Opinion Swans Shut Out - Article by Joe Moore

[robbieando]

Joe Moore, contributor to The Footy Almanac has kindly written an article for the Swans Board which is now live on the Front Page of Big Footy News regarding our trading ban.

Here is a preview and the link to the article

It hasn’t been a terribly enjoyable two weeks.

My team lost a Grand Final in which we were widely tipped to win. We lost and we lost badly. It still is a bitter pill to swallow. Then, on Thursday evening, Emma Quayle from The Age dropped a bombshell. The Swans would receive a ban from trading and from signing free agents. As a staunch Blood, it was both unforeseen and unwelcome.

The AFL has declared that the Sydney Swans Football Club have been restricted to only trading in delisted free agents, players through the draft or rookie upgrades throughout the trade period for the next two years. Why, you ask? Well, as of now, nobody seems to have an answer. But surely for a team to be sanctioned by it’s own governing body it must have breached a rule?

http://www.bigfooty.com/news/2014/10/swans-shut-out/

I and the rest of the Board's Mod Team would recommend you read the article as it another brilliant piece of writing that Joe has come to be known for regarding the Swans

Feel welcome to discuss the article here

 

[kickthething]

Joe Moore, contributor to The Footy Almanac has kindly written an article for the Swans Board which is now live on the Front Page of Big Footy News regarding our trading ban.

Here is a preview and the link to the article



http://www.bigfooty.com/news/2014/10/swans-shut-out/

I and the rest of the Board's Mod Team would recommend you read the article as it another brilliant piece of writing that Joe has come to be known for regarding the Swans

Feel welcome to discuss the article here

Not much to discuss, I agree with everything Joe has written...There are so many staggering aspects to this situation...

 

[Leg End]

Joe Moore, contributor to The Footy Almanac has kindly written an article for the Swans Board which is now live on the Front Page of Big Footy News regarding our trading ban.

Here is a preview and the link to the article



http://www.bigfooty.com/news/2014/10/swans-shut-out/

I and the rest of the Board's Mod Team would recommend you read the article as it another brilliant piece of writing that Joe has come to be known for regarding the Swans

Feel welcome to discuss the article here

Very clear and concise.

The bigger picture us that every decision by the AfL will now have a massive query. What is the basis, for whose benefit, which clubs will benefit above others?

Credibility gone for the AFL. May never get it back.

 

[Joemoore12]

Thanks guys. Apart from the mindless objectors, I feel a though we have a significant amount of support out there in the wider footy community over this one.

Agree, Leg End, the AFL may never be seen in the same light.

 

[robbieando]

Thanks Joe for writing the piece for us.

My Facebook account, Twitter account and the @BigFootySWANS twitter account have lit up with links to this article and very positive reviews to boot.

I encourage everyone to share this article with everyone they know who supports Aussie Rules

 

[Joemoore12]

Thanks Joe for writing the piece for us.

My Facebook account, Twitter account and the @BigFootySWANS twitter account have lit up with links to this article and very positive reviews to boot.

I encourage everyone to share this article with everyone they know who supports Aussie Rules

No worries Rob. Thanks for your kind words. Good news about the response mate, may it continue!

 

[hawkhanlumist]

No worries Rob. Thanks for your kind words. Good news about the response mate, may it continue!

Broadly speaking, I am sympathetic to some of the views outlined in the article, namely, that the ban on the Swans to trade until the completion of the COLA is unfair and farcical. It isn't reflective of the realities that clubs face from season to season in filling holes on the list, nor, as the AFLPA argue, is it fair on players that might seek new opportunities on the Swans list. It has come, despite some rumblings over the past few weeks (ref finale On the Couch), more or less out of the blue, and appears to be pretty knee jerk. I personally feel that it should be overturned for these reasons. I think you argue this side of the case fairly.

All of that being said, there are still a number of deficiencies in the article that tend towards swans partisanship. In fact, upon second reading, it really is just a rant from a passionate Swans fan. Which is fine. It has been a tough couple of weeks for you. The weeks after 2012 weren't that great for me. So, I get it. And to the extent that this piece has found a home on BF, it works. But the following comments relate largely to its deficiencies as a more robust piece of analysis.

The first, and most glaring of these is the absence of any detailed analysis of the merits and failings of the COLA. At the beginning of the article, you outline what it is. And at the very end, you invite readers to debate the merits of the COLA elsewhere. And yet, while the issue of the swans trade ban is in some regards separate as it is unfair regardless, you owe to your readers to discuss the merits of the COLA, particularly if you are going to link the trade ban to the COLA as well as criticize opposition clubs officials and media personalities for their views on it. While Victorian clubs have been outspoken about the COLA, on occasions whilst foaming at the mouth, they do make at least some valid criticisms, that you should at least acknowledge or rebuff. Chief among these is that it is unequal advantage given to Swans in terms of attracting and paying quality players. I would have a lot more time for the piece if you had given the COLA a more considered, detailed analysis. This is because at the heart of this issue is really the Australian idea of a 'fair go'. While the trade ban is anything but, the COLA is also hardly fair. Or is it? What are your views on it?

