Buddygate


#21

Feel free to merge elsewhere....

 

If the AFL is serious about a 9.8% Sydney cost of living allowance, why not:

 

1) Give the Swans the same salary cap as everyone else.

2) Give each individual Sydney player an additional 9.8% on top of their club salary.

and how will this change anything? This is effectively how it is 'supposed' to be now in theory, but all handled by the Swans.

 

For example, a player who wants 500K would just get offered 450K by Sydney, with the AFL kicking in the rest. Nothing really changes.

 

The whole thing doesnt make sense, but if there was an argument for COLA - why is it a % based thing?

 

So Buddy "needs" $100,000 more to live, but a first year player only 'needs' $6,000 more to live in Sydney? It makes no sense. Does Buddy eat more meals than a rookie does he? Goes to more movies does he? Does he pay more for petrol does he? Is his cough medicine more than a rookies, is it?

 

IF, and a big IF you want a COLA - it should be a flat amount. Say $25,000 each per player. That means it is a sliding scale for a rookie on 60K it is a bigger % than that for a player on $1 million.

 

What makes sense though is a player on anymore than say $150,000 should not be entitled to a COLA. It is a joke.


#22

There was a NHL case where a player was on a 17 year contract but the last 10 years we only 50K each.

 

It was to spread the salary cap pressure.

 

He retired after 4 years.

 

It's a dodgy loophole that the AFL need to clean up.


#23

I have no problem with Sydney or Buddy. The issue is with the COLA and how the AFL have let it be used. Rather than GWS getting a big player, they will miss out and continue to struggle with attendance & on field success. The AFL are not happy but they only have themselves to blame!


#24

This is farking the Hawks. So I am laughing. Every time a club gets farked by the AFaiL I will laugh, not sympathise.

 

The whole competition is morally bankrupt and this sort of ■■■■ is hilarious as it shows how brazen the AFL endorsed clubs are becoming.


#25

I find it laughable that a person being paid $10million needs a cost of living allowance. 

 

Or any "allowance" for that matter.

 

Surely that AFL can say that any player below a certain threshold needs assistance to live in Sydney but if you're being paid well, why should you receive more money?


#26

 

Feel free to merge elsewhere....

 

If the AFL is serious about a 9.8% Sydney cost of living allowance, why not:

 

1) Give the Swans the same salary cap as everyone else.

2) Give each individual Sydney player an additional 9.8% on top of their club salary.

That's how the COLA works.

 

However the popular view is that the players are offered 92% of what they are worth, with the COLA making up the difference, which frees up more salary cap room.

 

The COLA should be a flat rate paid by the AFL if it really was about the cost of living in Sydney. Which it isn't.

 

That's not how it works.

 

 

Rules require the clubs to pay the cost-of-living allowance as an addition to the agreed contract figure.

 
However, it is believed a stipulation sees a hard-and-fast figure enforced only for players on the collective bargaining agreement base payment of around $70,000, who receive the set 9.8 per cent allowance (around $7,000 extra for a total payment of $77,000.)
 
It is understood the remaining money can be used at the clubs' discretion when negotiating contracts for the rest of their lists.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-28/afl-may-control-purse-strings


#27

There was a NHL case where a player was on a 17 year contract but the last 10 years we only 50K each.

 

It was to spread the salary cap pressure.

 

He retired after 4 years.

 

It's a dodgy loophole that the AFL need to clean up.

Mate I don't see how there is a loophole.  If Buddy doesn't see out his contract because of injury or crapness, the Swans still have to pay him and include it in the salary cap.  Whether they keep him on the list and include it each year or cut him after 5 years and weare the last 4 years costs in one season is up to them, but either way there is a big risk for them.

 

I hope it ends up happening and that Buddy turns into dud within 3 or 4 years and the Swans are screwed for years as a result.


#28

Cola is a rort.  Simple.  A dumb rule bought in with the intention of supporting Sydney, but effected in a way that is obviously being exploited.  The idea that a preliminary finalist has the ability to take a top 10 player in the competition via draft and 'equalisation' mechanisms and is just unbelievable. 

 

There is some good out of this:

Buddy will not be the player Sydney hope for... start mixing in Sydney with a few of the League boys and see what happens.... will be fun!  10 years of fun and newspaper articles!

Maybe the clubs will fracture over this and start asking the commission to deliver what it was implemented for - a level playing field.

 

That the clubs used the commission to 'take out' Essendon was and is disgraceful, so it is somewhat pleasing for them to be now suffering at their hands... Even though technically it does impact us as well.


#29

Good on Buddy for taking the offer. You'd have to be a raving retard not too.

 

And I doubt whoreforn will miss him all that much as a player. They seem to play at least as well without him.


