Mega Thread COLA assessment and equalisation - Opposition fans READ OP before posting

[robbieando]

Just putting this here for the benefit of opposition fans who are reading though this thread.

Please also take this as a warning to play nice or face some time out.
===================================================================
For opposition fans who can bother to read the Swans under the agreement with the AFL for the use of COLA agreed to contracts with their players under the normal 100% level of the club TPP and ASA. This is no different to ANY OTHER CLUB. When the Swans submit our contracts and salary cap forms each season for AFL review the AFL review each contact as they do with EACH CLUB and then the AFL provide the Swans with payments of 9.8% in the name of each player to be paid in the form of the players COLA payment. At NO STAGE do the Swans receive a lump sum from the AFL, nor do they receive an extra 9.8% in their TPP and ASA.

The simple fact is the Swans agree to a contract with a player, submit it to the AFL for review and the AFL then pay the Swans the COLA for the player rather than the Swans having to foot the bill. The idea the Swans can form a slush fund with it is funny considering its the AFL who is dealing out the money. So if we were creating a slush fund at any stage it was with our normal cap and thus above board.

Basically what seems to have been agreed yesterday is for the AFL to stop handing the Swans the money to give the players (so basically the AFL will pay the players now) and that rather than the COLA being set at a percentage value (9.8%) it will be set at a dollar value ($200,000 or lower).

So just quashing a few myths and outright lies.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

The AFL have released this statement regarding the upcoming assessment of the COLA:

AFL COMMISSIONER Mike Fitzpatrick says Greater Western Sydney is "slightly behind" schedule in its early development and confirmed the Giants will be treated separately when it comes to reviewing the contentious Cost of Living Allowance.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-17/cost-of-living-split

So all they are saying is we're going to include a premium for GWS players contracts because they are "slightly behind schedule" (whatever that's meant to mean). I would have thought a true COLA would merely be based on how much it costs to live in a certain city. No premium or discount for years in the league or anything else. The cost of living remains the same for two clubs in the same city paying for the exact same stuff. If the AFL want to give GWS more money then call it something else as it seems as soon as the AFL say "we're giving xx% COLA" then the whole world jumps up and down and directs their anger at us (not poor little shiny new GWS).

 

[Superstar swan]

They can take it for all I care, I'd love to see how many bf posters would still be moaning after they take the cola and wer still under the cap

 

[bungee]

Think we'd better bag another premiership this year. Make hay while the sun shines.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Honestly man it's just a cluster**** of proportions nothing makes sense about it, it's basically saying its more expensive to live in Sydney for GWS but not for Sydney?

Like i don't even know anymore.

(Mod edit: swear filter avoidance)

 

[base615]

To be honest, I'm going to put out an unpopular opinion. The point of COLA was because the cost of living was inhibiting the ability of the Swans to attract top talent. As it currently stands, it'd be easier for the Swans to attract players than GWS due to the quality at the club and our recent success. I don't think the cost of living argument really means much for the Swans these days. Had they set it up better and had it so that you got COLA up to a certain salary it'd make more sense but as it is, a greater portion of the money goes to our highest paid players. I understand the angst from other teams.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

To be honest, I'm going to put out an unpopular opinion. The point of COLA was because the cost of living was inhibiting the ability of the Swans to attract top talent. As it currently stands, it'd be easier for the Swans to attract players than GWS due to the quality at the club and our recent success. I don't think the cost of living argument really means much for the Swans these days. Had they set it up better and had it so that you got COLA up to a certain salary it'd make more sense but as it is, a greater portion of the money goes to our highest paid players. I understand the angst from other teams.

I'm sure it's changed over time from its original inception.

 

[Swansujelly]

They can take it for all I care, I'd love to see how many bf posters would still be moaning after they take the cola and wer still under the cap

if they take it, we would still be under the cap. As I understand it, the 9.8 is applies after we submit our TPP by the AFL and it is ticked off. If the take it, the players miss out, but the TPP is fine. Anyhoo, i rekon a compromise of players under a certain amount will get it, perhaps 150,000.

 

[RW]

Whether it's easier for the Swans to attract players than GWS or not, don't you think that if the AFL is serious about "equalisation", a new draftee should have the same purchasing power, regardless of which club picks him up? We might be successful right now, but we will always be at a disadvantage compared to clubs from the traditional AFL states, since so few draftees come from NSW, a high percentage of our players will always come from interstate. Look what happened to Brisbane after they lost their allowance. Realistically, it should only be made available to players earning less than, say, $300k p.a., as players earning above this amount should be able to deal with any cost of living increase associated with living in Sydney. And Colless has repeated time and time again that every player gets the 9.8% on top of their contract -- their agents would make sure of that!! So we couldn't use it to land big names even if we wanted to. The insinuation that the COLA helped us get Franklin is so far off the mark it isn't funny and quite frankly I'm tired of hearing it in the media.

