Mega Thread Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) discussion

[Kwality]

Most clubs I suspect aren't massive fans of the way the COLA is distributed. Ed is not against a COLA for Sydney per se, but its allocation.

The biggest issue is probably rookie and 1st contract players across the board. I don't think we need to give top ups to ANY player earning over 300k. Sydney players under this threshold should get more than their interstate cohorts.

Maybe we need a sliding scale of COLA for these players.

Eddie is acting in the best interests of Collingwood, not Aussie Rules footy, not the national comp.

In 2009, when McGuire had been living in Sydney running the Nine Network, he told The Daily Telegraph: ''I've been very strong in supporting the cost of living.
''It's very easy for people to say, 'Well, go out and live in the suburbs', but people don't realise how hard it is to move around and even the social phenomena of no one from the North Shore ever planning to visit the eastern suburbs and vice versa.''


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mcguire-an-amnesiac-on-cap-fight-20130324-2go25.html#ixzz2OXXp0dqN

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Do WA have a cost of living allowance to counter the increase in housing costs etc due to the mining boom?

Food for thought I guess

 

[Danair]

Thanks Vlad!

 

[worthy]

Bollox, post: 27502853, member: 27396"]I think one question people never seem to address is pretty damn basic.
Where is the correlation between getting paid a LOT more and becoming a better player ?
Isnt one. Never has been. The $ is a reward for standing and a reflection of your value,...but to suggest getting paid a LOT more will suddenly make you a better player is 12yo stuff. take a look at Scully's amazing progress on a mill a yr for a guy worth maybe 200 tops based on what he's done to date.
So imagine just a 10% kicker ...why some grown men still think it might suddenly produce silk purses from sows ears is beyond sense.
At the Dees i can guarantee Colin Sylvia (and a bunch of others you dont rate at all ) get paid an amount you;d think is stupid and well beyond their worth...but they have a minimum sal cap too thats only $1m spread over 42+ guys less than Sydney. Are the Dees players suddenly better for being paid way over what they are realistically worth ?
Should Sylvia be paid more than say Ryan OKeefe ? Very likely. So how does it make him suddenly a better player or give the Dees a serious advantage ?
If the 10% is simply paid to the players above normal contracts as a cost of living allowance then i cant see how it could be any issue worth squabbling over...if a guy from melb is tempted to defect to Syd by getting 280K instead of 250K then he needs his head read anyway. Real braniac stuff that is.

Come on Bollox, that is a massive load of dribble. Of course getting more money doesn't make you a better player. But, as you would be well aware, a player will get more money as they improve, or the club risks that player getting poached by other clubs, particularly ones with extra money to spend.

This entire issue only came around due to Syd winning a flag...few even rated our list good enough yet somehow when we win the flag its suddenly star studded and bolstered by the cola.

Any team in the top 4 that could suddenly shell out 800k for a new player would be looked at, Sydney did, and when they were looked at, it highlighted the fact they get 900k more than every other team (bar GWS) to spend, apparently it's called a COLA, but this can't be true because the cost of living is different in every state but there is no allowance to cover it.

 

[Scotland]

Do WA have a cost of living allowance to counter the increase in housing costs etc due to the mining boom?

Food for thought I guess

WA is not a development market.

Brant Colledge can use his huge marketability to supplement his base income and live a life of luxury. Isn't that obvious?

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

The most noticeable thing has been the media personalities who are associated with the Swans. Their biased cries through various media channels has been meritorious.

What none of them want to address is the difference in the size of the salary cap today in comparison to when clubs agreed to the preferential treatment years ago. Lets see some transperancy and stop relying on the AFL (read - the other clubs) to fund it.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Unfortunately Vlad can't do anything if 75% of clubs vote against it by AFL rules, which is the case now.

Last i heard it wasn't up for debate at that meeting.

 

[worthy]

Last i heard it wasn't up for debate at that meeting.

Thanks to Vlad

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Thanks to Vlad

Thats what Danair said

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

As Vlad himself said, it is under review.

Yes but he has no problems with the way we currently allocate it so..

 

[Off The Couch]

Yes but he has no problems with the way we currently allocate it so..

He also said Melbourne didn't tank
He also said the afl doesn't have a drug issue

 

[Old Spice]

Eddie is acting in the best interests of Collingwood, not Aussie Rules footy, not the national comp.

