Roos Tells Eddie The Facts About Life In Sydney

[liz]

Originally posted by neored


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.

LOL - have to admire your persistance Neo.

Who says the system is about punishing or rewarding any club? It's about trying to even out a massive disadvantage that Sydney would otherwise face, thereby trying to make things more even. If it were about trying to allow Sydney to buy a premiership, why hasn't it worked? Simply because it just brings us to a level where we can compete fairly, that's why!

If a better system can be found, fine. Why don't you find it? And what are the Victorian people going to do about it? Boycott the AFL? March on Federation Square - or whatever it's called? Storm the SCG?

[Snowy]

The problem is that certain officials of Melbourne clubs overheard Swans officials 'privately' suggesting that every couple of years they target a player from another club with the extra money they have. Hall, Willo and Davis comes to mind though he was homesick. It is statistically flawed to put up lists of all the clubs and the numbers they have obtained from other clubs - most were rejects. If we outbid others for Aker, at a time when we are meant to be financially under pressure eyebrows will be raised. The Dons had to offload three premiership players just to remain under the cap. We would be squealing for extra room if that happened to us. If Reggi places so much faith in his figures why are we paying over 100% this year? Are these figures fluid?

[liz]

Originally posted by Snowy
It is statistically flawed to put up lists of all the clubs and the numbers they have obtained from other clubs - most were rejects. If we outbid others for Aker, at a time when we are meant to be financially under pressure eyebrows will be raised. The Dons had to offload three premiership players just to remain under the cap. We would be squealing for extra room if that happened to us. If Reggi places so much faith in his figures why are we paying over 100% this year? Are these figures fluid?

Rocca, Grant, O'Farrell and Gaspar certainly weren't rejects. They were all first round picks who walked out on Sydney after two or three year's on their list for a combination of returning to their home city and/or getting more money.

It is because of examples like this that the Swans have had the capacity and need to recruit established players from other clubs. But as Reggi's figures point out, every club does that. We've just had the ability to recruit some high quality players because our own top youngsters have, in the past, decided not to stay.

I find it really amusing that the Melbourne football mafia reckons Sydney has an ordinary list with no good players, yet at the same time accuses the club of using its salary cap to poach lots of stars. Which is it gonna be?

The answer is neither, of course. Sydney has a middle of the road team with some quality players recruited from other clubs and some that they have developed themselves, but other than Goodes and possibly Williams, how many Sydney players would find themselves in most pundits' top 50 player lists at the moment, despite the fact we are currently sitting 4th?

The Dons' situation was very different. They had lots of highly paid players on their list because they had just won a premiership and because they gambled on changes to the veterans list and it backfired.

[swansrock4eva]

Williams and Collingwood were a split couple and he was always going to leave - we most certainly did not wave an extra few hundred thousand around to entice him. Iirc it cost us a very nice draft pick and a player or two as well to get him in the first place. So there goes that argument.

And which officials were heard and by whom?

And the dons offloading premiership players was really their own mess to deal with - Brisbane had the nous to realise that by keeping players on lower payments for a bit longer, there would be a bit more room to work with when they did start wanting the big bucks. If Essendon can't manage their players with 100% what makes you think they can manage them at 115%? They'd just end up with the same problems again, only with bigger figures involved.

The problem seems to be that so many Victorians are so bloody scared of losing a grip on a so-called NATIONAL competition that they will accept any drivel out of anyone's mouth that tells them that we must be evil up here and that the victorians are so terribly disadvantaged. The fact of the matter is, players would NOT be willing to stay up here with comparatively LOWER incomes, which is what 100% would give. In this day and age, where the motivation to play is more often than not things other than a love of the game or the team, money plays a huge part in it and living in Sydney means there is certainly a lot less value for money than you'd find in any other capital city. Until you come up here to live, you can NEVER comment on how tough or not tough it is because quite frankly, you are talking straight out of your backside if you try.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by neored
[B]Oh so two champions of the game is insufficient is it?

