Sydney Salary Cap

[The King!]

Sydney supporters still showing they don't understand the game or its administration.

Staggering.

Well this added to the debate well done

 

[Lensen]

During that period Matthew Clarke, Shane O'Bree, Jason Gram and Des Headland all moved back to their home states, either by trade or through the PSD. Craig Bolton (a Canberran) also left for Sydney during that time. Jarrod Molloy was traded to Collingwood but I'm not sure if he'd requested a trade.

Chris Johnson also requested a trade, but was fobbed off and eventually stayed. Simon Black was also said to be unhappy being away from home at that time. God knows how many more there were.

It has been a constant issue for the Lions, regardless of how well they're going.

clarke, molloy & headland i will give you, but the others i'd argue were a lack of opportunity. gram played 2 games, o'bree 19 in 2 years, bolton 29 in 3 (6 in his last year). this happens are strong clubs and is not a flaw or something that needs to be compensated but is the purpose of the cap in the first place

but on the flip side a side like collingwood lost two players (michael & davis) to homesickness too, and the teams they went to were able to negotiate favourable trade terms given they were 1 team towns vs 10 team towns

bottom line is players are unhappy for a multitude of reasons, in good cultures few entrenched players leave and kids leave when outside the best 25 for opportunity. these are not things that require compensation

 

[Hollow Knight]

clarke, molloy & headland i will give you, but the others i'd argue were a lack of opportunity. gram played 2 games, o'bree 19 in 2 years, bolton 29 in 3 (6 in his last year). this happens are strong clubs and is not a flaw or something that needs to be compensated but is the purpose of the cap in the first place

How about Buckley (the "I'll stay for a year" factor) and Jarman (the "I'm not coming at all" factor).

 

[Big Blood]

Sydney supporters still showing they don't understand the game or its administration.

Staggering.

We're all wondering: Why doesn't the AFL have a five-year plan?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

To be fair, the first Riewoldt came from Southport and the second Riewoldt came from Tassie, so who knows where the next one might come from? Darwin perhaps. I'm sure plenty would call that a "Queensland zone".

There may be an Auskick coach in Tassie who is taking credit for both of them as far as I know.
( Zoning was a crap system ).

 

[Lensen]

How about Buckley (the "I'll stay for a year" factor) and Jarman (the "I'm not coming at all" factor).

i have a lot of time for you as a poster when not on bay 13. this will decrease if you are seriously suggesting that these two incidents which happened in 1993 and 1989 should have anything at all to do with brisbane receiving compensation in 2013 and beyond

perhaps melbourne should also be compensated given jarman originally rejected them

 

[Kram]

How about Buckley (the "I'll stay for a year" factor) and Jarman (the "I'm not coming at all" factor).

Probably a bit different with the Bears being an absolute basket case back then.

 

[Ironmonger]

clarke, molloy & headland i will give you, but the others i'd argue were a lack of opportunity. gram played 2 games, o'bree 19 in 2 years, bolton 29 in 3 (6 in his last year). this happens are strong clubs and is not a flaw or something that needs to be compensated but is the purpose of the cap in the first place

It was hardly unusual for a young player to only play occasional games in his first two years after being drafted, as Gram did, particularly in a strong side. He hardly played in his first two years at St Kilda either, but seemed happy enough to stick around.

Bolton was in fact on our list for four years. I agree that playing opportunities were more of a factor for him than anything else.

O'Bree, however, received plenty of game time in his two years at the club for a teenager. He is clearly an example of the go-home factor.

but on the flip side a side like collingwood lost two players (michael & davis) to homesickness too, and the teams they went to were able to negotiate favourable trade terms given they were 1 team towns vs 10 team towns

At the time, the Michael-Molloy trade hardly seemed favourable. The third-placed Lions gave up a best 22 player for a fringe player from the wooden-spooners. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that it looks like 'favourable terms'.

bottom line is players are unhappy for a multitude of reasons, in good cultures few entrenched players leave and kids leave when outside the best 25 for opportunity. these are not things that require compensation

Yep. And a desire to go home is clearly one of those reasons. I'm not sure what more I can do to demonstrate that than by citing multiple examples of when it happened, even when by your admission the Lions had a strong culture. You seem to be happy to ignore a great deal of evidence.

i have a lot of time for you as a poster when not on bay 13. this will decrease if you are seriously suggesting that these two incidents which happened in 1993 and 1989 should have anything at all to do with brisbane receiving compensation in 2013 and beyond

I'm sure TBD is extremely concerned at the prospect of your respect for his opinion being diminished at all.

 

[Lensen]

It was hardly unusual for a young player to only play occasional games in his first two years after being drafted, as Gram did, particularly in a strong side. He hardly played in his first two years at St Kilda either, but seemed happy enough to stick around.

Bolton was in fact on our list for four years. I agree that playing opportunities were more of a factor for him than anything else.

O'Bree, however, received plenty of game time in his two years at the club for a teenager. He is clearly an example of the go-home factor.

