Roos Tells Eddie The Facts About Life In Sydney

[Tractor2003]

What about the fact Nick Davis is on less money at Sydney than he was getting for the Pies.

Eddie's got a short memory..........you didnt see Sydney kicking up as much stink as they did when Anthony Rocca wanted to go back to mummies place.

What goes around comes around Eddie........

[neored]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
]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!!

But you see you've just illustrated an advantage that your club has. In Melbourne there is far more scrutiny and focus placed on Melbourne players. Even the average - good players are recognised, in the end this means that Melbourne clubs have to pay more to keep them on the list, because recognition = reputation = larger contract.

In 1999 for example Caracella. Blumfield we're playing just their second/third season of football. But because they were being noticed week in week out, their reputation was growing. At the end of the season they were being pursued by a number of clubs, including yours which meant we had to pay above what they were worth. As a result we won a premiership, but we ended up losing them because we could no fit them under the salary cap.

You often claim that your players aren't given due credit by the Melbourne media, thats an advantage as their market price doesn't inflate at the same rate as Melbourne players.

And as I mentioned in an earlier the post, the fact that you have been unable to lure players to your club is due to your dire financial situation, not because you are unwilling to do so.

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...?

Yes, but these are players that you have lured, not that you have developed. Goodes is still on your list, as is Saddington, O Loughlin. How many champions have my club lured?.... I dare you to name one.

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?

But you see it is, figures are irrelevant its the principal that matters. If a law exists it should be applied across the board, being selective merely discrimminates.

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?

2 to 5 % will make a difference it'll add 100,000 to 250,00 to the overall salary cap. But even if it didnt make a difference, isn't beneficial for the AFL to be even handed. Issues like these merely detract from what really matter, the game. By granting a very slight increase for Victorian clubs, the AFL will silence the critics and ensure that Sydney isn't seen as an enemy. It will also mean you wont have to put up with people like me badgering your club.

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

I fail to see how you cannot call it discrimmination. Applying a rule to one or two circumstances and staunchly refusing to apply it evenly is by definition discrimmination.

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?

But I've already made it clear that your club should be compensated. Just not in the current manner. Adding 15% to every player payment is one way, or building up business networks allowing players to receive discounts on certain items is another. The point is that if COL was the real reason for the extra salary cap space then other methods could be found that would compensate your club whilst mantaining an even playing ground.

What are Sydney's inherent advantages?

There are many : the fact that players can escape the football culture of Melbourne. The fact that kids that grow up following AFL in Sydney will most likely support the Swans, better lifestyle. I could think up more but you get my drift, every city has its benefits.

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.

The fact that certain clubs circumvent the system is irrelevant , the principle remains. New York is given no extra space despite the fact it is located in a city with a substantial COL.

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

How do you account for Brisbane being able to afford Caracella? Caracella was on $300,000 at Essendon and since his contract was not renegotiated when he was traded to Brisbane , we are to assume he is on the same amount. Headland was definitely not on that amount of money as he emerged during the season.

Many like me will choose not to renew their AFL membership. And if gate receipt sharing is reintroduced they will not attend matches involving interstate clubs. Victorians wont sit idly by whilst their clubs are beimg screwed.

[neored]

Originally posted by 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"

Its impossible to run at 87 %. The current CBA does not allow for this.

[neored]

Originally posted by scurrilous
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.

Rubbish, if the main motives for a player leaving are financial then they most often then not nominate for the preseason draft as an uncontracted player.

Some of the players listed were delisted, others were duds , only a few were what you could call high priced recruits.

[neored]

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

I consider it my civic duty as a Victorian to awaken you from this malaise[/QUOTE]

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 its about evening up the competition then its failed miserably. The fact that you haven't been able to win a premiership is due more to bad coaching/recruiting/management then anything else. Really most clubs should be able to win a premiership at least once every 10 years.

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?

Many alternate ideas have been proposed and rejected, because its not about cost of living. Its about giving Sydney a few free kicks.

Storm the SCG ? Only as a last resort. I'll be the first in line with a Victorian flag draped around my shoulders. Viva le resistance!!!

[undy]

Originally posted by neored

If its about evening up the competition then its failed miserably. The fact that you haven't been able to win a premiership is due more to bad coaching/recruiting/management then anything else. Really most clubs should be able to win a premiership at least once every 10 years.

Really ? There are (currently) 16 clubs. Lets generously assume that by "most", you mean 75%, rather than 90%, that would be 12 clubs who should each be winning "at least" one of the 10 premierships.

