Roos Tells Eddie The Facts About Life In Sydney

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by Reggi
You're interpreting "cost of living" incorrectly - whether someone can live on 45K or not is irrelevant. What matters is the price of everything in one place versus another - what matters is the house and others services etc that players purchase in Sydney are higher than the comparable ones. It is one of the basic tenants of economics.

If Sydney players did not have the 15% many of them would say "I can get more for my dollar in Melb, Perth and Adelaide" - and it would influence people to move. It was happening before the 15% was introduced.

Aaaah it is good to see the sane, smarter Reggi back. Well done.

[Reggi]

Yep

More links on this issue - I 've decided to bore people to death with the facts

Unions making the same claim as the Swans

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s534969.htm

Recent study confirming what we knew

http://finance.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6603450%255E462,00.html

[Gunn]

Originally posted by Reggi
Don't want to sound insulting but it is an irrelevant point - Sydney was granted the concession in 1993 because of the COL - if people keep throwing up this issue and that issue it simply clouds the central poin that Sydney has and will be a more expensive place to live.

If people keep throwing up these types of arguements you just make more openings for the likes of Eddie McGuire - who put up every idiotic theory under the sun - for instance Plugger made a fortune from endorsements and Sponsorships in Sydney - more than he would have in Melb.

Besides it has nothing to do with the cost of getting players out on the field to play football.

It is extremely relevant IMO. I believe when the salary cap allowance was made we were told that it was to cover the extra cost of living in Sydney. At the time there was a discussion going on about how Sydney could 'retain' players as we had lost a lot of returnees. We were also dragging out backside on the bottom and in real danger of going under. It was more 'polically correct' to give the cost of living as a reason for the extra money rather than the other disadvantages I referred to above. People have forgotten the background. If it was simply a cost of living problem then the relatively cheaper COL in SA and WA would have been mentioned and allowed for at the time.

Isn't it strange that the cheaper COL in SA and WA is now being discussed when it wasn't before?

The cost of getting players out on the field to play football is all about how much you have to pay them to want to relocate and play for you. It is more than COL. It is more about the total NET income of the player after the COL and the fact that in Melbourne a player is a celebrity with all the attendant perks. In Sydney the players largely say they live their lives unrecognised.

Regarding the money Lockett made, he is an exception to the rule. He is the greatest goal kicker of all time and he just happened to want some anonymity (in the early stages at least) due to his unfortunate history at Stkilda. It is funny that he became more of a public (advertising) figure in Sydney than he ever was in Melbourne. Moving to Sydney suited him but it must be said we were his third choice and he only went to us after Carlton and Collingwood turned him down. He had no other offers. Why is it that a player like Lockett who genuinely wanted the anonymity that Sydney offered made us his third choice? No other Melbourne transplant has ever done nearly as well in Sydney.

[NMWBloods]

http://finance.news.com.au/common/st...55E462,00.html

Thanks for that - this one is critical due to this part...

"Sydney jumped 28 places to the 67th most expensive city.

Melbourne was up 16 to rank 111, Brisbane jumped 13 to 121, Adelaide was up 14 to 124 and Perth 11 to 126. "

It shows that in terms of CoL, Sydney is miles ahead of the other cities, which aren't too dissimilar relatively speaking.

[Jon]

Originally posted by Reggi
Yep

More links on this issue - I 've decided to bore people to death with the facts

Unions making the same claim as the Swans

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s534969.htm

Recent study confirming what we knew

http://finance.news.com.au/common/st...55E462,00.html

Oh My god! A fact! Has anyone been notified?

Thanks for posting those.

Stupid thing is...those in know have far more comprehensive figures in their hands...but some in the media (who shall remain nameless) find it more entertaining to just skirt the issue and thump the tub.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by scurrilous
NMWB you rock my world

I was going to dump a truckload of doodoo on Snowy's post, in my own not so pleasant fashion of course, but you bet me to it. And you had the cheek to do it so eloquently too! Pfft. spoiled my fun

Thanks Scurrilous - head onto BigPotty er... BigFooty - plenty of truckloads needed there!!

[Reggi]

Yeah I'd prefer not to get caught in it or mentioned actually.

I've kind of argued this to death on other boards

But I'm more than happy to pass the ammunition

[neored]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
This is a strawman argument in relation to Sydney. That Melbourne costs more than Perth or Adelaide is irrelevant to Sydney. This argument could be used to support a higher cap in Melbourne vis a vis Perth and Adelaide, but not a lower cap in Sydney.

What a CONVENIENT argument you make. In fact it has everything to do with Sydney...and Brisbane for that matter. It illustrates the duplicitous nature of the AFL when it comes to these two teams. Applying rules arbitrarily to give two sides an unfair advantage

But then Sydney would have a legitimate gripe.

