Salary Cap Concession Reason #1

Remove this Banner Ad

campbell said:
They will still find something to complain about then.They are used to raping and pilaging Bribsane for players, ala Bucks,O'Bree Molloy.They wouldn't know what to do if they only had 23% of their whole list from Victoria, and big bad other teams tried to coerce their players to come home,and have a higher exposure thus get more off filed money............

buckley signed for one year having made it clear he was not intending on staying beyond his contract term.....

obree, i cant believe u even use him to further ur argument, if anything you're pushing the case the other way.

molloy, we traded him for mal michael, cause mal michael WANTED TO GO HOME. The rule wasnt protecting us then was it????


We woulda been more than happy to keep mal.
 
Gunder said:
....won by a mere 9 points in 2002 ....
Ah. Now we come to the unresolved problem that dominates your life. Tell you what .. for really good therapy, go to the AFL Hall of Fame GF display. You'll get to see the Pies beaten every 1/2 hour. That should desensatize you and make you impervious to these demons that tormet you.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Was I dreaming when the system was changed so that ANY team will be able to claim extra payments depending on the proportion of the list that is away from home? Or did everyone else just miss it?

Or did everyone else hear about it too and is just ignoring it because you haven't managed to think of another excuse to use instead?
 
scmods said:
Was I dreaming when the system was changed so that ANY team will be able to claim extra payments depending on the proportion of the list that is away from home? Or did everyone else just miss it?

Or did everyone else hear about it too and is just ignoring it because you haven't managed to think of another excuse to use instead?



No you were not dreaming,but people continue to argue that the conessions are unfair,when in fact all teams in future will be able to access these exact same concessions.
 
scmods said:
Was I dreaming when the system was changed so that ANY team will be able to claim extra payments depending on the proportion of the list that is away from home? Or did everyone else just miss it?

Or did everyone else hear about it too and is just ignoring it because you haven't managed to think of another excuse to use instead?
You are right but Im not quite sure what the exact proportion is, Im sure Porthos is aware of the exact details.

Anyway I think Port Adelaide is very close to having enough interstate players for it to work, and we could do with an extra $600,000 in our salary cap.
 
Brisbane has always argued that another significant reason is the imbalance in sponsorship opportunities.

Powerful Melbourne based clubs (did anyone say Collingwood) can and have offered homesick Brisbane based players both big dollars on their contracts and additional wads of cash in sponsorships.

Due to the profile of the game in Queensland Brisbane has no hope of competing fairly with those dollars.
 
I am sure its over a certain percentage in future and the club gets so much per player over that percentage.So as it stand now Brisbane will still get the most, because they have the most interstate players on their current list.
 
Scott said:
You are right but Im not quite sure what the exact proportion is, Im sure Porthos is aware of the exact details.

Anyway I think Port Adelaide is very close to having enough interstate players for it to work, and we could do with an extra $600,000 in our salary cap.
Brisbane has 30 out of 37, you have 17 out of 40
 
LegalEagle said:
Brisbane has 30 out of 37, you have 17 out of 40
Matthew Bishop
Josh Carr
Domenic Cassisi
Troy Chaplin
Robert Forster-Knight
Stephen Gilham
Damian Hardwick
Adam Kingsley
Josh Mahoney
Brett Montgomery
Luke Peel
Michael Pettigrew
Matthew Primus
Steven Salopek
Jarrad Schofield
Jacob Surjan
Toby Thurstans
Damon White

That would be 18 players not 17, anyway it doesn't matter how many Brisbane have in comparison.

If the rule states that you are entitled to some concessions if at least 50% of your list is from interstate (I have a feeling it does) it just means that Port aren't very far away receiving this concession as well.

Being the legal eagle you are Im sure you can state the exact ruling for me can't you???
 
weevil said:
Powerful Melbourne based clubs (did anyone say Collingwood) can and have offered homesick Brisbane based players both big dollars on their contracts and additional wads of cash in sponsorships.

... Brisbane has no hope of competing fairly with those dollars.
But that would be a valid reason, and Vic teams aren't interested in valid reasons. Just interested in blaming the AFL for their own woes.

I have yet to see a full list of total player payments over the last few years for each team.

