SA Footy

http://m.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premi ... 6730762232

Who saw this coming?

Heard this on 5AA this morning.

What a joke. I think this proves Sydney dont NEED the extra $900k, when they can shell out that much coin.

I understand they have some retirements and such, but freeing up that much money is ridiculous for a top team.

Mr66 wrote:http://m.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/lance-franklin-to-meet-hawthorn-today-to-tell-the-club-hes-leaving/story-e6frf3e3-1226730762232

Who saw this coming?

not me.. unsure how i feel bout it

Laughable, isn't it?

"We've had a few blokes leave this year..."......you'll have a few more leave quick smart now that they know two mercenaries are taking most of the cash between them.

As a Carlton supporter, I have two feelings about it. 1. I'm not sure how my club is supposed to compete with the likes of Sydney when they can lure a big name like that given they are getting more in the salary cap than anyone else but just did a similar thing topping up on Tippett after winning the flag. 2. We're paying too much of our salary cap to nuff nuffs! ;-)

Booney wrote:Laughable, isn't it?

"We've had a few blokes leave this year..."......you'll have a few more leave quick smart now that they know two mercenaries are taking most of the cash between them.

i find that very unlikely

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of Sydneys salary cap in comparison with other clubs. Obviously the extra cash isnt being used as intended.

Two years in a row the Swans let a franchise do all the heavy lifting in regards to trade deliberations and then sweep in on the prize.

Doesn't quite seem right. Most people would've shrugged their shoulders if Buddy went to GWS because "it's good for the code".

But to go to Sydney, well...

woodublieve12 wrote:

Booney wrote:Laughable, isn't it?

"We've had a few blokes leave this year..."......you'll have a few more leave quick smart now that they know two mercenaries are taking most of the cash between them.

i find that very unlikely

Woody- how long are Kennedy, Jack and Hannebery signed for?

COLA should be per player. And not a percentage, an amount.

If you earn $250k a year, or you earn $1M a year, the COL is the same. Should be the same. At WORST it should be 10% per player. Even then, it's off.

You choose to go there (for the money), you wear the costs. The money outside would be massive too.

buddy just wanted to live in Sydney, and seems playing for swans is a lot better than giants.
he will make the money up from endorsements n shit, he wont be broke

You know, when I saw COLA attached to Buddy's name, I thought people might have been making a drug reference...

HH3 wrote:It would be interesting to see a breakdown of Sydneys salary cap in comparison with other clubs. Obviously the extra cash isnt being used as intended.

Everyone knows O'Keefe is getting paid overs after resisting Collingwood and the likes a few years back. O'Keefe, Tippett and Franklin taking up nearly $3m of the salary cap. Would expect the likes of Mitchell, Jetta, Hannabery to get poached over the next couple of years.

Its pretty unbelievable isn't it. Good on Sydney for working with what they have though. They obviously have some good business people there.

I still think the only extra cash should go to players earning under $100k a year, and the extra "living allowance" should be paid straight from the AFL to the player. Sydneys list management team should not have the means to manipulate the distribution to construct massive contracts for marquee players.

Surely someone at AFL House will be looking into this for the future.

Dogwatcher wrote:You know, when I saw COLA attached to Buddy's name, I thought people might have been making a drug reference...

One more sleep till Buddy debuts for the Swans

Disgraceful, hopefully the clubs all band together and get rid of this ridiculous COLA.

Jim05 wrote:Disgraceful, hopefully the clubs all band together and get rid of this ridiculous COLA.

Too much COLA is bad for you AFL...

Just remember hawks fans, you still have SPANGHER!!!!!

Dissident wrote:COLA should be per player. And not a percentage, an amount.

If you earn $250k a year, or you earn $1M a year, the COL is the same. Should be the same. At WORST it should be 10% per player. Even then, it's off.

You choose to go there (for the money), you wear the costs. The money outside would be massive too.

If COLA was actually about equity, it would be distributed in such a manner. The reason it isnot is because the Real Estate numbers are being used to justify the AFL propping up Sydney to take the fight to Rugby League. Come on its obvious...the Vlad administration doing something to protect the integrity of the competition? Only a Swans fan would believe such a cock and bull story.

Count me in as a fellow COLA dissedent.

regards,

REB

HH3 wrote:Its pretty unbelievable isn't it. Good on Sydney for working with what they have though. They obviously have some good business people there.

I still think the only extra cash should go to players earning under $100k a year, and the extra "living allowance" should be paid straight from the AFL to the player. Sydneys list management team should not have the means to manipulate the distribution to construct massive contracts for marquee players.

Surely someone at AFL House will be looking into this for the future.

Yeah. "How can we get Heath Shaw over there".

regards,

REB