 

[Swansujelly]

Whether it's easier for the Swans to attract players than GWS or not, don't you think that if the AFL is serious about "equalisation", a new draftee should have the same purchasing power, regardless of which club picks him up? We might be successful right now, but we will always be at a disadvantage compared to clubs from the traditional AFL states, since so few draftees come from NSW, a high percentage of our players will always come from interstate. Look what happened to Brisbane after they lost their allowance. Realistically, it should only be made available to players earning less than, say, $300k p.a., as players earning above this amount should be able to deal with any cost of living increase associated with living in Sydney. And Colless has repeated time and time again that every player gets the 9.8% on top of their contract -- their agents would make sure of that!! So we couldn't use it to land big names even if we wanted to. The insinuation that the COLA helped us get Franklin is so far off the mark it isn't funny and quite frankly I'm tired of hearing it in the media.

and BF flogs, Bosk anyone?, ignoring how it works to troll us.

 

[M F JONES]

First up, hey everyone, first post for 2014, hope you all had a great festive season! And welcome 2014 year of the Horse!
I've been an ardent defender of the COLA, and quite obviously if you don't understand that it is more expensive in Sydney you are living on another planet.
However due to pressure from Vic clubs and more recently Kochie the league will no doubtly fold, as they aren't the most resilient bunch,
To now compare progress as Fitzpatrick (or he actually posed that question) you now know the posts have moved, we wil lose it,
The question I ask,is when it is removed and we keep on being successful, keep on winning what will their excuses be?
If they honestly believe an extra 10% is the true driver of our success, then I think this is a victory to us straight up, this would smack of lazy incompetence!
So punish us now, remove it, as I will back our great club to have put in the contingencies to continue to prosper post COLA, we will still be a bench mark! So screw them, take it and we will still slap you. Go Bloods
Not bad for a first up rant for 2014!!

 

[Wayne Swan]

It's a cost of living allowance so whether you play for the Swans or GWS your cost of living is greater because you play for a Sydney team. On that basis there is no way they can get rid of our COLA but let GWS keep it. That GWS are not as successful as us as of now just doesn't come into it.

If the COLA gets scrapped for us then it must for GWS as well. Can't believe the stupid GWS press release about Buddy and the COLA, they are just idiots!

If the AFL wants GWS to have more money then they need to give them even more money in their already bloated salary cap, you can't penalise players for the fact that they were drafted by the Swans rather than GWS.

 

[daymee]

I'm most concerned about rookie and fringe players. Dre mentioned it, and Matt Spangher also elaborated that without match day payments, he was struggling to make ends meet in Sydney. NSW clubs shouldn't be disadvantaged, it's not fair to the club, league and players.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I'm not worried at all, if we lose it we lose it.

If it's tied to contracted players then as the AFL signed off on them and the COLA is paid by the AFL, cutting it straight off means there's a deal with them and the players agents to deal with the club is in the clear.

they may cut it off for all New contracts the existing contracts will still receive cola.

But I'm more then willing to bet the cola stays, certainly will be modified but the AFL learned its lesson with Brisbane, They won't cut it completely.

And hey even if they did cut the cola who cares? We won 2 god damn flags with teams nobody rated! The VAFL can go * itself the swans will triumph, cola or no.

 

[Superstar swan]

If they afl scrap it for us then they have to scrap it for gws. Then theyl make up some development allowance to cover the loss for gws. Either way I'm not bothered the slightest what the afl do.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

The main issue I have with it is simply it's a cost of living allowance. If you play for Sydney or GWS it still costs the same to live. If they are going to continue to provide an allowance to GWS and not Sydney then don't call it a Cost of Living Allowance but rather what it is actually for (i.e. "prop up the new fledgling club allowance). I have no problems with the AFL reviewing and revising the rate at which the allowance is paid however to suggest it goes completely when it still costs more to live in Sydney non-the-less (with less 3rd party, sponsorship & media opportunities etc than in Melb, SA or WA) is absurd and will no doubt feel like a win for the other clubs who originally all agreed to the allowance while we weren't a threat. Now we have some success then cut it completely? I think not. That's like saying one day "Yes darling grow your hair long" and then when it get's longer than you anticipated you chop her head off... Crazy talk.

