I was pointing out that each list does not get paid exactly the same amount - mostly due to the fact there is no obligation to spend your whole salary cap and partly because you can carry some unspent salary cap over into a subsequent year. For completeness I pointed out that COLA was abolished for all clubs but that Giants still had some kind of concession (didn't remember exact details). I was not referring to the trade ban.
#AFL Round 4 Weekly Discussion Thread
Collapse
X
-
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams, author (11 Mar 1952-2001)
-
But, as Meg pointed out, the Giants don't have any concession other than that the Swans still have - ie a rental allowance for lower paid players.Comment
-
Thanks, I was missing the point that the Swans still get it too.All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams, author (11 Mar 1952-2001)
Comment
-
Totally and completely agree. Makes in near impossible to clear the decks and bring in a couple of quality players from other clubs. Carlton and Melbourne spend many seasons recruiting second rate players on first rate salary to make the minimum salary cap percentage.What about the anomaly of those dreadful Melbourne lists under Mark Neeld being paid 95% of our list or Hawks list! Some seriously overpaid players there.
I think having to pay a certain minimum % is rubbish for that very reason, clubs should be able to pay fair market rate for a player regardless of what the list totals up to. Having to over pay players to make the minimum %, what a joke, AFLPA at work!Comment

Comment