Surely now the AFL must scrap COLA from the swans.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/money/co...ording-to-numbeo/story-fnhld5o2-1226677289063
http://www.perthnow.com.au/money/co...ording-to-numbeo/story-fnhld5o2-1226677289063
Mega Thread Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) discussion
- Thread starter themarkedman72
- Start date
- Tagged users None
replicant
Premiership Player
Sydney is still ahead if you include rent/property prices.
But that's not an argument to scrap the COLA. It's an argument to give it to Freo and Eagles.
But that's not an argument to scrap the COLA. It's an argument to give it to Freo and Eagles.
- Dec 8, 2009
- 1,773
- 565
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- Philly (Eagles, Flyers, Sixers)
The King!
Chosen One
#standbycola
- May 3, 2007
- 36,528
- 21,169
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Man City, Valencia, Lazio, Panthers
Whats your opinion on the Swans now you crazy Crow?
Now the swans are chasing after Buddy Franklin! I guess Bread and butter is expensive over there in NSW. you can buy cheap bread for $1 in Coles in all Adelaide stores! lol
- Jul 13, 2012
- 43,603
- 21,025
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Charlotte Hornets, Chelsea, Striker
Whats your opinion on the Swans now you crazy Crow?
Now the swans are chasing after Buddy Franklin! I guess Bread and butter is expensive over there in NSW. you can buy cheap bread for $1 in Coles in all Adelaide stores! lol
What a joke right?
Its ok, I honestly think Buddy will make their team worse.
Mumford + White + Reid > Franklin
I'm the first to admit the COLA is flawed. I think it serves a purpose, I think those claiming it's an AFL conspiracy to benefit the Swans and GWS are a bit dense, but it certainly isn't the best implemented policy in the world. Contrary to what most believe, it's not actually possible to use it as a treasure chest to crack out whenever you want to lure a big player, that just doesn't make logical sense, but I've explained why before and it hasn't made much of an impact. But it's certainly a long, LONG way from being perfect.
I think part of this problem is the focus on, strangely enough, cost of living. Cost of living as a concept usually refers to the cost of the bare essentials. This is a problem, because football players aren't attracted to cities by the affordability or lack thereof of the bare essentials, they're attracted by the affordability of the overall footballer's lifestyle.
This presents problems because it's also really difficult to quantify how much that costs relative to cities. You can look at it and say, "Yeah, Sydney (and Perth, which should be included) are more expensive", but it's really hard to say how much salaries should be adjusted to account for that to make Sydney and Perth lifestyles equally attractive on a per-dollar basis for the average footballer. That's without even getting into Adelaide being cheaper, etc.
So, I propose that a better approach would be to look at the average salaries for equivalent jobs across different cities, because that's really what we're talking about. We're talking about adjusting footballer's salaries so that they lie in the right part of the bell curve for the city in which they play. Find that bell curve, and adjust accordingly, and for ALL teams. The cost of everything, from bare essentials to luxury goods, is largely determined by the amount of money the locals have to pay for them, so doing this should provide a roughly equitable compensation for lifestyle expenses. It should also implicitly take into account the attractiveness of the lifestyle. Basically, it's answering the question, "how much do you need to pay me to live here versus everywhere else in Australia?" by looking at what everybody is paid.
Thoughts? I'm certainly no expert in the area but this makes intuitive sense to me. Any economists are free to tear me to shreds if need be!
I think part of this problem is the focus on, strangely enough, cost of living. Cost of living as a concept usually refers to the cost of the bare essentials. This is a problem, because football players aren't attracted to cities by the affordability or lack thereof of the bare essentials, they're attracted by the affordability of the overall footballer's lifestyle.
This presents problems because it's also really difficult to quantify how much that costs relative to cities. You can look at it and say, "Yeah, Sydney (and Perth, which should be included) are more expensive", but it's really hard to say how much salaries should be adjusted to account for that to make Sydney and Perth lifestyles equally attractive on a per-dollar basis for the average footballer. That's without even getting into Adelaide being cheaper, etc.
