K Tippett

[base615]

Well if it isn't an advantage you won't mind losing it ...

I for one don't mind. No big deal, should have always been set up just to assist the lower paid squad members anyway.

 

[legend166]

I remember him being a pretty shocking kick for goal at Adelaide but he's improved on that front since playing for us. Kicked 68.36 in his 25 games, so accuracy of 65%. His tally at Adelaide was 188.135, so an accuracy of 58%.

I think a lot of that comes with how close to goal we're playing him. I've never seen a play take so many marks in the goal square.

 

[MF]

There wouldn't be many key forwards who average more goals per game than him in his 2 years at Sydney. He's an absolute monster, just needs to stay on the park.

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

Not a bad spine: Davis, bock, Gunston, Tippett. Could almost build a premiership tilt around that.

And to think we just use him as a decoy...

 

[Bayer_]

And to think we just use him as a decoy...

Can't disagree with you
On that one
Looking forward to Saturday
Aren't you?

 

[CaptainChardonnay]

Can't disagree with you
On that one
Looking forward to Saturday
Aren't you?

very much so. So is big k. He loves hawf at the G

 

[Topper Harley]

he'll win the Norm Smith

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Well if it isn't an advantage you won't mind losing it ...

I don't mind. $22K per player is 5/8 of bugger all anyway, to highly-paid professional footballers.

What I do mind is people willfully continuing to ignorantly believe it had any significant role in us snaring Tippo and Franklin, despite all bleeding obvious evidence to the contrary.

 

[Bayer_]

I don't mind. $22K per player is 5/8 of bugger all anyway, to highly-paid professional footballers.

What I do mind is people willfully continuing to ignorantly believe it had any significant role in us snaring Tippo and Franklin, despite all bleeding obvious evidence to the contrary.

Yeh...an extra $100k a year to Tippett is no big deal...assuming you spread it fairly....which you don't.

 

[Huntercrow]

When is it rolled back? Sick of this COLA BS...

Start of season 2017.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Yeh...an extra $100k a year to Tippett is no big deal...assuming you spread it fairly....which you don't.

That is a very serious accusation. The books are audited and everything is above board.

I'd suggest you table your documented evidence that it is not distributed pro rata, or STFU.

 

[Bayer_]

That is a very serious accusation. The books are audited and everything is above board.

I'd suggest you table your documented evidence that it is not distributed pro rata, or STFU.

Of course it's all "+9.8% COLA"...doesn't mean you offering a middle rung player $300k - as the Hawks would - you would offer them $300k+9.8% COLA. The players know it's there, they factor it in. It's basic numbers FFS.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Of course it's all "+9.8% COLA"...doesn't mean you offering a middle rung player $300k - as the Hawks would - you would offer them $300k+9.8% COLA. The players know it's there, they factor it in. It's basic numbers FFS.

Are you serious? When you get a quote from a tradie, the first thing you ask is "does that include GST?". Once you've established you're comparing apples with apples, you negotiate the price.

Any player's manager who doesn't do that doesn't deserve to act for their client.

You are accusing the Swans of fraud. Table your evidence or go away.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Are you serious? When you get a quote from a tradie, the first thing you ask is "does that include GST?". Once you've established you're comparing apples with apples, you negotiate the price.

Any player's manager who doesn't do that doesn't deserve to act for their client.

You are accusing the Swans of fraud. Table your evidence or go away.

what? Your post doesn't make sense because GST applies to all tradies, in this case, the COLA doesn't apply to all clubs.

Are you denying that Swans players get paid 10% more than WA/SA/Vic players?
Try and dress it up however you want - but that is what it comes down to.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

what? Your post doesn't make sense because GST applies to all tradies, in this case, the COLA doesn't apply to all clubs.

Are you denying that Swans players get paid 10% more than WA/SA/Vic players?
Try and dress it up however you want - but that is what it comes down to.

Yes, it applies to everyone who earns over a certain threshold, but that doesn't mean some of them don't try and pull a swifty and quote ex-GST and then bung it on when billing.