Is there a list anywhere?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Scott said:
If the rule states that you are entitled to some concessions if at least 50% of your list is from interstate (I have a feeling it does) it just means that Port aren't very far away receiving this concession as well.

An extra concession of up to 5% of the salary cap will be available to all clubs, when the local content of their list falls below 40%. By 2006, Brisbane will have access to exactly the same concession as every other club, (except Sydney)
 
weevil said:
Brisbane has always argued that another significant reason is the imbalance in sponsorship opportunities.

Powerful Melbourne based clubs (did anyone say Collingwood) can and have offered homesick Brisbane based players both big dollars on their contracts and additional wads of cash in sponsorships.

Due to the profile of the game in Queensland Brisbane has no hope of competing fairly with those dollars.
Yes..... so unfair for you that you should have an entire state to yourselves for scrounging up sponsorship when wicked ole Collingwood has to compete with 9 other clubs for sponsorship dollars in its state
 
Gunder said:
Yes..... so unfair that you should have an entire state to yourselves for scrounging up sponsorship when wicked ole Collingwood has to compete with 9 other clubs for sponsorship dollars in its state

Didums, you claim that you had were in the pride VFL and that the AFL came from it yet you're complaining coz you have to compete for sponsorship when you have a club president who hosts various shows on Channel 9?

:rolleyes:
 
Kapow!!! said:
Didums, you claim that you had were in the pride VFL and that the AFL came from it yet you're complaining coz you have to compete for sponsorship when you have a club president who hosts various shows on Channel 9?

:rolleyes:
Not complaining, its something we do better than anyone else, just pointing out what a ridiculous statement it was
 
Gunder said:
Yes..... so unfair for you that you should have an entire state to yourselves for scrounging up sponsorship when wicked ole Collingwood has to compete with 9 other clubs for sponsorship dollars in its state
Yeah that’s right Brisbane only has two other codes to compete with...and a Queensland culture, history and mindset that has for years been staunchly anti AFL.

Whereas football is totally woven into the fabric of everyday life in Melbourne.

Brisbane’s market for AFL player endorsements and promotions is utterly microscopic compared to Melbourne’s.
 
Gunder said:
Collingwood has to compete with 9 other clubs for sponsorship dollars in its state

Maybe they should merge with the Western Bulldogs and relocate to Darwin so they can have their own territory- I'm sure Eddie could negotiate a 15% Salary Cap concession as part of the deal. Dammit, give 'em 16%.
 
weevil said:
Yeah that’s right Brisbane only has two other codes to compete with...and a Queensland culture, history and mindset that has for years been staunchly anti AFL.

Whereas football is totally woven into the fabric of everyday life in Melbourne.

Brisbane’s market for AFL player endorsements and promotions is utterly microscopic compared to Melbourne’s.
Thats naive, sponsors only care about television coverage, which is national
 
weevil said:
[falls of chair laughing]

Mate. You make a statement like that and accuse me of being naïve.

...Talk about leading with your chin...
You think they give a rats ass about the people at the game or any other kind of exposure?..... grow up
 
campbell said:
They will still find something to complain about then.They are used to raping and pilaging Bribsane for players, ala Bucks,O'Bree Molloy.They wouldn't know what to do if they only had 23% of their whole list from Victoria, and big bad other teams tried to coerce their players to come home,and have a higher exposure thus get more off filed money............


I really hate it when people bring this up.

Buckley never wanted to go to Brisbane, he only went there because he had to and only stayed as lond as he had to.

O'Bree, do you really miss him? I'm sure Collingwood supporters would give him back if you really want him. Probably for nothing.

Molloy was traded for Mal Michael. Have no idea why you are complaining about this one.

The question you need to ask is if the salary cap consessions were in place when Buckley was with you, would he have stayed if you offered him more money?
I think not.
 
Gunder said:
You think they give a rats ass about the people at the game or any other kind of exposure?..... grow up
Yeah maybe in your little make-believe fantasy world that’s how things work...Ypou know it’s actually just a teeny weeny bit more complicated than that.

Come on, it’s getting late, you’re tired, you're talking utter drivel, and you’ve got kindy in the morning. Off to bed now before you embarrass yourself even more.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Salary Cap Concession Reason #1

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top