Secondly, while you are right to point to the fervor with which powerful Victorian clubs protect their interests, which they do, you don't point to the manner in which the swans consistently do this also. They have been just as vocal in justifying the COLA. I am referring here to comments of 'we are one bad season away from irrelevance/folding', etc. The article doesn't really offer a fair treatment of both sides (Swans Vs the rest) roles in this debate. This is just partisan cherry picking. Your treatment of the equalization debates are similarly one-sided. Do the swans not vigorously defend their development academies. The article would be better served from a fair portrayal of both sides. I am sure that you, and many other swans forum posters, resent the mindless COLA bashing. Well, bashing up on eddie and other powerful victorian clubs is hardly the best way to respond. And, in the absence of balanced and fair treatment of the equalization debates, this is what the article feels like. Remember that Collingwood and Hawthorn were both in the wilderness financially, and in terms of on-filed success in the late 1990s. So you can't just rely on the rich clubs always stay rich argument.

Thirdly, you make some flat out weird and wacky statements. The claims around the swans list management prowess as the reason they recruited high valued targets smack of cherry picking as well. All clubs delist and trade players to make room for new players on this list, as well as provide room in salary cap for new talent or pay increases for emerging players. The swans also certainly appear to have a strong record of excellent list management. Yet, importantly, the article doesn't posit any legitimate evidence or reasoning that the COLA has had no influence on the quality of the players attracted to the swans. It tries to imply this, which is where you really lose me.

The line about the buddy trade being the COLA's last hurrah was kind of laughable. You certainly don't put forward any evidence or substantial reasoning to suggest this. It's not impossible, but it is just as likely that swans had no idea that the response to the buddy deal was going to result in a withdrawal of the COLA. This article lacks any depth and substance. A lot of it just isn't supported with sufficient evidence or reasoning and just smacks of a frustrated Swans fan having a rant.

But look, at the end of the day, I agree that the trade ban is unfair. The rest of the article lacks any real balance or depth, which is a shame, because we need more independently and soundly reasoned material on the forum.

 

[Leg End]

Broadly speaking, I am sympathetic to some of the views outlined in the article, namely, that the ban on the Swans to trade until the completion of the COLA is unfair and farcical. It isn't reflective of the realities that clubs face from season to season in filling holes on the list, nor, as the AFLPA argue, is it fair on players that might seek new opportunities on the Swans list. It has come, despite some rumblings over the past few weeks (ref finale On the Couch), more or less out of the blue, and appears to be pretty knee jerk. I personally feel that it should be overturned for these reasons. I think you argue this side of the case fairly.

All of that being said, there are still a number of deficiencies in the article that tend towards swans partisanship. In fact, upon second reading, it really is just a rant from a passionate Swans fan. Which is fine. It has been a tough couple of weeks for you. The weeks after 2012 weren't that great for me. So, I get it. And to the extent that this piece has found a home on BF, it works. But the following comments relate largely to its deficiencies as a more robust piece of analysis.

The first, and most glaring of these is the absence of any detailed analysis of the merits and failings of the COLA. At the beginning of the article, you outline what it is. And at the very end, you invite readers to debate the merits of the COLA elsewhere. And yet, while the issue of the swans trade ban is in some regards separate as it is unfair regardless, you owe to your readers to discuss the merits of the COLA, particularly if you are going to link the trade ban to the COLA as well as criticize opposition clubs officials and media personalities for their views on it. While Victorian clubs have been outspoken about the COLA, on occasions whilst foaming at the mouth, they do make at least some valid criticisms, that you should at least acknowledge or rebuff. Chief among these is that it is unequal advantage given to Swans in terms of attracting and paying quality players. I would have a lot more time for the piece if you had given the COLA a more considered, detailed analysis. This is because at the heart of this issue is really the Australian idea of a 'fair go'. While the trade ban is anything but, the COLA is also hardly fair. Or is it? What are your views on it?

Secondly, while you are right to point to the fervor with which powerful Victorian clubs protect their interests, which they do, you don't point to the manner in which the swans consistently do this also. They have been just as vocal in justifying the COLA. I am referring here to comments of 'we are one bad season away from irrelevance/folding', etc. The article doesn't really offer a fair treatment of both sides (Swans Vs the rest) roles in this debate. This is just partisan cherry picking. Your treatment of the equalization debates are similarly one-sided. Do the swans not vigorously defend their development academies. The article would be better served from a fair portrayal of both sides. I am sure that you, and many other swans forum posters, resent the mindless COLA bashing. Well, bashing up on eddie and other powerful victorian clubs is hardly the best way to respond. And, in the absence of balanced and fair treatment of the equalization debates, this is what the article feels like. Remember that Collingwood and Hawthorn were both in the wilderness financially, and in terms of on-filed success in the late 1990s. So you can't just rely on the rich clubs always stay rich argument.

Thirdly, you make some flat out weird and wacky statements. The claims around the swans list management prowess as the reason they recruited high valued targets smack of cherry picking as well. All clubs delist and trade players to make room for new players on this list, as well as provide room in salary cap for new talent or pay increases for emerging players. The swans also certainly appear to have a strong record of excellent list management. Yet, importantly, the article doesn't posit any legitimate evidence or reasoning that the COLA has had no influence on the quality of the players attracted to the swans. It tries to imply this, which is where you really lose me.

The line about the buddy trade being the COLA's last hurrah was kind of laughable. You certainly don't put forward any evidence or substantial reasoning to suggest this. It's not impossible, but it is just as likely that swans had no idea that the response to the buddy deal was going to result in a withdrawal of the COLA. This article lacks any depth and substance. A lot of it just isn't supported with sufficient evidence or reasoning and just smacks of a frustrated Swans fan having a rant.

