Mega Thread Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) discussion

[RobertRichter]

Don't forget, it is impossible for Sydney Swans players to get ASA deals.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/mor...making-the-grade/story-e6frf9jf-1226598894824

Kieren last week also signed a three-year deal with the Swans and sponsors are flocking to him. ANZ Stadium have made him an official ambassador, as have AFL NSW. He has also recently signed deals with Umbra, Rebel Sport and Nokia.

http://www.afr.com/p/swans_find_nest_in_the_citi_qPj529yfA2LTHeO5sEJTdN

Who says there are no taggers in Aussie Rules any more? Three Sydney Swans grand final-winning heroes, Ted Richards, Mike Pyke and Adam Goodes, are back at their other jobs, shadowing brokers at investment bank Citi.

 

[Scotland]

Yeah, but, we can't develop our own players...

 

[theflea]

That may well be the case but AFL sportsman aren't normal workers.

Few workers earn as much as them and have the infrastructure off-field to support them with rent, business contacts and media opportunities.

No sporting competition in the world that has a salary cap has an adjustment for the cost of living.

As much as a CoL has its applications this is a good point. During the week afl players have a hell of a lot of things paid for by the clubs that the general public dont get. So for me the only thing relevant is the difference between the rental/housing price rate.

 

[RobertRichter]

As much as a CoL has its applications this is a good point. During the week afl players have a hell of a lot of things paid for by the clubs that the general public dont get. So for me the only thing relevant is the difference between the rental/housing price rate.

The rental/housing rate is also mitigated by the fact that many clubs have properties for first / 2nd year players. There was an article on Brodie Grundy in Adelaide during the week, he mentioned that he was living in a house with fellow draftees, which is owned by Collingwood. I doubt he would be paying rent.

Many clubs have a billet system where these players live with a family initially.

In the Giants example, Breakfast Point is owned by the club and players don't pay rent yet they still receive the COLA.

 

[theflea]

The rental/housing rate is also mitigated by the fact that many clubs have properties for first / 2nd year players. There was an article on Brodie Grundy in Adelaide during the week, he mentioned that he was living in a house with fellow draftees, which is owned by Collingwood. I doubt he would be paying rent.

Many clubs have a billet system where these players live with a family initially.

In the Giants example, Breakfast Point is owned by the club and players don't pay rent yet they still receive the COLA.

Sure agree, many factors involved but this is the only 1 imo thats relevant to any study about CoL when comparing to the general public.

 

[.Shotties.]

In the Giants example, Breakfast Point is owned by the club and players don't pay rent yet they still receive the COLA.

No it isn't.

 

[Off The Couch]

No it isn't.

Is it leased by the club

 

[.Shotties.]

Is it leased by the club

Wouldn't have a clue. I'd say the second part about them not paying rent is bullshit, too.

 

[Provost_]

No it isn't.

Sure isn't, it's rented.
If memory serves GWS paid around $400,000.00 in 2012 to house players there.

Found a link http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/gi...kfast-point-home/story-fnelctok-1226482900030

 

[RobertRichter]

Wouldn't have a clue. I'd say the second part about them not paying rent is bullshit, too.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/gi...kfast-point-home/story-fnelctok-1226482900030

"It will be much scaled down. Our young players have got the training wheels off now and they are young men on reasonable incomes," Shepherd said.

"They are all going to be moving out and taking accommodation elsewhere. We can't support them forever.

 

[basashi]

That may well be the case but AFL sportsman aren't normal workers.

Few workers earn as much as them and have the infrastructure off-field to support them with rent, business contacts and media opportunities.

No sporting competition in the world that has a salary cap has an adjustment for the cost of living.

The fact that they are higher income earners is completely and totally irrelevant. You can buy significantly more in Melbourne if you earn 50k, 250k or 750k.

You don't have an adjustment because of a welfare measure - it is simply a comparability measure.

For me the only furphy is that except for rent, everything in Sydney is significantly cheaper than Perth.

 

[RobertRichter]

The fact that they are higher income earners is completely and totally irrelevant. You can buy significantly more in Melbourne if you earn 50k, 250k or 750k.

That is counterbalanced by the fact that you get superior ROI & yields on your property in Sydney. You spend more on less but you also reap higher returns on less.

When you decide to sell or move you earn more out of your investment than any other player in the AFL.

 

[RUNVS]

I posted this on the Swans board but i will post it here as well. In regard to 3rd party agreements i think it should be a simple question of

1. Is the player qualified for this job?
2. Is it a job they could have gotten if they were not a player?
3. Does the hours they put in justify the payments

If the answer isn't "yes" to all 3 of those questions then the deal should not be allowed.