So, I propose that a better approach would be to look at the average salaries for equivalent jobs across different cities, because that's really what we're talking about. We're talking about adjusting footballer's salaries so that they lie in the right part of the bell curve for the city in which they play. Find that bell curve, and adjust accordingly, and for ALL teams. The cost of everything, from bare essentials to luxury goods, is largely determined by the amount of money the locals have to pay for them, so doing this should provide a roughly equitable compensation for lifestyle expenses. It should also implicitly take into account the attractiveness of the lifestyle. Basically, it's answering the question, "how much do you need to pay me to live here versus everywhere else in Australia?" by looking at what everybody is paid.
Thoughts? I'm certainly no expert in the area but this makes intuitive sense to me. Any economists are free to tear me to shreds if need be!
Bluelegs
Celebrating what we're good at
The simple truth is that if you are earning much more than $250k a year then cost of living isn't your most dire concern.
Which is exactly why I think we should stop focusing on cost of living, and instead look at relative differences in average salary. Or did you not read my post at all?
Albert Ross
Premiership Player
Offset their cost of living against the superior capital growth they accrue from property investment in Sydney?
Upgrayedd
A Vote for Clive is a Vote for Justice
But perth is more expensive to live?
Cola was good and fine in the 1995 to 2005 when the club was having a bit of trouble finding it's feet.
Offset their cost of living against the superior capital growth they accrue from property investment in Sydney?
Didn't Colless say most of the Swans players are renting?
Bluelegs
Celebrating what we're good at
I've already made my point on other threads that the COLA if allowed at all should only be given as a bonus to players on salaries which meet an AFL minimum wage. Say those on 80k-140k a year could gain money out of the COLA. Also it should only be given to players during the first two-three years of their recruitment to the club.
Yep. He said ""It should be called rental equalisation because that's what it is. It's not a grant, it's actually equalising cost of players living in Sydney."
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/weve-done-nothing-wrong-say-swans-20131001-2uqzi.html#ixzz2gXO52Bdf
What he is actually saying is that his average player (on $300k) rents a house where the equivalent house in Melbourne would cost $30k a year more to rent. And Kurt Tippett must be renting a castle in the middle of the Syd Darling Harbour, because I can't think of what else would cost $90k a year more to rent than the equivalent in Melbourne.
Based on this, Buddy must be renting half of Bondi.
No1SwansFan
All Australian
To do that you would also have to have players on some kind of minimum wage right? So a first year KPF gets X and so on???? I dont disagree but there is alot more to it than just working it out on wages across the different states. I still think it is relevant in some form though and needs to explored for other teams. I do also think it should be a lump sum that is distributed evenly between each player not as 9.8% of the total wage. It also need to be based purely off TPP not off the total cap.
swansfan51
Brownlow Medallist
- Jun 3, 2007
- 12,602
- 21,357
- AFL Club
- Sydney
- Other Teams
- The Exers
The COLA should be scrapped, lets also have:
- Media appearances paid inside the salary cap
- Anzac Day, Dreamtime and other premier games to be rotated between all clubs equally
- Collingwood having to travel interstate
- Clubs not having to use Etihad rather than the MCG
- All 3rd party deals abolished
- Priority picks scrapped
- All finals to be played at the higher ranked team's home ground
- Father/Son rule abolished
- Jun 16, 2012
- 12,249
- 9,694
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
OR... we could be just like most normal sporting leagues in the world which have a salary cap, where everyone has the same salary cap.
^Crusader^
Debutant
- Jul 13, 2003
- 74
- 2
- Other Teams
- Sydney
Good post Barney, but IMO the whole thing is a joke, Scrap it!. What makes footballers so special to the rest of the workforce. Most footballers are earning between $100,000 - $300,000 on average. So thats not enough to live on in Sydney? *rolleyes*. Anyone that uses the 'if we didn't have the cost of living allowance, we would be behind the eight ball' (ala Longmire), is a fool.
Think of all the Defence personnel who get posted every 3-5 years to a different state. They don't have any adjustment to their Salaries unless it is an isolated location i.e. Darwin, Townsville. With a large number of those Defence personnel located in Sydney, hmmm no extra cost of living allowance there for those members, interesting. Footballers must be special. Must be a hard life living in Sydney, how does everyone else manage?