But look, at the end of the day, I agree that the trade ban is unfair. The rest of the article lacks any real balance or depth, which is a shame, because we need more independently and soundly reasoned material on the forum.

You are expecting "real balance and depth" in response to knee jerk policy on the run fraud driven by Victorian power brokers looking after their own interests.

The facts is that the AFL see Sydney as doing too well. They use the COLA as an excuse. In a decently run professional code, the AFL would be promoting the Swans as evidence of a successful expansion to a truly national game. Outside observers now simply see the AFL as beholden to several powerful vested interests and too weak to fight this cronyism.

What is never discussed is the difficulty in establishing and maintaining the Swans as a power in the face of all the other codes. We don't have the luxury of tanking and rebuilding as Victorian clubs have as part of their DNA.

Eddie Maguire is getting his way - and no one has the balls in Melbourne to take him on.

 

[robbieando]

Broadly speaking, I am sympathetic to some of the views outlined in the article, namely, that the ban on the Swans to trade until the completion of the COLA is unfair and farcical. It isn't reflective of the realities that clubs face from season to season in filling holes on the list, nor, as the AFLPA argue, is it fair on players that might seek new opportunities on the Swans list. It has come, despite some rumblings over the past few weeks (ref finale On the Couch), more or less out of the blue, and appears to be pretty knee jerk. I personally feel that it should be overturned for these reasons. I think you argue this side of the case fairly.

All of that being said, there are still a number of deficiencies in the article that tend towards swans partisanship. In fact, upon second reading, it really is just a rant from a passionate Swans fan. Which is fine. It has been a tough couple of weeks for you. The weeks after 2012 weren't that great for me. So, I get it. And to the extent that this piece has found a home on BF, it works. But the following comments relate largely to its deficiencies as a more robust piece of analysis.

The first, and most glaring of these is the absence of any detailed analysis of the merits and failings of the COLA. At the beginning of the article, you outline what it is. And at the very end, you invite readers to debate the merits of the COLA elsewhere. And yet, while the issue of the swans trade ban is in some regards separate as it is unfair regardless, you owe to your readers to discuss the merits of the COLA, particularly if you are going to link the trade ban to the COLA as well as criticize opposition clubs officials and media personalities for their views on it. While Victorian clubs have been outspoken about the COLA, on occasions whilst foaming at the mouth, they do make at least some valid criticisms, that you should at least acknowledge or rebuff. Chief among these is that it is unequal advantage given to Swans in terms of attracting and paying quality players. I would have a lot more time for the piece if you had given the COLA a more considered, detailed analysis. This is because at the heart of this issue is really the Australian idea of a 'fair go'. While the trade ban is anything but, the COLA is also hardly fair. Or is it? What are your views on it?

Secondly, while you are right to point to the fervor with which powerful Victorian clubs protect their interests, which they do, you don't point to the manner in which the swans consistently do this also. They have been just as vocal in justifying the COLA. I am referring here to comments of 'we are one bad season away from irrelevance/folding', etc. The article doesn't really offer a fair treatment of both sides (Swans Vs the rest) roles in this debate. This is just partisan cherry picking. Your treatment of the equalization debates are similarly one-sided. Do the swans not vigorously defend their development academies. The article would be better served from a fair portrayal of both sides. I am sure that you, and many other swans forum posters, resent the mindless COLA bashing. Well, bashing up on eddie and other powerful victorian clubs is hardly the best way to respond. And, in the absence of balanced and fair treatment of the equalization debates, this is what the article feels like. Remember that Collingwood and Hawthorn were both in the wilderness financially, and in terms of on-filed success in the late 1990s. So you can't just rely on the rich clubs always stay rich argument.

Thirdly, you make some flat out weird and wacky statements. The claims around the swans list management prowess as the reason they recruited high valued targets smack of cherry picking as well. All clubs delist and trade players to make room for new players on this list, as well as provide room in salary cap for new talent or pay increases for emerging players. The swans also certainly appear to have a strong record of excellent list management. Yet, importantly, the article doesn't posit any legitimate evidence or reasoning that the COLA has had no influence on the quality of the players attracted to the swans. It tries to imply this, which is where you really lose me.

The line about the buddy trade being the COLA's last hurrah was kind of laughable. You certainly don't put forward any evidence or substantial reasoning to suggest this. It's not impossible, but it is just as likely that swans had no idea that the response to the buddy deal was going to result in a withdrawal of the COLA. This article lacks any depth and substance. A lot of it just isn't supported with sufficient evidence or reasoning and just smacks of a frustrated Swans fan having a rant.

But look, at the end of the day, I agree that the trade ban is unfair. The rest of the article lacks any real balance or depth, which is a shame, because we need more independently and soundly reasoned material on the forum.

tl;dr

The substance of your third point was addressed by this line "Every player on the Swans’ list receives 9.8% of their entire contract as a Cost of Living Allowance" a point you seem to either miss or ignore to suit your argument. Which basically makes this post of yours a rant.

 

[Joemoore12]

Broadly speaking, I am sympathetic to some of the views outlined in the article, namely, that the ban on the Swans to trade until the completion of the COLA is unfair and farcical. It isn't reflective of the realities that clubs face from season to season in filling holes on the list, nor, as the AFLPA argue, is it fair on players that might seek new opportunities on the Swans list. It has come, despite some rumblings over the past few weeks (ref finale On the Couch), more or less out of the blue, and appears to be pretty knee jerk. I personally feel that it should be overturned for these reasons. I think you argue this side of the case fairly.

