AFL confirms COLA was used to snare Buddy

[HirdsTheWord]

Yeah they got him ahead of GWS because they had a competitive advantage over GW... oh, wait.

get 9.8% extra to play in a team that hasn't missed finals for 10+ years

get 9.8% extra to play in a team that at the time sucked complete ass

 

[SilentHunter_]

Lol nice m3lt.

 

[lamaros]

get 9.8% extra to play in a team that hasn't missed finals for 10+ years

get 9.8% extra to play in a team that at the time sucked complete ass

Way to miss the point.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I'm not sure you're providing us with any new information? Everyone knew Sydney had 9.8% more - that was the COLA.

It was 9.8% on every contract so hypothetically if the cap was $10mil, the Swans had $10.98mil. However, the point you and so many others seem not to comprehend is that it was a 9.8% loading on every contract. In other words, if you removed the COLA loading from every contract the Swans were back to $10mil. Every contract was witnessed and approved by the AFL, meaning it was impossible to abuse COLA in the way you're suggesting. What the Swans did with their base $10mil was entirely up to them.

all you are doing is outlining the complete bullshit and utter corrupt use of COLA.

understand this guy.

Say franklin is on $1,000,000 a season. Add 9.8% to this and his end value is 1,098,000 a year

say mills is on $200,000 season. Add 9.8% to this and the end value is 219,600 a year

are you telling me it costs franklin an extra $78,000 a year to live in Sydney than mills does?

count yourself lucky your ******* club got away with it as long as they did mate. The only players that should be getting COLA are rookie listed players who actually need it. Your own clubs fault for getting greedy until people wouldnt cop it any longer.

 

[Smithdogmaddog]

Buddy chose sydney over gws because they were a much more attractive proposition at the time. Will be interesting to see how the 9 year deal pans out, personally i see him as a player that will have great longevity.

Expected more players to be tipped out due to tippett and buddys contract. Tom mitchell leaving makes sense, cant be much cash left. Their mids alone in kennedy parker Hannebery must be on huge coin. Would love to know the % of cap space those 3 plus tippet and Franklin consume. Pretty sure franklin is heavily back ended although slightly offset by tippet being front ended.

 

[Tuco]

What Fitzpatrick is saying is...well I was pushing s**t up a hill defending COLa then when I failed to deliver Budfy to GWS I pulled the pin for spite.

No news in that story whatsoever.

Article also overlooks the fact that Buddy received almost no COLA in his remuneration. They structured his deal in a way that large swathes of his pay was exempt. Same with Tippo.

Napkin calculations adding 9.8% have no basis in fact for Buddy's contract.

 

[coerced]

It's not even a Hawthorn issue.

The issue is why supporters from other teams are so laid back about AFL confirmation that Sydney have been operating on a different playing field from all other teams (apart from GWS) for over a decade. This has been constantly denied by Sydney who stated that COLA did not provide any competitive advantage.

1. Sydney have a higher salary cap than other teams
2. This allows them to poach and retain better players
3. This equates to more success for Sydney

Thus this is being abolished.

It is only interesting that it has finally been officially confirmed by the AFL chairman.

They're happy for the best players to go to Sydney, and they want the northern clubs to be 'strong'. No doubt had Ablett decided to go to Brisbane instead of Gold Coast the AFL would have been pleased.

But what does the strength of the northern clubs entail? Regular finals appearances? Does this mean we have a situation where 3-4 finals spot each year are taken up by NSW and QLD clubs? What does this mean for the rest of the comp - watching 14-15 teams squeeze into the remaining four spots?

Most people want a healthy Brisbane (and in time, Gold Coast), but strong means something else.

 

[bungwahl]

all you are doing is outlining the complete bullshit and utter corrupt use of COLA.

understand this guy.

Say franklin is on $1,000,000 a season. Add 9.8% to this and his end value is 1,098,000 a year

say mills is on $200,000 season. Add 9.8% to this and the end value is 219,600 a year

are you telling me it costs franklin an extra $78,000 a year to live in Sydney than mills does a year?

count yourself luck your ******* club got away with it as long as they did mate. The only players that should be getting COLA are rookie listed players who actually need it. Your own clubs fault for getting greedy until people wouldnt cop it any longer.

Sorry mate but you're debating the merits of COLA, not the use of it. Keep in mind your club voted in favour of it...

But I, and most Swans fans, agree with you. At one point in time the Swans needed extra money to entice players to leave the traditional footy states, but the footy club is now in a strong position and COLA has rightly been removed. There is a new rent subsidy for low paid players which is directly tied to housing costs, but nothing for the players on average or high wages.

So what I was doing in my earlier posts was demonstrating that the Swans applied COLA as it was intended to be applied. Whether or not you agree with COLA being in place is a different issue.

 

[Mootsy]

How very vanilla cola ..

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Sorry mate but you're debating the merits of COLA, not the use of it. Keep in mind your club voted in favour of it...

But I, and most Swans fans, agree with you. At one point in time the Swans needed extra money to entice players to leave the traditional footy states, but the footy club is now in a strong position and COLA has rightly been removed. There is a new rent subsidy for low paid players which is directly tied to housing costs, but nothing for the players on average or high wages.

So what I was doing in my earlier posts was demonstrating that the Swans applied COLA as it was intended to be applied. Whether or not you agree with COLA being in place is a different issue.

so you agree that COLA was not used specifically for assisting with housing but it was used as an allowance to pay players more than Vic clubs could?

