TOPIC:

Do you know that as FACT Mikeh or just hearsay from what the Subi clown has wrote?
Is he trying to take the heat off his own club's big spending ways?

mikeh wrote: I am no financial person, so could somebody please explain to me how Swans could have lost half their first semi final team from last year which included some of their highest paid players ( Twomey, Hildebrandt, Robinson etc), replaced them with younger players who mostly played reserves last year ( Cary, Jukes, Faulkner, Boekhurst etc) who surely wouldn't be on anywhere near the same coin as the players who left BUT even given this Swans are 50k off the mark???????

Something doesn't add up here.... anyone who could enlighten me?

In a couple of days your old mate Shiny will address these same issues in his review of Basso ...

Beasley Hutton wrote: Do you know that as FACT Mikeh or just from what the Subi clown has wrote?

No I don't know it as a fact BH, I have just seen it thrown around here in various comments and I am confused by how this can be possible given the circumstances?

mikeh wrote: I am no financial person, so could somebody please explain to me how Swans could have lost half their first semi final team from last year which included some of their highest paid players ( Twomey, Hildebrandt, Robinson etc), replaced them with younger players who mostly played reserves last year ( Cary, Jukes, Faulkner, Boekhurst etc) who surely wouldn't be on anywhere near the same coin as the players who left BUT even given this Swans are 50k off the mark???????

Something doesn't add up here.... anyone who could enlighten me?

Gee they must be paying Geapen a $1000+ a game as he is their match winner
Did not play last week and SF should of beaten them except for forgetting the weather and the match play when your that far in front and its pissing down.

mikeh wrote: I am no financial person, so could somebody please explain to me how Swans could have lost half their first semi final team from last year which included some of their highest paid players ( Twomey, Hildebrandt, Robinson etc), replaced them with younger players who mostly played reserves last year ( Cary, Jukes, Faulkner, Boekhurst etc) who surely wouldn't be on anywhere near the same coin as the players who left BUT even given this Swans are 50k off the mark???????

Something doesn't add up here.... anyone who could enlighten me?

I don't know but perhaps what has happened, as in other codes, Swans may have had to carry some costs for players leaving into this season.

Often if a club needs to shed a player who is a high cost one the receiving club will ask that part of the salary is paid as part of the deal. Both clubs benefit as the loser reduces their costs and the gainer gets the player at a reduction. It can also reduce the transfer fee.

Swans may have shed some high cost players but those who were left asked for more and the new ones asked for a slice of the pie. I am a big fan of Geappen but what is he costing the Club, he is worth it but add that to the other high profile players then there is a recipe for trouble.

Trouble is that unless the loser keeps a really close watch they get bitten. One example, whilst not WAFL, is the 49's salary costs were so high to players that had left (and playing for other teams)they were unable to offer increased contracts for abt 5 years and are only now (past 3 or 4 years) getting the financials under control.

As I said I do't know but it could be something like that!

Hit a bit of a nerve have we,Beasley Hutton?If I was a clown,I certainly would not be working for the circus that is currently your mob.Even a clown has standards to live by.The response to my post by you and Mikeh could not be more different.You are slanderous and petty name calling while Mikeh is concerned and objective.If you like, I could tell you that Swans are travelling along nicely off field and everything will be okay.But then again,if I did Beasley Hutton I'd just be clowning around again,wouldn't I?

Grump wrote:

mikeh wrote: I am no financial person, so could somebody please explain to me how Swans could have lost half their first semi final team from last year which included some of their highest paid players ( Twomey, Hildebrandt, Robinson etc), replaced them with younger players who mostly played reserves last year ( Cary, Jukes, Faulkner, Boekhurst etc) who surely wouldn't be on anywhere near the same coin as the players who left BUT even given this Swans are 50k off the mark???????

Something doesn't add up here.... anyone who could enlighten me?

I don't know but perhaps what has happened, as in other codes, Swans may have had to carry some costs for players leaving into this season.

Often if a club needs to shed a player who is a high cost one the receiving club will ask that part of the salary is paid as part of the deal. Both clubs benefit as the loser reduces their costs and the gainer gets the player at a reduction. It can also reduce the transfer fee.

Swans may have shed some high cost players but those who were left asked for more and the new ones asked for a slice of the pie. I am a big fan of Geappen but what is he costing the Club, he is worth it but add that to the other high profile players then there is a recipe for trouble.

Trouble is that unless the loser keeps a really close watch they get bitten. One example, whilst not WAFL, is the 49's salary costs were so high to players that had left (and playing for other teams)they were unable to offer increased contracts for abt 5 years and are only now (past 3 or 4 years) getting the financials under control.

As I said I do't know but it could be something like that!

Thanks Grump that certainly makes sense but as you said none of us really know until the explanation is given by the club.

In all the scuttlebutt about which club is alleged extrapolated to break the salary cap there seems to me a singular lack of questioning about how the email was sent and by whom? Also, what have been the consequences to the person or persons who were responsible for the email? Could it be the same lack of consequences as that which followed the Brady Anderson leak during Grant Dorrington's tenure?

one of 3 interesting things Swan42:
1 - was it sent deliberately ?
2 - did some club official really sit there and calculate every payment for every player at every club
3 - which one of the usual suspects(WP,Cl or Subi) contacted the West to make sure they could dump another G7 club in the shite for something to cover up their own poor season or dodgy dealings ?

<<<<<<< Until there is proof - then all we have is rumour >>>>>>>>

In my finest shrill umpie's voice >>>>>>>> "touch ball play on !!!!"