Exactly the same with any negotiation. Both parties, if they're worth their salt, make sure they're talking the same language before committing to anything. To suggest that player managers negotiate with the Swans assuming there'll be an unspoken 10% added after, is to seriously misunderstand the nature of business negotiations.

I'm not denying anything. I'm saying Sydney's COLA is a laughably small amount when divided amongst 44 players, as it is required to be by the AFL, and people claiming it was a deal clincher for our two high-profile recruits clearly don't know what they're talking about.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...065138730?nk=79892880d7660172d66ceac6791d1ad4

 

[Bayer_]

Yes, it applies to everyone who earns over a certain threshold, but that doesn't mean some of them don't try and pull a swifty and quote ex-GST and then bung it on when billing.

Exactly the same with any negotiation. Both parties, if they're worth their salt, make sure they're talking the same language before committing to anything. To suggest that player managers negotiate with the Swans assuming there'll be an unspoken 10% added after, is to seriously misunderstand the nature of business negotiations.

I'm not denying anything. I'm saying Sydney's COLA is a laughably small amount when divided amongst 44 players, as it is required to be by the AFL, and people claiming it was a deal clincher for our two high-profile recruits clearly don't know what they're talking about.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...065138730?nk=79892880d7660172d66ceac6791d1ad4

The absurdity/innumeracy of all these pro- COLA arguments is that paying a bloke 9.8% extra doesn't count. Oh, says the player manager, that's COLA, my player Will spend 70k more a year on rent and food.

Seriously, stop defending the indefensible (even the Sydney agenda pushing AFL has).

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The absurdity/innumeracy of all these pro- COLA arguments is that paying a bloke 9.8% extra doesn't count. Oh, says the player manager, that's COLA, my player Will spend 70k more a year on rent and food.

Seriously, stop defending the indefensible (even the Sydney agenda pushing AFL has).

I keep saying, one million divided by 44 players is just under 23K. Where do you pluck this 70K figure from?

Sydney got where it got through G & D onfield, and savvy recruiting off. You're telling me you can buy that?

Inform yourself about our how our club became great. That's what all the professionals are doing, including those at your club. Any club which takes the position of your typical BF keyboard warrior, reading conspiracy into Sydney's every success, is doomed to years in the wilderness.

And, just for the record, as you seem to have trouble grasping it, I'm not arguing in favour of COLA. I'm saying it was so pissy we don't need it and anyone attributing our success to it doesn't want to accept the truth.

 

[Hap Hapablap]

like kurt would care. hes still makes his dollar.

 

[Bloods Rule!]

My understanding is that COLA added about $30,000 to their combined salaries this year. That'd hardly cover Buddy's car insurance premiums.

 

[WatWouldCyrilDo]

My understanding is that COLA added about $30,000 to their combined salaries this year. That'd hardly cover Buddy's car insurance premiums.

Your understanding?

Buddy is on ~$700k this year, lets say Tippett is on the same. 9.8% of $1.4m is $137k. How exactly did you get 30k?

The argument Sydney supporters bring out about the AFL paying the COLA on top of the contract, therefore it is all above board, is stupid. Yes, the mechanism you describe is correct, with the AFL paying the 9.8%. However, what's to stop you just offering a player 9.8% less than what their market value is and then having the AFL pick up the other 9.8%??

Sydney's list managers would be trying their hardest to make sure players sign for whatever their market rates are, excluding the COLA (or even less, as all clubs do). They have obviously been very successful at this, which has given Sydney so much spare room in their cap that they could pick up Buddy and Tippett.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I keep saying, one million divided by 44 players is just under 23K. Where do you pluck this 70K figure from?

Sydney got where it got through G & D onfield, and savvy recruiting off. You're telling me you can buy that?

Inform yourself about our how our club became great. That's what all the professionals are doing, including those at your club. Any club which takes the position of your typical BF keyboard warrior, reading conspiracy into Sydney's every success, is doomed to years in the wilderness.

