Should the Salary Cap farce be taken to court

[Con Gorozidis]

If we got our recruitment and off field behaviour right
We might be able to attract sponsors and players .

I remember when people used to think John 'Bevo' Beveredge was some great recruiter.
He was a total dud and we are largely deluded.

[BigMart]

Throw enough darts you hit some targets.... But since recruiting has become more science than art we have been found wanting??

Trade/Draft time was once like a shopping spree, with massive lists and big list changes ..... These days it's very specific and targeted ...l

We have done relatively poorly, cannot be denied

[joffaboy]

[quote="BigMart"]Throw enough darts you hit some targets.... But since recruiting has become more science than art we have been found wanting??

Trade/Draft time was once like a shopping spree, with massive lists and big list changes ..... These days it's very specific and targeted ...l

We have done relatively poorly, cannot be denied[/quote]

what in gods name has this got to do with the topic.

you seem to have a fixation to spam every thread with your rants about recruiting.

This is about Sydneys SC FFS

Stop baiting or I'll report you

[fingers]

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.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE

[lloyd21]

My only question to all you guys where were you when Tony Lockett was given to Sydney due to the marketing levy meant he got double what Stkilda could offer under the rules even if they sold the farm.

This has happened now to Adelaide & Hawthorn both top teams at the time and all of a sudden it's a problem this has been an issue since then.The AFL created the monster they can only fix it by having a level playing field for all clubs.
End of story.

P.s hope this turns out to be a John Pitura moment for swans and bites them in the b..m.

[lloyd21]

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.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE

Agree

[dragit]

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.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE

Agree

I think the point that Kickit is making is that next year Tippet will get $80,000 & Frankiln will get $110,000 via the COLA funds.

People earning the top tax bracket don't need extra cash to help update their Audi every year.

The only players that should be eligible (if any) are those under the top tax bracket - maybe 10 guys earning under 180K - 10 % extra to all those players would be around 120,000, not $1,000,000 that mostly goes to 5-6 players

[st.byron]

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.

Am wondering which players on AFL lists need assistance with living expenses? What is a first year player on?
In 2014 even a rookie is on $54,000 minimum wage plus match payments at AFL or VFL level. The majority of players would surely be paid a lot more than that. I can't imagine there being too many guys playing AFL who are struggling financially.