Tex Power and Sydney discussion

[powersuperkents]

Furthermore, of course Malthouse would be angry, he had to allow the Betts trade to go through just so they would have room in the salary cap to sign Dale Thomas - Sydney spend a lot more money yet no sacrifice whatsoever was made to accommodate Franklin - which is blatantly unfair on every other club.

Shower, I'm sorry man, my sources didn't take traded players into account.

Okay, this picture clarifies everything surrounding the trades a lot - literally worth 1,000 words - cheers 'Go Lions'. Obviously the COLA is what enabled them to outbid other clubs or there wouldn't be any scrutiny but the Swans evidently have freed up the funds in order to accommodate the players (of course the COLA only provides an additional 10% so it is only a minor contribution compared to the $3.19 million - which covers both Franklin & Tippetts annual salaries).

My perspective on the Swans now returns to that in 2013 - when I liked them. Will always question the other benefits provided by the AFL though until they are explained (esp. the rationale of the MRP behind their decision on Hall's assault of McGuire) 

[Mailman the 2nd]

Yeah I won't clog the Port board any more than I have, but Sydney went through pretty major list changes after 2011 finished.

That's more or less what I was trying to say by "They would've come anyway" because the funds had already been created. Of course an extra 10% onto that is gonna balloon 2 players salary a ton more than all the guys at 200k or under which is where the problem was (not that Sydney was being deceitful or cheating).

I wasn't saying that Father/Son is bias against Sydney. I was saying it's bias against clubs not founded in Melbourne (which South Melbourne were).

E.g. Collingwood and Geelong have had more F/S than Adelaide, Port, Freo, West Coast and Brisbane combined.

As for the Hall incident. I looked into it and he managed to successfully appeal saying the contact was "in-play" (although it was 50m away). Couple of years back they stopped people from being able to argue that so he wouldn't get off again in the 2010s



You rationalize your argument better than most do.

[Grazz]

Well done lads, enjoyed the debate. Good to see a healthy one where it doesn't turn into a personal abusive slinging match. Applaud both of you for that. ;)

[Tominator]

Well done lads, enjoyed the debate. Good to see a healthy one where it doesn't turn into a personal abusive slinging match. Applaud both of you for that. ;)

[powersuperkents]

Yeah I won't clog the Port board any more than I have, but Sydney went through pretty major list changes after 2011 finished.

That's more or less what I was trying to say by "They would've come anyway" because the funds had already been created. Of course an extra 10% onto that is gonna balloon 2 players salary a ton more than all the guys at 200k or under which is where the problem was (not that Sydney was being deceitful or cheating).

I wasn't saying that Father/Son is bias against Sydney. I was saying it's bias against clubs not founded in Melbourne (which South Melbourne were).

E.g. Collingwood and Geelong have had more F/S than Adelaide, Port, Freo, West Coast and Brisbane combined.

As for the Hall incident. I looked into it and he managed to successfully appeal saying the contact was "in-play" (although it was 50m away). Couple of years back they stopped people from being able to argue that so he wouldn't get off again in the 2010s



You rationalize your argument better than most do.

Yeah I finally see the point on Tippett & Franklin and like I said the $3.19mil a year covers both salaries combined plus more. I also looked at Sydney's list and it is significantly smaller than other clubs - only 35 players and 3 added in this draft who they developed through the academy - meaning that they did sacrifice depth for Buddy & Tippett.

I like the concept of F/S selections, but I do have to agree with you. Brett Ebert is the only player I can name at Port who is an F/S selection. Furthermore, if the selection criteria was infallible Bryce Gibbs would be in the Crows right now (his father played 253 games for Glenelg yet no priority given to the Crows) which literally does favour a Victorian team - Carlton. One thing I am happy about with the inconsistency of the F/S rule is that if it was consistent both Chad & Kane Cornes could be F/S selections for the Crows - so I guess I can't complain too much  :P

But yeah, F/S picks do favour clubs with history - Ablett Jnr. was selected at pick 40 as an F/S pick. If anyone could have selected him Geelong would have had to sacrifice a 1st or 2nd round pick - Bartel, Kelly, Stevie J, or Charlie Gardiner. So I agree, although legitimate, it isn't exactly fair - increased pressures by others clubs now make them use 1st round picks for the brightest prospects these days which is now great to see  :)

Okay, I remember Hall was attempting to run in the general direction the ball was traveling and McGuire attempting to deter him. Being a judgement of the times explains a lot to me because the game was a lot tougher when I was a little kid. Not like today with ridiculous time wasting procedures on things as trivial as the Harvey bump. This clarifies everything though, I think the Swans are over scrutinised - to be fair on the Swans, the only way the Franklin trade wouldn't piss people off would be if he flopped, and that would just make the trade pointless hahaha - you can see that many people still hope there's a chance Tippett flops, I can see denigration from other clubs and supporters from a Swan's perspective and the justifications clubs demand from the AFL to impose upon Sydney are ridiculous and unrealistic.

I see your points though and I can say that I have no further questions as everything seems to be clarified  :)   

[stew42]

Furthermore, of course Malthouse would be angry, he had to allow the Betts trade to go through just so they would have room in the salary cap to sign Dale Thomas - Sydney spend a lot more money yet no sacrifice whatsoever was made to accommodate Franklin - which is blatantly unfair on every other club.

Shower, I'm sorry man, my sources didn't take traded players into account.

