Roos Tells Eddie The Facts About Life In Sydney

[Angelic Upstart]

Originally posted by neored
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

Nice to see youre so concerned about fairness and equity in the competition. Very noble sentiments - pity you ignored them when you were arguing in another thread for a final at the MCG every week, even if it disadvantages non Victorian teams. Hypocrite.

[robbieando]

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

Really, I would however like to point out that of the 21 players who lined up for the Swans in the 1996 Grand Final only 6 of the team were from other clubs.

They were (and how we got them)

Paul Roos (Number 1 1995 Pre Season Draft - he left Fitzroy at the end of 1994 and stated that he was willing to go anywhere, we had the first pick in the draft thanks to winning the 1994 Wooden Spoon)

Tony Lockett (Left St Kilda at the end of 1994 and picked to go to Collingwood, however the Coll board rejected going after him. He then picked Richmond, however Richmond couldn't work out a trade with St Kilda. He then picked Sydney and we worked a fair and reasonable trade with St Kilda)

Craig O'Brien (Traded to Sydney. Was under contract at the time)

Stuart Maxfield (Sydney had 2 uncontracted player selections in 1995 the first went on Maxfield. Had higher offers to stay in Melbourne but wanted to go to Sydney to get more game time. Was a bench player at Richmond. In return Richmond got a draft pick from us as compensation)

Kevin Dyson (Same as Maxfield, was a bench player at Melbourne and was out of contract. Wasn't offered a new contract by the Dee's and had no other offers)

Derek Kickett (Quit Essendon after a falling out with Sheedy in 1993, picked up by the Swans in the 1994 Pre Season draft)

So Neored just how did we nearly BUY a premiership in 1996, or are you starting to believe the myths?????

[liz]

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.

Which side are you arguing?

I can assure you no-one is more frustrated that Sydney / South Melbourne haven't won a flag since 1993 than posters on this board. And maybe it is down to bad coaching etc. But that isn't really the point of this thread. Certainly the Swans past record provides no evidence that it is possible to buy a premiership through having an additional cap allowance. What it maybe provides evidence of is that a team who consistently finished at or near the bottom for years can now field a team that consistently finishes mid-table - ie is competitive without having achieved that "something special" that it takes to win a premiership.

And by your argument, the Lions' success is not evidence either because it is only to be expected that teams will have their share of periods of strength. You'd have to wait another year or two of Lions dominance before any evidence emerges that their cap allowance has anything to do with it. Thus far their period of success is similar to that enjoyed by your team from 1999-2001 in terms of ability to win H&A games - or if anything they haven't had the same level of success. The difference is that they managed to win two grand finals in that time and maybe have a shot at another one.

[neored]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
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.

I still stand by my point. Look at the teams that have not won a premiership for 10 years or more and look at the circumstances behind the lack of success.

Coll - Badly managed in the mid 90's, recovering under McGuire and Malthouse and should unfortunately win a premiership in the next few years.

W.Bulldogs - Busy staving off extinction.

Geelong - Perrenial chokers, now recovering from financial debt.

Hawthorn - Great success in the 80's and early 90's but merger talks proved devisive.

Melbourne - debt ridden, nearly merged, disorganised, huge internal strife

St. Kilda - AFL basket case

Sydney - Made a critical error after 1996 grand final , overestimated list capacity.


I fail to see how my point is flawed, a well administrated club, with good recruiting and most importantly a good coach should be winning a premiership every ten years.

In any one year there will be 4 or 5 well managed clubs, whilst the rest go through a rebuilding process.

[neored]

Originally posted by lizz
Which side are you arguing?

I can assure you no-one is more frustrated that Sydney / South Melbourne haven't won a flag since 1993 than posters on this board. And maybe it is down to bad coaching etc. But that isn't really the point of this thread. Certainly the Swans past record provides no evidence that it is possible to buy a premiership through having an additional cap allowance. What it maybe provides evidence of is that a team who consistently finished at or near the bottom for years can now field a team that consistently finishes mid-table - ie is competitive without having achieved that "something special" that it takes to win a premiership.

Someone pointed out earlier in the post that if the salary cap concessions were so helpful then why haven't the swans won a premiership. I was illustrating how bad coaching/recruiting/management have affected your chances.

