#AFL Round 4 Weekly Discussion Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • bloodspirit
    Clubman
    • Apr 2015
    • 4448

    #61
    Originally posted by Meg
    If you are saying/ thinking that GWS still get COLA, then that is not correct. It was abolished for both Sydney clubs and replaced with the accommodation allowance (subject to maximum salary test) paid directly by the AFL.

    A preliminary announcement early in the process of these changes seemed to imply that the Giants would continue to get COLA but that?s not what eventually happened.

    However GWS were not subject to the discriminatory trade ban that was inflicted on the Swans during the transitional phase of COLA abolition. You might have been referring to that.
    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.
    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

    • liz
      Veteran
      Site Admin
      • Jan 2003
      • 16733

      #62
      Originally posted by bloodspirit
      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.
      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

      • bloodspirit
        Clubman
        • Apr 2015
        • 4448

        #63
        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

        • Jimitron5000
          Warming the Bench
          • Oct 2006
          • 455

          #64
          Originally posted by 707
          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!
          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.

          Comment

          Working...