Roos Tells Eddie The Facts About Life In Sydney

[TheHood]

It was almost vaudevillian.

[neored]

Originally posted by robbieando
[B]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.

Really?? Freeborn went to Collingwood for more money, and Bell ended up leaving. And as is widely acknowledged that North team of 1996 , 1999 weren't the most talented , just played with a lot of team spirit.

AS for Adelaide they won their Premiersips in 97/98, salaries had just started to inflate. Add to this the fact that most players come from Adelaide and dont often move.

Of course the extra cap space gives Brisbane an advantage, irregardless of the margin.

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 Essendon tema DID take pay cuts, over $400,000 dollars worth. You really should read up on your history.

Theres no doubt signing Mercuri for 500,000 for extra 3 years on top of his existing 2 year contract was a bad idea. But put it into context, he finished runner up in the Brownlow, had a fantastic year and clubs were chasing him. Looking back it was a stupid move , but overall we have been excellent when it comes to list management.

Oh and BTW Mercuri has sacrificed $150,000 of his pay in recent years.

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.

Headland was on an existing contract, and Cupido was not being paid anywhere near that amount, he has signed for us on a minimum contract.

They were able to fit Caracella because they were able to place the salaries of the Victorian based players under the salary cap retention allowance, thereby releasing money in their cap to spend on other players.

Face it the extra cap makes a difference , there's no use debating it.

[neored]

Originally posted by robbieando
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.

Clubs haven't agreed to anything, theres been cautious support up to this point. The report is very lengthy so dont expect any major responses from Clubs any time soon.

In any case one of my major arguments have been vindicated. Now every club will have access to extra allowance depending on the make up of their list. The rule has been extended for all clubs not just one or two.

[neored]

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

As an earlier poster pointed out , you need to brush up on your maths.

87 X 115 = 10005

10005 /100 = 100.5

In any case you're still wrong, under the current CBA, clubs are allowed a minimum of 95%.

The AFL under special circumstances can authorise clubs to go down to 92.5 % if they receive special assistance from the AFL.

And since this years salary cap is calculated from October last year, and you're not receiving special assistance(yet) the minimum your able to pay is 95%

The new CBA which is not yet operating will allow clubs to go down to 92.5.

[neored]

Originally posted by sharp9
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

Fair play would be applying rules for all ... dimwit

[liz]

Originally posted by neored


In any case you're still wrong, under the current CBA, clubs are allowed a minimum of 95%.

The AFL under special circumstances can authorise clubs to go down to 92.5 % if they receive special assistance from the AFL.

I believe you're incorrect here, and that clubs are currently permitted (and even encouraged, in some cases) to pay just 92.5% of the cap under the current agreement without any special dispensation from the AFL. In fact, if the agreement with the AFLPA was 95%, I don't see how the AFL would be permitted to vary this - after all, it is a binding contract!

[scurrilous]

Originally posted by 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!

Exactly my point previously.

And neo, my violin's playing for you buddy

[neored]

Originally posted by lizz
I believe you're incorrect here, and that clubs are currently permitted (and even encouraged, in some cases) to pay just 92.5% of the cap under the current agreement without any special dispensation from the AFL. In fact, if the agreement with the AFLPA was 95%, I don't see how the AFL would be permitted to vary this - after all, it is a binding contract!

Nope,

Scroll to the last paragraph and you'll see that clubs can spend NO LESS than 95%

The new CBA will allow clubs to go down to 92.5% without AFL approval.

The current CBA is actually on the web so take a look:

AFLPA WEBSITE CBA

[neored]

Originally posted by scurrilous
Exactly my point previously.

And neo, my violin's playing for you buddy

Rest assured if Sydney play a perliminary final at the MCG despite finishing in the top 4 , I'll be feeling the same amount of pain that you are.

Isn't it funny that those who lay into us about our salary cap breaches miss a few points.

a) we weren't the only club over the cap

b) If we had told the AFL of our breaches during the Amnesty we would of been let off.

c} One of the people responsible for our breaches is a current member of the commission.

d} That person is heavily in favour of Sydney keeping its concessions. So what better way for you swannies fans to demonstrate your disgust than to campaign for his removal.

[robbieando]

neored the entire commission is heavily in favour of the extention so removing one bad apple won't change things.

On playing the Prelim Final at the G, I haven't got a problem and our club hasn't been outspoken on this issue because they know we have a huge following in Melbourne. Plus I don't have to pay $200 just make it up to Sydney. Still I bet you were real happy coming up here in 96

Who cares if you could of got off, you still cheated not the other way around.

[liz]

Originally posted by neored
Nope,

Scroll to the last paragraph and you'll see that clubs can spend NO LESS than 95%

The new CBA will allow clubs to go down to 92.5% without AFL approval.

The current CBA is actually on the web so take a look:

AFLPA WEBSITE CBA

I may very well be mistaken, but I thought I recalled that the minimum was brought down from the 95% to 92.5% for last season as a reaction to suggestions it was daft to expect the top and bottom clubs to be paying within such a narrow band. If you read the CBA as posted, it only includes specifics for the first couple of years, with subsequent increases in the TPP to be determined subsequently - as seems to happen in an annual renegotiation with the AFLPA.

It has certainly been widely reported that clubs like the Bulldogs are currently paying only around 92.5% of the cap.

[Reggi]

Bryan Wood
Geoff Raines
Rene Kink
Anthony Daniher
Ben Doolan

[Reggi]

Originally posted by neored

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.

How's five do ya!

[omnipotent]

I think that everyone is a winner. Sydney keeps a reasonable concession, Brisbane some concession but more watered down than Swans, all other clubs are now in the position where they get compensated if local content falls below a certain %. Maybe clubs will be encouraged to recruit more from out of town to be eligible for this allowance.

[neored]

Originally posted by lizz
I may very well be mistaken, but I thought I recalled that the minimum was brought down from the 95% to 92.5% for last season as a reaction to suggestions it was daft to expect the top and bottom clubs to be paying within such a narrow band. If you read the CBA as posted, it only includes specifics for the first couple of years, with subsequent increases in the TPP to be determined subsequently - as seems to happen in an annual renegotiation with the AFLPA.

It has certainly been widely reported that clubs like the Bulldogs are currently paying only around 92.5% of the cap.

I'm not disputing that a few clubs are paying 92.5%, but in order to do this and not have to pay the difference they must ask the AFL.

So what happens is that a club will decide that is wants to pay less than the minimum amount. As part of the agreement the club must pay the difference over the list , so paying 92.5 % would mean the club having to pay $100,000 over the list.

So the club goes to the AFL and requests the special assistance package. As part of the financial compensation the AFL pays the difference. Thats why clubs must go to the AFL, otherwise they must pay the difference themselves.