Mike "C-Bomb" Fitzpatrick

[bungwahl]

So are people happy that the AFL is acting to poach star players and send them to clubs they own?

They are meant to be the competition regulator and have no agendas outside running the game and applying the rules evenly to all clubs, not just their favourites.

If you believe what Colless has said the AFL has breached its own rules by:

1. Working to poach a player outside the trade window.

2. Using third party deals to get around the salary cap

It also confirms that the AFL trades clubs off against each other and does dirty deals to get their way. And then when they do not get their way they turn around and take revenge (ban on Sydney trading for players, removal of COLA).

How can the clubs sit back and allow this to go on? They are the only ones with the power to put an end to this crap by uniting and forcing changes. The commission was put in place to be independent, it is now clear that it is not, it is hopelessly compromised.

Get rid of them.

Very well said!

 

[Slax]

I don't understand how Sydney manipulated COLA when it's a 9.8% loading on every contract?

There were no rules dictating how Sydney needed to manage their list. The trade ban is one of the most disgraceful acts in recent AFL history and should be removed as it serves no purpose other than to handicap Sydney's chances of winning a flag and embarrassing the AFL further.

The same way Brisbane did.

Firstly - being in a side which is a realistic chance to win a premiership in the contract period (ie Sydney, Hawthorn, Fremantle) players will accept below market rates to chase that premiership. This is ranked by some at between 10-20% for most players.
Player A has market value of $300k, club offers player $250k to match market value allowing for COLA so player gets $275k (92% of market rate). The club then saves $50k which can go towards another player. If Player A still wants more the club can go to $273k before hitting break even with market, which still saves $27k. Do this over just 15 contracts with averaging a $35k saving and you have $500k to splash out on a player. This will give the club an A grade player. Do it over say 20 contracts (half the list) and you find suddenly $700k add in the COLA and it is $770, that give you an elite player or two players who would walk into the start 18 (rank somewhere from 7-15). This is easily the difference between where North is and Sydney.

 

[bungwahl]

The same way Brisbane did.

Firstly - being in a side which is a realistic chance to win a premiership in the contract period (ie Sydney, Hawthorn, Fremantle) players will accept below market rates to chase that premiership. This is ranked by some at between 10-20% for most players.
Player A has market value of $300k, club offers player $250k to match market value allowing for COLA so player gets $275k (92% of market rate). The club then saves $50k which can go towards another player. If Player A still wants more the club can go to $273k before hitting break even with market, which still saves $27k. Do this over just 15 contracts with averaging a $35k saving and you have $500k to splash out on a player. This will give the club an A grade player. Do it over say 20 contracts (half the list) and you find suddenly $700k add in the COLA and it is $770, that give you an elite player or two players who would walk into the start 18 (rank somewhere from 7-15). This is easily the difference between where North is and Sydney.

I think it's a long stretch to say that scenario would be the norm. For every player willing to take a little less to play for a premiership hopeful, there is another who expects to be paid 109.8% of market value if they play for Sydney.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

The same way Brisbane did.

Firstly - being in a side which is a realistic chance to win a premiership in the contract period (ie Sydney, Hawthorn, Fremantle) players will accept below market rates to chase that premiership. This is ranked by some at between 10-20% for most players.
Player A has market value of $300k, club offers player $250k to match market value allowing for COLA so player gets $275k (92% of market rate). The club then saves $50k which can go towards another player. If Player A still wants more the club can go to $273k before hitting break even with market, which still saves $27k. Do this over just 15 contracts with averaging a $35k saving and you have $500k to splash out on a player. This will give the club an A grade player. Do it over say 20 contracts (half the list) and you find suddenly $700k add in the COLA and it is $770, that give you an elite player or two players who would walk into the start 18 (rank somewhere from 7-15). This is easily the difference between where North is and Sydney.

That only works in the absence of a cost of living differential.

But the cost of living differential is a fact. It is there. So if such matters are taken into account in percentage terms then so must the real value of a contract, which in Sydney is something like 18% less.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

https://hia.com.au/~/media/HIA Website/Files/IndustryBusiness/Economic/research/Portrait_of_Australian_Home_Prices_Oct_2014.ashx

Ahhh yes, so you conveniently use the only marker that serves your argument. Yet over the past 5 years, 3 years, 1 year and 6 months Sydney's property market has outperformed EVERY other capital city. And it has done this off a higher base.

Try again.

 

[the_interloper]

Fitzpatrick is smarter than everyone in this thread, haters gonna hate.

 

[Slax]

I think it's a long stretch to say that scenario would be the norm. For every player willing to take a little less to play for a premiership hopeful, there is another who expects to be paid 109.8% of market value if they play for Sydney.

Then you let those ones go, would be only one or two and they are generally ones who have tickets on themselves that you can cover. Brisbane let a few go when at the top. When the likes of Hannerbry take unders it puts pressure on others

 

[headache1]

What about winning back 2 back premierships and snatching up the best KPD on the market and no one giving 2 peeps? Where was the outrage then? Will there be outrage when Geelong offers more per season to Danger than we're paying Buddy?

