Sydney Salary Cap

[Gongswan]

How much is Patrick McGinnity on? Ashton Hams? Jacob Brennan? Huge money, all of them - of course.

You just don't get it. Whether your list is made up like Gold Coast with one player taking up a huge chunk of the salary cap or Geelong of 2-3 years ago where a bunch of players earn less than they could elsewhere to keep a top side together is not relevant. I repeat, not relevant. The issue is that the advantage is there in the first place, not how you use it.

Do you understand that no one is going to congratulate Sydney for 'fitting in' Kurt Tippett when they have an extra ~$800k to spend than everyone else? Do you actually grasp this point at all?

If Sydney had the same salary cap as everyone else, won the flag and freed up $800k to go after Tippett people would be wondering how they did it and wanting their club to replicate the effort. FWIW I reckon Fellaini from Everton will be a target for one of the big EPL clubs during the January transfer window. If he signs for Man City will you be congratulating them on their excellent list management?

Thos eplayers would be your problem. No one expects to be congratulated, just left to go about business. What's the problem really? Envy? Everyone saying what a shit bloke and spod Tippett is, why does anyone care if we overpay him? If we won the flag every year I could understand people complaining, but with a team of nobody's, a Canadian rugby player on thruppence ha'penny, and a bunch of blokes who stay because the club gave them a go, what's the issue? we are not stealing everyone's superstars, every team should have access to players, if a club is well managed it will

 

[Slattery_20]

Fair points but if you follow it through to its logical conclusion then surely it would follow that Melb and Perth based teams get a COLA marginally below Syndey but with a differential over Brisbane and then SA teams lower and then Geelong.

The fact the only team carved out and given an allowance is Sydney, prompts the cynicism of observers.

Exactly
And we'd wave bye-bye to Port in a few short years, then Brisbane, then eventually Adelaide and Geelong, as any sort of force.
Nice knowing you guys, but now your role in life is to be a factory for producing Gunstons & Ben Jacobs', for all the clubs who happen to be in bigger cities.
May as well bring back zones & the 10 year rule and piss the draft off.
It's an anachronism.

 

[greennick]

The GF was played on your home ground!

Where would you like to start in your 'equalisation' process & where would you like to end it?

When we start paying over OUR allowable salary cap, then that is when it is an uneven playing field so to speak.
Until it is reviewed & either increased or removed, it is just another of the mysterious comp that is known as the AFL.

10 teams in Victoria & only 8 in the rest of the country to represent our 'national' competition. 4 to 6 of those Vic teams need regular 'top ups' from the AFL to stay in the comp. Go figure. That's fair? That's an even playing field? Come on.....let's lay all the inequities on the table for all to see. Don't just highlight our CoL allowance.
I say let's start with this severe discrepancy. Fix this problem up by removing/relocating 4 Vic clubs from Victoria & we will be well on our way to having a more even playing field.
Why do Hawthorn & North need to play some games in Tassie? Why don't they merge & make Tassie their home ground? What a team that will be with the whole state behind them. It's close enough to Victoria. I go to Sydney to see the Swans play because I love them. I agree. let's even up the playing field.

Let's call them Taz Hawks!

FWIW, I agree with you that there are inequities throughout the AFL. However, selectively creating more inequities does not remove those that do exist.

Every team has some of these inequities that help them and some that do the opposite.
- the GF is always played in Vic
- the Vic teams get to travel less
- the non-Vic teams get more home ground advantages
- Geelong gets the best of both worlds
- Vic, SA and WA get the benefit of more homegrown talent
- NSW and Qld clubs get the benefit of not being always under the microscope
- the COL is higher in NSW and WA than Vic and SA
- houses are more expensive in NSW, then Vic, then WA, then Qld, then SA
- rent is more expensive in NSW, then WA, then Vic, then Qld, then SA
- the older teams actually have a useful father/son advantage
- the WA teams have the most revenue from ticket sales
- the Pies have the most revenue through sponsorship
- the popular Vic teams get all the good timeslots, even popular teams like WC just get shit timeslots
- the unpopular Vic teams get few good timeslots, regardless of where they sit on the ladder
- Port, WB, Melbourne, North, Sydney, Brisbane, etc get more money from the AFL than Essendon, WC, Freo, Pies, etc
- etc, etc, etc....