All of that being said, there are still a number of deficiencies in the article that tend towards swans partisanship. In fact, upon second reading, it really is just a rant from a passionate Swans fan. Which is fine. It has been a tough couple of weeks for you. The weeks after 2012 weren't that great for me. So, I get it. And to the extent that this piece has found a home on BF, it works. But the following comments relate largely to its deficiencies as a more robust piece of analysis.

The first, and most glaring of these is the absence of any detailed analysis of the merits and failings of the COLA. At the beginning of the article, you outline what it is. And at the very end, you invite readers to debate the merits of the COLA elsewhere. And yet, while the issue of the swans trade ban is in some regards separate as it is unfair regardless, you owe to your readers to discuss the merits of the COLA, particularly if you are going to link the trade ban to the COLA as well as criticize opposition clubs officials and media personalities for their views on it. While Victorian clubs have been outspoken about the COLA, on occasions whilst foaming at the mouth, they do make at least some valid criticisms, that you should at least acknowledge or rebuff. Chief among these is that it is unequal advantage given to Swans in terms of attracting and paying quality players. I would have a lot more time for the piece if you had given the COLA a more considered, detailed analysis. This is because at the heart of this issue is really the Australian idea of a 'fair go'. While the trade ban is anything but, the COLA is also hardly fair. Or is it? What are your views on it?

Secondly, while you are right to point to the fervor with which powerful Victorian clubs protect their interests, which they do, you don't point to the manner in which the swans consistently do this also. They have been just as vocal in justifying the COLA. I am referring here to comments of 'we are one bad season away from irrelevance/folding', etc. The article doesn't really offer a fair treatment of both sides (Swans Vs the rest) roles in this debate. This is just partisan cherry picking. Your treatment of the equalization debates are similarly one-sided. Do the swans not vigorously defend their development academies. The article would be better served from a fair portrayal of both sides. I am sure that you, and many other swans forum posters, resent the mindless COLA bashing. Well, bashing up on eddie and other powerful victorian clubs is hardly the best way to respond. And, in the absence of balanced and fair treatment of the equalization debates, this is what the article feels like. Remember that Collingwood and Hawthorn were both in the wilderness financially, and in terms of on-filed success in the late 1990s. So you can't just rely on the rich clubs always stay rich argument.

Thirdly, you make some flat out weird and wacky statements. The claims around the swans list management prowess as the reason they recruited high valued targets smack of cherry picking as well. All clubs delist and trade players to make room for new players on this list, as well as provide room in salary cap for new talent or pay increases for emerging players. The swans also certainly appear to have a strong record of excellent list management. Yet, importantly, the article doesn't posit any legitimate evidence or reasoning that the COLA has had no influence on the quality of the players attracted to the swans. It tries to imply this, which is where you really lose me.

The line about the buddy trade being the COLA's last hurrah was kind of laughable. You certainly don't put forward any evidence or substantial reasoning to suggest this. It's not impossible, but it is just as likely that swans had no idea that the response to the buddy deal was going to result in a withdrawal of the COLA. This article lacks any depth and substance. A lot of it just isn't supported with sufficient evidence or reasoning and just smacks of a frustrated Swans fan having a rant.

But look, at the end of the day, I agree that the trade ban is unfair. The rest of the article lacks any real balance or depth, which is a shame, because we need more independently and soundly reasoned material on the forum.

Sorry to have disappointed you, but having seen your colours, I am not surprised.

Unfortunately, I am equally disappointed in your response. You may in fact be looking for a book to be written on this matter, as the detail you expect would simply not work in an article. I would need perhaps 10,000 words to cover this issue comprehensively, and if that was the case, who would take the time to read that on a forum?

You mention that this article is 'just a rant from a passionate Swans supporter'. Fair enough and that's your opinion. But, for the past two years, Swans supporters have been forced to listen to, and read 'rants from passionate Melbourne-based club supporters' who actually work in the media and use that platform to push their own agendas.

The game today is a long, long way from the late 90's, so I'm afraid your comparison there is irrelevant.

As for your own weird and wacky statements regarding list management, I don't follow you at all. Yes, every club does delist and trade players. Correct. The point is, the Swans have been basically accused of cheating the salary cap or misusing the COLA to attract players. I am merely pointing out that they have turned over the list dramatically over the past two years, to accommodate new signings.

I appreciate you taking the time to read the article, but I feel a though your response smacks of a 'rant from a passionate Hawks' supporter. You ask for the article to present a fair portrayal of both sides. Like this punishment is fair? Like the rubbish we've been forced to read about our club over the past two years has been fair? The time has come for Swans supporters all over Australia to start standing up for ourselves, and our club in the face of this blatant disregard for any club outside of Victoria. It's kind of laughable that you expect an article on this topic, from a Swans member, for a Swans forum, to be anything but what you have read.

 

[RW]

While the trade ban is anything but, the COLA is also hardly fair. Or is it? What are your views on it?

With respect, I very strongly disagree with you on this point. COLA might not be 'fair', few things in the AFL are, but to claim that it results in the Swans having some kind of unfair advantage as we have heard so many times before from Eddie and his cronies is a HUGE misrepresentation of the facts and ignores the reasons why it was implemented in the first place:

* Higher cost of living in Sydney (might be debatable now given the rising costs of living in other capital cities, but Sydney still ranks as one of the most expensive cities to live in).