And by your argument, the Lions' success is not evidence either because it is only to be expected that teams will have their share of periods of strength. You'd have to wait another year or two of Lions dominance before any evidence emerges that their cap allowance has anything to do with it. Thus far their period of success is similar to that enjoyed by your team from 1999-2001 in terms of ability to win H&A games - or if anything they haven't had the same level of success. The difference is that they managed to win two grand finals in that time and maybe have a shot at another one.

Of course they've been more successful than our side. Premierships are the ultimate measuring stick. The difference is that they've been able to mantain their list, aided by the extra salary cap space. So whilst they've maintained their core we've lost ours in Hardwick , Heffernan, Caracella, Blumfield.

The fact that they were able to fit Caracella under their salary cap is testament to how the extra salary cap space. favours them.

[neored]

Originally posted by Angelic Upstart
Nice to see youre so concerned about fairness and equity in the competition. Very noble sentiments - pity you ignored them when you were arguing in another thread for a final at the MCG every week, even if it disadvantages non Victorian teams. Hypocrite.

So tell me, how does it feel to be discrimminated against?

Not so merry , when the shoe is on the other foot .Is it?

[sharp9]

Originally posted by neored


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

I can't decide whether you are so pathetically undeveloped mentally that you don't understand the concept of fair play....or is it that you really are so stupid that you really think that the AFL is trying to engineer a premiership for Sydney.

Come on, which is it? Are you a *#@!ing tosser or a ***@@#ing idiot?

Either way you are unwell - and boring

[robbieando]

Originally posted by neored
Of course they've been more successful than our side. Premierships are the ultimate measuring stick. The difference is that they've been able to mantain their list, aided by the extra salary cap space. So whilst they've maintained their core we've lost ours in Hardwick , Heffernan, Caracella, Blumfield.

The fact that they were able to fit Caracella under their salary cap is testament to how the extra salary cap space. favours them.

If this is the case why then did North manage to keep all its good players, why did Adelaide do the same????? Face it the extra room Brisbane have has little bearing on what Brisbane have been able to do as their playing group was willing to all take pay cuts to stay together, with or without the extra room. The same goes with North and Adelaide, they were able to keep their squad together despite winning 2 flags.

Face it, the Essendon squad were not willing to take paycuts to stay together nor did the club plan well, because what sort of club pays Mercuci $500,000 for 5 years????? Admit it the reason Essendon are in the position they find themselves is because you stuffed up, the extra room would of done little to keep the squad together because the group as a whole weren't willing to take cuts.

The reason Brisbane could fit Caracella under their cap is because they had traded Headland and Cupido and the players having taken cuts.

Don't blame Brisbane because of Essendon list mismanagement.

[robbieando]

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

87% of our allowable salary cap (115%), which comes in at 92.5% of the normal salary cap (100%)

[robbieando]

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

Well you have been proven wrong on this point because ALL clubs including your own have agreed to 7% COL plus the extra deal (12 players get an extra $30,000 on top of what they get), so in fact we get to play with 114% from now on.

Hope it was worth it because we only lost 1% of what we had.

[scurrilous]

Hey neored...

Robbie 3
Neo 0

:P

[liz]

Originally posted by robbieando
87% of our allowable salary cap (115%), which comes in at 92.5% of the normal salary cap (100%)

I know this isn't the subject of the thread, but can't let those maths pass. 87% of our allowable cap is actually equivalent to 100% of the normal cap, which is about what the Swans are reportedly paying this year.

[TheHood]

The Dons have a history of poor maths! I seem to recall fines issues, draft picks withdrawn after a salary cap breach.

Thats the Don's way though, if they won't give it to us, we'll just take it anyway.

The classic irony was the Kevin was moaning about the 1999 Carlton side using players with a busted salary cap, the year they knocked the Don's on the head in the Elimination, however Kevin had been winning games with a busted cap for years anyway!

[liz]

Originally posted by TheHood

The classic irony was the Kevin was moaning about the 1999 Carlton side using players with a busted salary cap, the year they knocked the Don's on the head in the Elimination, however Kevin had been winning games with a busted cap for years anyway!

I reckon it was matched by Elliott's comments in the Blues' rooms during the 2000 finals that Essendon were cheats due to their salary cap transgressions!

[Jon]

Originally posted by lizz
I reckon it was matched by Elliott's comments in the Blues' rooms during the 2000 finals that Essendon were cheats due to their salary cap transgressions!

(wipe tear from eye) that one still makes me laugh!