 

[M F JONES]

Please please, can we quit the common sense stuff, like cost of living is the same for GWS & Swans players, also why in the hell would you go to the very people (the players) who live it & understand it, given that these are ex-players who have voiced their opinion, this is the AFL, common sense & seeking stake holders opinion is way out of their depth, enough of this silliness....
On the other hand I would of thought it is actually potentially anti competitive, but we'll leave that to ACCC particularly when competing in same industry in the same region or state,

 

[base615]

Edit: Wrong thread

 

[bungee]

If common sense were to prevail we'd see GWS players getting less COLA due to the reduced cost of living for players living way out west. Much cheaper housing than around the SCG and it'd be unreasonable to expect players to live far from their training venue given their heavy commitments.

Alas, I must agree with MFJones, that common sense is unlikely to be a factor in the outcome of these talks.

 

[db swannie]

My gut feeling is it will be reduced, maybe even scrapped. I too would like to see the less well paid players receive a bit more, but I'm not sure how they will administer that.

I can't help feeling that getting Buddy was Colless's way of giving a big FK U to the Melbourne clubs, but I'm still not sure if it was the right thing to do. Fun times indeed.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

My gut feeling is it will be reduced, maybe even scrapped. I too would like to see the less well paid players receive a bit more, but I'm not sure how they will administer that.

I can't help feeling that getting Buddy was Colless's way of giving a big FK U to the Melbourne clubs, but I'm still not sure if it was the right thing to do. Fun times indeed.

The way Eddie and co were carrying on after 2012 granny was the sign that the Viccas were pushing for the cola to be scrapped.

Colless did the smart thing, get as many big named blokes locked into to contracts for ad long as possible before the incentives were lost.

 

[RW]

If common sense were to prevail we'd see GWS players getting less COLA due to the reduced cost of living for players living way out west. Much cheaper housing than around the SCG and it'd be unreasonable to expect players to live far from their training venue given their heavy commitments.

Except most of their players would live around Breakfast Point where the Giants are now based, which is closer to the Inner West than Western Sydney. Not cheap there.

 

[db swannie]

The way Eddie and co were carrying on after 2012 granny was the sign that the Viccas were pushing for the cola to be scrapped.

Colless did the smart thing, get as many big named blokes locked into to contracts for ad long as possible before the incentives were lost.

I think time will tell whether it was smart or not. That all depends how well blokes like Buddy and Tippett play and how long they last.

 

[Number37]

The way Eddie and co were carrying on after 2012 granny was the sign that the Viccas were pushing for the cola to be scrapped.

Colless did the smart thing, get as many big named blokes locked into to contracts for ad long as possible before the incentives were lost.

Don't fall for the COLA hype. Sydney have not been in the business of buying premierships.
Going back to Lockett the club has taken the opportunity to recruit a big name when it presented itself, for that, the club need make no apology. The fact that our club has been able to build a pretty awesome list then recruit Tippett and Franklin is what riles opposition camps. They are not jealous about us receiving COLA they are jealous that we have a pretty good team, which has NOTHING to do with COLA...all the knockers conveniently forget that we won in 2012 before we had Tippett and Franklin!
When ROK wanted to go home Hawthorn wanted to give us nothing, we got bugger all for Jolly...We could lose Hanners or Parker for nothing and whichever club took them wouldn't bat an eyelid at paying unders, but they want to scream blue murder because of COLA...it's completely f*cked up Victorian logic!

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Don't fall for the COLA hype. Sydney have not been in the business of buying premierships.
Going back to Lockett the club has taken the opportunity to recruit a big name when it presented itself, for that, the club need make no apology. The fact that our club has been able to build a pretty awesome list then recruit Tippett and Franklin is what riles opposition camps. They are not jealous about us receiving COLA they are jealous that we have a pretty good team, which has NOTHING to do with COLA...all the knockers conveniently forget that we won in 2012 before we had Tippett and Franklin!
When ROK wanted to go home Hawthorn wanted to give us nothing, we got bugger all for Jolly...We could lose Hanners or Parker for nothing and whichever club took them wouldn't bat an eyelid at paying unders, but they want to scream blue murder because of COLA...it's completely f*cked up Victorian logic!

Don't misunderstand me we earned all of our flags, FFS both 05 and 12 every just about every Vicca wrote us off.

But the fact is the cola makes us competitive in dollar terms look at buddy's deal the hawks have more "guns" then us demanding more cash, but coupled with third party payments they were able not only to make but BEAT our deal the only reason they bulked at it was the length of the contract.

Without the COLA closing the gap on TPP's we will not be able to compete with the Vic's the extra cash on offer in Vic is just too much.

Yes buddies decision was due to our success what we've built (let's remember he approached US) but he wouldn't consider us if we couldnt put in a competitive bid.

Kurt much the same, Sydney was attractive but if we didn't have the cola in place our bid would be nowhere near what Brisbane and the GC were offering in real dollar terms.

There's no denying the cola helps the club stay competitive and we shouldn't back away from that that's what it's there for.