Sydney given the green light to trade

[Taylor]

Not sure, doubtful. Then again the NEAFL don't own any of the AFL expansion clubs licenses so is a moot point.

The point is only moot if you ignore the point.

West Coast and Fremantle pay for the WAFL which develops the WA talent that fills opposition first round picks, they pay more than Sydney does for their academy. What benefit do we get for that?

We get to feel warm and fuzzy for bringing talent to the national competition that otherwise wouldn't have seen it.

 

[QuietB]

The point is only moot if you ignore the point.

West Coast and Fremantle pay for the WAFL which develops the WA talent that fills opposition first round picks, they pay more than Sydney does for their academy. What benefit do we get for that?

We get to feel warm and fuzzy for bringing talent to the national competition that otherwise wouldn't have seen it.

It is a very good point, and then the Adelaide teams get completely reamed doing exactly the same thing.

 

[Taylor]

It is a very good point, and then the Adelaide teams get completely reamed doing exactly the same thing.

It's like the expectation of burden flows West to East.

WA and SA clubs pay for everything and get nothing, Melbourne pay for nothing but get nothing, Sydney clubs pay for nothing and get everything.

This post is purely joking at the situation.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Is the amount contributed by the Swans towards the academy relatively equal to that taken from West Coast and Fremantle to fund the WAFL?

I wouldn't have thought so. The Swans raise the money more than fund it directly, so no.

But it's not a comparable situation in any event. As I understand it, the WAFL effectively owns the two WA franchises. How they allocate profits is their business, surely.

 

[Membling]

The point is only moot if you ignore the point.

West Coast and Fremantle pay for the WAFL which develops the WA talent that fills opposition first round picks, they pay more than Sydney does for their academy. What benefit do we get for that?

We get to feel warm and fuzzy for bringing talent to the national competition that otherwise wouldn't have seen it.

The point is that the WAFC have direct control over the finances in regards to both clubs due to the fact that they own the licensing fee to both teams. They can take as much or as little out of either club and spend it as they wish due to this.

The fact that every single other team has an already established junior division and leagues in their region is largely untouched. The benefit that you get is prior knowledge of home grown talent, less flight risk, etc.

The situation as I see it is this:

AFL want to grow the most populous states
AFL don't want to run
AFL decide to 'contract' out development of these states to clubs in the area

The problem many have with the academy isn't the scheme isn't the actually net result of the program but the fact that other clubs don't have access to it.

Without a doubt, running this system in any other states is pointless as it is the dominant code in these areas.

Simple way to alleviate this is open states to all clubs for academy. Arguing for academies in home states of clubs completely misses the mark

 

[Taylor]

The point is that the WAFC have direct control over the finances in regards to both clubs due to the fact that they own the licensing fee to both teams. They can take as much or as little out of either club and spend it as they wish due to this.

The fact that every single other team has an already established junior division and leagues in their region is largely untouched. The benefit that you get is prior knowledge of home grown talent, less flight risk, etc.

The situation as I see it is this:

AFL want to grow the most populous states
AFL don't want to run
AFL decide to 'contract' out development of these states to clubs in the area

The problem many have with the academy isn't the scheme isn't the actually net result of the program but the fact that other clubs don't have access to it.

Without a doubt, running this system in any other states is pointless as it is the dominant code in these areas.

Simple way to alleviate this is open states to all clubs for academy. Arguing for academies in home states of clubs completely misses the mark

That is the NSW Scholarship program closed down.

 

[theflea]

Your argument is not taking all the variables into account to come to your conclusions...

1. We had Cola during that period
2 We had cola during that period
3. We didn't have cola during that period

... We no longer have cola and it's yet to be seen what if any impact that will have.

It's yet to be see what impact removing of the cola will have on player retention.

So are you suggesting that it has been an advantage or you cant be as good without the COLA?

 

[theflea]

1. Name the clubs that have exclusive access to elite juniors from their state?
2. Name the clubs that don't bring in a lot of their team from interstate. 50% of the Hawks 2014 premiership side are players recruited from interstate.

And its only a disadvantage if and when they actually leave.

 

[Kummerspeck]

You are simply tying to justify why Sydney deserve special treatment. No one deserves special treatment.
.

I've never implied that. My main argument is that the academy system shouldn't be hacked back to one of the two versions of developing NSW that failed previously. A comment that you and others have latched onto was me saying that any advantage afforded by it is balanced out.

As for Hawthorn only taking eight Victorians in the early rounds, that's great. Sydney's had none.

The point is only moot if you ignore the point.

Paying money to the licence holder who then decides how to distribute it in a state where football is number one is not the same as rebuilding and providing the funding, staff and facilities for the junior pathway in a non football state.

