Should the Salary Cap farce be taken to court

[joffaboy]

We all know that the draft and the SC is a house of cards and not legally viable if a club took the matters to court.

It happened in the NRL and would probably happen here.

So to this latest incredible farce where Sydney can afford Franklin with there 10% advantage over the other clubs.

Now St.Kilda are in no position to do this. if anythign the SC keeps us afloat, so we get reemed by the AFL who make the competition more and more uneven and unfair and cant do anything about it.

However larger clubs like Collingwood, WCE, Adelaide etc have the capacity and (especially after the Tippett fiasco for the Crows) the motivation.

They can wear the extra cost if the SC became null and void. Smaller clubs like us and North and the Dogs would probably eventually go to the wall.

So do we think it is a good idea to stop this absolute travesty and take our chances in a SC free comp, or do we just suck it up, say thank you sir may I have another? as the AFl bend us and the other clubs over and be assured of being in the competition?

I have no clue, however i am sure McGuire and others are seriously considering this option.

[fingers]

GOod question and the end of the SC may come but I hope it doesnt. I would hate to see us go the way of the EPL.

On the Swans - as I've said in a number of other threads it's not an extra 10% to spend on what they like. They distribute it after they have met the normal salary cap.

[plugger66]

If the SC ever goes to court or the drafting of players then the AFL would be finished as we know it. Clubs surely arent that stupid. it would become about a 10 team competition. Surely Eddie wouldnt be that stupid.

[joffaboy]

GOod question and the end of the SC may come but I hope it doesnt. I would hate to see us go the way of the EPL.

On the Swans - as I've said in a number of other threads it's not an extra 10% to spend on what they like. They distribute it after they have met the normal salary cap.

But they can still say we will offer you 100 but you get an extra 10k later on. No difference. Save 10% on initial contracts say on $4 mill, this is 400k a year extra.

Really it wouldn't take a financial expert to work that to its fullest - hence Tippett and now Franklin

[Richter]

I just think that it is likely that the COLA will be reduced to say 5%. It is in no-ones interest to actually take the AFL to court.

If you look at the structure of the Swans list they have Bolton retiring this year and the likes of O'Keefe and Goodes nearing the end. So if they structured Buddy on a back-ended 5 year deal I can easily see how they could afford him. The issue then comes with their upand coming midfield brigade who are about to enter their prime age-wise.... Parker, Mitchell, Rohan, Hannebery, Jetta, Kennedy - all are 25 or under - surely one or more will be vulnerable to a free agency deal in a dew years time... and guess who clean up in the FA stakes? Ype, you guessed it... the big clubs - Collingwood, West Coast...

[Con Gorozidis]

As you spelt out a CRT won't help us because the sc is designed to help clubs like ours who are too stupid to manage their own affairs.

I think what we need is an advocate for the weaker clubs to ensure equalisation is what is meant to be .
We need to form an alliance with the bulldogs and north and really push our case.

The more I think about it the more I think our club must be nearly stuffed.
No sponsor will touch us in ten years given our problem with women (whether its real or perceived doesnt matter. the damage has been done ).
Gram Lovett schoolgirl Milne .

[Enrico_Misso]

I plan to write to our new president and urge him to
- take a public stand against this farce
- and more importantly combine and co-ordinate with the other Presidents to tell the AFL that enough is enough.

Basically we can never win a Premiership whilst the FGB makes up rules on the go to favour his b@stard love-child and woo over his beloved Sydney market - a market that he puts ahead of FAIRNESS and DECENCY.

[plugger66]

I plan to write to our new president and urge him to
- take a public stand against this farce
- and more importantly combine and co-ordinate with the other Presidents to tell the AFL that enough is enough.

Basically we can never win a Premiership whilst the FGB makes up rules on the go to favour his b@stard love-child and woo over his beloved Sydney market - a market that he puts ahead of FAIRNESS and DECENCY.

Lets face it they have had little to do with us not winning a premiership. I think that is pretty our doing.

[SaintPav]

YES. They should.

The system is rigged. It is a rort and it is causing a major distortion. Our club has no hope under the current rules.

Why does someone on 500K need a living allownace to buy milk and bread? It's bullsh!t.

[fingers]

GOod question and the end of the SC may come but I hope it doesnt. I would hate to see us go the way of the EPL.

On the Swans - as I've said in a number of other threads it's not an extra 10% to spend on what they like. They distribute it after they have met the normal salary cap.

But they can still say we will offer you 100 but you get an extra 10k later on. No difference. Save 10% on initial contracts say on $4 mill, this is 400k a year extra.

Really it wouldn't take a financial expert to work that to its fullest - hence Tippett and now Franklin

LOL even i could work that out.!

But it is different from having ann extra $968K to spend any way you want.

[plugger66]

YES. They should.

The system is rigged. It is a rort and it is causing a major distortion. Our club has no hope under the current rules.

Why does someone on 500K need a living allownace to buy milk and bread? It's bullsh!t.

So you want to go to court even though our club would be one of the most effected. The allowance wasnt the reason we lost flags. It sould be eventually stopped or lowered but it needs to be done by the clubs not by a court.

[joffaboy]

As you spelt out a CRT won't help us because the sc is designed to help clubs like ours who are too stupid to manage their own affairs.