No one is denying that the Sydney should be compensated for its higher cost of living. The argument lies with the mode being used to compensate your club. Simply adding 15% to the salary cap is a simplistic solution, a better way could be found if the AFL had the necessary will.

How has it been exploited thus far? This solution doesn't cover living costs anyway.

(resists bursting into a fit of laughter) Its been exploited continuously by your club over the years. You nearly bought a premiership in 1996.

They compete on a level playing field with Melbourne. In fact they might be better off because, as you say, Perth has a cheaper cost of living.

In principle they might, but your assuming that Judd is financially motivated. It might just be that he misses his family and friends and wants to come home.

In what way? As you've already said we haven't spent our extra allowance.

Not because you dont want to , but because it would be financial lunacy to do so. Familiar with the word insolvency?

In any case the argument for Melbourne receiving some extra salary cap space has been rejected by the AFL. The AFL's argument is that the different b/w Melbourne Adelaide and Perth isn't as substantial as it is in the case of Melbourne and Sydney. So a difference exists but not as substantial, therefore the law can only apply to Sydney.

Well with that type of logic I'll soon be writing a letter to the Premier Of Victoria urging him to abolish the speeding laws in Victoria as our road toll is less than yours. I'll be eagerly awaiting a reply.

[NMWBloods]

(resists bursting into a fit of laughter) Its been exploited continuously by your club over the years. You nearly bought a premiership in 1996.

Oh rubbish. Lockett chose Sydney as a third choice, so it's hardly likely we lured him in here due to our expansive salary benefits. Sure we recruited Roos, but every team recruits a few big names. Given our side was bereft of big-name players, it's not surprising we could fit in a couple of extra. Who have we lured to Sydney since?

In any case the argument for Melbourne receiving some extra salary cap space has been rejected by the AFL. The AFL's argument is that the different b/w Melbourne Adelaide and Perth isn't as substantial as it is in the case of Melbourne and Sydney. So a difference exists but not as substantial, therefore the law can only apply to Sydney.

Well with that type of logic I'll soon be writing a letter to the Premier Of Victoria urging him to abolish the speeding laws in Victoria as our road toll is less than yours. I'll be eagerly awaiting a reply.

What a completely non sequitur argument.

The difference between Sydney and Melbourne, is much larger than the difference between Melbourne and the other states.

If Melbourne salary cap is the base at 100% and Sydney gets 115%, the comparative allowances for the other cities, based on CoL, would be Adelaide 94%, Brisbane 98%, and Perth 97%.

[Snowy]

I said you could argue we have exploited it by recruiting the likes of Hall and Bolton. By having that extra money available in the cap we were able to outbid other clubs. Regarding Davis C'wood wasn't given money to retain him and we allegedly told him to go into Dec. draft because we could better anything they could afford. This year we are not using the 115% which shows players can survive without it, but next year for eg. we may target Aker and thus use it. Nothing illogical about my argument there I suggest. Nobody can actually prove if what we pay is related to COL or used to get ahead of the pack. I can see where they are coming from.

[Reggi]

Neored and Snowy you are spouting utter crap.

How is Sydney recruiting Lockett etc any different from St Kilda recruiting Hamill Gehrig Powell Lawrence Black etc or Collingwood recruiting Woewoden (after they made a GF) Molloy Wakelin Clement Holland Freeborn O'Bree or Port Adelaide every year going out and snaring a Pickett Hardwick Cochrane Cockatoo Collins Wakelin or Montgomery.

In some cases as with Sydney those clubs were able to go on sprees cause they had space in their cap given a poor list - no other reason. If you are claiming Sydney has an advantage you are just spouting biased bull****.

They clubs with Salary cap advantage are the Adeliade clubs Port for example have finished top 4 in the past two years and still been able to poach top players from other clubs.

Why?

Because players returning to Adelaide don't put in huge pay demands because they don't need a huge income to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

The AFL introduced the concession in Sydney - because Sydney had salary cap problems and an utterly crap side - ordinary players demanded a higher salary - without the 15% allowance Sydney would quickly return to being uncompetitive.

All it does is put Sydney on a reasonably even position with the non NSW clubs.

Here is the list of the amount of players that each club has on its list that it obtained from other clubs. Please tell us how this shows Sydney has any kind of advantage from the salary cap concession.

Collingwood 12
Adelaide 12
Port Adelaide 11
St Kilda 11
Richmond 11
Kangaroos 11
Fremantle 10
Carlton 9
Sydney 8
Melbourne 8
Geelong 7
Dogs 7
Brisbane 6
Hawthorn 6
Eagles 5
S&Don 4

Sydney can't even make the top 8

[Doctor J.]

Damn it Reggi, you have put an end to a good link.