[Snowy]

I think though that Melbourne clubs argue that every time Sydney has lost a good player through homesickness they have been adequately compensated, note Rocca and WS/Grant deal. Bitching started last year because Sydney were trying to get Davis for nothing via the December draft when most felt he was a promising young player who was worth at least a first draft pick. That was how it was reported here anyway. Melbourne clubs argue that if someone wants to be traded to Melbourne ten clubs must compete for that player, making it hard to snare him and pushing up the price. If a player wants to go to Sydney for whatever reason they have no competitors, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane are similarly advantaged.

[swansrock4eva]

yes but there are far more players wanting to go TO melbourne than LEAVE it because there are far more players coming out of melbourne and victoria in general than there are out of NSW! THAT is where the gripe is. The swans have had to put a @@@@load of money into building up the support networks around the players to help them settle in and make them feel comfortable up here, which is a reason why the likes of Grant etc went back to melbourne originally - at that point in time there was nothing of the sort. Having to pump that money in also creates hardship for the club financially.

And Sydney is not the only team to try to get the system to work in their favour over the years, if in fact they were serious about wanting davis to go into the draft. And, besides, what happened to the good old red herring during negotiations? When did everything that gets reported become the definitive word of the time? Just look at the likes of Kevin Sheedy and Mick Malthouse - over half the stuff that comes out of their mouths is complete garbage designed to psych out the opposition and hopefully alter conditions in their favour. During trade talks that ALWAYS happens because the team losing a player wants to get top dollar but the team wanting the player never wants to pay that.

[scurrilous]

anyhow, just driving home from work todayand heard on the ABC that Sydney will now only get 7%(??around that figure??) for rent/buying assistance.

I know exactly what neored was implying, I just like to stir the pot a bit, but in all honesty that 7%ish figure that's been announced is rather inadequate.

But I think the swans have probably dug their own graves on this one by misusing the previously allotted 15%. Well, probably not misuse, but definitely not applying it the way it should have been, and that is across the board.

[Reggi]

Originally posted by neored
But you see you've just illustrated an advantage that your club has. In Melbourne there is far more scrutiny and focus placed on Melbourne players. Even the average - good players are recognised, in the end this means that Melbourne clubs have to pay more to keep them on the list, because recognition = reputation = larger contract.

.




Yes, but these are players that you have lured, not that you have developed. Goodes is still on your list, as is Saddington, O Loughlin. How many champions have my club lured?.... I dare you to name one.






I fail to see how you cannot call it discrimmination. Applying a rule to one or two circumstances and staunchly refusing to apply it evenly is by definition discrimmination.

First point is utterly irrelavant is this a salary cap or a popularity contest.

Discrimination would be if Sydney players were forced not to have the same real incomes as other football players in Australia. That is why it is refered to as compensation

[neored]

Originally posted by Reggi
First point is utterly irrelavant is this a salary cap or a popularity contest.

Discrimination would be if Sydney players were forced not to have the same real incomes as other football players in Australia. That is why it is refered to as compensation

But your players do and would still receive the same amount as their Victorian counterparts even if the 15% extra didn't exist.. Your clubs argument has been that $200,000 in Sydney is worth less than $200,000 in Melbourne. Having lived in Sydney for 4 months a few years ago theres no doubt that Sydney is a far more pricey city.

The argument is that simply lumping on 15% is 1. simplistic 2.discrimminatory, because Melbourne doesn't get the same deal 3. thus leading to an uneven playing field.

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by Reggi
First point is utterly irrelavant is this a salary cap or a popularity contest.

Discrimination would be if Sydney players were forced not to have the same real incomes as other football players in Australia. That is why it is refered to as compensation

they just don't get that "real disposable y" theory do they Reggi

[neored]

Originally posted by undy
Really ? There are (currently) 16 clubs. Lets generously assume that by "most", you mean 75%, rather than 90%, that would be 12 clubs who should each be winning "at least" one of the 10 premierships.

By most I mean a majority which could be 9,10.

And thats assuming that the club is well run, has a good recruiting department and a good coach.

So a premiership every 10 years is definitely the benchmark for most sides.

[scurrilous]

oh and that also implies a club that vehemently breaks their salary cap too

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by neored
By most I mean a majority which could be 9,10.

And thats assuming that the club is well run, has a good recruiting department and a good coach.

So a premiership every 10 years is definitely the benchmark for most sides.

You said that 9-10 teams should win a premiership every ten years. So who has managed that over an extended period of time?

Well, Carlton did it from 68-95, but had a gap in the 50s and 20s and look like they'll miss again now.

Essendon did it from 84-00, but had gaps in the 70s and 30s.

Collingwood had a gap from 58 until 90 and are missing again.

Well, that's the most successful flag teams. After that no one has done it regularly since the war and there are many many patches. So obviously there are lots of unsuccessful teams out there.