* Higher cost of HOUSING in Sydney (not just living expenses) AND not enough home grown players forcing us to recruit more from interstate. Clearly, the AFL agrees that we are still disadvantaged by this, which is why they are bringing in a new housing subsidy to help the younger players and players on lower contracts. With a higher percentage of our list traditionally coming from outside NSW, we simply haven't had access to anywhere near the same amount of home grown talent as the clubs in Victoria, SA and WA, just look at the number of players drafted from NSW/ACT in recent years. This is changing with the academies, but very slowly. (And before you use this to launch into an attack on the academies, I would have thought that anything that increases the talent pool of potential AFL players is a good thing. ALL clubs have access to Academy players, but the Swans, Giants, Lions and Suns have earned the right to have first access to them because they have invested in their development. The Victorian clubs already have their own academy system in the Melbourne private school system, we don't.)

* Part of the reason the AFL introduced COLA was Victorian clubs picking off our best talent in the 80s and 90s and enticing them to come back home which left us a basket case.

* Fewer income earning opportunities outside football (e.g. through media appearances etc) for players in NSW compared to players in traditional AFL states.

To be honest, most of us are glad COLA is going because the club is in a strong enough position now that it can live without it, but the AFL set the rules and we complied with them, it's not as simple as saying 'trade someone in and lose COLA' when COLA is built into existing contracts AS REQUIRED BY THE AFL. How is it fair that we are being penalised for following the rules? If your club was disadvantaged as a result of the AFL moving its own goalposts mid-match when all you did was comply with their own rules, you'd be up in arms too.

 

[mcgarnacle]

From all the articles (not BS posts from opposition supporters) and announcements that i've read about the 'cost of living allowance', I was under the impression that it's the clubs that control the amount up to the TPP and also, the extra 10%. SYD & GWS TPP is basically 10% higher than other clubs. But the first paragraph of the article claims that the AFL controls this, which to my knowledge is incorrect. Can you please provide a source that states the AFL do control it?

Then later in the article, it's stated that the swans have to stop paying it. so what is it?

The only rule the club has to abide by is that it remains within its TPP each year. The term COLA is merely a reasoning for the amount above the league TPP. There is absolutely no rule that states the club have to separately pay a COLA to each player. Its merely an assumption that it's factored into contracts, which a player agent worth his salt will factor into negotiations.

Anyway, the decision stinks. The club can't get under the league TPP amount because players still have to receive their contracted salary which the club signed off and the AFL approved under the higher TPP amount.

The only option is to cop a recruitment ban. Which is what the AFL want. If the Swans can't even get to the negotiating table with established players wanting to come up to live in Sydney, then it means GWS can easily get them.

 

[skipper kelly]

From all the articles (not BS posts from opposition supporters) and announcements that i've read about the 'cost of living allowance', I was under the impression that it's the clubs that control the amount up to the TPP and also, the extra 10%. SYD & GWS TPP is basically 10% higher than other clubs. But the first paragraph of the article claims that the AFL controls this, which to my knowledge is incorrect. Can you please provide a source that states the AFL do control it?

The only rule the club has to abide by is that it remains within its TPP each year. The term COLA is merely a reasoning for the amount above the league TPP. There is absolutely no rule that states the club have to separately pay a COLa to each player. Its merely an assumption that it's factored into contracts, which a player agent worth his salt will factor into negotiations.

Anyway, the decision stinks. The club can't get under the league TPP amount because players still have to receive their contracted amount which the club did under the higher TPP amount (i.e., the AFL doesn't suddenly stop paying it because they don't pay it), so it cops a recruitment ban. Which is what the AFL want. If the Swans can't even get to the negotiating table with players wanting to come up to live in Sydney, then it means GWS can get them.

From Day 1 of the allowance it was added to the contracts. It wasn't ever meant as an overall total amount added to the TPP that Sydney could spend at their leisure. Sydney have always had the same TPP as every other club. This was the well known intention and implementation right from the start. It was a compulsory part of every deal. If you signed a contract for 100K you got the 100K plus 9.8%. 100k went towards the TPP, the compulsory 9.8% didn't.

Now whether the implementation changed over the years and the AFL turned a blind eye to how it operated is yet to be seen. If the AFL allowed Sydney to add the 9.8% to their overall spend then divide it up after contracts are signed then that is another matter. If Sydney were allowed to sign someone for 400K and at the end of the year only give that player 20K allowance then that is wrong. If the AFL allowed and approved this then they are culpable, and are covering their arse. Nothing would surprise. If Sydney were party to this then they need to be condemned. As of now, I can't recall any allegations from any of the power brokers that Sydney cheated. There's been a lot of mud thrown around, but no clear allegation. If the allowance was allowed to be applied with discretion and not 9.8% of each contract then that is cheating, unless the AFL have specifically stated Sydney can do it that way. Then it's not cheating but merely a rort. I will be the first to condemn the club if the allowance has not been applied properly. I believe it has been applied properly because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Surely a past player would have spilled the beans by now if it wasn't applied properly. Surely someone in the know would have spoken to the media and told their story.