Unfair. We would "manage our affairs" if we got ANZAC DAY, DREAMTIME @the G, and not a dozen or so Sunday twilight games. WA and SA have two sold out local derby's and Showdowns a year

Then we have concessions to GWS and Sydney on their cap of 10%, GCS and GWS getting all the talent for three years, teams like Geelong getting 5 F/S for nothing (and using their high dps therefore on Bartel, Selwood, etc, the FIXTURE, consession picks (Geelong got two for Ablett even though they got him for a 3rd round dp, used their high pick on a 1st rounder) etc etc etc etc.

We have to fly to NZ to get any type of traction.

Not ALL our fault Con.

[dragit]

On the Swans - as I've said in a number of other threads it's not an extra 10% to spend on what they like. They distribute it after they have met the normal salary cap.

Yes but when every player signs a contract they are well aware that it will be increased by 10%…

It doesn't matter how they describe it, they have 10% more money to spend on players than most other clubs.

Buddy Franklin might sign a contract that says his income is $1,275,000 (plus 10% loading for cost of living)

It's still 1.4 million dollars regardless of what you call it.

As pointed out by others, anyone earning over 200K isn't struggling with the necessities of life… property might be more expensive, but you can also sell it for more.

I'm glad they have had the audacity to take Franklin, it will hasten the closure of an absurd rule… 10 years too late, just like the father son rule.

3 flags to brisbane with an inflated cap,

3 to Geelong with a bung FS rule

2 to Sydney and now added 2 of the biggest names in the game

And you can bet your life we will see a few to the 2 new teams in the next ten years…

They're hard enough to win without this bs going on.

I'm over it.

[fingers]

On the Swans - as I've said in a number of other threads it's not an extra 10% to spend on what they like. They distribute it after they have met the normal salary cap.

Yes but when every player signs a contract they are well aware that it will be increased by 10%…

It doesn't matter how they describe it, they have 10% more money to spend on players than most other clubs.

Buddy Franklin might sign a contract that says his income is $1,275,000 (plus 10% loading for cost of living)

It's still 1.4 million dollars regardless of what you call it.

As pointed out by others, anyone earning over 200K isn't struggling with the necessities of life… property might be more expensive, but you can also sell it for more.

I'm glad they have had the audacity to take Franklin, it will hasten the closure of an absurd rule… 10 years too late, just like the father son rule.

3 flags to brisbane with an inflated cap,

3 to Geelong with a bung FS rule

2 to Sydney and now added 2 of the biggest names in the game

And you can bet your life we will see a few to the 2 new teams in the next ten years…

They're hard enough to win without this bs going on.

I'm over it.

I am not disagreeing with you, however lets use a really simple example.

The Swans have $1M Salary cap the same as every other club.

The Swans contract 10 players at $100,000 each so that they are inside the cap.

They then give an extra 10% to each player lifting them to $110,000 and spending an overall $1.1M

That is very different to having 11 players on $100,000 each for $1.1M

That's my point.

[Richter]

THe point with the COLA is that Sydney is only really more expensive when it comes to renting or buying a house. Otherwise there is not much difference in things like restaurant prices or going out in the City.

Hence if we assume an average footballer is owning a home at $1.5m, paying $75k a year in interest re-payments which is 10% more than would be the case in Melbourne... hence it costs approx 7500 per player more to live in Sydney than in Melbourne x 46 players = 346,000 which is more like 3.8% of the TPP NOT 10%.

[dragit]

They then give an extra 10% to each player lifting them to $110,000 and spending an overall $1.1M

That is very different to having 11 players on $100,000 each for $1.1M

That's my point.

That doesn't make me feel any better whatsoever.

They have 10% more money than us to attract talent to the club - full stop.

Sydney appears to be a more attractive city than AFL-towns to a lot players than anything.

[samuraisaint]

YES. They should.

The system is rigged. It is a rort and it is causing a major distortion. Our club has no hope under the current rules.

Why does someone on 500K need a living allownace to buy milk and bread? It's bullsh!t.

Especially young single men with no kids

[mullet]

I would like to see all the victorian clubs go to the AFL and voice their disapproval. Not take them to court and not have eddie as the spoke person. All victorian clubs need to send a clear message to the afl that this is unfair. I would think the AFL would rather of had buddy at GWS, but hey anywhere in sydney is good, cos that rugby game was starting to take off again.

[fingers]

Didnt you just say that?

[Richter]

Didnt you just say that?

Que?

[fingers]

Didnt you just say that?

Que?

Dam too quick for me LOL

[Kickit]

I wouldn't have an issue with the cost of living allowance if it was applied as an equally distributed lump sum to each player.
As it is now, its a slush fund and its not helping the GOPs.
If each player on the list got 20K extra it would be no big deal and it would be helping the players who actually needed assistance with living expenses, rather than those who want to add more shares to their portfolio.
Misuse of percentages in business ( and sporting clubs ) is rife. For example the costs of selling a house are not directly proportional to the eventual sale price, neither is the cost of managing a share portfolio related to the total value of the shares.
Some costs are a percentage some are lump sums - know the difference.

[gringo]

I think all melbourne people should stop attending Swans matches until they fix it. The clubs like us should be offering guys like Kennedy, Jack, Reid and Hannerbry huge dollar contract and watch how they can expand there promotional allowance even further. they can't even pay their own way but seem to have special allowances over even the new franchises.

[spert]

Dunno, went to Sydney recently..nice harbour, Opera House, blah, blah, but basically a boring place that's a almost a parody of itself.... I would want a lot of money to relocate there, not so much to survive, but to be able to fly back to Melbourne as much as possible..

[Iceman234]

To you much smarter people, can Buddy retain his property/ies here and claim this travel as work related expenses? Pity him if he can't write the move off on tax as well as being paid half as much as most accountants