The COLA is worth about $900,000 per year to the Swans and Giants, this is more than likely how Sydney recruited Tippett, now they have the unfair advantage again but gaining Franklin. So its beause of 'cost of living' allows a club 'Sydney' to recruit these big stars..... hmmmmm right!.
I thought it was because of the cost of living in Sydney???? Im confused..hmmmmm
Think of all the Defence personnel who get posted every 3-5 years to a different state. They don't have any adjustment to their Salaries unless it is an isolated location i.e. Darwin, Townsville. With a large number of those Defence personnel located in Sydney, hmmm no extra cost of living allowance there for those members, interesting. Footballers must be special. Must be a hard life living in Sydney, how does everyone else manage?
The COLA is worth about $900,000 per year to the Swans and Giants, this is more than likely how Sydney recruited Tippett, now they have the unfair advantage again but gaining Franklin. So its beause of 'cost of living' allows a club 'Sydney' to recruit these big stars..... hmmmmm right!.
I thought it was because of the cost of living in Sydney???? Im confused..hmmmmm
But part of the problem is that, in theory, the extra expense of living in Sydney makes players not WANT to come to Sydney.
Bluelegs
Celebrating what we're good at
MickyG
Club Legend
- Jul 5, 2010
- 1,164
- 1,014
- AFL Club
- Sydney
It was established as an equalisation measure and therefore if being reviewed all equalisation measures should be reviewed.
I have repeatedly written, scape it but include all third party deals in the salary cap.
NB: Carlton, Visy; Collingwood, Channel 9; Crows, Balfours; Eagles, GIO and Hungry Jacks. All rich club supporters need to think about the advantage your club gets from all these unfair advantages before attacking the COLA. Scraping COLA creates an unfair advantage when players at your club can get all this extra cash on the side.
Look at Brisbane right now and you are seeing a repeat of what happened before the retention allowance and COLA. Player drafted, completes initial contract, poached back home with homesickness excuse. I'm sure Eddy and the other hypocrites would rather have flags and see Queensland and NSW clubs get hand outs from the AFL when they are bordering on bankruptcy.
I think if all third party deals are included in the salary cap and COLA is phased out a rental allowance and a re-signing bonus should be paid outside the salary cap and by the AFL directly to the player. The rental allowance would be to all players in their first four or five years if earning less than say $100,000 and their club was more than 30 kilometres from their family home or pre-draft club home ground. Pay 50% of the rent on the average 2 bedroom unit within 5 kilometres of their club's training ground. The re-signing bonus would be to any player signing a second contract with the club that drafted them equal to say 9.8% of the first two years of that contract's value.
These two measures would meet the higher rental costs of more expensive cities, help young players meet living costs associated with moving away from family and friends, and provide an incentive to be loyal to the club that drafted them.
I have repeatedly written, scape it but include all third party deals in the salary cap.
NB: Carlton, Visy; Collingwood, Channel 9; Crows, Balfours; Eagles, GIO and Hungry Jacks. All rich club supporters need to think about the advantage your club gets from all these unfair advantages before attacking the COLA. Scraping COLA creates an unfair advantage when players at your club can get all this extra cash on the side.
Look at Brisbane right now and you are seeing a repeat of what happened before the retention allowance and COLA. Player drafted, completes initial contract, poached back home with homesickness excuse. I'm sure Eddy and the other hypocrites would rather have flags and see Queensland and NSW clubs get hand outs from the AFL when they are bordering on bankruptcy.
I think if all third party deals are included in the salary cap and COLA is phased out a rental allowance and a re-signing bonus should be paid outside the salary cap and by the AFL directly to the player. The rental allowance would be to all players in their first four or five years if earning less than say $100,000 and their club was more than 30 kilometres from their family home or pre-draft club home ground. Pay 50% of the rent on the average 2 bedroom unit within 5 kilometres of their club's training ground. The re-signing bonus would be to any player signing a second contract with the club that drafted them equal to say 9.8% of the first two years of that contract's value.
These two measures would meet the higher rental costs of more expensive cities, help young players meet living costs associated with moving away from family and friends, and provide an incentive to be loyal to the club that drafted them.
Similar threads