 

[Gavin Excell]

Did Buddy go solely for the coin? I understood that he was desperate to get out of Melbourne. May have gone even if hawks could have matched offer

 

[bungwahl]

so you agree that COLA was not used specifically for assisting with housing but it was used as an allowance to pay players more than Vic clubs could?

I think you have missed the point of everything I've said so far.

COLA was never tied to housing. COLA was a flat 9.8% loading on every contract, signed off by the AFL.

Does that mean the Swans could offer more than a Vic club? Yes of course - in like for like circumstances they could offer 9.8% more. This was common knowledge and player managers knew their players should be getting 9.8% more by playing for Sydney. But again, it's not the merits of COLA that this thread is disputing, it's the application.

 

[happypieman7]

never would of guessed

 

[Suma Magic]

Not only does the ex chairman not understand how it worked, but neither does the OP.

Anyway, CoLA has been replaced with a rental subsidy. Swans are now "only" getting around 350k above and beyond what other non-nsw clubs.

 

[bungwahl]

never would of guessed

Because it wasn't true?

 

[bungwahl]

Not only does the ex chairman not understand how it worked, but neither does the OP.

Anyway, CoLA has been replaced with a rental subsidy. Swans are now "only" getting around 350k above and beyond what other non-nsw clubs.

I remember talking about the rental subsidy a while back but we couldn't find any evidence of exactly how much in total it amounted to. I know it's an "up to" figure as it's directly tied to housing costs rather than just slush fund cash.

 

[Suma Magic]

I remember talking about the rental subsidy a while back but we couldn't find any evidence of exactly how much in total it amounted to. I know it's an "up to" figure as it's directly tied to housing costs rather than just slush fund cash.

I thought it was 15k for players on below average wage.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I think you have missed the point of everything I've said so far.

COLA was never tied to housing. COLA was a flat 9.8% loading on every contract, signed off by the AFL.

Does that mean the Swans could offer more than a Vic club? Yes of course - in like for like circumstances they could offer 9.8% more. This was common knowledge and player managers knew their players should be getting 9.8% more by playing for Sydney. But again, it's not the merits of COLA that this thread is disputing, it's the application.

I think you will find old chap that is indeed tied to housing and associated utilities.

The actual cost of living outside of housing is rather comparable to Melbourne.

so regardless whether this thread is debating it or not. COLA is and was bullshit from the start both in its application and its merits. Should have been stripped in 2012 after you won your second premiership under it.

 

[Roddy]

Hawks fans continue to find new ways to get them through the healing period.

Healing? Why are we healing? From what wounds? We're still celebrating the threepeat, 4 in the last 9 years and for myself, 12 in my lifetime. No healing to be done here.

 

[The Gong]

Healing? Why are we healing? From what wounds? We're still celebrating the threepeat, 4 in the last 9 years and for myself, 12 in my lifetime. No healing to be done here.

More like detoxing. Been up for so long that coming down isn't going well for some Hawks fans on here.

 

[Bardo State]

Really? I'm shocked to be sitting here.

You mean that the Swans didn't just negotiate contracts with their players at market value, then when the players were paid an extra 9.8%, players and agents didn't just go 'well bugger me, look, there's extra money in me account, you beauty!' You mean that it's possible that players and agents could account for the extra allowance they'd get on top, effectively resulting in an approximate increase in their salary cap of 9.8%, thanks to part of their contract not being included in their hard cap? And then you're telling me that Sydney used that extra cap space to lure high profile free agents to the club, like any other club would if they had an extra ~$1mil in their cap?

Sounds a bit far-fetched to me.

Anyone who didn't already know that Sydney couldn't afford those contracts without salary cap concessions is an idiot.

 

[bungwahl]

I think you will find old chap that is indeed tied to housing and associated utilities.

The actual cost of living outside of housing is rather comparable to Melbourne.

so regardless whether this thread is debating it or not. COLA is and was bullshit from the start both in its application and its merits. Should have been stripped in 2012 after you won your second premiership under it.

Sorry but I think you've missed the point again. The concept of COLA included expenses such as housing, but the application was different. It was a straightforward 9.8% loading with no requisites around housing or any other expenses.

There are other threads to debate the merits of COLA. Let's stick to the topic in this one.

 

[Suma Magic]

Supply and demand dictates that some of the 10% would have gone to players (net effect) and the remainder used (indirectly) to recruit better players.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

More like detoxing. Been up for so long that coming down isn't going well for some Hawks fans on here.

Keep hearing we are going down. We are still involved in the finals and every chance for the 4th. Clever trading and we'll still be going again next year, ala, yourselves, Geelong et al.

In regards to the OP. Hardly a shock. Always going to be able to offer more, as they did. Didn't help Buddy wanted to leave which meant us keeping him was always going to be pushing it up hill.

Nothing really new in all this.

Hasn't held us back, so not that fazed.

AFL felt jilted he chose Sydney not GWS and not only fazed out COLA but gave them a trade ban for, well, playing within the rules at the time.

 

[MF]

Who gives a s**t. Agree with COLA or not, we played within the AFLs rules as they were set out. They signed off on every single contract so if there was something dodgy going on they should have pulled us up on it.

This sooking and the trade ban is nothing more than AFL house having a tanty over Buddy not going to their new pet.

Fitzpatrick should just stfu and move on.