#30

 

There was a NHL case where a player was on a 17 year contract but the last 10 years we only 50K each.

 

It was to spread the salary cap pressure.

 

He retired after 4 years.

 

It's a dodgy loophole that the AFL need to clean up.

Mate I don't see how there is a loophole.  If Buddy doesn't see out his contract because of injury or crapness, the Swans still have to pay him and include it in the salary cap.  Whether they keep him on the list and include it each year or cut him after 5 years and weare the last 4 years costs in one season is up to them, but either way there is a big risk for them.

 

I hope it ends up happening and that Buddy turns into dud within 3 or 4 years and the Swans are screwed for years as a result.

 

That's the bit you don't get.

 

The deal is front ended knowing Buddy won't play after 5 years.

 

That is the loophole.

 

As they have so many players leaving this year they have cash now. So pay him 1.2 or 1.3 this year. Then the last 4 years are only 200K or what ever. Total over the 9 years is the same but the pain is just now.

 

We don't want to get to a situation where we spread out a contract over 17 years to get around the salary cap like the NHL does.


#31

Good on Buddy for taking the offer. You'd have to be a raving retard not too.

 

And I doubt whoreforn will miss him all that much as a player. They seem to play at least as well without him.

He didn't take the offer. He wanted to go to Syndey. He rang them and said would you take me.


#32

You watch Sydney go to the AFL for a special dispensation in 5 years when he's cactus. 


#33

You watch Sydney go to the AFL for a special dispensation in 5 years when he's cactus. 

But what if he gets a bad batch, or what if he gets 3 strikes.....

 

there are ways out of the contract...


#34

Can't wait to see Gunston against Hooker/Carlisle, You think you've seen man handled just wait!!!!  

 

Will be a joy to play them without Buddy.


#35

Can't wait to see Gunston against Hooker/Carlisle, You think you've seen man handled just wait!!!!  

 

Will be a joy to play them without Buddy.

Agree. The comments that they play better without Buddy are laughable. North were better without Carey. How did they go once he left?


#36

 

 

There was a NHL case where a player was on a 17 year contract but the last 10 years we only 50K each.

 

It was to spread the salary cap pressure.

 

He retired after 4 years.

 

It's a dodgy loophole that the AFL need to clean up.

Mate I don't see how there is a loophole.  If Buddy doesn't see out his contract because of injury or crapness, the Swans still have to pay him and include it in the salary cap.  Whether they keep him on the list and include it each year or cut him after 5 years and weare the last 4 years costs in one season is up to them, but either way there is a big risk for them.

 

I hope it ends up happening and that Buddy turns into dud within 3 or 4 years and the Swans are screwed for years as a result.

 

That's the bit you don't get.

 

The deal is front ended knowing Buddy won't play after 5 years.

 

That is the loophole.

 

As they have so many players leaving this year they have cash now. So pay him 1.2 or 1.3 this year. Then the last 4 years are only 200K or what ever. Total over the 9 years is the same but the pain is just now.

 

We don't want to get to a situation where we spread out a contract over 17 years to get around the salary cap like the NHL does.

 

By all reports I've seen, the deal is in fact backended.


#37

Feel free to merge elsewhere....

 

If the AFL is serious about a 9.8% Sydney cost of living allowance, why not:

 

1) Give the Swans the same salary cap as everyone else.

2) Give each individual Sydney player an additional 9.8% on top of their club salary.

That is in effect what happens (well what Sydney claim happens). The problem is that if you are on a low salary like a first year player on $70,000 then you only get a $7,000 subsidy. However if you are on $700,000 you get a huge $70,000 bonus. That is where the inequity lies.


#38

I don't mind COLA< but as others have said. I think it should be only for low level players. ones where the extra few grant will make a difference, rookies   kids just drafted etc.


#39

 

Good on Buddy for taking the offer. You'd have to be a raving retard not too.

 

And I doubt whoreforn will miss him all that much as a player. They seem to play at least as well without him.

He didn't take the offer. He wanted to go to Syndey. He rang them and said would you take me.

 

Which is why they offered 10mil over 9 years trumping all other sensible offers? Because he 'wanted' to go there?


#40

I don't mind COLA< but as others have said. I think it should be only for low level players. ones where the extra few grant will make a difference, rookies   kids just drafted etc.

Thing is, COLA is not just "cost of living" it's "cost of lifestyle". Buddy is a bad example, as he'll be the big man on campus wherever he goes, but imagine a player like Andrew Carrazzo - probably a god on Lygon street, but if he went to Sydney he'd be a nobody. For Sydney to attract a lot of these mid-tier players they'd need to pay overs.

 

Of course, that aspect of COLA could apply to GCS or BL as well, but they have other perks.