 

[basashi]

That is counterbalanced by the fact that you get superior ROI & yields on your property in Sydney. You spend more on less but you also reap higher returns on less.

When you decide to sell or move you earn more out of your investment than any other player in the AFL.

You have less to invest, which counterbalances that.

 

[basashi]

I posted this on the Swans board but i will post it here as well. In regard to 3rd party agreements i think it should be a simple question of

1. Is the player qualified for this job?
2. Is it a job they could have gotten if they were not a player?
3. Does the hours they put in justify the payments

If the answer isn't "yes" to all 3 of those questions then the deal should not be allowed.

It is not just the actual conflict of interest... it is the perceived one as well.

 

[worthy]

I don't understand. What does that have to do with the Footy Show?

Nothing at all, you made a sensible point, his only counter is to post something ridiculous.

 

[worthy]

I posted this on the Swans board but i will post it here as well. In regard to 3rd party agreements i think it should be a simple question of

1. Is the player qualified for this job?
2. Is it a job they could have gotten if they were not a player?
3. Does the hours they put in justify the payments

If the answer isn't "yes" to all 3 of those questions then the deal should not be allowed.

If they were not players, these opportunities would not be available.

Maybe have an independant panel to assess the valdiity of third party deal payments.

 

[Bollox]

I moved from Melbourne to Sydney and I am surprised at how much more it costs to live here. If you are on 150k in Melbourne you would be mental to accept 170 in Sydney.

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.

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. Everyone knows we cut upwards of $1m off our contractual payments last yr which meant we not only had space to recruit but HAD TO to meet minimum sal cap requirements. The club by halfway thru 2012 had already targeted/budgeted for Tippett with retirements/delistings and allowing for the sal cap rises, and yet nobody seems to even bother asking how Adelaide could afford to pay him MORE than what he eventually came to Syd on...Adelaide offered him 800Kpa to stay (this time 100% within the cap) but apparently Syd suddenly arnt allowed to be able to afford it even though Adelaide can. How does hawthorn gear up for Franklins massive pay rise thats coming after 2013 ?...same way Sydney and all other clubs do..they budget for it.

If the AFL and club presidents want to talk equalisation then they better start factoring in the draw as well as travel. Melb clubs will be forced to address the fact they get a great leg up by being able to play a lot of their away games just a 20 mins vespa trip down the road. We won in 6 states in 2012, and that includes a few trips that most clubs would rather not do... such as Geelong at Kardinia Pk, Weagles at Subi, Hawthorn in Launceston. Be careful what u wish for re equalisation...they're looking at it all this season and everything is on the table, not just how to bolster revenues at clubs suffering low attendances/bad stadium deals.

IFFFFF however it is shown to everyone (and so far it hasnt been coz it isnt) that Sydney can accrue the cola by not paying it, then use it as a lump sum to bolster the list with 1 or 2 big names...then in that case i'd vote against it also. Suggesting Syd have some sort of serious advantage though from a list being paid 10% more across the board is just stupidity though.

Would it be a simple and reasonable compromise if all Syd players were paid equally 10% overs ? Or perhaps nobody over say 400K gets any allowance ? If Adam Goodes is getting 880k instead of 800k do u seriously think it will make him a better footballer ?..be easier to argue that if he was only getting $100K in total that he'd might be playing far better, by striving and trying his utmost to get a pay rise and some reward for contribution.

 

[Bollox]

Just a quick thought, but is there a genuine reason (other than the obvious AFLPA barking up about it) why the minimum cap spend % cant be dropped from the 91%(?? whateva it now is) back to say 60%ish across the board ?.. then pay the balance for wins and losses ? You win you get paid more, old school style. There's a reason going beyond simply joining the real world....

....if a club then has a bad season the accrued difference between a 60% sal cap spend and the roughly 90% floor minimum can go straight into consolidate revenue at the club...boosting club profitablilty/footy dept spending for the following season. Worth millions to a club, the players dont get rewarded for mediocrity as they do now, and the worse you are the more your club gets to bolster footy dept spending and improve competitiveness next yr.

Afterall they already gain an advantage/leg up with earlier draft picks to compensate for being shit this season, but that does nothing for the club if after 4 seasons of not doing a great deal some 22yo taken at pick 4 is happy as larry and comfy earning 350K due to a min cap spend...where's the hunger in the group to improve ?

Right now i reckon its just as big an issue that bottom 6-8 clubs have a bunch of players that are complacent. They;re effectively overpaid and dont need to win to make the big bux...whats wrong with joining the real world and making them hungry to win/improve ?

