Mega Thread Buddy Franklin moves to Sydney

Remove this Banner Ad

Armchair Critic said:
So making things unequal
Click to expand...

So be it. If other clubs want these same advantages, they can simply get better and make more money. Remember, Collingwood was near-bankrupt when McGuire took over as President, and through hard work they have built themselves into what they are today.

I don't think the Magpies need to feel guilty for simply using the trappings of their success to further better their position and the position of their players.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Damon_3388 said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
greennick said:
You were defending him, so I assumed you were in support of what he said.
Click to expand...

No, I was defending our club, and the claim from another poster that somehow Collingwood are exceeding the salary cap allowance, which is untrue.

greennick 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Damon_3388 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you think Judd's Visy deal was fair and was good for equality in the competition?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Damon_3388 said:
Wouldn't any endorsement deal a player has technically be a "3rd party deal"?
Click to expand...

An endorsement deal is between a player and a party.

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.
 
Syd said:
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
Click to expand...


ALL teams should be paying the same amount to their players. None of this 90% for one side, and 100% for another. ALL teams should be paying the same amount of money to coaches and have similar facility levels. ALL teams should have the same salary cap.

Yes, Collingwood are a lucky side, where players are starting to request they go to the Pies. It shouldn't be that way. I am only happy about this, because to compete it is necessary. But I would give it all away for an even competition.

I could be considered a one eyed pie supporter, but I do like to see the Tigers in the finals this year, and Fremantly make their first Grand Final in their careers. I would love to see Dogs rise, and get some flags. I know some people that are old, and only wish to see that of there side. Same with the Demons. I want to see them come back up and be competitive. I hate to see dynasties. I hate to see Cats be so good for so long, or Hawks. You come up, you are there abouts for a few years, you win one, and you drop down and rebuild.

Anything less puts a big asterix beside the names of the premiership winners.

I hated seeing Brian Lake winning the Norm Smith. He jumped from a side that was no chance of a premiership and simply went to a strong side, and won one. ANYONE could do that. But at least he chose between money or success, and he chose success. Buddy choses more money, and more success.

THE most hated person in the AFL is what he has become, and I hope all bad things for him.
 
JohnG said:
Yes Ireland confirmed it the contract and money is unconditional.
Click to expand...

Isn't the AFL rules that retired players remaining deals can be paid outside of the cap or something like that?
 
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.
 
greennick said:
Do you think Judd's Visy deal was fair and was good for equality in the competition?
Click to expand...

I don't really care to be honest. Through the Richard Pratt/Visy connection, Carlton and Judd came to an agreement for Judd to be compensated for future services rendered to Visy. If Visy feel that whatever Judd does or does not do for their company is worth the sum they're paying him, that's their business. It's just another way for a player to have an endorsement/sponsorship deal.

greennick said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, how evil of them :rolleyes:

This is business. People use the tools they have at their disposal to their advantage, to gain an advantage. Simple.

Armchair Critic said:
Lot's of people are bringing American sports into this stating there is no COLA which is true, they do have luxury taxes though
Click to expand...

They've also got different tax systems by state as well. Many athletes and celebrities maintain residences in Florida or Texas for example, as those states have no income tax. Sporting teams in these states possess an in-built advantage (any players playing for teams in those states would be subject to that states advantageous tax laws) because of that.
 
Rev08 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Even Hawthorns first 7 games would have been too much for the Swans. Instead they get given GWS and the Gold Coast in the first two weeks of the season just to give em a head start.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Mega Thread Buddy Franklin moves to Sydney

Similar threads

McOrist
Seriously -Has the time come for Sydney to drop Buddy Franklin?
2 3 4
Replies
89
Views
4K
The Nostradamus
The Nostradamus
Always Ballin
Why did Franklin never get close to kicking 100+ again?
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
danster168
danster168
S
  • Locked
Let’s cut to the chase- can Hawthorn win a prelim in Sydney?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
151
Views
8K
Seattle Mariners
S
Elmer_Hauser
Opinion Lance 'Buddy' Franklin - Will he be remembered more as a Hawk or a Swan ?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Mitchell19
M
GC2015
  • Poll
Opinion Will lack of exposure to the MCG cost Sydney a flag this year?
Replies
24
Views
969
RUNVS
RUNVS
B
Opinion Just need to rant. Regrettably, from West Sydney.
Replies
15
Views
650
BanksfielderIdiot3176
B
samFFC
Analysis Sydney and close losses - UPDATE ROUND 21 - Sydney big losses, Freo and close losses...
2 3
Replies
54
Views
2K
samFFC
samFFC

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top