One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => View from the Outer => Topic started by: one-eyed on March 05, 2014, 02:44:58 AM
-
AFL hold on Swans' extra cash
Caroline Wilson
The Age
March 5, 2014
The AFL has wrested control of Sydney's controversial cost-of-living allowance away from the Swans and ensured the club's richest footballers no longer receive extra money outside the standard salary cap.
In a move strongly criticised by the club but applauded by the rest of the competition, AFL chiefs told Tuesday's meeting of the 18 clubs that head office would handle the extra money paid to Sydney footballers whose wages were below a certain threshold.
Greater Western Sydney, the fledgling club that recently called for the Swans to stop relying on AFL favours, will continue to receive an estimated extra $1 million to pay its players in an expansion allowance to be reviewed at the end of 2016.
The move by the AFL to take over Sydney's additional player payments follows the controversial nine-year $10 million Lance Franklin signing that could also see free agency terms changed and which infuriated head office.
In a separate equalisation move, the AFL has capped football department spending at a proposed $9.5 million and will heavily tax clubs breaking that barrier.
While the tax on revenue has been diluted following heavy campaigning led by Collingwood, the football department tax will be phased in over two years and ultimately cost clubs 75˘ for each dollar over the cap.
Swans chiefs Andrew Pridham and Andrew Ireland did not hide their disgust with the AFL move at Tuesday's talks. In a pointed statement after the meeting, Pridham, the Swans' new chairman, said: ''We remain extremely disappointed at the ongoing campaign to remove a long-standing and legitimate equalisation mechanism relating to the materially higher housing rental and mortgage costs borne by Sydney based AFL players.''
While the AFL has succeeded in convincing Collingwood, Hawthorn and West Coast to agree to a two-pronged tax scheme it has devised to bridge the gap between the rich and poor clubs, that scheme has been watered down following a late protest led by Magpies' president Eddie McGuire.
The Magpies, with some support from the Hawks, the Eagles and Essendon, lobbied heavily against the tax on club revenues that could have seen the wealthiest clubs forced to contribute as much as $2 million a year into a central fund. That tax has now been capped at a maximum $500,000 a season.
McGuire launched an angry salvo at under-performing mid-level clubs before Tuesday's talks, saying: ''It's time for a few clubs to pull their heads in and start putting into the competition. I'm not just talking about the poorer clubs, I'm talking about some of the middle-ranked clubs who … should be doing better.
''And it's time for them to actually kick into the competition and for a few clubs to pull their head in and stop cheating and burning the competition to the ground every other year.
''But the next team that cheats and the next administration that does it, they should be be put in the city square and flogged.''
On a more conciliatory note McGuire added: ''Every team should have the opportunity to be able to compete, and then if you're smart enough and good enough, you win. Who wants to be a cheat and who wants to win because you have advantages over the others?''
In 2015, clubs exceeding the football department cap will be charged 37.5 per cent of each dollar over with that amount expected to double in 2016.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-hold-on-swans-extra-cash-20140304-345cx.html#ixzz2v0lknnbF
-
the cost of living allowance is an interesting one.
Lets say for arguments sake that there is a legitimate need for it, due to the increased cost of living in sydney.
the only fair and equatable way to administer it was it to be paid as as a separate allowance of 10% ( or whatever the exact figure was)to each and every player on the list.
but as it was, it was rorted by sydney in recent times with large chunks of the allowance going to a select few high profile players.
and as i have said before this gave sydney an advantage in any free agency bidding war, as they could effectively bid 10% more, than a rival, while theoretically the bids would be of equivalent value..
if it had been paid as a true allowance to each player based on their wage,outside the salary cap it would solve these problems.
simple but not achievable by this beast known as the AFL, but in this case im glad the AFL is incapbale of coming up with a logical solution and scrapped it, as Sydney can go suck a fat hairy one.
-
If you're a rookie listed player, especially coming from interstate, you're going to need some COLA no matter which city you're in.
As if Goodes, Franklin, O'Keefe, McVeigh or any other Sydney player earning over $300k would need help with expenses.
-
Luxury tax shoul be just called the melbourne tax to help them whenever they need to pay out a coach or a fine.
-
Luxury tax shoul be just called the melbourne tax to help them whenever they need to pay out a coach or a fine.
or both :lol
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bh8bHDeCMAA4Wt8.jpg:large)
https://twitter.com/anguslivingston/status/441101096505716736/photo/1/large
-
540k a year + 10% is 594k
Just sayin
-
journalists struggle to put their pants on the right way
math no
-
540k a year + 10% is 594k
Just sayin
Good pick up
:bow
-
Luxury tax shoul be just called the melbourne tax to help them whenever they need to pay out a coach or a fine.
:lol classic
-
http://benews.unimelb.edu.au/2014/footy-clubs-cant-buy-success-yet-study-finds/
"Only seven percent"...
i would have thought thats a hell of alot when you thinking about 1 point games, salary caps, drafts, equalization crap
-
heard this bloke on the radio and he said that in more recent times there was a trend towards more spending = more success. in the eraly days the study covered it was not so pronounced
-
heard this bloke on the radio and he said that in more recent times there was a trend towards more spending = more success. in the eraly days the study covered it was not so pronounced
I think a perfect example is our very own club. 4 years ago prior to Dimma we had a very low budget footy department. Year on year that has expanded and its no coincidence all facets of our footy department have improved in that time. Player development both mature and young draftees, recruiting, trading all a direct correlation to a much bigger $$$ spend.