Okay, this picture clarifies everything surrounding the trades a lot - literally worth 1,000 words - cheers 'Go Lions'. Obviously the COLA is what enabled them to outbid other clubs or there wouldn't be any scrutiny but the Swans evidently have freed up the funds in order to accommodate the players (of course the COLA only provides an additional 10% so it is only a minor contribution compared to the $3.19 million - which covers both Franklin & Tippetts annual salaries).

My perspective on the Swans now returns to that in 2013 - when I liked them. Will always question the other benefits provided by the AFL though until they are explained (esp. the rationale of the MRP behind their decision on Hall's assault of McGuire)

Yay, people are starting to like us again!
Loved that little debate guys, have to agree that the party with the most explaining to do is the AFL. Finding a loophole in COLA then removing it after it has been established is such poor business practice (not that we really 100% needed it anyway). Then there's the absurd trade ban, the constant changing of rules, plus the MRP, which it is responsible for. I was too young to have a real opinion on the Macguire vs Hall incident, but looking at it now, how it didn't get a week baffles me (if he were faking, he wouldn't have left his man for 30 seconds).

[Ringo]

Furthermore, of course Malthouse would be angry, he had to allow the Betts trade to go through just so they would have room in the salary cap to sign Dale Thomas - Sydney spend a lot more money yet no sacrifice whatsoever was made to accommodate Franklin - which is blatantly unfair on every other club.

Shower, I'm sorry man, my sources didn't take traded players into account.

Okay, this picture clarifies everything surrounding the trades a lot - literally worth 1,000 words - cheers 'Go Lions'. Obviously the COLA is what enabled them to outbid other clubs or there wouldn't be any scrutiny but the Swans evidently have freed up the funds in order to accommodate the players (of course the COLA only provides an additional 10% so it is only a minor contribution compared to the $3.19 million - which covers both Franklin & Tippetts annual salaries).

My perspective on the Swans now returns to that in 2013 - when I liked them. Will always question the other benefits provided by the AFL though until they are explained (esp. the rationale of the MRP behind their decision on Hall's assault of McGuire)

Yay, people are starting to like us again!
Loved that little debate guys, have to agree that the party with the most explaining to do is the AFL. Finding a loophole in COLA then removing it after it has been established is such poor business practice (not that we really 100% needed it anyway). Then there's the absurd trade ban, the constant changing of rules, plus the MRP, which it is responsible for. I was too young to have a real opinion on the Macguire vs Hall incident, but looking at it now, how it didn't get a week baffles me (if he were faking, he wouldn't have left his man for 30 seconds).

Stayed out of the debate as my views on this are well known but really feel sorry for Swans as you obviusly missed out on replacing Malceski with Patful due to the trading ban. Reckon a deal could have been made with Swans for him and Swans was probably his preferred destination.

Probably need to move this discussion to Sydney Board

[powersuperkents]

Furthermore, of course Malthouse would be angry, he had to allow the Betts trade to go through just so they would have room in the salary cap to sign Dale Thomas - Sydney spend a lot more money yet no sacrifice whatsoever was made to accommodate Franklin - which is blatantly unfair on every other club.

Shower, I'm sorry man, my sources didn't take traded players into account.

Okay, this picture clarifies everything surrounding the trades a lot - literally worth 1,000 words - cheers 'Go Lions'. Obviously the COLA is what enabled them to outbid other clubs or there wouldn't be any scrutiny but the Swans evidently have freed up the funds in order to accommodate the players (of course the COLA only provides an additional 10% so it is only a minor contribution compared to the $3.19 million - which covers both Franklin & Tippetts annual salaries).

My perspective on the Swans now returns to that in 2013 - when I liked them. Will always question the other benefits provided by the AFL though until they are explained (esp. the rationale of the MRP behind their decision on Hall's assault of McGuire)

Yay, people are starting to like us again!
Loved that little debate guys, have to agree that the party with the most explaining to do is the AFL. Finding a loophole in COLA then removing it after it has been established is such poor business practice (not that we really 100% needed it anyway). Then there's the absurd trade ban, the constant changing of rules, plus the MRP, which it is responsible for. I was too young to have a real opinion on the Macguire vs Hall incident, but looking at it now, how it didn't get a week baffles me (if he were faking, he wouldn't have left his man for 30 seconds).

Just noticed that. I originally thought the trade ban was fair, but that was before I was aware that Sydney provided all the funds for Tippett & Buddy themselves. In retrospect that ban is flowering ridiculous and punished the Swans for no apparent reason. There needs to be consistency if the AFL wants the game to expand - esp. over international boarders because no other country will adopt a sport where the code is ambiguous

[Ringo]

Moved this discussion here so as to not clog up Port's Board and the Topic as it was getting a discussion on Sydney.

[SydneyRox]

Moved this discussion here so as to not clog up Port's Board and the Topic as it was getting a discussion on Sydney.

I was wondering where it came from!

[Capper]

ahhhh so thats where it came from.

no COLA = Buddy in GWS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL2DH-nKBeA

[powersuperkents]

ahhhh so thats where it came from.

no COLA = Buddy in GWS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL2DH-nKBeA

Swans supporters should print it on a t-shirt for a gimmick hahahaha

[SydneyRox]

no COLA = Buddy in GWS

and who would want to see that??  :o

[GoLions]

no COLA = Buddy in GWS

and who would want to see that??  :o

Probably GWS I would imagine

[SydneyRox]

no COLA = Buddy in GWS

and who would want to see that??  :o

Probably GWS I would imagine

And their 5000 supporters.... meh  ???