LegalEagle
Debutant
- Aug 25, 2004
- 54
- 0
- Other Teams
- West Coast Eagles
What i dont understand about this pack of whingers, is why did they sign the OLD deal, and then the NEW salary cap deal this year, if they think its so unfair? They agreed that the new system in which ALL clubs are allowed access to consessions if their interstate ratio is sufficient was fair 12 months ago, why are they whinging about it now?
Perhaps its just to divert attention from the one true and proven inequity in the AFL; the MCC contract.
From www.theage.com.au
Pies ask for cap equality
By Caroline Wilson
September 13, 2004
The AFL is headed for another showdown over the Brisbane Lions' salary-cap concessions, with Collingwood preparing to confront the commission on Wednesday with a solution to the controversial inequity that is scheduled to remain in place until the end of 2006.
The Magpies will push for the AFL to use the multimillion-dollar chest it has, to date, reserved for struggling Victorian clubs to allow all 16 teams a Brisbane-style top-up to their total player payments.
Collingwood president Eddie McGuire and his chief executive, Greg Swann, have accepted that it is now too late to remove the Lions' advantage for 2005, so will instead suggest that every other club be given an equal salary cap - worth an estimated extra $473,000 next season.
The renewed push comes with the Lions a strong favourite to take out their fourth successive premiership - which would equal the Magpies' record set in the 1920s and '30s- and follows yesterday's passionate plea from Essendon coach Kevin Sheedy for the Lions to be stripped of what has been justified by the AFL as an allowance to help the Queensland club prevent interstate players from leaving.
"Retention was just a figment of the AFL's imagination," said Swann last night. "They're trying to defend the indefensible . . . perhaps they don't want to lose face . . .
They (the Lions) haven't lost any players for a long time.
"We realise there's a lot of anomalies in the competition but Brisbane is an absolute juggernaut - not only on the field but with their gate, their sponsorship, their signage. They're strong in every area."
The Magpies also have placed the AFL's preliminary final deal with the Melbourne Cricket Club and the review of the tribunal and reporting system on Wednesday's agenda for the Lexus Centre meeting.
"At least with the preliminary final and the tribunal, they seem to be attempting to fix the problems. There seems no desire at all to fix this (cap concession) issue," Swann said.
Collingwood's proposal would mean the wealthier clubs pay the extra player payments from their own budgets, while those unable to afford the additional salary cap money could receive it from the competitive balance fund, currently worth some $5 million. This season, the Kangaroos ($1 million) and the Western Bulldogs ($1.5 million) have been guaranteed money from the fund, with Melbourne waiting for approval for its $1.5 million application.
"We believe there are seven or eight clubs who could make up the difference themselves," said Swann. "The others wanting the option could apply to the competitive balance fund."
While Collingwood does not plan to take on Sydney's loaded salary cap, related to cost of living in that city, the Magpies provided a lengthy submission to the AFL in May proposing a solution to the controversial retention money.
Carlton also prepared a document arguing for an equal salary cap with no extra money for player retention, injury payments, marketing money or veterans' allowance. The AFL has not responded to either submission, but the Lions issue was raised again last month at the club chief executives' meeting.
While AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou argued at the August meeting that Collingwood's solution was inflationary, Swann's response is that the clubs would reduce the added payments in line with Brisbane.
Next year's total player payments will be $6.3 million, with the Lions due to receive an extra 7.5 per cent, compared with 9 per cent this year, giving them $472,000 more than 14 other clubs to spend on their players.
Perhaps its just to divert attention from the one true and proven inequity in the AFL; the MCC contract.
From www.theage.com.au
Pies ask for cap equality
By Caroline Wilson
September 13, 2004
The AFL is headed for another showdown over the Brisbane Lions' salary-cap concessions, with Collingwood preparing to confront the commission on Wednesday with a solution to the controversial inequity that is scheduled to remain in place until the end of 2006.
The Magpies will push for the AFL to use the multimillion-dollar chest it has, to date, reserved for struggling Victorian clubs to allow all 16 teams a Brisbane-style top-up to their total player payments.
Collingwood president Eddie McGuire and his chief executive, Greg Swann, have accepted that it is now too late to remove the Lions' advantage for 2005, so will instead suggest that every other club be given an equal salary cap - worth an estimated extra $473,000 next season.
The renewed push comes with the Lions a strong favourite to take out their fourth successive premiership - which would equal the Magpies' record set in the 1920s and '30s- and follows yesterday's passionate plea from Essendon coach Kevin Sheedy for the Lions to be stripped of what has been justified by the AFL as an allowance to help the Queensland club prevent interstate players from leaving.
"Retention was just a figment of the AFL's imagination," said Swann last night. "They're trying to defend the indefensible . . . perhaps they don't want to lose face . . .
They (the Lions) haven't lost any players for a long time.
"We realise there's a lot of anomalies in the competition but Brisbane is an absolute juggernaut - not only on the field but with their gate, their sponsorship, their signage. They're strong in every area."
The Magpies also have placed the AFL's preliminary final deal with the Melbourne Cricket Club and the review of the tribunal and reporting system on Wednesday's agenda for the Lexus Centre meeting.
"At least with the preliminary final and the tribunal, they seem to be attempting to fix the problems. There seems no desire at all to fix this (cap concession) issue," Swann said.
Collingwood's proposal would mean the wealthier clubs pay the extra player payments from their own budgets, while those unable to afford the additional salary cap money could receive it from the competitive balance fund, currently worth some $5 million. This season, the Kangaroos ($1 million) and the Western Bulldogs ($1.5 million) have been guaranteed money from the fund, with Melbourne waiting for approval for its $1.5 million application.
"We believe there are seven or eight clubs who could make up the difference themselves," said Swann. "The others wanting the option could apply to the competitive balance fund."
While Collingwood does not plan to take on Sydney's loaded salary cap, related to cost of living in that city, the Magpies provided a lengthy submission to the AFL in May proposing a solution to the controversial retention money.
Carlton also prepared a document arguing for an equal salary cap with no extra money for player retention, injury payments, marketing money or veterans' allowance. The AFL has not responded to either submission, but the Lions issue was raised again last month at the club chief executives' meeting.
While AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou argued at the August meeting that Collingwood's solution was inflationary, Swann's response is that the clubs would reduce the added payments in line with Brisbane.
Next year's total player payments will be $6.3 million, with the Lions due to receive an extra 7.5 per cent, compared with 9 per cent this year, giving them $472,000 more than 14 other clubs to spend on their players.
