I still don't understand why paying 100% of the cap equals up the competition. How is it equal if the highest performing list in the competition pays the same as the lowest performing list in the competition. If the highest and lowest performing lists turn over 9-10 players on the list a year they still will have roughly the same money to spend on free agents, depending on who leaves and what they were on. I favour a system where you can pay down to 80% of your cap on a lowly developing list and use the extra 20% room the next year to retain your better players and launch a free agent assault.
COLA to be replaced by rent subsidy
Collapse
X
-
Yes, especially after Ireland called them out on it. Why don't they come out and out it to bed ? Weak dogsComment
-
Time to start up South Melbourne Academy in the heart of Melbourne city to be run in conjunction with the Sydney Swans Academy
This would only be fair to recognise both Sydney Swans and South Melbourne roots"be tough, only when it gets tough"
Comment
-
I still don't understand why paying 100% of the cap equals up the competition. How is it equal if the highest performing list in the competition pays the same as the lowest performing list in the competition. If the highest and lowest performing lists turn over 9-10 players on the list a year they still will have roughly the same money to spend on free agents, depending on who leaves and what they were on. I favour a system where you can pay down to 80% of your cap on a lowly developing list and use the extra 20% room the next year to retain your better players and launch a free agent assault.
If you paying a list of crap (read mediocre) players the same a strong list then you are pricing those players out of the market for other clubs, and locking up cap that could be use to recruit or retain better players. So it actually entrenches the status quo rather than leads to greater equalisation.Comment
-
- - - Updated - - -
That's the way I see it too. I like your suggestion.
If you paying a list of crap (read mediocre) players the same a strong list then you are pricing those players out of the market for other clubs, and locking up cap that could be use to recruit or retain better players. So it actually entrenches the status quo rather than leads to greater equalisation.You don't ban those who supported your opponent, you make them wallow in their loserdom by covering your victory! You sit them in the front row. You give them a hat! Toby ZieglerComment
-
So everyone listening to 3aw on Monday night heard it then ? Didn't see it any of the papers, on the tv news or on the afl website. I want a big, bold statement that gets across to the masses, not a mention on a Monday night am radio station from the departing CEO. Put it to bed.Comment
-
The written statement of changes, without explanation, leaves the implication that:
1. Swans misused COLA
2. Swans can't be trusted to pay accommodation subsidy (so AFL will pay it directly).
I agree with changes but they should have been explained and put in context in the written statement. Every time we win a match COLA is going to be raised if this week is a predictor.Comment
-
AFL chief Andrew Demetriou predicts grand final clash | 3AW Sports Today
There is a link to the discussion hereYou don't ban those who supported your opponent, you make them wallow in their loserdom by covering your victory! You sit them in the front row. You give them a hat! Toby ZieglerComment
-
The AFLPA has to see the problem of paying a Daniel Rich of the Lions more that Josh Kennedy of the Swans because the Lions have a weak list and 100% of the cap needs to be payed.Comment
-
You don't ban those who supported your opponent, you make them wallow in their loserdom by covering your victory! You sit them in the front row. You give them a hat! Toby ZieglerComment
Comment