Mega Thread AFL: No Trades (READ OP)

melbournehammer

Premiership Player
Apr 22, 2013
4,135
5,018
AFL Club
Sydney
Personally I agree with tombomb (at least i think that was who it was). We clearly were advantaged by the COLA. it added an element to inequality in the system.

I have been wanting to write a very long and detailed post about why I think equalisation has become such a big issue for the AFL but havent had time. It would involve elements of the law and economics but in essence it is something like:

1. aflpa threatened serious industrial action last cba about salary cap
2. only way to defend salary cap (ie make the restraint of trade lawful) is for policy reasons
3. the policy reasons are fundamentally based on equalisation
4. absent equalisation there is no justification for a salary cap
5. the equalisation working party went to us and looked at the whole range of equalisation tools there (ie luxury taxes, salary caps etc)
6. they came back determined to implement what they saw as best practice
7. this meant all of the little sweetheart deals which had been in place were to be reviewed - and that led to COLA.

However, the problem is and remains that COLA was designed to remove inequality. In my view - and it remains my view - the defence of the COLA was that a salary cap is inherently uneven if there are different costs. If $1 in Melbourne buys 97c in Sydney, 1.03 in Adelaide and 96c in Perth then it is inherently unfair to have a fixed rate salary cap. So yes I would have supported different salary caps to be adjusted annually.

So scope existed for a differential salary cap which would have made (in my view) a lot more sense than it does in the US. Whether it was argued or not I don't know. But if you look at minimum wages for us sportspeople it is in the vicinity of $500k us. This compares to the circa 60k for rookies in the afl. It makes perfect sense for a player to uproot (particularly in the context of going to college for four years where they usually already have left home) in that context as the differential from minimum or even median earnings is so different. In the AFL rookie players aren't even on median australian earnings.

Anyway, that bird has flown.

But (and contrary to what everyone here thinks) I remain uncertain as to exactly how we dealt with COLA. I am not at all convinced by the arguments that we keep making here and on the main board about the way we have dealt with cola - that it is a straight forward 9.8% on each contract. The following quote...

Ireland called on the AFL's football operations manager Mark Evans to confirm the Swans were using COLA as it was intended.

"I think it would be good if someone from the AFL, maybe Mark Evans or someone who has got visibility of the contracts, confirmed exactly that," he said.

"We've asked the AFL to do it and we're still waiting."

Ireland said Franklin and Tippett would only receive about $40,000 combined from COLA this year.

He added that the Swans were only spending "just over a million dollars" combined on the glamour forwards this year.
story here has always had me scratching my head. We agreed to pay over $1m to tippett and buddy in 2014 but we only paid 40000 COLA. Something is simply not right in that statement. Either the 9.8% was more flexible than we all seem to think or andrew ireland doesnt know his maths.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-01/hes-saying-were-cheating

Now I am sorry, but that is simply not 9.8% on the contract. It is about 4%. Something looks odd somewhere.

The point of all this I guess is - if Ireland is correct here I perfectly understand the reasoning behind the afl's decision - we were playing by slightly different rules. There has to be a period where they wash out
 

Leg End

Club Legend
Apr 8, 2008
2,582
2,606
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Some facts:
1. It costs significant money and time to build a new team in a new state AND to maintain a decent level. Without this, you don't get a decent national TV rights deal.
2. It is more expensive to live in Sydney than elsewhere.
3. Traditionally, logically, Victorians would rather play Victorian footy in Victoria than in Sydney unless there are huge incentives.
4. Sydney have a perpetual fight for hearts, minds, eyes, money, sponsors against all the major codes in Australia. No other club has to contend with this huge impediment.
5. All clubs agreed to the COLA. But, now it is being thrown out and will be replaced by a "rent allowance" system - meaning the original issue in 2. above is an accepted fact.
6. The AFL's decision to penalise the Swans (at the behest of Fat Eddie) is anti-competitive, a restraint of trade, a denial of natural justice.
7. The AFL has also brought the game into disrepute - nationally and globally - because knee-jerk, policy on the run decisions are not the hallmark of a professional, well managed competition. Serious question marks are now there over the competence of those running the game - and their puppetmasters like Fat Eddie.
 

Tuco

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts SuperCoach Club Board Winner
Sep 28, 2005
12,017
14,392
Between ANZ & the SCG
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Bloods
Personally I agree with tombomb (at least i think that was who it was). We clearly were advantaged by the COLA. it added an element to inequality in the system.