 

[theflea]

I'm saying that the extent of the AFL's contribution to the Sydney Swans Academy comes from their Future Fund allocation and that the Swans get no more from that fund than any other club. There is absolutely no doubt that the Swans receive an advantage in having priority access to players from their Academy. However, the advantage is overstated when you take into account 1. the cost and effort put into the Academy by the Swans 2. the broader benefit for the entire AFL in having those clubs on the ground in non-traditional states developing talent as well as interest in the code as a whole and 3. the fact that there is no guarantee that a raw 18yo is going to be the next big thing as a supporter of a club like Richmond should well know.

This year is an anomoly. Maybe next year will be too. But it won't be every year that a gun kid comes out of the Academy at the same time as the Swans finish at or near the top of the ladder.

At the end of the day, for every local NSW or Qlder that is developed by these Academies there is a flow on effect in interest in the game. This can only be realistically achieved at grass roots level if it's run by the local clubs, rather than the AFL. There is at least a base interest for kids in being associated with the club.

When compared with Hawthorn's Tassie advantage, or the fixture advantages enjoyed by Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond and Essendon, the Swans' Academy advantage is really pretty miniscule.

What is this? Just taunting?

 

[Taylor]

I've never implied that. My main argument is that the academy system shouldn't be hacked back to one of the two versions of developing NSW that failed previously. A comment that you and others have latched onto was me saying that any advantage afforded by it is balanced out.

As for Hawthorn only taking eight Victorians in the early rounds, that's great. Sydney's had none.

Paying money to the licence holder who then decides how to distribute it in a state where football is number one is not the same as rebuilding and providing the funding, staff and facilities for the junior pathway in a non football state.

Perhaps when Sydney pay for the NEAFL too then you will understand how an extra million in footy development money could go very far.

 

[Davico]

That's fantastic. So, uhhhh, do all the players combined get @ $10 million, or do they get...uhhhh....9.8 more than that???

FFS>

I really have no interest in keeping this CoLa thing going, but I can't sit silently while someone tries to tell me that the CoLa somehow DOESN'T really equate to Sydney and GWS players GETTING 9.8% MORE THAN OTHER TEAMS!!!

It doesn't matter if it's applied individually or globally, by the AFL or the Swans, added automatically on to each players contract, or used discretionally. That doesn't matter!

It means that players playing for Sydney share a salary pool 10% more than other teams!!! Yes, we get that it may say $10 million on the books. But IT SAYS $11 MILLION ON THE PAYSLIPS!!!

yes, I'm shouting. I don't give a **** if the contracts say $10 million, and no-one else does either. It's NOT like every other club, no matter what mental gymnastics you apply.

You are welcome to argue whether the CoLa should stay, if 10% is fair, etc etc...even argue that Sydney need to remain successful in the interests of the national competition.


But please don't try to say that if the money is applied in just a certain way that they're really the same as every other club...

The COLA is getting scrapped so I don't know why you care about it so much. And by the way I don't think the swans need it anymore so I really don't care but trying to make out that they are somehow using it to top-up only certain players it cr**.

Also, in the case of Buddy the Hawks offered more than the Swans per year but were not willing to go more than 3 or 4 years. He wanted longer. The Hawks could have ofeered a 9 year deal but the fact is they DIDNT and have no-one to blame but themselves. I know that if I was offered the 2 deals I would take the Swans deal in a heartbeat and prettty much so would every player in the game!

 

[TheMase]

So are you suggesting that it has been an advantage or you cant be as good without the COLA?

No. The poster said we have shown the ability to draw and retain players without the academies. I am merely suggesting all things needs to be taken into account including cola effecting our ability to draw and retain players compared to no cola going forward.

When you are comparing you need to take all variables into account. Saying we have not lost any A graders during a time when a facility was in place to prevent this without mentioning said system is changing is disingenuous.

Plus it was an advantage that offset a number of disadvantages but I am not going to get into that.

 

[eldorado]

The COLA is getting scrapped so I don't know why you care about it so much. And by the way I don't think the swans need it anymore so I really don't care but trying to make out that they are somehow using it to top-up only certain players it cr**.

I know. I made no reference to the Swans using it to 'top up certain players' so I don't know why you mention it

I explained myself in my post. The only thing that makes me react is when people try to say that the way it is implemented means it's really not a higher salary cap, not really an advantage.

 

[Taylor]

The COLA is getting scrapped so I don't know why you care about it so much. And by the way I don't think the swans need it anymore so I really don't care but trying to make out that they are somehow using it to top-up only certain players it cr**.

Also, in the case of Buddy the Hawks offered more than the Swans per year but were not willing to go more than 3 or 4 years. He wanted longer. The Hawks could have ofeered a 9 year deal but the fact is they DIDNT and have no-one to blame but themselves. I know that if I was offered the 2 deals I would take the Swans deal in a heartbeat and prettty much so would every player in the game!

The Swans certainly took a big risk there and good on them, they will either run away laughing or cry into their beers, time will tell. Hopefully for Buddy's sake it's a long time before retirement.