Hall

As Lizz comments, I love how, in one breath, the Melbourne press and others comments that our list is poor and bereft of champions, yet in another breath they comment they the extra salary cap is allowing us to poach champions!!

The important thing is not just how many "champions" you poach but how many you have on the list as you still have to them every year after they join. So in the past 9 years you've managed to name three champions. Over that time period, how many have other clubs had...?

How so?

I am staggered that you actually think this is a relevant analogy. Here's a simple explanation - speeding laws help reduce road tolls, so if you dropped them your road toll would rise. That your road toll is lower doesn't mean you can drop it. How does that relate to salary caps though?

You say that the AFL is unfair as it says the differences between Melbourne and the other cities is not large enough to warrant a higher salary cap. You think 2-5% is going to make a huge difference to the performance of the Melbourne teams?

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.

Rubbish it's discrimination. Are you suggesting that paying people different amounts to reflect cost of living is discrimination?

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.

How are other clubs being punished relative to Sydney? I don't think you understand purchasing power. It is Sydney that would be punished without the extra 15%. You think someone earning $100K in Melbourne is the same as someone earning $100K in Sydney?

Every city has its own advantages and disadvantages and it should just be the case that clubs must make do.

What are Sydney's inherent advantages?

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

Well they do actually. The salary cap isn't rigorously enforced in the NBA and the New York payroll is significantly higher than most of the rest of the league and over twice the cap level.

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.

And your evidence for this assertion...? BTW - what are Victorians going to do about it?

[Jon]

Originally posted by Snowy
It is statistically flawed to put up lists of all the clubs and the numbers they have obtained from other clubs - most were rejects. If we outbid others for Aker, at a time when we are meant to be financially under pressure eyebrows will be raised. The Dons had to offload three premiership players just to remain under the cap. We would be squealing for extra room if that happened to us. If Reggi places so much faith in his figures why are we paying over 100% this year? Are these figures fluid?

If it is statistically flawed to to put up lists of all the clubs...then why are people using lists in arguments against us? They can't have it both ways.

Player poaching by Sydney is a myth - or at the very least much exagerated.

Clubs don't agressively throw money at a player to "buy" him. Seems to me, the norm at the moment is for a player to talk with his club about concerns he might have. He may be homesick (like N. Davis, A. Rocca etc) or he might be having a paycut forced down his throat (as many players have had in the last two years), he may be having a personality clash or is unhappy for some reason (Willo, Carey) or he may simply want a breath of fresh air at a new club (T. Lockett).

Having made a decision, the player then instructs his manager that he wants to leave. The manager comes up with a list of interested parties. The player then nominates the club he's trying to land in, and the clubs then negotiate a way to make it happen that is mutually beneficial.

In the end, the club has the final say...and if a trade doesn't eventuate the player lands up in the draft risking a move he doesn't want (like Scotty Russell faced when he was forced to come to Syd).

You don't see win/lose situations. You don't see one club gazzumping another and then doing some kind of silly victory dance while the vaquished tear at their hair. You see very sophisticated agreements, where sometimes as many as three of four clubs pull together to all get something out of a deal.

The Barry Hall trade was a perfect example.

You can't have people citing Hall as an example of player poaching and conveniently ignore the way the other clubs involved have benefited from that trade.

Now...what is NOT a myth, is that if Syd was on parity with the Victorian clubs, they wouldn't HAVE to offer our players more money...an identical contract would be worth enough to make the move south worthwhile...especially if that player is from Victoria in the first place.

If a player wants to go home, there's nothing a club can really do. But by giving Syd that 15%, the money side is equalised, making it LESS of a factor to go.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Snowy
The problem is that certain officials of Melbourne clubs overheard Swans officials 'privately' suggesting that every couple of years they target a player from another club with the extra money they have.

You know this? How?

Hall, Willo and Davis comes to mind though he was homesick. It is statistically flawed to put up lists of all the clubs and the numbers they have obtained from other clubs - most were rejects.