I have been wanting to write a very long and detailed post about why I think equalisation has become such a big issue for the AFL but havent had time. It would involve elements of the law and economics but in essence it is something like:

1. aflpa threatened serious industrial action last cba about salary cap
2. only way to defend salary cap (ie make the restraint of trade lawful) is for policy reasons
3. the policy reasons are fundamentally based on equalisation
4. absent equalisation there is no justification for a salary cap
5. the equalisation working party went to us and looked at the whole range of equalisation tools there (ie luxury taxes, salary caps etc)
6. they came back determined to implement what they saw as best practice
7. this meant all of the little sweetheart deals which had been in place were to be reviewed - and that led to COLA.

However, the problem is and remains that COLA was designed to remove inequality. In my view - and it remains my view - the defence of the COLA was that a salary cap is inherently uneven if there are different costs. If $1 in Melbourne buys 97c in Sydney, 1.03 in Adelaide and 96c in Perth then it is inherently unfair to have a fixed rate salary cap. So yes I would have supported different salary caps to be adjusted annually.

So scope existed for a differential salary cap which would have made (in my view) a lot more sense than it does in the US. Whether it was argued or not I don't know. But if you look at minimum wages for us sportspeople it is in the vicinity of $500k us. This compares to the circa 60k for rookies in the afl. It makes perfect sense for a player to uproot (particularly in the context of going to college for four years where they usually already have left home) in that context as the differential from minimum or even median earnings is so different. In the AFL rookie players aren't even on median australian earnings.

Anyway, that bird has flown.

But (and contrary to what everyone here thinks) I remain uncertain as to exactly how we dealt with COLA. I am not at all convinced by the arguments that we keep making here and on the main board about the way we have dealt with cola - that it is a straight forward 9.8% on each contract. The following quote...

Ireland called on the AFL's football operations manager Mark Evans to confirm the Swans were using COLA as it was intended.

"I think it would be good if someone from the AFL, maybe Mark Evans or someone who has got visibility of the contracts, confirmed exactly that," he said.

"We've asked the AFL to do it and we're still waiting."

Ireland said Franklin and Tippett would only receive about $40,000 combined from COLA this year.

He added that the Swans were only spending "just over a million dollars" combined on the glamour forwards this year.
story here has always had me scratching my head. We agreed to pay over $1m to tippett and buddy in 2014 but we only paid 40000 COLA. Something is simply not right in that statement. Either the 9.8% was more flexible than we all seem to think or andrew ireland doesnt know his maths.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-01/hes-saying-were-cheating

Now I am sorry, but that is simply not 9.8% on the contract. It is about 4%. Something looks odd somewhere.

The point of all this I guess is - if Ireland is correct here I perfectly understand the reasoning behind the afl's decision - we were playing by slightly different rules. There has to be a period where they wash out

Good post.

But you lost me with the $40k COLa issue. It's a non issue. COLa doesn't apply to certain forms of remuneration (such as payments from the Marketing fund etc).

We don't know exactly how payments were structured - we just have a guestimate of the total package (ie the $10m figure for Buddy).

But we do know that whatever we paid Tippo and Buddy, COLa was never 9.8% of the whole sum. Just 9.8% of some parts of it.
 
Good post.

But you lost me with the $40k COLa issue. It's a non issue. COLa doesn't apply to certain forms of remuneration (such as payments from the Marketing fund etc).

We don't know exactly how payments were structured - we just have a guestimate of the total package (ie the $10m figure for Buddy).

But we do know that whatever we paid Tippo and Buddy, COLa was never 9.8% of the whole sum. Just 9.8% of some parts of it.
I was about to post this. Well put.
 

stevoswan

Senior List
Jun 10, 2012
253
141
Victoria
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Melbourne Renegades
I always thought COLA was weighted towards players on the lower end of the pay scale, whose wages more felt the strain of the extra cost of living, and the higher bracket earners got a smaller cut, so to speak....this would make sense, fairness wise, but if it's a reality, I'm not entirely sure.
 

Leg End

Club Legend
Apr 8, 2008
2,582
2,606
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
I believe an application should be made directly accusing the AFL Commission of bringing the game into disrepute - based upon the appalling recent behaviours - restraint if trade, denial of natural justice, anti- competitive practices - plus showing the broader sporting world that footy is being run by less than competent cowboys influenced by agendas from particular clubs, individuals. The application can't cone from the club, obviously. But a member could do this.

Of course the AFL will reject this - but the attendant exposure will force them to come out and explain their decisions, try and justify actions for which there is no justification.

Again, this will ensure protection for the Swans - any decision made by the AFL affecting us will come under enormous scrutiny, as it should be.
 

