Roos Tells Eddie The Facts About Life In Sydney

[Beaussie]

Why salary cap bonus must stay
By MICHELANGELO RUCCI
26jun03

PAUL Roos paid $27 to park for an hour in Sydney this week. He challenges Collingwood president Eddie McGuire and Essendon counterpart Graeme McMahon to come to Sydney to prove why the Swans should not get an extra 15 per cent allowance on their salary cap to cover the higher cost of living in the Harbour City.

Roos, defying the notion coaches should avoid the political brawling that consumes AFL football, boldly stepped into the fray last year when McGuire threatened court action ? and won the battle ? against the AFL Commission's plan on draft concessions to the Swans and Brisbane. He even sent out his mobile telephone number for anyone wanting to note his side of the debate.
Roos is no less reluctant to argue the point on salary cap bonuses to the Swans and Lions, who this season have an extra $900,000 and $600,000 in their wage bills.

"It is a ridiculous argument," says Roos. "I'd love someone to make a documentary on how the Sydney players and coaches live ? and then compare it with the Essendon and Collingwood players.

"The sizes of the houses the Sydney players have are a damn size smaller than those of the Essendon and Collingwood players. We're not living high on the hog here.

"I never hear facts from Melbourne, just how the AFL pumps up Sydney. If they stick to the facts, there is only one resolution ? the salary cap bonus stays."

Roos is blessed with appreciating two football cultures, that of traditional Melbourne (where he was a champion player with Fitzroy) and the contrast of Sydney, where the Swans have played since 1982 and with Roos as a creative defender from 1995 to 1998. This makes him an ideal coach for Sydney.

"In Sydney," notes Roos, "our players, after a loss, wake up the next morning, go buy the paper and can read it over lunch in peace and quiet. In Melbourne and Adelaide, if players there lose, they go out with a balaclava because they are going to cop it from the guy who sells the paper, the girl who serves them coffee and lunch and in the street from when they wake up until they go to bed.

"The difference ? the lack of public attention ? may be good for the players in Sydney but it is frustrating from a coaching point of view. In Adelaide and Melbourne, many people are giving the players messages. In Sydney, it is just the coaches ? and the message can get very old very quickly.

"That's the difference in culture. And it is no coincidence that the best players to come to Sydney are those who grew up with the full-on football culture in Melbourne and then appreciated the anonymity of Sydney ? Tony Lockett from St Kilda, Wayne Schwass from the Kangaroos, Craig O'Brien from Essendon and St Kilda, Stuart Maxfield from Richmond, Kevin Dyson from Melbourne . . ."

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/footy03/story_page/0,8747,6660912%255E25397,00.html

[Snowy]

But it also costs a lot to park your car down here in Melbourne. In fact a lot more than in Adelaide or Perth, so maybe Vic clubs should get an allowance over those clubs. Maybe it should all be tiered according to states. Personally I think it should be a level playing field and then there can be no whingeing. Or if for example the Swans or Lions were in danger of losing a player because they were after more money because they wanted to go home or found they needed more money to live up north they could get a special allowance for that player, then the rule would not be open to exploitation which it possibly is today. I think there is merit in some comments which suggest that if Sydney doesn't need the extra 15% this year why does it need it in other years. West Coast might argue they need more money to retain Judd this year for instance. I am sure we benefited from Davis wanting to come home and Collingwood having a smaller cap. We wouldn't be happy for eg. I don't think if we stood to lose Goodes and had to settle for a lesser deal such as second draft pick for him.

[NMWBloods]

But it also costs a lot to park your car down here in Melbourne. In fact a lot more than in Adelaide or Perth, so maybe Vic clubs should get an allowance over those clubs.

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.

Maybe it should all be tiered according to states. Personally I think it should be a level playing field and then there can be no whingeing.

But then Sydney would have a legitimate gripe.

Or if for example the Swans or Lions were in danger of losing a player because they were after more money because they wanted to go home or found they needed more money to live up north they could get a special allowance for that player, then the rule would not be open to exploitation which it possibly is today.

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

I think there is merit in some comments which suggest that if Sydney doesn't need the extra 15% this year why does it need it in other years.

In what way is there merit in this argument?

West Coast might argue they need more money to retain Judd this year for instance.

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.

I am sure we benefited from Davis wanting to come home and Collingwood having a smaller cap.

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

[RogueSwan]

Nicely dissected there Bloods

[Mike_B]

IMHO the problem with this additional 15% lies in the way it can be used. It's an additional 15% to be spent overall, not an additional 15% to be spent on each player. If the AFL stipulated that the Swans salary cap was the same as other clubs, and then after they fit under that, EVERY player receives an additional 15% to cover COL expenses, things would be much neater. That way, a rookie who would get 40,000 in Melb, would get 46,000 in Sydney, the extra 6,000 covering the higher costs, rather than the rookie still receiving 40,000 in Sydney, and the additional 6,000 being put in a pool for buying/retaining a high profile player.

If this kind of thing didn't shut the Victorians up, well then, we may as well go back to the VFL!

[Gunn]

I don't understand why the emaphasis is on cost of living. It is undeniable in my opionion that it costs a heap more for a young player to relocate to Sydney. Buying a house is more expensive as well as renting and general living. If the AFL wants Sydney to be competitive in recruiting and holding players is must make an allowance for higher costs.

There is another and more important reason for a higher cap in my opinion and I rarely see it mentioned. Sydney players are not celebrities in Sydney as Melbourne players are in Melbourne. In Melbourne every player is "someone to be admired" as being an AFL footballer. This 'celebrity' gives Melbourne players 'marketability' and the opportunity to make excellent money outside football. Look at Buckleys TAC ads for example. Whether the players are doing TV ads, selling cars, doing lanscape gardening or even mowing lawns they can do it more lucratively in Melbourne. Few Melbourne families would not get a kick out of having Buckley, Hird etc mow there lawns or sell them a car. How many Sydney people would care if Maxfield or Hall was doing the same in Sydney. Are there any Sydney players doing TAC ads or there equivelant in Sydney?