And having four kids leave isn't exactly evidence of some enormous problem that requires compensation to fix. Look at a Geelong for example - from their 07 list alone Gamble, Prismall, Callan and Davenport were kids that left for opportunity. You can add a Laidler later on too. That nothing much has come of any of them bar Laidler is irrelevant.

IIRC, a big part of O'Bree's decision to move was big money for what he had done - that's the system working!

At the time, the Michael-Molloy trade hardly seemed favourable. The third-placed Lions gave up a best 22 player for a fringe player from the wooden-spooners. It's only with the benefit of hindsight that it looks like 'favourable terms'.

Fringe? He was one of our very few younger guys who showed anything and was entrenched in the side when he left. I will acknowledge this was in a poor side but he wasn't a fringe player.

Yep. And a desire to go home is clearly one of those reasons. I'm not sure what more I can do to demonstrate that than by citing multiple examples of when it happened, even when by your admission the Lions had a strong culture. You seem to be happy to ignore a great deal of evidence.

I'm not denying that it is a factor, only that it's not a factor worthy of compensation. Lions fans love to say that every kid that leaves to go interstate is because of the go-home factor when there are opportunity and monetary factors that are, on average, more integral to the reason for moving

I'm sure TBD is extremely concerned at the prospect of your respect for his opinion being diminished at all.

It was the nicest possible way I could put across that he might have made the most irrelevant point in this thread

 

[Ironmonger]

And having four kids leave isn't exactly evidence of some enormous problem that requires compensation to fix. Look at a Geelong for example - from their 07 list alone Gamble, Prismall, Callan and Davenport were kids that left for opportunity. You can add a Laidler later on too. That nothing much has come of any of them bar Laidler is irrelevant.

I've only listed the players that left or may have left to return home. If you want to add players who left for more opportunities (only during that 1999-2004 period, as you stipulated) then you can include Brett Voss, Scott Bamford, Nick Carter, Damian Cupido, Tristan Lynch, Daniel Pratt, Ben Robbins and Luke Weller.

Most of these players never did anything, of course, but apparently that's irrelevant.

As you've said previously, players leave for a multitude of reasons. We lost players for more opportunities and on top of that we also lost players due to the go-home factor. And we had to pay existing players more in order to keep them, which is the justification behind salary cap concessions.

IIRC, a big part of O'Bree's decision to move was big money for what he had done - that's the system working!

I don't think you do recall correctly. It would be very rare for a twenty year old with two reasonable seasons under his belt to get a big money offer from another club. Do you have some kind of evidence for this claim?

Fringe? He was one of our very few younger guys who showed anything and was entrenched in the side when he left. I will acknowledge this was in a poor side but he wasn't a fringe player.

You're right actually. I should retract that. I maintain though that at the time it didn't look like a trade that was favourable to the Lions.

I'm not denying that it is a factor, only that it's not a factor worthy of compensation. Lions fans love to say that every kid that leaves to go interstate is because of the go-home factor when there are opportunity and monetary factors that are, on average, more integral to the reason for movin

Nonetheless, it's a factor that is much more significant for teams in developing markets than teams in established markets. We can quibble about how significant it is, but you yourself have acknowledged that it does happen and so far between us we've cited several examples just from one five year period where it happened multiple times. And that's without considering all the players who no doubt have demanded more money to stay in a strange city.

 

[Tedeski]

Living in Sydney playing sport professionally is not quite the same as working 12 hour days for weeks at a time on a remote mine site or serving on the front line in Afghanistan...

Oh...........but you are forgetting that we are known as "warriors" on the football field!

 

[Tedeski]

Sydney supporters still showing they don't understand the game or its administration.

Staggering.

You wasted a season! It was a waste of 'star' players!

We at least understand that!

Where to from here for your team?

Let's see if you really understand where your team is at.

As for our allowance, we behaved WELL within the rules of the competition. When we break the rules like Adelaide have, then have a crack at us. Until then, deal with it because the whole comp is full of inequities that are nothing short of advantaging the vic based teams.

A national comp of 18 teams with 10 coming from Victoria. Vic teams only travelling interstate 3 or 5 times max compared to 11 or 12 for the interstate teams.

Where do you want to start & where do you want to finish this debate?

 

[tonk]

Sydney supporters still showing they don't understand the game or its administration.

Staggering.

Thank goodness the players know how to play the game.

 

[Andrew Mc]

Thank goodness the players know how to play the game.

Well, they should, they get paid all that lovely money, plus 9.8%. Just terrible, isn't it.

 

[sherb]

Well, they should, they get paid all that lovely money, plus 9.8%. Just terrible, isn't it.

It would have been so fitting if the Swans' score in the GF was 9.8 percent more than that of the Hawks.

Alas it was 12.34 percent more.

However, clearly 9.8 of that 12.34 percent was the Cost of Living Allowance working its magic.

 

[Mateyman]

I find it strange that the amount extra amount needed to live in Sydney v Melbourne is perfectly correlated to income.

Surely the CoL difference is the same regardless of how much you earn?