And, just for the record, as you seem to have trouble grasping it, I'm not arguing in favour of COLA. I'm saying it was so pissy we don't need it and anyone attributing our success to it doesn't want to accept the truth.

Make it easier on yourself and just ignore it. Hawks have been the worst affected side by free agency with the weakest joke of compensation and swans have been the biggest winners from FA. Then there's the lack of transparency re salary cap due to third party deals and ambassador payments. Particularly as there's no independent non afl auditing of what the ambassador does to justify the outside cap payments made by the afl.
Scrap the lot.
I doubt there'd be other sports our players would move to we saw how well that worked for folau and hunt.
Players have way too much power ATM.

If they don't like it there's many others out there who'd kill to play.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Make it easier on yourself and just ignore it. Hawks have been the worst affected side by free agency with the weakest joke of compensation and swans have been the biggest winners from FA. Then there's the lack of transparency re salary cap due to third party deals and ambassador payments. Particularly as there's no independent non afl auditing of what the ambassador does to justify the outside cap payments made by the afl.
Scrap the lot.
I doubt there'd be other sports our players would move to we saw how well that worked for folau and hunt.
Players have way too much power ATM.

If they don't like it there's many others out there who'd kill to play.

Quite agree. I don't think the AFL is perfect. Some big systemic flaws, as you've said.

My only agenda is refuting posters who seem determined to bring it all back to the Sydney Swans every single time and refuse to give us one iota of credit for how we've turned our club around.

All the best for Saturday. Should be a cracker.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

However, what's to stop you just offering a player 9.8% less than what their market value is and then having the AFL pick up the other 9.8%??

Sydney's list managers would be trying their hardest to make sure players sign for whatever their market rates are, excluding the COLA (or even less, as all clubs do)

To believe that, you'd have to believe that clubs and player managers are automatically on the same side when it's negotiating time. Ridiculously naive. Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of basic negotiating tactics going on here.

Yes, "Sydney's list managers would be trying their hardest to make sure players sign for whatever their market rates are, excluding the COLA"

And the players' managers would have been doing their darndest to make sure they don't. And they are not exactly powerless.

No-one seems to consider that side of it.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

To believe that, you'd have to believe that clubs and player managers are automatically on the same side when it's negotiating time. Ridiculously naive. Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of basic negotiating tactics going on here.

Yes, "Sydney's list managers would be trying their hardest to make sure players sign for whatever their market rates are, excluding the COLA"

And the players' managers would have been doing their darndest to make sure they don't. And they are not exactly powerless.

No-one seems to consider that side of it.

A melbourne club could offer someone $500k/year.
Sydney could then come in with an offer of $480k/year.

A player and their manager would look that and see that the Sydney offer actually amounts to $528k. Why would a player accept the 500k offer, and why would Sydney increase their offer - when they know that the player will be receiving the extra?

 

[WatWouldCyrilDo]

To believe that, you'd have to believe that clubs and player managers are automatically on the same side when it's negotiating time. Ridiculously naive. Seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of basic negotiating tactics going on here.

Yes, "Sydney's list managers would be trying their hardest to make sure players sign for whatever their market rates are, excluding the COLA"

And the players' managers would have been doing their darndest to make sure they don't. And they are not exactly powerless.

No-one seems to consider that side of it.

Setting players contracts is an art not a science. There is no predefined amount a certain player is worth which agents can easily say "well XX player has done XX, so he should get $300k. Add in the COLA and they should be getting $330k".

The only way in which a player can see their worth on the market is by what other clubs offer. Now do you honestly believe that, if a club was to offer a Sydney player $300k, and Sydney sought to match it with money that included COLA, that player would turn around and say "well actually, you need to give me 10% more that what the other club offered, otherwise I'm leaving". Because players on $300k are really worried about the additional cost of living in Sydney?

You are extremely gullible if you believe that all the Sydney players are on 10% more than what they would be on at other clubs per what Ireland has been saying.