!]

Every time I see this thread I presume it's an offer of help. But we don't need help right now thanks - everything is running along just fine. We'll get back to you when we do.

 

[OB1]

Q. Why is it that the AFL is asking for $120 million a season for TV rights?

A. So Vic clubs can exist!!! Without successful interstate clubs you can all go back to metro grounds on a Saturday afternoon. ...and forget TV stations like Foxfooty.

I'm glad you are starting to see some of the reasons why it was so important for the AFL to help Brisbane & Sydney be succesfull. Yes more interest in QLD & NSW helps boost the value of the TV rights but to take the extension that we should somehow be greatful the integrity of the competition was compromised to achieve this is terrible to see. BTW the interest generated by Vic clubs like Essendon & Collingwood as well as SA & WA far far far outweighs the contribution from the Northern states. Before you go riding off on your high horse remember that without the Vic clubs there would have been no VFL & therefore no AFL. The majority of the $$ generated which has allowed the AFL to expand in to the North still comes from Victoria.

 

[Tuco]

I'm not sure how they come up with those figures but I severely doubt the accuracy. However, going by those figures do you think it would be fair for Brisbane to get 7% less than Melb, Adelaide 8% less & Perth 9% less?
I'm not sure if you can get the figures for Geelong but they'd have to get less as well.
It really shouldn't be that hard for you Swans & Lions fans to understand. Both clubs were basket cases & the AFL decided to prop them up in order to help make them be succesful. It was obvious that without onfield sucess the teams would forever struggle to survive in non AFL surroundings. Rather than spend decades & squillions of $$ trying to win hearts & minds of locals it was patently obvious that on-field success was the only thing that could fast track the games development. From a business perspective it was a great plan & it has worked perfectly. If I was a neutral supporter I would hail it as the greatest achievemnt the AFL has made. There's only 1 problem though, this is not just a business its a competition & a competition that most here have grown up with & love. You cannot possibly make any rules that advantage 1 or 2 sides without by definition disadvantaging the others.

they collate these figures (if you read their website) by comparing the same 200 items by cost across 144 cities around the world. It is the most comprehensive comparison of COL in the world.

That extra money is not a disadvantage to the Melbourne clubs. It is a compensation for the disadvantage Syd was already bearing.

COL isn't really an issue for the top few earners in a club, sure. But you can't utterly disregard that on a $400k contract they'd still be looking at getting $70k+ more bang for their bucks if they played for a Melb club.

Eg: if Everitt came for to Syd for the same money he was already getting paid (as was suggested by his agent) he would in fact be taking a 20% pay cut to play up here. People seem to overlook this.

But consider the rookies living on their rookie contracts, and those players unable to get match payments. They need to be retained as well.

 

[Michaelg]

the integrity of the competition was compromised

How long can this myth be sustained? It does NOT compromise the integrity of the competition, in fact it strengthens it by moving all teams closer to a position of equality.

 

[weevil]

they collate these figures (if you read their website) by comparing the same 200 items by cost across 144 cities around the world. It is the most comprehensive comparison of COL in the world.

That extra money is not a disadvantage to the Melbourne clubs. It is a compensation for the disadvantage Syd was already bearing.

COL isn't really an issue for the top few earners in a club, sure. But you can't utterly disregard that on a $400k contract they'd still be looking at getting $70k+ more bang for their bucks if they played for a Melb club.

...Plus the fact that players from popular clubs in “football states” can make way, way, way more money in off-field promo work...

 

[weevil]

How long can this myth be sustained? It does NOT compromise the integirity of the competition, in fact it strengthens it by moving all teams closer to a position of equality.

As long as people with patent partisan political agendas can monopolise the media to an extent that the other side of the story virtually has no voice.

 

[Michaelg]

As long as people with patent partisan political agendas can monopolise the media to an extent that the other side of the story virtually has no voice.

Hear bloody hear!! The sooner that gormless fool McGuire gets the footy taken off him, the sooner we can get back to some sort of balance in the media coverage.

 

[JinmboJones]

Put very simply, the so-called "concessions" are designed to give the Swans and Lions a rough equality with the other clubs, not an advantage over them. They are an attempt to address a variety of disadvantages intrinsic to football clubs in non-Aussie Rules states. They have worked OK so far, but that doesn't mean they can be taken away. Ever. Or at least not for a very long time. To do so would be to put them back where they were - basket cases. They were basket cases not essentially because of maladministration or mismanagement (although that has been a complicating factor at times), but because of their intrinsic disadvantages, which are still there.

Sorry, but if Brisbane aren't a 'successful' club now after winning three premierships in a row, they never will be. You can't seriously suggest that we should prop up Sydney and Brisbane forever, can you? What, until they're taking it in turns to win permierships each year?

We are "the benchmark" for AFL clubs to follow, posting continual profits year after year, yet our cheque for salary cap concessions seems to have gone missing in the post.

 

[bloodsports]

...You can't seriously suggest that we should prop up Sydney and Brisbane forever, can you?

Can't you comprehend ??

Sydney and Brisbane are not being proped up by anyone, they are both profitable clubs on their own right.

They have been given certain salary cap consessions to counter act the go home factor for teams who have over 50 per cent of their list from interstate.

That situation will not change until more AFL playes are produced out of NSW and Queensland.

 

[JinmboJones]

They have been given certain salary cap consessions to counter act the go home factor for teams who have over 50 per cent of their list from interstate.

hangon, which is it - they are given extra money from the AFL because of the higher cost of living, or because of the 'go home factor'? If it's the 'go home factor', they're no orphins. All clubs have players from interstate, perhaps not to the extent of Brisbane or Sydney, but at the end of the day if the only reason you have a player playing for your club is for money, then if it was my club I'd rather that player left.

If your club can't convince a player to play for your club, regardless of the money on offer or your location, then it says more about your club than anything else. Take Chris Judd, for example. Do you reckon we offered him as much money as other clubs? Probably not, so why did he want to stay?

As for the cost of living allowance, yep, I'll pay that. I think most people have issues with these 'extra payments' (disguise them with whatever terminology you like) because the afl isn't transparent about it. Perhaps involve all the clubs and come up with some guidlines as to what/when/how extra money should be given to other clubs, then perhaps you'll get some agreement on this whole thing.