How come it's fine for other clubs (especially crappy ones like the Suns and GWS) to recruit or retain superstars but as soon as the Swans do - who haven't really had a decent KPF since Barry Hall - everyone goes apeshit?

People are always complaining about the AFL trying to manipulate competition outcomes as per the Franklin-GWS deal they were trying to ram through and when the Swans told them to shove it everyone was happily led by the nose on this issue by Triple Chins McGuire, Newbold, Gillon et al.

Congratulations if you hate the Swans and don't care if they were unjustly punished over this. You've just made the AFL's ability to manipulate this competition and player movements easier.

Had they not recently lost the highest profile player in the league before recruiting Frawley, I'm sure there would have been some outrage. Sydney's failure to utilise their new recruits and continue winning flags doesn't change the fact that you were able to offer a massive contract to the highest profile key forward available straight after winning the flag, and then offer an even bigger deal to the aforementioned highest profile player in the league in the very next trade period. And by the way, weren't the Swans supposedly heavily into Frawley before the restrictions were put in place?

People understand that new clubs are going to need a bit of a leg up to compete, but when a well established one that has consistently made finals over the last couple of decades is playing under a different set of rules to every other established club, people are going to start asking questions. You've been in Sydney for what, 27 years? Aside from younger players perhaps needing a rent allowance, what more do you really need? It's not like you're perennially battling in the financial domain or understaffed.

As for the AFL trying to manipulate the situation of getting Franklin to GWS, well, I certainly don't agree with that. It's bullshit. My club was fined and stripped of draft picks for trying to retain a player and supposedly tampering with the draft and salary cap by diverting third party sponsorship money to said player, while the league body itself was trying to engineer the exact same thing for another club behind the scenes. When you hear about this kind of thing, it's no wonder normal clubs are having to turn to desperate measures just to remain competitive.

But, if you think that I, or anybody else who isn't a Swans supporter is going to feel sorry for the Swans, whom have been the entitled darlings of the AFL for so many years, you're kidding yourself. Is it that you're pissed off about the specific situation, or are you just upset that you don't appear to be the apple of the AFL's eye anymore? If the AFL gave other teams in the league the option of having Tippett, and Franklin, plus a player academy, but had 2 years of trade restrictions applied, I reckon most would probably take it. Woe is you!

 

[bungwahl]

Then you let those ones go, would be only one or two and they are generally ones who have tickets on themselves that you can cover. Brisbane let a few go when at the top. When the likes of Hannerbry take unders it puts pressure on others

I see what you're saying, but I disagree that it would happen that way. These guys are professional footballers with professional managers who are in their ear offering advice constantly. If they were getting paid 15-20% unders in real terms, they'd be on their bike. A club can't just turn over every guy who wants market value pay until they have a full side getting unders.

 

[Slax]

Fitzpatrick is smarter than everyone in this thread, haters gonna hate.

Yeah, but that isn't too hard, he's a lot smarter than Gill too

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Ahhh yes, so you conveniently use the only marker that serves your argument. Yet over the past 5 years, 3 years, 1 year and 6 months Sydney's property market has outperformed EVERY other capital city. And it has done this off a higher base.

Try again.

No. I used the marker that best reflects the kind of investment that property is. A long term one.

None of which disguises the stupidity of your argument that potential for investment growth should be a factor in determining equalisation measures.

 

[bungwahl]

And by the way, weren't the Swans supposedly heavily into Frawley before the restrictions were put in place?

Joel Patfull... the AFL just couldn't bear the thought of us landing those big fish..

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

No. I used the marker that best reflects the kind of investment that property is. A long term one.

None of which disguises the stupidity of your argument that potential for investment growth should be a factor in determining equalisation measures.

Well then, why use 10 years? Why not use 20, 30, etc.?

It is crystal clear to everybody, except you and your ignorant mate that Sydney has outperformed the rest of the country (Geelong included) for some time now.

And my argument had nothing to do with COLA. It was a rebuttal to a point made by your "mate" and you have taken me completely out of context. This is the second time I have said this. Clearly your comprehension skills are poor.

Go back and have another look.

 

[Slax]

I see what you're saying, but I disagree that it would happen that way. These guys are professional footballers with professional managers who are in their ear offering advice constantly. If they were getting paid 15-20% unders in real terms, they'd be on their bike. A club can't just turn over every guy who wants market value pay until they have a full side getting unders.

Not really, a lot of players at Geelong took unders when they were on top, same happened at Brisbane. The big problem with Akermanis was that when Brisbane were at the top he was paid unders by the club but given freelance to pursue media contracts. The problem was when the club started to drop down the ladder Mathews didn't like him talking to the media in the same way he did when at the top and that is what caused the problems. It wasn't just Aker being Aker, the club created the problem by opening that box, problem is one it is opened it can't be closed.

 

[headache1]

Joel Patfull... the AFL just couldn't bear the thought of us landing those big fish..

I distinctly remember reading that Sydney were in the race to sign Frawley. Whether or not that's true, or journalists just assuming that Sydney would yet again pull off another big signing based on previous evidence, I'm not sure.

