Season 2018 - Sydney - Diggers.. come at him


#482

Do you mean Lockett?
There’s been a few.


#483

10 years of Cola, I’m guessing.


#484

You think Tippett’s inclusion had nothing to do with those sanctions?

You’re just the type of mug punter M Fitzpatrick relied upon.


#485
  1. Cap was $1.25m at the time and they were $1.15m over it!

#486

I really, really don’t.
Tell me more about how poorly the AFL have treated Sydney over the years.


#487

Fark Sydney
Hope afl lets them slide while GWS up.


#488

I don’t think I’ve ever met a sydney supporter.


#489

I have only ever known one South Melbourne supporter but he dropped them when they moved to Sydney. He was devastated.


#490

Unfortunately I know dozens but only one of them has any clue about football outside of their own little insulated bubble


#491

You’d think GWS have been over it also with AFL’s blessing regardless of the spin that came out.


#492

Cap rotting happens everywhere, it’s not excluding to Sydney. Plenty of players wives have been paid hundreds of thousands a year to do admin work 2 days a week. Crows were masters of it.


#493

But in Sydney’s case, the AFL’s own integrity unit found that they had acted within the rules but the AFL commission imposed sanctions anyway.

As I said earlier, I would have gone to court over it. They hadn’t nothing to lose.


#494

Like Melbourne being cleared of tanking.


#495

Melbourne weren’t cleared at all. The club was fined and individuals were penalised. The AFL just didn’t refer to it as ‘tanking’.

Sydney got stitched up not for tanking, not for salary cap breaches, not for anything other than making M Fitzpatrick look foolish after they (him, Demetriou etc) had publicly endorsed L FRANKLIN’s move to GWS for the 2014 season.

If you can put parochialism to one side and look at the facts only, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this episode is a total disgrace.


#496

It’s identical.

Melbourne didn’t breach any rules but were sanctioned.

Sydney didn’t breach any rules but were sanctioned.


#497

You’re confusing identical with completely opposite.

The AFL were furious. They first removed the COLA after they said they wouldn’t, then launched an investigation into the circumstances of Sydney’s drafting of FRANKLIN, including the terms of his contract, found nothing untoward but imposed trading sanctions anyway.

It’s a farce which should have gone to court. I wouldn’t be surprised if M Fitzpatrick’s departure was part of a behind the scenes arrangement to prevent Sydney taking action.


#498

The only difference between the Melbourne situation and the Sydney one was the AFL gave the Melbourne one a title “bringing the game into disrepute”. They didn’t say how they brought it into disrepute, just that they did.

The AFL didn’t charge Sydney with anything, just punished them for some reason.


#499

The reason was that Sydney embarrassed them. Nothing else.


#500

That and Sydney’s unbelievable arrogance.


#501

What’s arrogant about it? Every side in the land would have wanted to hire him.