M F JONES

Team Captain
May 18, 2013
321
410
Where ever you go, there you are
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Lakers, Liverpool, Red Sox,
Like your thinking, I would ensure those concerned are directly named,Gill,Fitzpatrick ect, to a large degree they haven't been held to any real account, & been able to fly under the radar
You saw Gills clumsy attempt to explain away a few days back, apply the torch a little harder & I believe he's not capable of taking up the fight,
 

Leg End

Club Legend
Apr 8, 2008
2,582
2,606
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Like your thinking, I would ensure those concerned are directly named,Gill,Fitzpatrick ect, to a large degree they haven't been held to any real account, & been able to fly under the radar
You saw Gills clumsy attempt to explain away a few days back, apply the torch a little harder & I believe he's not capable of taking up the fight,

Blowtorch in public.
Comments like Swans can't have everything is embarrassing.
 
Apr 19, 2013
9,919
6,201
Melbourne
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
The Swans Blog
You saw Gills clumsy attempt to explain away a few days back, apply the torch a little harder & I believe he's not capable of taking up the fight,

He lacks spine. Something that AD never did. Never thought I'd say it, but I want AD back.
 

M F JONES

Team Captain
May 18, 2013
321
410
Where ever you go, there you are
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Lakers, Liverpool, Red Sox,
He lacks spine. Something that AD never did. Never thought I'd say it, but I want AD back.
Same, I thought that once AD left,a more balanced Australian wide vision would unfold, but it has actually gone backward at an alarming rate, how you have an equalisation committee for example made up from those from 1 State is alarming to say the least,
I think apart from the Lions our interstate counterparts have sat on their hands a little to much, we need a big collective voice from all those outside of Vic otherwise it will remain as we see it today, AFL- very VFL centric and if I hear "heartland" crap from dinasours "I'll throw up" :)
 

MickyG

Club Legend
Jul 5, 2010
1,164
1,014
AFL Club
Sydney
2. only way to defend salary cap (ie make the restraint of trade lawful) is for policy reasons

I understand that AFL contracts are just that, ie contracts to play in the AFL with the Swans named in a secondary capacity. This means that there is no restraint of trade case as any athlete is free to play in any other competition. I think it may be similar with the Swans taking any legal action over the ban as it would be difficult to establish what loss has occurred.
 
Jun 2, 2014
21,781
55,139
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
The Rebel Alliance
Same, I thought that once AD left,a more balanced Australian wide vision would unfold, but it has actually gone backward at an alarming rate, how you have an equalisation committee for example made up from those from 1 State is alarming to say the least,
I think apart from the Lions our interstate counterparts have sat on their hands a little to much, we need a big collective voice from all those outside of Vic otherwise it will remain as we see it today, AFL- very VFL centric and if I hear "heartland" crap from dinasours "I'll throw up" :)

The Lion's support, such that it is, is more than I expected to be honest. And here's why no none else is going to rock the boat:
a) WA teams will need AFL support in various form regarding their new stadium.
b) Sun's too new and still heavily reliant on AFL support
c) Greater Waste of Space - is self explanatory
d) SA teams: Port owes the AFL a serious amount of money. Still. Crows - see 300+pge Tippett thread on BF.:cool:

Self interest will win out. Always.

I still believe the only reason the AFL didn't clamp down hard this year on the Academies is their trying to work out how to lessen the impact on the Suns & Giants.
 
Nov 20, 2007
39,301
33,649
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Anyways Gill getting the job as CEO was probably the worst thing that could of happened just to much posturing and self interest.

AFL needs a big CEO from outside of Australia(NFL, Soccer) to make the tough decisions oh well maybe in 10yrs.

Atm its a tight nit boys club as M F Jones said "how you have an equalisation committee for example made up from those from 1 State is alarming to say the least"

Where else would that happen?
 
Oct 5, 2009
12,889
11,917
Adelaide
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Southampton FC
Anyways Gill getting the job as CEO was probably the worst thing that could of happened just to much posturing and self interest.

AFL needs a big CEO from outside of Australia(NFL, Soccer) to make the tough decisions oh well maybe in 10yrs.

Atm its a tight nit boys club as M F Jones said "how you have an equalisation committee for example made up from those from 1 State is alarming to say the least"

Where else would that happen?

Where wouldn't they have external board members and external audits... Oh wait.
 
Nov 20, 2007
39,301
33,649
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
On another note i think the club should try a different set of course for the future fighting Mcguire with words is just not working he is to big/has to many friends in high places and just makes him hate us more.

I reckon he is still pissed with the Goodes incident which hurt his public image a lot especially Australian of the year refusing his apology.

Only way to win against Eddie is to get him on your side :/
 
On another note i think the club should try a different set of course for the future fighting Mcguire with words is just not working he is to big/has to many friends in high places and just makes him hate us more.

I reckon he is still pissed with the Goodes incident which hurt his public image a lot especially Australian of the year refusing his apology.

