Rumour Real reason Sydney got trade ban.

Remove this Banner Ad

HPKS said:
Ease up m8. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story & f$&k there are some pretty good story tellers round here.
Click to expand...
So you don't think that you get a good run with the scholarship programme? Not trying to troll you by the way, just trying to make sense of why you lost your ability to trade last year.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Kummerspeck said:
'
Can you provide some sources showing the Swans misused the CoLA in order to pay Buddy? The AFL certainly hasn't said as much.
Click to expand...

The intention of the COLA was for player retention not for recruiting star players on massive contracts.

Sydney aren't stupid so they used the extra money the way any other team would have used the extra money.
 
The_Reaper said:
The intention of the COLA was for player retention not for recruiting star players on massive contracts.
Click to expand...
Hey, that's great. However, as you didn't provide any sources showing Sydney misusing the CoLA in order to offer massive contracts to players, your response doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.
 
Kummerspeck said:
Hey, that's great. However, as you didn't provide any sources showing Sydney misusing the CoLA in order to offer massive contracts to players, your response doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.
Click to expand...

Do I need to provide a source saying that Lance Franklin and Kurt Tippett have massive contracts?

I mean we all know that.
 
The_Reaper said:
The draft itself could get taken to court
Click to expand...
Yes, it could. But I think the 18 clubs have an agreement and understanding in place that the draft is a good thing.

I can't see any club being particularly happy with the AFL placing limits on how much they can spend on a player.
 
Kummerspeck said:
'
Can you provide some sources showing the Swans misused the CoLA in order to pay Buddy? The AFL certainly hasn't said as much.
Click to expand...
I didn't say you misused it, I said that you used it to recruit Buddy when the AFL wanted him at GWS. That, and the public outcry from fans of other teams triggered its removal. If you didn't recruit Franklin you'd still have it.

To my mind, if we're going to have a salary cap it should be even for everyone, but if the AFL are going to let you have CoLA then you should have been fine to use it how you wanted. Don't cross the AFL though, they have long memories and can do what they want. And they wanted Buddy at GWS.
 
Kummerspeck said:
Not really given it hasn't existed for years.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I think you know what I mean... NSW academy or wherever it called that allowed you to list Isaac Heeney without him entering the draft.
 
Lakeside Swan said:
Wow. You WA people really are dumb aren't you. "Operate within the same rules as every other established club". Were you or any other club banned from trading players? No. Therefore we were treated unfairly. Why should we be banned from trading a midfielder for a KPD of equal or lessor value? The AFL argument that it was protecting us from breaching the cap is crap. If that's the case then everyone should be banned incase they breach the cap.

I have no issue with COLA being removed. My issue is how they removed it. To remove it over a two year period when the average contract is three years in unconscionable (I'm happy to explain what that means if you like) and was clearly designed to hinder us because they were fearful that we wre going to dominate for the next few years. If that's the case they should be putting a trading ban on Hawthorn.
Click to expand...

WA people? Not from WA so try again.:thumbsdown:

Swans were given a massive advantage so the AFL finally decided to scrap that to equalise the competition. But the Swans still needed the get the extra hand out for two more years so restrictions on trading were applied.

Net effect = equalised competition.

Stop whinging that your welfare payments are being cut and go an earn a premiership like the rest of the established competition.:cool:
 
Kummerspeck said:
Hey, that's great. However, as you didn't provide any sources showing Sydney misusing the CoLA in order to offer massive contracts to players, your response doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.
Click to expand...

Dude, no one is saying you misused COLA.

Everyone but Swans fans, are saying Franklin is being paid 1 million of living allowance, that's a rort.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ian Dunross said:
Dude, no one is saying you misused COLA.
Click to expand...
Multiple people are.
Everyone but Swans fans, are saying Franklin is being paid 1 million of living allowance, that's a rort.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for that? The Swans have stated that a lot of Franklin's salary is coming from ASA, which has no CoLA attached to it.
 
Kummerspeck said:
Multiple people are.

Do you have a source for that? The Swans have stated that a lot of Franklin's salary is coming from ASA, which has no CoLA attached to it.
Click to expand...

So the Swans pick and choose which players receive COLA?

No. All Swans players get an extra 9.8% on top of their salary for cost of living.
 
So he's only getting $800k in cola?

Oh, ok, fair enough then.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
That's not that much for a marquee player over 10 years, or are you saying he's paid entirely by the cost of living allowance.

What exactly are you saying?
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear what I'm saying, he is getting 10% extra on his contract that no other club can offer. Over the course of his contract, that amounts to nearly one million dollars.

Please don't dismiss one million dollars as not very much.
 
markr said:
The AFL were going to take away COLA after the Swans used it to get Buddy (the AFL wanted Buddy at GWS). The Swans said "You can't take it away straight away, we have players on contracts that that money is going to" the AFL said fair enough, you can have two years. Then the AFL got wind that the Swans were going to land a third big-dollar player (ie, they were full of s**t in saying all the additional money was for existing contracts) so the AFL put their foot down. No more trades unless you ditch COLA immediately.

That's one thing that needs to be remembered in all of this, the Swans can trade if they agree to ditching COLA straight away.
Click to expand...

You have that partly right but the main bit wrong. Part of the phase out was that no new contracts attracted a cost of living allowance. We can't ditch the cost of living allowance straight away because it forms part of players' contracts. But we were going to land a big fish. Probably Ryder. But COLA was irrelevant to that.
 
Ian Dunross said:
It's pretty clear what I'm saying, he is getting 10% extra on his contract that no other club can offer. Over the course of his contract, that amounts to nearly one million dollars.

Please don't dismiss one million dollars as not very much.
Click to expand...

Yet his contract is worth 20% less because of the cost of living differential in Sydney. It wasn't a massive advantage. It addressed a disadvantage. The disadvantage became less relevant as players salaries headed north of $200k but it's still there. A $1 million contract in Sydney is actually worth only $800k.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Yet his contract is worth 20% less because of the cost of living differential in Sydney. It wasn't a massive advantage. It addressed a disadvantage. The disadvantage became less relevant as players salaries headed north of $200k but it's still there. A $1 million contract in Sydney is actually worth only $800k.
Click to expand...

Lol wut?

He isn't spending $1m a year on rent and groceries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

windyhill
Rumour Aker real estate
2 3
Replies
51
Views
9K
Soups
Soups
SuperMal
Rumour MacKay to Sydney, if Himmelberg & De Koning miss the bus….
Replies
17
Views
3K
SuperMal
SuperMal
Tugga27
Scandal Sydney Stack......again
2 3 4 5
Replies
100
Views
18K
golfnfooty
golfnfooty

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top