Sydney have much more difficulty attracting top players than Melbourne clubs do. Sydney was Tony Locketts 3rd choice after Carlton and Collingwood. There was no 4th choice.

A top player that has the choice of going to Sydney or Melbourne,where he can supplement his income substantially and be a celebrity (free tickets, meals etc) will prefer Melbourne. Players from WA, Adelaide and Tassy would also prefer Melbourne as it is closer to home. For Sydney to attract and hold good players they have to pay more. It is much more than a cost of living argument.

[liz]

I think the younger players (ie those who's contract is stipulated by the AFL under the AFLPA agreement) do get an extra 15% compared to their counterparts elsewhere in the country. The additional allowance thus is spread across the player list. For the older players it is obviously a lot harder to say definitively that they are getting 15% more than equivalent players elsewhere because their "base value" is so subjective.

[Jon]

Originally posted by lizz
I think the younger players (ie those who's contract is stipulated by the AFL under the AFLPA agreement) do get an extra 15% compared to their counterparts elsewhere in the country. The additional allowance thus is spread across the player list. For the older players it is obviously a lot harder to say definitively that they are getting 15% more than equivalent players elsewhere because their "base value" is so subjective.

I think the low end of the list is where the cost of living thing does come in. Schneider is already quoted as saying he's had problems making ends meet.

It could be argued that a player on 300k isn't in the same need of living allowance of 45k to survive. But a player on 40k REALLY needs that 6k to ease the pain of relocation.

Perhaps if the 15% was a seperate fund that the club administered for all to see the rumblings might ease.

But I'm skeptical. I can see the Swans under immense pressure every time a contract gets renegotiated. With a presumed bias built into the Salary cap, we already hear Victorian Presidents scoffing about Magic being the highest paid player in footy. Every year they beat us around the head with this sort fact.

We're still regarded down south as having a Mercenary Culture of retirment padders who (perhaps harshly) were seen as only playing here for the money.

That kind of cynicism hurts the code here.

Another argument for the 15% has been to address the drain of quality players back to Victoria. This was a bug bear in NSW footy, and in QLD too.

Better players with a market value of 300k/yr (especially if they are originally fromk Victoria) might find the pull of a 400k contract down south irresistable considering it gives a "bonus" 480k for the ex-Syd player over a 3 yr period in "real" terms. That kind of sum can really set you up. And think what what a top player like Magic could be reaping?

[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.

[Mike_B]

Which is exactly why I was saying add the 15% on AFTER everything is calculated (including whether the cluyb is under the salary cap or not). That way, the same offer can be made, be it a club in Melb, or sydney, or wherever. Then, as a result of the player living in Sydney, they get 15% additional, purely because it costs more to live in Sydney. But the key point is EVERY player gets an additional 15%, not selected players, meaning that we could pool some of the money from that extra 15% that isn't being paid to some players, to make a bigger offer to another player.

[Nico]

Gunn, you make the best argument I have seen yet.

Nathan Buckley is on the Footy Show on a permanent/contract basis and he is a collywobbles player. If McGuire was not running the Footy Show what would Buckley's situation be. Others on the show are in the same situation.

How many interstate players are permanent fixtures on the show?

Perth and Adelaide players have miles more opportunities than Sydney and Brisbane players to get endorsements that don't come under the salary cap.

Take away the extra dosh for the 2 northern states and the comp dies. Players will not have their hearts in staying in Sydney and the disatisfaction and reluctance of draftees will be breathtaking.

[Reggi]

Originally posted by Nico
Gunn, you make the best argument I have seen yet.

Nathan Buckley is on the Footy Show on a permanent/contract basis and he is a collywobbles player. If McGuire was not running the Footy Show what would Buckley's situation be. Others on the show are in the same situation.

How many interstate players are permanent fixtures on the show?

Perth and Adelaide players have miles more opportunities than Sydney and Brisbane players to get endorsements that don't come under the salary cap.

Take away the extra dosh for the 2 northern states and the comp dies. Players will not have their hearts in staying in Sydney and the disatisfaction and reluctance of draftees will be breathtaking.

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.

http://www.austimmigration.com.au/costs.htm

This is just a handy link if you put in the dollar that year earn it shows how much you would need to earn in the other city in Australia to maintain the same standard of livinghttp://www.yourcalculators.com.au/v1...D/calcwor2.htm

[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

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by Mike_B
IMHO the problem with this additional 15% lies in the way it can be used. It's an additional 15% to be spent overall, not an additional 15% to be spent on each player. If the AFL stipulated that the Swans salary cap was the same as other clubs, and then after they fit under that, EVERY player receives an additional 15% to cover COL expenses, things would be much neater. That way, a rookie who would get 40,000 in Melb, would get 46,000 in Sydney, the extra 6,000 covering the higher costs, rather than the rookie still receiving 40,000 in Sydney, and the additional 6,000 being put in a pool for buying/retaining a high profile player.

If this kind of thing didn't shut the Victorians up, well then, we may as well go back to the VFL!

But that's all those dastardly, dispicable, Victorians are really seeking Mike_B

[Angelic Upstart]

The reason why this has become a big issue again - apart from Eddie's need to get himself in the headlines all the time - is because Sydney is doing so well. At the beginning of the season most 'experts' rated our team list as one of the worst in the league, which logically would mean we were over-paying a bunch of second-raters. But now that we are doing well, suddenly everyone's crying unfair advantage.
The only way our critics will be satisfied is if we have a mediocre football team and we're no threat to the other clubs.