In 2009, when McGuire had been living in Sydney running the Nine Network, he told The Daily Telegraph: ''I've been very strong in supporting the cost of living.
''It's very easy for people to say, 'Well, go out and live in the suburbs', but people don't realise how hard it is to move around and even the social phenomena of no one from the North Shore ever planning to visit the eastern suburbs and vice versa.''


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/mcguire-an-amnesiac-on-cap-fight-20130324-2go25.html#ixzz2OXXp0dqN

Unless other clubs agree with Ed, it won't amount to anything, so why would it matter what Ed thinks? Worry about what most clubs think, even if some don't have the balls to say so openly.

 

[Bollox]

Come on Bollox, that is a massive load of dribble. Of course getting more money doesn't make you a better player. But, as you would be well aware, a player will get more money as they improve, or the club risks that player getting poached by other clubs, particularly ones with extra money to spend.
Any team in the top 4 that could suddenly shell out 800k for a new player would be looked at, Sydney did, and when they were looked at, it highlighted the fact they get 900k more than every other team (bar GWS) to spend, apparently it's called a COLA, but this can't be true because the cost of living is different in every state but there is no allowance to cover it.

I have sat back and watched this thread evolve into the greatest load of absolute drivel. Its like this topic transforms a whole bunch of what should be intelligent people into finger pointing fools...all of them looking for an angle of how a simple 10% extra kicker suddenly transforms a list into a flag winner..or has suddenly permitted a club to be able to pay big money for another guy. Everyone has contradicted themselves totally yourself included and yet still nobody wants to take it back to its essence and start with the bleeding obvious. So much easier to just make an assumption and then jump up and down trying to make arguments whilst deliberately ignoring FACTS.
I told you what you already knew but chose to ignore. Pretty damn obvious too. ADELAIDE were quite capable of showing Tippett the same money...didnt they finish top 4 as well ? In fact didnt they finish above Sydney ? Somehow this topic though sends normal blokes into a frenzy...you choose to totally ignore facts in favour of some sort of emotive concoction.
Sydney was not the only top 4 club to have 800K to spend on Tippett. You also must know that Sydney did not know they were going to win the flag when all this was planned and budgeted. You also know that according to the media (thats becoz when anyone from Syd tells you it goes in one ear and straight out the other as though its somehow not important) that the actual drop in contractual payments for 2013 was closer to 1.2 mill...you even know it was but STILL wish to jump up and down as if this shit just didnt happen. Its not rocket science you know...its the same way ALL clubs recruit. If you are paying say 94-95% of the cap, drop 1.2mill from a 9-10 mill cap and have a 91% floor you MUST pay...you do the maths ok. Dont skimp over it nd pretend its not somehow relevant nor important.

Right now you and everyone else that has been assuming there's some sort of advantage going on need to step back and actually show that there is. I put it to you that there is an enormous furby that you as well as other conspiracy theorists dont even bother to comprehend ...that actually being paid 10% more in salary does not make any guy a better player..not in the slightest. Its just another iditotic assumption glossed over so that the finger pointing can continue. Dont gloss over it...i;m putting it to you to show me and everyone else how a bloke being paid $280K instead of $250K is transformed into a better player...make it 880K instead of 800K if you like.

IFFFF you can show me where and how Sydney have not paid it to the players...and therefore have a lump sum to suddenly spring for big name players then thats fine. But you wont because it just hasnt been that way. You know that already and simply glossed over that too didnt you. The essence of all this drivel has been assumptions not based upon ignoring the facts...its like there must be some sort of rorting going on because that fits the sensationalising of whats a pretty simple concept to grasp. Dont assume anything...use the facts not the bullshit you;ve read from others.

As i;ve said before...if you or anyone can prove that Syd did in fact use this allowance in a manner contrary to its intention, then i'll be the first to vote for its removal and be asking questions of the club.

If you cant show how paying someone 10% more suddenly provides an advantage (and you wont be able to coz it never has in history)..and if you cannot show that Syd somehow paid this cap space other than as a 10% allowance as intended....then all this shit is just purely academic. Sydney havent done anything bizzarre...its not as though we are paying guys on win/loss contracts that could be argued are performance enhancing by comparison...its just a bloody 10% allowance for christsake. Nobody is suddenly coming to Sydney for 290K instead of 260K..and nobody is suddenly a better kick or smarter player coz they;re now being paid 199K instead of 180K.