 

[bungwahl]

I distinctly remember reading that Sydney were in the race to sign Frawley. Whether or not that's true, or journalists just assuming that Sydney would yet again pull off another big signing based on previous evidence, I'm not sure.

Well never say never, but it wasn't a big rumour up here. We wanted Patfull and had a sniff at Ryder but couldn't compete with Port.

 

[NewMelbournian]

Simple really....Cola gives them close to a $mill salary-cap advantage (How else do you think they could afford Buddy?)....They were offered the proviso of removing it from all contracts from here on in & thereby being allowed to trade again thereafter....However, if they renege on the Cola, then their way over the sarary-cap, when stripped of IT'S Cola component....Hence the ban/limitation.

They abused the system & now they are paying the price....It aint rocket-science; It's as simple as that.

That's bs and you know it. They did not abuse the system. You either follow the rules or you don't. It's that simple. They did not break any rules. If the AFL is mad at them for what they did do the AFL should have written better rules. And you cannot remove COLA just like that. Phasing it out is the only reasonable option and they shouldn't have been punished. Take off your yellow and brown glasses and get some perspective. One day it might be your club that annoys the AFL and gets an arbitrary punishment for nothing.

 

[Slax]

Joel Patfull... the AFL just couldn't bear the thought of us landing those big fish..

Still pissed about that one. GWS were willing to do the deal of Hogan for Patfull and our 1st round pick and they gave us a later pick 3rd round I think, f***** Voss said no, so Melbourne got him for pick 2. Two years later he ends up there anyway.

Was told of this deal offer by person who was inside Brisbane football department at the time and when you actually look at it on paper would of given GWS proven defender, strong leadership skills and reigning club champion. Definitely more valuable to them than pick 2. That was exactly the sort of deal the mini draft was designed for and in my opinion would of been a very smart deal, just Voss wasn't smart.

 

[bungwahl]

Still pissed about that one. GWS were willing to do the deal of Hogan for Patfull and our 1st round pick and they gave us a later pick 3rd round I think, f***** Voss said no, so Melbourne got him for pick 2. Two years later he ends up there anyway.

Was told of this deal offer by person who was inside Brisbane football department at the time and when you actually look at it on paper would of given GWS proven defender, strong leadership skills and reigning club champion. Definitely more valuable to them than pick 2. That was exactly the sort of deal the mini draft was designed for and in my opinion would of been a very smart deal, just Voss wasn't smart.

Ouch!!! Hadn't heard that one before.

 

[Slax]

Well never say never, but it wasn't a big rumour up here. We wanted Patfull and had a sniff at Ryder but couldn't compete with Port.

Patfull actually didn't mind which Sydney club he went to, he was moving with partner for his own reason to set things up for life after football. He is not the sort of bloke either who will stick around football too long, he will know when his time is up and walk away. Has 2-3 good years still in him. Would of been great fit for Sydney, defender who has proven he can play on talls & smalls and smart user of the football,

 

[Slax]

Ouch!!! Hadn't heard that one before.

You can imagine why the club didn't want it let out.

If you know anyone at GWS they will confirm it or at least the talks with Brisbane over Hogan were quite in depth but never quite got over the line. They wanted a proven player and Voss wouldn't offer one up. To get A grade talent you have to be willing to give up serious talent as well.

 

[Procrastinator35]

That's bs and you know it. They did not abuse the system. You either follow the rules or you don't. It's that simple. They did not break any rules. If the AFL is mad at them for what they did do the AFL should have written better rules. And you cannot remove COLA just like that. Phasing it out is the only reasonable option and they shouldn't have been punished. Take off your yellow and brown glasses and get some perspective. One day it might be your club that annoys the AFL and gets an arbitrary punishment for nothing.

Yeah....Nah....Sorry, you're wrong.

They've had a cap advantage for all those years & it was high time it ended....The only thing that changed was Demetriou (their protectorate) leaving....And with his departure also went their unfair advantages..... And all the moaning & bitching from em aint gonna bring old VLAD back.

Including attacking the AFL commission & the competition generally, in labeling us all racists....Totally pathetic, gutter journalism tactics you'd expect from Sin-city....Nufin but flamers & whiners the lot of em.

 

[legend166]

The trade ban was a political move to satiate people like Eddie and Newbold whilst ensuring no more PR issues for the AFL if the Swans were to get another high profile player.

It was a punishment for being successful and poaching Buddy off GWS. It's pretty baffling people try and argue otherwise.

As a salary cap reduction measure it makes absolutely zero sense and actually works against that outcome.

 

[Jaeger]

The bottom line is COLA should never have existed.

The AFL gave Sydney an unfair advantage and it backfired on them and severely damaged the image of the game.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Sydney need to decide whether they are genuinely interested in promoting the expansion of the AFL code across the nation or are they like every other club where expanding the code comes a distant, distant second to the interests of the club.

From the “Boo a Roo” campaign through their landing Buddy and Tippett (noting GWS were going after both) it is clear they are no more wedded to national expansion than any other club. It must be wonderful for them to be able to cloak every act of self-interest with claims of “supporting the national interest of the code”.

If Fitzpatrick was calling Colless out on this hypocrisy then good on him – should be more of it.

Regards

S. Pete