Only way to win against Eddie is to get him on your side :/
Like all bullies. Ultimately, karma will come back to haunt him I reckon. E take the moral highground and run our club the best we can, we'll keep unveiling gems and through even just word of mouth alone players will simply jyst want to play here at a discount. Meanwhile the bigheaded bullies will continue to push ppl around and ultimetly will lose too many good people often in spiteful or negative fashion (e.g. Beams, Eade etc).

A bully only bullies because they feel a desire to bring someone down. The reason they "need" to do that is because they want to be more popular amongst the "cool kids" (boys club) or impressive. So etimes they want to stamp their authority. Whatever the reason, it's often resulting from feeling pressured/threatened/insecure/jealous etc.
 

Leg End

Club Legend
Apr 8, 2008
2,582
2,606
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
On another note i think the club should try a different set of course for the future fighting Mcguire with words is just not working he is to big/has to many friends in high places and just makes him hate us more.

I reckon he is still pissed with the Goodes incident which hurt his public image a lot especially Australian of the year refusing his apology.

Only way to win against Eddie is to get him on your side :/

Never.
 

Tuco

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts SuperCoach Club Board Winner
Sep 28, 2005
12,017
14,392
Between ANZ & the SCG
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Bloods
On another note i think the club should try a different set of course for the future fighting Mcguire with words is just not working he is to big/has to many friends in high places and just makes him hate us more.

I reckon he is still pissed with the Goodes incident which hurt his public image a lot especially Australian of the year refusing his apology.

Only way to win against Eddie is to get him on your side :/

appeasement.png


:p
 
"They have been able to prove in detail how they fitted their stars into the salary cap to the AFL’s salary cap and integrity enforcers"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...374a0a90977afd452d1721866f47c#social-comments
Utterly terrible article. Makes basic errors (Hiscox at pick 28, claiming our live pick is #39) then has a Beatson quote where he fraudulently claims we don't have another spot on the list, ignoring the fact we could have up to 2 more senior players and take less rookies.
 
Ok this is really interesting!!!!!

It means that we were in 'open dialogue' we essentially traded off COLA size or wind down period, in the knowledge that we would get a trade ban.

I understand the AFL saying this is an unfair advantage and you not being able to trade fixes this, but the 'closed door' process of this, who on the council proposed it and supported it etc is the intriguing part.

Its almost as if the Swans management chose this option (as opposed to wind down time shorter etc) as they werent sure the AFL would impose that sanctions due to the terrible PR they percieved they would get, then all AFL wrote about it for a day.....then got over it.
I thought that originally COLA was supposed to be phased out? To me that meant maybe 7% on the cap, then 5 % etc. Gillon is now claiming that the amount of COLA is staying the same until abrupt end - doesn't sound like a phasing out to me.
 
With the AFL in their corner, you just know GWS will fail, where it counts, for the next ten years. (Hell, they could win a flag and still fail.)

For proof, look at the Swans when the AFL ran the show - they failed big time and they will do so again with the GWS, bet on it.

They, the GWS cheque signers/AFL, are not in the market place, day in, day out, but are instead sitting in docklands taking advice from no responsibility, all gain, wannabes and would be's if they could be's.

They are simply not football business people. They, Mike P and co, the crawlers up the ladder of power, will fail to win the hearts and minds of their target audience while they pull the strings at GWS because they have nothing personally at stake. Thats not to say they, GWS, won't put a good team on the park, (thats what the AFL can do), but while the AFL are running the show, they will never capture enough paying hearts of potential members, to make it viable. Not until the AFL get out of their way, who ironically think getting in the Swans way is the answer to their problems, will they achieve the succes in Greater Western Sydney this great game deserves - f'ing wannabe socialists/self serving pricks.
St Kilda will win a flag before GWS do. And I don't think I will live to see either (I'm 37 and in good health)
 
Ireland said Franklin and Tippett would only receive about $40,000 combined from COLA this year.

He added that the Swans were only spending "just over a million dollars" combined on the glamour forwards this year.
story here has always had me scratching my head. We agreed to pay over $1m to tippett and buddy in 2014 but we only paid 40000 COLA. Something is simply not right in that statement. Either the 9.8% was more flexible than we all seem to think or andrew ireland doesnt know his maths.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-01/hes-saying-were-cheating

Now I am sorry, but that is simply not 9.8% on the contract. It is about 4%. Something looks odd somewhere.

The point of all this I guess is - if Ireland is correct here I perfectly understand the reasoning behind the afl's decision - we were playing by slightly different rules. There has to be a period where they wash out

The only way I can get that answer mathematically is if COLA was paid at a flat sum of money for each listed and rookied player (9.8% of the total salary cap split 40+ ways would be around 20k per player). Which would actually be a fairer way of distribution (those most in need get the largest proportional share).
 
Back