When Ireland came out and said that Buddy and Tippett only got 40k allowance, the alarm bells obviously rang. This information should have sent the world into a spin. 40k allowance equates to approx 400k salary. That doesn't add up on face value. Why it didn't send the world into a spin is because the spin masters know the reality. The reality is the that bulk of those contracts would be made up of additional services agreement and ambassadors roles that are outside the TPP. This is done at every club, well those that can afford it anyway.

Even the phase out was poorly thought out. It should have been the allowance will be paid on all current contracts until they expire, with no new contracts getting the allowance. When all currents contracts are finished, barring Franklin, then the allowance has gone. It's common sense. Natural attrition of the allowance.

I've always been angry as to why AD or the new muppet never came out and gave the football world a 101 lesson in the allowance.

 

[The King!]

The thing with cola or any other move eg lions retention allowance are that the afl and concerned parties identify an issue that is a problem and develop a solution which is voted in by clubs like cola has been.

Now its ok generally to have (point me to the pre 2012 cola thread, yes some would of disliked but the majority with their panties in a twist didnt know or care) until it works too well.

Sydney can get a rhyce shaw, ted richards, marty mattner, they are solid players. Kennedy, mumford cause a bit of stir at their respective clubs but generally its good talent spotting by sydney.

But if you get tippett (tho half the people label him a spud then whinge we got him) or god forbid buddy its an issue, hawks fans wouldnt care near as much if gws got buddy.

Sydney can make the finals and be comeptitive then cola is working. Sydney win a flag then clearly its a rort and we should be outraged,

Just because a mechanisim to fix a clearly identified issue is successful does not make it wrong, should it be reviewed, hell yeah, everything similar should be.

Bulldogs and roos get way more distribution than most for equalisation and to keep them going.

If the roos win next years flag watch the outrage.

 

[Chief]

TL;DR, DON'T come on to our board and make statements like 'the COLA is hardly fair' until you are in possession of all the facts.

To be fair, we did put a link in the article inviting everyone to comment.

 

[RW]

To be fair, we did put a link in the article inviting everyone to comment.

He did ask for our views on COLA, and I had a full head of steam up by time I got to the end of my post Have edited out my last line.

 

[baja]

Eddie Maguire is getting his way - and no one has the balls in Melbourne to take him on.

My first thoughts on the whole matter was for someone to burn both Eddie and his puppet Gill McGlaughlin's house down with them in it.. maybe an over reaction but they were honestly my first thoughts.

 

[Leg End]

My first thoughts on the whole matter was for someone to burn both Eddie and his puppet Gill McGlaughlin's house down with them in it.. maybe an over reaction but they were honestly my first thoughts.

Although the concept of them burning is attractive, I wouldn't want that byproduct in the atmosphere.

 

[mcgarnacle]

From Day 1 of the allowance it was added to the contracts. It wasn't ever meant as an overall total amount added to the TPP that Sydney could spend at their leisure. Sydney have always had the same TPP as every other club. This was the well known intention and implementation right from the start. It was a compulsory part of every deal. If you signed a contract for 100K you got the 100K plus 9.8%. 100k went towards the TPP, the compulsory 9.8% didn't.

Now whether the implementation changed over the years and the AFL turned a blind eye to how it operated is yet to be seen. If the AFL allowed Sydney to add the 9.8% to their overall spend then divide it up after contracts are signed then that is another matter. If Sydney were allowed to sign someone for 400K and at the end of the year only give that player 20K allowance then that is wrong. If the AFL allowed and approved this then they are culpable, and are covering their arse. Nothing would surprise. If Sydney were party to this then they need to be condemned. As of now, I can't recall any allegations from any of the power brokers that Sydney cheated. There's been a lot of mud thrown around, but no clear allegation. If the allowance was allowed to be applied with discretion and not 9.8% of each contract then that is cheating, unless the AFL have specifically stated Sydney can do it that way. Then it's not cheating but merely a rort. I will be the first to condemn the club if the allowance has not been applied properly. I believe it has been applied properly because there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Surely a past player would have spilled the beans by now if it wasn't applied properly. Surely someone in the know would have spoken to the media and told their story.

When Ireland came out and said that Buddy and Tippett only got 40k allowance, the alarm bells obviously rang. This information should have sent the world into a spin. 40k allowance equates to approx 400k salary. That doesn't add up on face value. Why it didn't send the world into a spin is because the spin masters know the reality. The reality is the that bulk of those contracts would be made up of additional services agreement and ambassadors roles that are outside the TPP. This is done at every club, well those that can afford it anyway.

Even the phase out was poorly thought out. It should have been the allowance will be paid on all current contracts until they expire, with no new contracts getting the allowance. When all currents contracts are finished, barring Franklin, then the allowance has gone. It's common sense. Natural attrition of the allowance.

I've always been angry as to why AD or the new muppet never came out and gave the football world a 101 lesson in the allowance.

here's a source on the AFL's own website that says only players on the base CBA amount of $70k are required to receive the full 9.8%. the rest of it can be dished out as the club sees fit.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-28/afl-may-control-purse-strings

furthermore, the transition arrangements didn't specify a percentage reduction to the allowance in 2015 & 2016. the phasing out is based on whole dollars - 2015 $800k allowance; 2016 $600 allowance; 2017 $0. it tends to point to the allowance being an add-on to the league-wide TPP.

i don't know. that's the thing. no one really knows. as you alluded to, the AFL haven't formally explained how it works. just like the recent decision, it proves the lack of transparency of the League.