A link where the stupid and believers of rhetoric were just about to hang themselves with the rope they had in their hand, and you come in and show them exactly how stupid their arguements are.

And I was having so much fun

[scurrilous]

Yeah Reggi, since when has anyone on this site stooped so low as to back up their arguments with factual information? Your lower than a footprint mate

[neored]

Originally posted by Reggi
Neored and Snowy you are spouting utter crap.

How is Sydney recruiting Lockett etc any different from St Kilda recruiting Hamill Gehrig Powell Lawrence Black etc or Collingwood recruiting Woewoden (after they made a GF) Molloy Wakelin Clement Holland Freeborn O'Bree or Port Adelaide every year going out and snaring a Pickett Hardwick Cochrane Cockatoo Collins Wakelin or Montgomery.

Have you actually followed football for more than 5 years or are you blinded by your own bias. Just to illustrate the idiocy of your own argument I'll go through the players you listed:

Hamill - wanted to stay with Carlton left after a bust up with the president.
Gehrig - wanted to come home
Powell - salary cap pressures on Melbourne
Lawrence - not wanted by Brisbane
Black - wanted to come home

woewoedin - didn't want to leave Melbourne, forced out
Molloy - traded (Michael)
Wakelin - not wanted
clement - not wanted (very good trade)
Holland - not wanted (poor player)
Freeborn - not wanted.
O'Bree - very yound when he went to Collingwood , very homesick.

Apart from Gehrig and to a lesser exten Powell, all the other players weren't lured financially.

As for P.Adelaide , well again you are just reinforcing my argument that the AFL favours Sydney. If the AFL applied the laws across the board then Melbourne clubs who'd receive some breathing space.

In some cases as with Sydney those clubs were able to go on sprees cause they had space in their cap given a poor list - no other reason. If you are claiming Sydney has an advantage you are just spouting biased bull****.

But the fact is those teams had to suffer 2 or 3 bad seasons to take their list to such a poor level. Are you blind you have an extra 15 % on top of the salary cap, of course you have an advantage.

They clubs with Salary cap advantage are the Adeliade clubs Port for example have finished top 4 in the past two years and still been able to poach top players from other clubs.

Why?

Because players returning to Adelaide don't put in huge pay demands because they don't need a huge income to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

Again, you are merely reinforcing my argument that the AFL favours Sydney. see above point.

The AFL introduced the concession in Sydney - because Sydney had salary cap problems and an utterly crap side - ordinary players demanded a higher salary - without the 15% allowance Sydney would quickly return to being uncompetitive.

There are better and fairer ways to compensate your club then merely adding 15 % to the salary cap. The current situation is totally unbalanced.

All it does is put Sydney on a reasonably even position with the non NSW clubs.

Here is the list of the amount of players that each club has on its list that it obtained from other clubs. Please tell us how this shows Sydney has any kind of advantage from the salary cap concession.

Collingwood 12
Adelaide 12
Port Adelaide 11
St Kilda 11
Richmond 11
Kangaroos 11
Fremantle 10
Carlton 9
Sydney 8
Melbourne 8
Geelong 7
Dogs 7
Brisbane 6
Hawthorn 6
Eagles 5
S&Don 4

And... teams recruit players all the time, most are delisted and merely switch clubs. The fact is that you have an extra 15 % and when used properly it gives you an unfair advantage.

Sydney can't even make the top 8 [/B][/QUOTE]

[neored]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Oh rubbish. Lockett chose Sydney as a third choice, so it's hardly likely we lured him in here due to our expansive salary benefits. Sure we recruited Roos, but every team recruits a few big names. Given our side was bereft of big-name players, it's not surprising we could fit in a couple of extra. Who have we lured to Sydney since?

Oh so two champions of the game is insufficient is it?

Hall

What a completely non sequitur argument.

How so?

The difference between Sydney and Melbourne, is much larger than the difference between Melbourne and the other states.

If Melbourne salary cap is the base at 100% and Sydney gets 115%, the comparative allowances for the other cities, based on CoL, would be Adelaide 94%, Brisbane 98%, and Perth 97%.

The margin in irrelevant, the principle should be that if a law exists then it should be applied across the board. We have a word for such a situation its called discrimmination.

But why should clubs be punished/rewarded for something that they cannot control? Its not Adelaide's fault that they are located in a city with a lower cost of living. Every city has its own advantages and disadvantages and it should just be the case that clubs must make do.

The NBA doesn't grant the New York Nicks extra salary cap space just because the franchise is located in New York.

And in any case a better method could be found to address any inbalances in the system if the AFL was willing to do so. The fact is however the AFL isn't interested in making the system more equitable, the extra 15 % is there to assist Sydney to buy a premiership, much like Brisbane has. Its all just a facade, but the Victorian people wont put up with it for much longer.