Why dont you go start again with some facts and use them this time...prove the IMPORTANT parts first then come back. Dont simply jump up and down shouting and finger pointing like a dill.

 

[Scotland]

. Nobody is suddenly coming to Sydney for 290K instead of 260K..and nobody is suddenly a better kick or smarter player coz they;re now being paid 199K instead of 180K.

Do you support the competition having a salary cap?

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

He also said Melbourne didn't tank
He also said the afl doesn't have a drug issue

Because we have demonstrated and proved its 9.8% across the playing list and not exploiting it as a slush fund as so many on this site think?

 

[Eshay187]

you people do realise that by removing it you make the competition LESS fair right?

You are all aware that Sydney is way more expensive right?

You do realise that when a rookie is offered 40k to live in Sydney, the first thing they'd check is how much rent is going to cost the right?

You do realise that a kid from Victoria or Adelaide is not going to want to live somewhere where they have $50 a week less to spend or save right?

Are you seriously saying that if you were offered exactly the same job you have now in a different, for the same pay, living in a similar neighborhood to where you are now, but your rent/mortgage is going to go up $50 a week - you'd do it?


Think beyond the basic dey get da more money issue here.

 

[Blake_gray]

For those that follow On The Couch, last week Sheehan showed a breakdown of the players they had to let go and the money they made available to gain Tippett. It's not as if the Swans just had the extra 800k available prior as many people have suggested.

 

[Blake_gray]

I think if you put yourself into the draft, you are quite aware you can end up in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide or Perth.

I don't think your saving level, disposable income is a greater concern for a kid than getting an opportunity on an AFL list.

Last year, Jon Patton said he preferred to move i/s rather than play in Melbourne. There are cons, i.e. cost of living v pros such as having less pressure on you in a non football city, which Patton indicated.

One of the actual reasonable arguments I've read.
Players like Patton (who isn't exactly outgoing) would prefer to live in a city like Sydney, where Aussie Rules isn't the predominant sporting code.
I hate to undermine a few fellow Swans fans, but you are correct in saying disposable income isn't a cause for concern, because as part of the COLA allocation, rookies are regularly paid more than they would at a non-Sydney club.

 

[Eshay187]

I think...

...I don't think...

This is basically the problem here.

People are just guessing based on a gut response.

Also, do people not find it ironic that you're all saying that "getting 10% more is a massive incentive to go to Sydney" while simultaneously saying "it costing 20% more to live there is not at all a detergent or consideration"?

 

[Scotland]

For those that follow On The Couch, last week Sheehan showed a breakdown of the players they had to let go and the money they made available to gain Tippett. It's not as if the Swans just had the extra 800k available prior as many people have suggested.

For about the 10,000th time, this is not really in dispute. Maybe the Swans freed up $1m, maybe $1.5m, maybe $5m - who knows.

The fact is, with $800k 'freed up', the Swans still have more left over to spend than every other club does across their entire list. That is the issue in play.

 

[Blake_gray]

For about the 10,000th time, this is not really in dispute. Maybe the Swans freed up $1m, maybe $1.5m, maybe $5m - who knows.

The fact is, with $800k 'freed up', the Swans still have more left over to spend than every other club does across their entire list. That is the issue in play.

That is correct, although there are no signs to suggest it is not spread evenly amongst players, which as an AFL fan, we can only hope.
I just don't understand the negative attention surrounding Tippett's arrival at the club, particularly with a number of misinformed people.
Unless people are accusing the Swans of not sharing the COLA reasonably, there shouldn't be any issue in my opinion?

 

[Old Spice]

That is correct, although there are no signs to suggest it is not spread evenly amongst players, which as an AFL fan, we can only hope.
I just don't understand the negative attention surrounding Tippett's arrival at the club, particularly with a number of misinformed people.
Unless people are accusing the Swans of not sharing the COLA reasonably, there shouldn't be any issue in my opinion?

That's precisely the issue.