Firstly, players coming home to us homesick, are more than offset than players going the other way. Secondly, would you care to put some substance behind your assertion that players on other lists are rejects. Finally, salary cap is not just used to lure players but also to pay them. Therefore it's important to also consider highly-paid "champions" on other lists, and there are many teams ahead of us.

[Reggi]

How when or why players leave is irrelevant - the only issue that matters in regard to the salary cap is whether clubs can afford to pay players.

Please explain to us how Sydney - still waiting - you are making this claims NEORED - please back up your statements.

"Are you blind" is no explanation.

Or are you just another one of these salary cap whingers with no substance?

Clubs in the US - particularly NFL don't pay anywhere near there salary cap. Besides if you look through those comp you will not that the rules regarding the salary cap are extrememly complicated.

[Reggi]

Originally posted by Snowy
It is statistically flawed to put up lists of all the clubs and the numbers they have obtained from other clubs - most were rejects.

Nope - famously Roy Morgan the founder of Roy Morgan Research was asked why you do public polling his answer was that it prevents Journalists - Politicians etc talking "on behalf of the people" - in other words just making up factless lies.

If there was any skeric of truth in the crap about Sydney having a salary cap advantage it would show up in those numbers - I don't cause there ain't no such thing.

Actually the only genuine conclusion you can draw is that the Adelaide clubs are advantaged by the lower COL in Adelaide.

As the great John Patterson said "I love it when statistics confirm my prejudices".

[omnipotent]

I can answer maybe that bit about certain officials, it was reported in the press that a certain Swan official said that he targets out of contract players every few years, thus the clubs like Essendon who have lost players due to not fitting them into their cap are obviously saying Swans are luring not retaining players. I don't know about rejects but I guess if you look through the lists the players from other clubs on many other lists have gone there in trades not being lured with the exception of a guy such as Woewodin yet it appeared Melbourne could not afford to pay him. With homesickness I think recently it has affected most clubs evenly. We have not had anyone since the days of Rocca and Grant who never wanted to come here. We have more from interstate than most but then again they haven't got the cap space to retain any of their homesick ones.

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by neored
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.

Oh yeah that really proves your point. I could make up the same sort of stories for every single AFL player ever traded to another club. The real fact here is that you and I both don't know jack**** when it comes to individual motivations for leaving/joining another club.

So stop trying to prove a point that you obviously can not comprehend in your less than immense grey matter. But never fear, I'd have the same level of comprehension myself. I'm just not stupid enough to make such outlandish comments as you did.

I think you should have just taken the blue pill and been done with it.

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by lizz
LOL - have to admire your persistance Neo.

Who says the system is about punishing or rewarding any club? It's about trying to even out a massive disadvantage that Sydney would otherwise face, thereby trying to make things more even. If it were about trying to allow Sydney to buy a premiership, why hasn't it worked? Simply because it just brings us to a level where we can compete fairly, that's why!

If a better system can be found, fine. Why don't you find it? And what are the Victorian people going to do about it? Boycott the AFL? March on Federation Square - or whatever it's called? Storm the SCG?

I've decided I'm going to start a fight with a haughty taught NSWelshman the day the Swans win a GF. It would give me so much satisfaction knocking their teeth out.

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by lizz

I find it really amusing that the Melbourne football mafia...

Oh another example! I'm going to be getting lots of money from the tooth fairy the day after the big one

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by Reggi
How when or why players leave is irrelevant - the only issue that matters in regard to the salary cap is whether clubs can afford to pay players.

Reggi is the sartest person on this board!
edit: rofl make that sMartest

[penga]

i found the hipocracy hilarious when davis told the pies that he didnt want to stay and the pies came out and said that they couldnt keep him because they were unfairly disadvantaged coz they couldnt offer them as much as what we could, and then they land woewodin...

but of course the pies couldnt keep davis coz they had salary cap problems

salary cap has little to do with advantages, we are around the top 4 atm and we r running at 87%...

"but its that 13% that is giving u that advantage of course"