Big spend, big reward

[Go Swannies]

Interesting and rather disturbing that we are now spending more but achieving stats on all fronts that are just about exactly level with our current position on the ladder.

http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,15033619-23211,00.html

[Glenn]

Seems like their are some over paid players in Sydney, now if Sydney has to pay over the market value to get them here, or they a underperforming (or a case of both)

[DST]

Originally posted by Glenn
Seems like their are some over paid players in Sydney, now if Sydney has to pay over the market value to get them here, or they a underperforming (or a case of both)

Glenn, the article has nothing to do with what players are paid as all clubs must spend somewhere between 97.5% & 100.00% of their salary cap (plus a little bit extra we get to spend because of the COL allowance). In reality in terms of just players wages their can only be a difference between the top spending clubs and lower spending clubs of around $187,000 (if the cap it still $6.8 Million) because of the rules.

What the article is alluding to is that clubs who have greater revenue and choose to spend it on their football department (and this includes assistant coaches, trainers, doctors, strappers, video technicians, gym equipment, training grounds, ice baths, strapping, footballs, food, the list is endless) that the more money spent has a corelation to who plays finals.

Nothing to be ashamed of if the club decides to increase it's gross spending on the football department, in fact I hope we continue to spend more as long as it is done wisely which in all indications is the case with Andrew Ireland at the helm.

So contray to what people may think on this board we don't pay way over the odds for our players and the current figures being bandied about for Barry Hall who could get a lot more on the open market shows that.

DST

[Glenn]

Ahh ok my mistake

Would like to think there is some sign of return for the extra money outlayed

[Barry Schneider]

Originally posted by DST
In reality in terms of just players wages their can only be a difference between the top spending clubs and lower spending clubs of around $187,000 (if the cap it still $6.8 Million) because of the rules.

The online article doesn't have aa table which the offline article does.The table has overall payments,Player payments,Medical and fitness costs, and coaches.

DST

Sorry to be picky but the veterans list rule allows clubs to spend alot more than the salary cap specially if the two players nominated are on huge money eg Hird,and Mercuri last year.
Plus clubs are allowed a marketing budget of around $400,000 which can be paid to players.
The poorer clubs,even if they have players eligible for the veterans list can't afford to pay extra for other players so there are ways rich clubs can millions of dollars more on players than the poorer clubs.

The offline article has a table which breaks down the total payments into Player payments,Medical and Fitness costs, and coaches payments.
Last year Brisbane spent $8.543 million on player payments while the Kangaroos spent $6.848million
Collingwood was the second biggest payer of players with $8.006million.Sydney was fifth with $7.919m.We spent less on coaches than everyone bar Kangas,Fremantle and Richmond.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by Barry Schneider
We spent less on coaches than everyone bar Kangas,Fremantle and Richmond.

I thought that line would open the floodgates re value for money. (Oops, I guess Swans supporters shouldn't use this term when talking about coaching.)

[DST]

Originally posted by Barry Schneider
Sorry to be picky but the veterans list rule allows clubs to spend alot more than the salary cap specially if the two players nominated are on huge money eg Hird,and Mercuri last year.
Plus clubs are allowed a marketing budget of around $400,000 which can be paid to players.
The poorer clubs,even if they have players eligible for the veterans list can't afford to pay extra for other players so there are ways rich clubs can millions of dollars more on players than the poorer clubs.

The offline article has a table which breaks down the total payments into Player payments,Medical and Fitness costs, and coaches payments.
Last year Brisbane spent $8.543 million on player payments while the Kangaroos spent $6.848million
Collingwood was the second biggest payer of players with $8.006million.Sydney was fifth with $7.919m.We spent less on coaches than everyone bar Kangas,Fremantle and Richmond.

I know Barry Scheinder, but for simplicity sake I just kept it to the base salary cap to show that all teams now have to pay somewhere between 97.5% & 100.00%.

DST

[DST]

Originally posted by Glenn
Ahh ok my mistake

Would like to think there is some sign of return for the extra money outlayed

Considering we have made the finals 8 times out of the last 9 years (without having to resort to priority picks) you would assume that has been our reward for spending more on the football department.

I know it's not a premiership that we all would like to have, but we have not been going as badly in the last 9 or so years that some on this board would have you believe.

Just look at Richmond to see how bad things can get.

DST

[Glenn]

i

Originally posted by DST
Considering we have made the finals 8 times out of the last 9 years (without having to resort to priority picks) you would assume that has been our reward for spending more on the football department.

I know it's not a premiership that we all would like to have, but we have not been going as badly in the last 9 or so years that some on this board would have you believe.

Just look at Richmond to see how bad things can get.

DST

Well hopefully we don't get to the depths of Richmond, RWO would go into meltdown

For some Premiership flags are the be all and end all, and while I admit the Flag is the Holy Grail as long as we can be competitive on the field I will be happy

[sharpie]

Originally posted by DST
Considering we have made the finals 8 times out of the last 9 years (without having to resort to priority picks) you would assume that has been our reward for spending more on the football department.

I know it's not a premiership that we all would like to have, but we have not been going as badly in the last 9 or so years that some on this board would have you believe.

Just look at Richmond to see how bad things can get.

DST

This is definitely one thing that reminds me we are going in the right direction. For decades this team was unable to play any finals matches, so we have at least improved from that. This club has really started to turn itself around in the last 10 years.