 

[worthy]

Bollox, post: 27512332, member: 27396"]I have sat back and watched this thread evolve into the greatest load of absolute drivel. Its like this topic transforms a whole bunch of what should be intelligent people into finger pointing fools...all of them looking for an angle of how a simple 10% extra kicker suddenly transforms a list into a flag winner..or has suddenly permitted a club to be able to pay big money for another guy. Everyone has contradicted themselves totally yourself included and yet still nobody wants to take it back to its essence and start with the bleeding obvious. So much easier to just make an assumption and then jump up and down trying to make arguments whilst deliberately ignoring FACTS.
I told you what you already knew but chose to ignore. Pretty damn obvious too. ADELAIDE were quite capable of showing Tippett the same money...didnt they finish top 4 as well ? In fact didnt they finish above Sydney ? Somehow this topic though sends normal blokes into a frenzy...you choose to totally ignore facts in favour of some sort of emotive concoction.
Sydney was not the only top 4 club to have 800K to spend on Tippett. You also must know that Sydney did not know they were going to win the flag when all this was planned and budgeted. You also know that according to the media (thats becoz when anyone from Syd tells you it goes in one ear and straight out the other as though its somehow not important) that the actual drop in contractual payments for 2013 was closer to 1.2 mill...you even know it was but STILL wish to jump up and down as if this shit just didnt happen. Its not rocket science you know...its the same way ALL clubs recruit. If you are paying say 94-95% of the cap, drop 1.2mill from a 9-10 mill cap and have a 91% floor you MUST pay...you do the maths ok. Dont skimp over it nd pretend its not somehow relevant nor important.

Right now you and everyone else that has been assuming there's some sort of advantage going on need to step back and actually show that there is. I put it to you that there is an enormous furby that you as well as other conspiracy theorists dont even bother to comprehend ...that actually being paid 10% more in salary does not make any guy a better player..not in the slightest. Its just another iditotic assumption glossed over so that the finger pointing can continue. Dont gloss over it...i;m putting it to you to show me and everyone else how a bloke being paid $280K instead of $250K is transformed into a better player...make it 880K instead of 800K if you like.

Why do you keep going on with this dribble, nobody thinks nor suggests it, so stop peddling it.

IFFFF you can show me where and how Sydney have not paid it to the players...and therefore have a lump sum to suddenly spring for big name players then thats fine. But you wont because it just hasnt been that way. You know that already and simply glossed over that too didnt you. The essence of all this drivel has been assumptions not based upon ignoring the facts...its like there must be some sort of rorting going on because that fits the sensationalising of whats a pretty simple concept to grasp. Dont assume anything...use the facts not the bullshit you;ve read from others.

As i;ve said before...if you or anyone can prove that Syd did in fact use this allowance in a manner contrary to its intention, then i'll be the first to vote for its removal and be asking questions of the club.

If you cant show how paying someone 10% more suddenly provides an advantage (and you wont be able to coz it never has in history)..and if you cannot show that Syd somehow paid this cap space other than as a 10% allowance as intended....then all this shit is just purely academic. Sydney havent done anything bizzarre...its not as though we are paying guys on win/loss contracts that could be argued are performance enhancing by comparison...its just a bloody 10% allowance for christsake.

Nobody is suddenly coming to Sydney for 290K instead of 260K..and nobody is suddenly a better kick or smarter player coz they;re now being paid 199K instead of 180K.

Stop with the dribble.

Why dont you go start again with some facts and use them this time...prove the IMPORTANT parts first then come back.

Fact is, Sydney get an extra 10% to pay their players, it's called a COLA, but this is incorrect because it's not calculated across the league. People keep going on about it being more expensive in Sydney, it is, so what, Sydney has many other attributes that makes it a desirable city to live in, posters on here would have you believe Sydney is this awful and expensive city to live in that nobody would want to come to.

Dont simply jump up and down shouting and finger pointing like a dill.

There's a bit of that going on.

 

[worthy]

This is basically the problem here.

People are just guessing based on a gut response.

Also, do people not find it ironic that you're all saying that "getting 10% more is a massive incentive to go to Sydney" while simultaneously saying "it costing 20% more to live there is not at all a detergent or consideration"?

I'm not saying that, it may be suggested by some, but the majority don't think or suggest that at all.

 

[tazhawk]

The fact is, with $800k 'freed up', the Swans still have more left over to spend than every other club does across their entire list. That is the issue in play.

This is what the Sydney supporters do not seem to be able to get their heads around.