 

[skipper kelly]

here's a source on the AFL's own website that says only players on the base CBA amount of $70k are required to receive the full 9.8%. the rest of it can be dished out as the club sees fit.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-28/afl-may-control-purse-strings

furthermore, the transition arrangements didn't specify a percentage reduction to the allowance in 2015 & 2016. the phasing out is based on whole dollars - 2015 $800k allowance; 2016 $600 allowance; 2017 $0. it tends to point to the allowance being an add-on to the league-wide TPP.

i don't know. that's the thing. no one really knows. as you alluded to, the AFL haven't formally explained how it works. just like the recent decision, it proves the lack of transparency of the League.

Fair enough

 

[skipper kelly]

here's a source on the AFL's own website that says only players on the base CBA amount of $70k are required to receive the full 9.8%. the rest of it can be dished out as the club sees fit.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-06-28/afl-may-control-purse-strings

furthermore, the transition arrangements didn't specify a percentage reduction to the allowance in 2015 & 2016. the phasing out is based on whole dollars - 2015 $800k allowance; 2016 $600 allowance; 2017 $0. it tends to point to the allowance being an add-on to the league-wide TPP.

i don't know. that's the thing. no one really knows. as you alluded to, the AFL haven't formally explained how it works. just like the recent decision, it proves the lack of transparency of the League.

That article is pure speculation mate.

This is part of it. He say what the rules are

Rules require the clubs to pay the cost-of-living allowance as an addition to the agreed contract figure.

then follow with this

However, it is believed a stipulation sees a hard-and-fast figure enforced only for players on the collective bargaining agreement base payment of around $70,000, who receive the set 9.8 per cent allowance (around $7,000 extra for a total payment of $77,000.)

 

[hawkhanlumist]

You are expecting "real balance and depth" in response to knee jerk policy on the run fraud driven by Victorian power brokers looking after their own interests.

The facts is that the AFL see Sydney as doing too well. They use the COLA as an excuse. In a decently run professional code, the AFL would be promoting the Swans as evidence of a successful expansion to a truly national game. Outside observers now simply see the AFL as beholden to several powerful vested interests and too weak to fight this cronyism.

What is never discussed is the difficulty in establishing and maintaining the Swans as a power in the face of all the other codes. We don't have the luxury of tanking and rebuilding as Victorian clubs have as part of their DNA.

Eddie Maguire is getting his way - and no one has the balls in Melbourne to take him on.

That is opinion. That is not a fact.

 

[hawkhanlumist]

Sorry to have disappointed you, but having seen your colours, I am not surprised.

Unfortunately, I am equally disappointed in your response. You may in fact be looking for a book to be written on this matter, as the detail you expect would simply not work in an article. I would need perhaps 10,000 words to cover this issue comprehensively, and if that was the case, who would take the time to read that on a forum?

You mention that this article is 'just a rant from a passionate Swans supporter'. Fair enough and that's your opinion. But, for the past two years, Swans supporters have been forced to listen to, and read 'rants from passionate Melbourne-based club supporters' who actually work in the media and use that platform to push their own agendas.

The game today is a long, long way from the late 90's, so I'm afraid your comparison there is irrelevant.

As for your own weird and wacky statements regarding list management, I don't follow you at all. Yes, every club does delist and trade players. Correct. The point is, the Swans have been basically accused of cheating the salary cap or misusing the COLA to attract players. I am merely pointing out that they have turned over the list dramatically over the past two years, to accommodate new signings.

I appreciate you taking the time to read the article, but I feel a though your response smacks of a 'rant from a passionate Hawks' supporter. You ask for the article to present a fair portrayal of both sides. Like this punishment is fair? Like the rubbish we've been forced to read about our club over the past two years has been fair? The time has come for Swans supporters all over Australia to start standing up for ourselves, and our club in the face of this blatant disregard for any club outside of Victoria. It's kind of laughable that you expect an article on this topic, from a Swans member, for a Swans forum, to be anything but what you have read.

Sorry to have disappointed you, but having seen your colours, I am not surprised.

Unfortunately, I am equally disappointed in your response. You may in fact be looking for a book to be written on this matter, as the detail you expect would simply not work in an article. I would need perhaps 10,000 words to cover this issue comprehensively, and if that was the case, who would take the time to read that on a forum?

You mention that this article is 'just a rant from a passionate Swans supporter'. Fair enough and that's your opinion. But, for the past two years, Swans supporters have been forced to listen to, and read 'rants from passionate Melbourne-based club supporters' who actually work in the media and use that platform to push their own agendas.

The game today is a long, long way from the late 90's, so I'm afraid your comparison there is irrelevant.

As for your own weird and wacky statements regarding list management, I don't follow you at all. Yes, every club does delist and trade players. Correct. The point is, the Swans have been basically accused of cheating the salary cap or misusing the COLA to attract players. I am merely pointing out that they have turned over the list dramatically over the past two years, to accommodate new signings.

I appreciate you taking the time to read the article, but I feel a though your response smacks of a 'rant from a passionate Hawks' supporter. You ask for the article to present a fair portrayal of both sides. Like this punishment is fair? Like the rubbish we've been forced to read about our club over the past two years has been fair? The time has come for Swans supporters all over Australia to start standing up for ourselves, and our club in the face of this blatant disregard for any club outside of Victoria. It's kind of laughable that you expect an article on this topic, from a Swans member, for a Swans forum, to be anything but what you have read.