I think it is best we work out ways to remove these inequities and understand that many of the rest are swings and roundabouts, rather than selectively use them as excuses to create even more inequities.

 

[greennick]

Well answer the question because it is very relevant.
Don't just brush it off.
You know very well that Pyke would only have been on base payments /minimum payments.
No other team in the top eight of 2012 had any such player.

So stop beating the same drum & come up with some facts.

Those players I mentioned above are running on an oily rag. Add to that the finish of Bradshaw's contract (300K), the delisting of a heap of 'fringe' players & you can see why we can afford to pay 800K if needed to Tippett.
Add the CoL allowance & we could take Josh Kennedy off your hands as well.

We have played by the rules allowed to us. Everyone's argument is dead & the AFL will continue to give us this allowance if not more.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with anything you have said here, except for the last line. Yeah, you have played by the rules allowed for you. What everyone else here contends is that 2 clubs shouldn't be the only ones to have a cost of living allowance.

You're dreaming if you think the COL will be increased. The AFL commission already stated they were questioning the need for it, they won't be increasing it.

IMO, it will drop to about 5%. However that is just a guess based on where I think they want it to head. This will be enough to give extra to the lower paid players, but not enough to top up those on large wages. The commission may even try and enforce the whole amount to be used on lower paid players through an adjustment to the rookie and draftee salaries in Sydney. However, this is just my opinion, based on nothing other than the comments coming out of the last AFL commission meeting.

 

[Scotland]

Thos eplayers would be your problem. No one expects to be congratulated, just left to go about business. What's the problem really? Envy? Everyone saying what a shit bloke and spod Tippett is, why does anyone care if we overpay him? If we won the flag every year I could understand people complaining, but with a team of nobody's, a Canadian rugby player on thruppence ha'penny, and a bunch of blokes who stay because the club gave them a go, what's the issue? we are not stealing everyone's superstars, every team should have access to players, if a club is well managed it will

Please stop quoting my posts, you are one of the thickest posters I have ever come across.

 

[Gongswan]

Please stop quoting my posts, you are one of the thickest posters I have ever come across.

Stop spouting crap and we'll see, just put me on ignore, jackass, I'll be devestated but hey, that's life

 

[Gongswan]

FWIW, I agree with you that there are inequities throughout the AFL. However, selectively creating more inequities does not remove those that do exist.

Every team has some of these inequities that help them and some that do the opposite.
- the GF is always played in Vic
- the Vic teams get to travel less
- the non-Vic teams get more home ground advantages
- Geelong gets the best of both worlds
- Vic, SA and WA get the benefit of more homegrown talent
- NSW and Qld clubs get the benefit of not being always under the microscope
- the COL is higher in NSW and WA than Vic and SA
- houses are more expensive in NSW, then Vic, then WA, then Qld, then SA
- rent is more expensive in NSW, then WA, then Vic, then Qld, then SA
- the older teams actually have a useful father/son advantage
- the WA teams have the most revenue from ticket sales
- the Pies have the most revenue through sponsorship
- the popular Vic teams get all the good timeslots, even popular teams like WC just get shit timeslots
- the unpopular Vic teams get few good timeslots, regardless of where they sit on the ladder
- Port, WB, Melbourne, North, Sydney, Brisbane, etc get more money from the AFL than Essendon, WC, Freo, Pies, etc
- etc, etc, etc....

I think it is best we work out ways to remove these inequities and understand that many of the rest are swings and roundabouts, rather than selectively use them as excuses to create even more inequities.

Now, this, makes sense

 

[greennick]

Now, this, makes sense

Some common ground? I feel dirty.