There is a difference between after-tax income, cost of living, and total personal spending (which would include essentials and discretionary).
A CoL allowance should not be correlated to income, or even correlated to predicted spending (which would be correlated to income).
A CoL should be correlated to the extra costs of essentials such as rent, food and transport for someone on an average wage (average for Australia not the AFL).

I've been trying to get this point across for a LONG time

 

[Mateyman]

A national comp of 18 teams with 10 coming from Victoria. Vic teams only travelling interstate 3 or 5 times max compared to 11 or 12 for the interstate teams.

Where do you want to start & where do you want to finish this debate?

Interstate supporters always bring this up, without noting that their team also have many more genuine home ground advantages than Vic teams

 

[BFVirgin]

I find it strange that the amount extra amount needed to live in Sydney v Melbourne is perfectly correlated to income.

Surely the CoL difference is the same regardless of how much you earn?

There is a difference between after-tax income, cost of living, and total personal spending (which would include essentials and discretionary).
A CoL allowance should not be correlated to income, or even correlated to predicted spending (which would be correlated to income).
A CoL should be correlated to the extra costs of essentials such as rent, food and transport for someone on an average wage (average for Australia not the AFL).

I had trouble correlating to this post.

"Surely the CoL difference is the same regardless of how much you earn?"
Can you correlate to the expression 'the more you have, the more you spend'? E.g. rich people don't live in the distant suburbs and rent near a city is twice that near the fringes. Any city. You won't find many AFL players out there.

Agree that CoL should focus on essentials. Rent / mortgage is by far biggest chunk of that.

On average, the 9.8% is more like 6.5% post-tax. I'm not sure if professional sports people are entitled to some concession like an increased tax-free threshhold.

 

[Off The Couch]

I had trouble correlating to this post.

"Surely the CoL difference is the same regardless of how much you earn?"
Can you correlate to the expression 'the more you have, the more you spend'? E.g. rich people don't live in the distant suburbs and rent near a city is twice that near the fringes. Any city. You won't find many AFL players out there.

Agree that CoL should focus on essentials. Rent / mortgage is by far biggest chunk of that.

On average, the 9.8% is more like 6.5% post-tax. I'm not sure if professional sports people are entitled to some concession like an increased tax-free threshhold.

Totally irrelevant - the payment is for having to live in Sydney not so you can buy champagne instead of passion pop

 

[Suma Magic]

I had trouble correlating to this post.

"Surely the CoL difference is the same regardless of how much you earn?"
Can you correlate to the expression 'the more you have, the more you spend'? E.g. rich people don't live in the distant suburbs and rent near a city is twice that near the fringes. Any city. You won't find many AFL players out there.

Agree that CoL should focus on essentials. Rent / mortgage is by far biggest chunk of that.

On average, the 9.8% is more like 6.5% post-tax. I'm not sure if professional sports people are entitled to some concession like an increased tax-free threshhold.

Haha yeah re-reading I way over-used correlate.

Here's a conversation in CoL world:

Melb chap - How's life up there in expensive Sydney?
Sydney pal - cost of living was pretty tough to deal with last year. But recently I got a massive pay-rise, so now it's unbearable!

 

[BFVirgin]

Totally irrelevant - the payment is for having to live in Sydney not so you can buy champagne instead of passion pop

Think essentials, particularly housing.
Whoops, forgot this is the Bay.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I had trouble correlating to this post.

"Surely the CoL difference is the same regardless of how much you earn?"
Can you correlate to the expression 'the more you have, the more you spend'? E.g. rich people don't live in the distant suburbs and rent near a city is twice that near the fringes. Any city. You won't find many AFL players out there.

Agree that CoL should focus on essentials. Rent / mortgage is by far biggest chunk of that.

On average, the 9.8% is more like 6.5% post-tax. I'm not sure if professional sports people are entitled to some concession like an increased tax-free threshhold.

You dont get it. It costs X dollars to stay in a nice apartment.
Someone on megabucks may want to buy an investment property. A $500 000 investment is just that, no matter where you are.
If I spend 70% of my income on housing my family, thats not to say that James Packer spends 70% of his income to house his family. % is irellevant.

 

[Bollox]

Look i grossed just under $3m last fin yr and i'm telling you its still a bloody struggle just to pay the bills in Sydney. Still saving for the mags on me P76 Targa Florio.
No idea how anyone could survive on the average weekly AFL wage.

 

[Gongswan]

Totally irrelevant - the payment is for having to live in Sydney not so you can buy champagne instead of passion pop

Well according to most Vic posters the imposition of living in Sydney is unbearable at any price, so WTF you on about

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Look i grossed just under $3m last fin yr and i'm telling you its still a bloody struggle just to pay the bills in Sydney. Still saving for the mags on me P76 Targa Florio.
No idea how anyone could survive on the average weekly AFL wage.

Let me guess, you borrowed a few million to buy a lavish house on the beach, a high priced car, etc...

These are not essentials
Essential would be 2000lancer, a 2room furnished apartment borrowing little

Problem is, sports stars want to live the high life, rather then a healthy life