AFL confirms COLA was used to snare Buddy

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

The whole point is it was supposed to go evenly. The AFL were the ones supposed to ensure that, they obviously never were then got angry when they got Franklin when they weren't looking

It doesn't matter if it goes evenly or not. The point is that you need to recruit players. Your total salary cap buys a certain amount of "standard of living." 10m, 5m or 1m dollars buys a lot less "standard of living" in Sydney than it does in Melbourne. If a club spends more on one player than another then that is their problem.

Some people seem to be under the impression that the club should set contract values in the absence of COLA and then increase every contract by 9.8%. This is faulty logic.
 
So essentially the summary of this thread is thus

Mike Fitzpatrick makes unintelligent observation
People lose their shit

Time for Fitzpatrick to go I think....his incompetence and conflict of interest with ANZ Stadium is a blight upon the integrity of the AFL
 
I am going to add to this ridiculous thread, I was recently in Melbourne and found compared to Perth most things cheaper and service better.

Freo and WCE need COLA
 
so cola got buddy but swans also sacked mummy to help. buddy sledges mummy for his sacking (to allow buddy to take the cash) and mummy is forced to apologise
I'm not sure any of that is true or relevant.
 
The whole point is it was supposed to go evenly. The AFL were the ones supposed to ensure that, they obviously never were then got angry when they got Franklin when they weren't looking
COLA was a 9.8% loading applied to each contract, witnessed and signed off by the AFL. It was impossible to "abuse" COLA.
 
It doesn't matter if the 9.8% goes to all players evenly or to one player.
It wasn't possible for it to go to one player as it was a flat loading applied to all contracts.
 
But those contracts are entered into in the knowledge that they will have the COLA applied to them.
Yes exactly - it was a flat loading so every base contract amount attracted an additional 9.8%. The total of the base contract sat within the standard salary cap.
 
Yes exactly - it was a flat loading so every base contract amount attracted an additional 9.8%. The total of the base contract sat within the standard salary cap.

So do you think player A who would get 400K on the open market gets 439.2K, does he perhaps get 420K with the rest 'saved' to use on other players?
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So do you think player A who would get 400K on the open market gets 439.2K, does he perhaps get 420K with the rest 'saved' to use on other players?

He could get either of those options, or he might even get $365k + 9.8% to make $400k. Some managers want 9.8% over market rate, others want security or player opportunities etc
 
He could get either of those options, or he might even get $365k + 9.8% to make $400k. Some managers want 9.8% over market rate, others want security or player opportunities etc

and the extra/spare money accumulates, and gets used on other players...
 
and the extra/spare money accumulates, and gets used on other players...

Like every other club in the competition. So long as each contract had the 9.8% loading, it was entirely up to the club to decide how they spent their base salary cap amount.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top