Do fans of bottom 4-8 clubs right now seriously think that complacency amongst players isnt at least as big an issue as any 10% extra cap spend could be ?..afterall any 10% added spend isnt in the slightest an incentive to win more games and improve performance.

 

[The_Wookie]

Just a quick thought, but is there a genuine reason (other than the obvious AFLPA barking up about it) why the minimum cap spend % cant be dropped from the 91%(?? whateva it now is) back to say 60%ish across the board ?.. then pay the balance for wins and losses ? You win you get paid more, old school style. There's a reason going beyond simply joining the real world....

....if a club then has a bad season the accrued difference between a 60% sal cap spend and the roughly 90% floor minimum can go straight into consolidate revenue at the club...boosting club profitablilty/footy dept spending for the following season. Worth millions to a club, the players dont get rewarded for mediocrity as they do now, and the worse you are the more your club gets to bolster footy dept spending and improve competitiveness next yr.

Afterall they already gain an advantage/leg up with earlier draft picks to compensate for being shit this season, but that does nothing for the club if after 4 seasons of not doing a great deal some 22yo taken at pick 4 is happy as larry and comfy earning 350K due to a min cap spend...where's the hunger in the group to improve ?

Right now i reckon its just as big an issue that bottom 6-8 clubs have a bunch of players that are complacent. They;re effectively overpaid and dont need to win to make the big bux...whats wrong with joining the real world and making them hungry to win/improve ?

Do fans of bottom 4-8 clubs right now seriously think that complacency amongst players isnt at least as big an issue as any 10% extra cap spend could be ?..afterall any 10% added spend isnt in the slightest an incentive to win more games and improve performance.

You'd never get it past the AFLPA. This is the rod the AFL made for itself in the 90s when it declared the minimum cap spend % rule, and its going to have far reaching consequences. More the requirement that a fixed amount of total league revenues - the AFLPA graciously hasnt included government grants yet - be spent on player wages means that some clubs on lower revenues cannot afford to do some things. Ive often wondered how it benefits the AFLPA if a club goes to the wall through pay demands.

 

[Dr Awkward]

I find it interesting that people whine about COLA, but they don't whine when the AFL hands out its biggest subsidies and freebies: fixture week.

Plenty of people whine about that, it's blatantly rigged.

 

[Colonial]

Or the fact the all the melbourne clubs play most of their home and AWAY games at the same place. Easier to bring in the funds when the majority of the teams you play also call your homeground home (or the one right next door), which is why i find it amusing when people bring up the Swans or Giants crowds they do so by not counting the derby games..

 

[Tas]

I posted this on the Swans board but i will post it here as well. In regard to 3rd party agreements i think it should be a simple question of

1. Is the player qualified for this job?
2. Is it a job they could have gotten if they were not a player?
3. Does the hours they put in justify the payments

If the answer isn't "yes" to all 3 of those questions then the deal should not be allowed.

I agree. If it comes to the point where the AFL is going to strive for a level playing field and they address all the problems then it is definitely something that needs to be looked at. However, I don't think it is going to happen.

Eddie is going to use the off-field equalisation topic to go after the Swans cost of living allowance. He didn't give two shits about it when Swans and Pies weren't up at the same time, but did the same thing to Brisbane when the Pies where up at the same time as Brisbane.

Sadly, a handful of clubs wield a lot of political power in the AFL and they often use and abuse that position.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

I agree. If it comes to the point where the AFL is going to strive for a level playing field and they address all the problems then it is definitely something that needs to be looked at. However, I don't think it is going to happen.

Eddie is going to use the off-field equalisation topic to go after the Swans cost of living allowance. He didn't give two shits about it when Swans and Pies weren't up at the same time, but did the same thing to Brisbane when the Pies where up at the same time as Brisbane.

Sadly, a handful of clubs wield a lot of political power in the AFL and they often use and abuse that position.

I just cant stand the hypocrisy of it all i really cant and Eddie is the biggest culprit of them all not long after he crusaded to remove Brisbane allowance he enticed Brown over on a huge chan9 deal along with a offer of 6mil over 4years, he speaks of off-field equalization yet does not mention a cap to football department spending.

Kennett a day after the Grand Final goes on radio and demands salary cap concessions to be severed yet the previous year when we bowed out in the semi against Hawthorn(2011) it was just the usual Sydney making up the numbers not a whimper to be heard.. so i guess the COLA was fine in 2011 but somehow was a no no in 2012?

Your last line is 100% spot on.

 

[Old Spice]

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.