 

[eldorado]

Also, in the case of Buddy the Hawks offered more than the Swans per year but were not willing to go more than 3 or 4 years. He wanted longer. The Hawks could have ofeered a 9 year deal but the fact is they DIDNT and have no-one to blame but themselves. I know that if I was offered the 2 deals I would take the Swans deal in a heartbeat and prettty much so would every player in the game!

Blame? hahaha ...Mate, I don't blame Hawthorn for not matching a ridiculous offer.

And as for Buddy's relevence to my post....

 

[theflea]

No. The poster said we have shown the ability to draw and retain players without the academies. I am merely suggesting all things needs to be taken into account including cola effecting our ability to draw and retain players compared to no cola going forward.

When you are comparing you need to take all variables into account. Saying we have not lost any A graders during a time when a facility was in place to prevent this without mentioning said system is changing is disingenuous.

Plus it was an advantage that offset a number of disadvantages but I am not going to get into that.

Sure but isn't that the point? All of a sudden clubs are now on a level playing field with regard to the CoLA?

 

[eldorado]

Sure but isn't that the point? All of a sudden clubs are now on a level playing field with regard to the CoLA?

The idea that they shouldn't have special considerations of any kind is one that is taking a while to sink in with some...

 

[Taylor]

Regarding the academy, if Sydney aren't paying for it but simply arranging their sponsors to fund it then why does the club get that benefit?

I overheard something about the young sportsmen not playing AFL if they were going to be leaving their home state but what other code/sport doesn't play outside of NSW?

 

[TheMase]

Sure but isn't that the point? All of a sudden clubs are now on a level playing field with regard to the CoLA?

I would not describe the AFL as a level playing field for starters, but in any case cola is being replaced by a rental allowance for players under 300k.

Does that make it a level playing field?

I don't know that it does by your definition...

My point was not to debate this, it has been done endlessly. I was just pointing out that a poster had said we had no problems retaining players and this should continue even though the terms of trade have changed (which is fine, I am not arguing against it, I was just pointing it out!).

 

[theflea]

I would not describe the AFL as a level playing field for starters, but in any case cola is being replaced by a rental allowance for players under 300k.

Does that make it a level playing field?

I don't know that it does by your definition...

My point was not to debate this, it has been done endlessly. I was just pointing out that a poster had said we had no problems retaining players and this should continue even though the terms of trade have changed (which is fine, I am not arguing against it, I was just pointing it out!).

A level playing field with regard to the TPP. I would prefer to have to no CoLA at all( because there is cause for area's in the AFL to qualify for this), but it is a compromise and I guess we live with it. I know you are saying you will now have some trouble retaining players now( or at the very least it is up in the air), but again why is that now any different than other teams? Surely that means it is now incumbent on the Swans, like all teams, to keep players happy and retain them? I think this is the point most are making, at least with regard to the TPP value. I think your saying you will now have trouble doing so. I disagree, as the swans are a destination club, are perennial finals contenders and in the near future will have many spots opening to attract other players via trade/FA(due to a high number of senior players getting to the end of their careers).

 

[QuietB]

I would not describe the AFL as a level playing field for starters, but in any case cola is being replaced by a rental allowance for players under 300k.

Does that make it a level playing field?

I don't know that it does by your definition...

My point was not to debate this, it has been done endlessly. I was just pointing out that a poster had said we had no problems retaining players and this should continue even though the terms of trade have changed (which is fine, I am not arguing against it, I was just pointing it out!).

Sydney are going to lose more players like Mumford, no doubt. And the terms of trade have definitely changed. What change is most significant though? Losing a 9.8% allowance? Or paying one player 16% of your cap?

When Sydney lose players it will because they are paying one player 16% of their cap from next year onwards. Sydney and their fans will never accept this but it is reality.

 

[Membling]

That is the NSW Scholarship program closed down.

Because it didn't work. Or grow the game.

Regarding the academy, if Sydney aren't paying for it but simply arranging their sponsors to fund it then why does the club get that benefit?

I overheard something about the young sportsmen not playing AFL if they were going to be leaving their home state but what other code/sport doesn't play outside of NSW?

Because the sponsorship and funding wouldn't be headed into the game without the swans and could easily be filtered directly into the swans pockets instead?

In terms of junior sportspeople, the fact that they are choosing to play AFL at all is a sign the academy is work. Is all about fostering junior development in the region as it is woefully represented in the state.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

What is this? Just taunting?

Perhaps. But it illustrates the point that a draft pick upgrade is pretty small change in the context of measureable progress in the development of the game, both from a talent perspective and an interest perspective, in the frontier states.

 

[Membling]

Sydney are going to lose more players like Mumford, no doubt. And the terms of trade have definitely changed. What change is most significant though? Losing a 9.8% allowance? Or paying one player 16% of your cap?

When Sydney lose players it will because they are paying one player 16% of their cap from next year onwards. Sydney and their fans will never accept this but it is reality.

Raising the cap and the new broadcast deal should helpitigate some of the damage. But we will more than likely lose one or two.