Well yeah. I am happy to proffer my view on it all. Sydney's salary cap advantage should be scraped. Simple. But if you feel otherwise, you should make some more compelling arguments than 1) it is VFL conspiracy 2) we delisted players to be able to afford Franklin et al. Given that this is partly what the whole issue is about, you could tie your colours to the mast on the issue of COLA.
On being upset about the trade ban, I agree with you. It is over the top, and basically unfair. I feel that it is a bridge too far. It should be overturned.
My response was really just pointing out to you that you were being too one-sided. At times like this, it is hard no to be.

 

[The King!]

Well yeah. I am happy to proffer my view on it all. Sydney's salary cap advantage should be scraped. Simple. But if you feel otherwise, you should make some more compelling arguments than 1) it is VFL conspiracy 2) we delisted players to be able to afford Franklin et al. Given that this is partly what the whole issue is about, you could tie your colours to the mast on the issue of COLA.
On being upset about the trade ban, I agree with you. It is over the top, and basically unfair. I feel that it is a bridge too far. It should be overturned.
My response was really just pointing out to you that you were being too one-sided. At times like this, it is hard no to be.

Who says it is an advantage?
If someone feels otherwise they have to argue against it? Why?

Its been voted in by all club so serious question. (Ie dont read a tone that i am having a go) why is it not the case you have to show it is an advantage and has to go other than we signed a free agent that others would of wanted remembering hawthorn and gws both would of paid buddy more in 2014 for instance

 

[hawkhanlumist]

With respect, I very strongly disagree with you on this point. COLA might not be 'fair', few things in the AFL are, but to claim that it results in the Swans having some kind of unfair advantage as we have heard so many times before from Eddie and his cronies is a HUGE misrepresentation of the facts and ignores the reasons why it was implemented in the first place:

* Higher cost of living in Sydney (might be debatable now given the rising costs of living in other capital cities, but Sydney still ranks as one of the most expensive cities to live in).

* Higher cost of HOUSING in Sydney (not just living expenses) AND not enough home grown players forcing us to recruit more from interstate. Clearly, the AFL agrees that we are still disadvantaged by this, which is why they are bringing in a new housing subsidy to help the younger players and players on lower contracts. With a higher percentage of our list traditionally coming from outside NSW, we simply haven't had access to anywhere near the same amount of home grown talent as the clubs in Victoria, SA and WA, just look at the number of players drafted from NSW/ACT in recent years. This is changing with the academies, but very slowly. (And before you use this to launch into an attack on the academies, I would have thought that anything that increases the talent pool of potential AFL players is a good thing. ALL clubs have access to Academy players, but the Swans, Giants, Lions and Suns have earned the right to have first access to them because they have invested in their development. The Victorian clubs already have their own academy system in the Melbourne private school system, we don't.)

* Part of the reason the AFL introduced COLA was Victorian clubs picking off our best talent in the 80s and 90s and enticing them to come back home which left us a basket case.

* Fewer income earning opportunities outside football (e.g. through media appearances etc) for players in NSW compared to players in traditional AFL states.

To be honest, most of us are glad COLA is going because the club is in a strong enough position now that it can live without it, but the AFL set the rules and we complied with them, it's not as simple as saying 'trade someone in and lose COLA' when COLA is built into existing contracts AS REQUIRED BY THE AFL. How is it fair that we are being penalised for following the rules? If your club was disadvantaged as a result of the AFL moving its own goalposts mid-match when all you did was comply with their own rules, you'd be up in arms too.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Providing one club to be able to pay players more than other clubs is not fair. I respect that the cost of living may be higher in Sydney, but these are professional athletes who get paid sufficiently to absorb those costs.

Clubs picked off talent from everyone during those years. You are not Robinson Crusoe when it comes to pinching players. Brereton, Locket, hall, everitt, williams (originally at Carlton) - ringing any bells. In recent years, Richards, Tippett, Kennedy, Mumford, Buddy. You seem to be pretty good at attracting talent. Indeed, Buddy wanted to tan up there on the beaches. Sydney has its attractions. When it comes to kids, they'll take a start wherever they can get it. Then, in terms of keeping them, perhaps it's as much about paying them what they worth.

I suspect that the AFL gave you the rent subsidy as a negotiated outcome. It might not reflect any true recognition that they accept it is harder to retain foreign talent due to increased costs increased costs.

I don't give a flying fruit bat if there are fewer media pops in Syd. It doesn't justify an increased payment structure for one club over another.

In terms of the supposed 'Melbourne Private School academies' - first up - you should be thankful. Great players come from there and often end up at your club. Secondly, we don't have privileged access to them. They go the draft. I love the idea of NSW academies, but you should have to bid for them as we all do.

Basically, the COLA should have been scrapped long ago. Yeah Eddie is a flog. But he is the only pres powerful enough to not get his head kicked in by AD and the commission for saying it. But sometimes, when I hear Ireland ramble on about 'oh, Richmond took Darren Gasper' - he annoys me just as much.

Finally - I will say this. The swans don't play finals year in, year out because of the COLA. They play hard tough footy, which stands up to inspection. Melbourne ain't a basket case because they haven't got a COLA. But that doesn't make it [the cola] fair. And none of what you wrote above about cost of living, kids wanting to go home, fewer media oppoprtunies changes my mind.

Happy to agree to disagree