Gary March on SEN / Club is officially debt free!

[tony_montana]

I think it is 10% al or thereabts, about 800-1mill extra its absolute rubbish

[RedanTiger]

Good on you March for telling it like it is. I can't believe Eddie is keen for Melbourne to receive more cash and even suggesting they get to increase their salary cap after he has been moaning for years about Sydney. I didn't give a toss about salary caps in the past because players still needed to be traded, but with free agency everyone must be equal. It's not fair when a situation can occur when club can successfully negotiate pay cuts with players and do everything in every way possible to structure their TPP to keep a marquee player but lose them through restrictive free agency for no other reason than another club is allowed to spend more money.

going off topic a tad, but sydney have a clear advantage over their rivals in terms of free agency bargaining.

Im not sure what their salary cap concession actually is, but for arguments sake lets say it is 10%

that means that in a free agency bidding war they can bid 10% higher than a rival, but in reality it is an equal bid, or should be treated that way, anyways.

It gives them a clear advantage.

Yeah it's a bit weird really.
As a player you get two offers - One from Richmond for $500K pa, one from Sydney for $550K pa.
Do you really think that they are equal by taking the COL into account (or even slightly against Sydney because the allowance doesn't cover the true difference)?   

[Penelope]

i dont know what the true difference in cost of living actually is, but if the league allow them 10% extra salary cap to cover it they are saying that a 550k wage in sydney is equivalent to a 500k wage in melbourne and therefore that same criteria should also come into play in a free agency bidding war

[Rampstar]

no team which wins the premiership should have enough room to an $800,000 per year player to their list. just that on its own shows that the rules on the salary cap are no good.

[WilliamPowell]

no team which wins the premiership should have enough room to an $800,000 per year player to their list. just that on its own shows that the rules on the salary cap are no good.

In principle I dont' have a problem if the cost of living allowance was only for their rookies ($50k odd + match payments) and lowly paid players (say those on $150-$180k a season) but when it being used for someone like Tippett who's on over $800k a year then that is clearly rorting

[YellowandBlackBlood]

no team which wins the premiership should have enough room to an $800,000 per year player to their list. just that on its own shows that the rules on the salary cap are no good.

In principle I dont' have a problem if the cost of living allowance was only for their rookies ($50k odd + match payments) and lowly paid players (say those on $150-$180k a season) but when it being used for someone like Tippett who's on over $800k a year then that is clearly rorting

Well I do WP. I thought it was ok to help establish the side in Sydney. They have now done that they should no longer get it. All teams should have the same cap or it is unfair and not a level playing field.
They have won 2 premierships in 17 years. More than most teams in the league. They no longer need assistance.

[Yeahright]

If you can't live off 100k a year you're doing something wrong.

[Willy]

Or too much of something right.