Swans told to end COLA - OR be banned from trading in players for 2 years

[QuietB]

Well that's the third (probably only legal) option. Strip the list.

Do you think that is a reasonable thing to do to require a club which has built its playing list over a number of years in accordance with the rules as they stood to immediately have to divest itself of playing talent?

It's clear that plenty of contributors on this forum do.

"Hawthorn, we've decided that the Tasmania deal gives you too much of an unfair advantage over other clubs. Therefore over the next 2 years we're going to transition that arrangement over to St Kilda. But in the meantime, you are to play all of your home matches (other than the Tassie ones) at Etihad on a late Sunday afternoon. Alternatively, you could drop the Tassie arrangement right now".

List issues

Honest answer is yes - I think it is fair. That is the whole point of the salary cap. It is the reason that Geelong let Ablett go, as well as any number of other fringe players. It is the reason Hawthorn let Buddy walk as well as a number of other fringe players.

Sydney are a premiership side and they have not let any stars go (you could maybe argue Mumford), instead they have recruited 2 massive priced recruits.

No other premiership side has ever been able to do this. And there are a number of reasons why the Swans were able to do it and CoLA (which simply increases the Sydney cap) is one of them. Running a wafer thin list is another, having a compact list not choc full of stars from 2012 is another, retirements have contributed, etc. But notwithstanding all these other factors, CoLA is still a massive factor.

Tassie

The AFL have already tried that on once with the North incursion to Hobart. Ultimately I think the Hawks might be driven out of Tassie but we will see. And then maybe the AFL will park them at Etihad and make them play home games against a rotation of GWS, GC and Melbourne (what we currently get at the MCG anyway - it is a commercial disaster).

However, if you can tell me how that will translate directly to on field performance I would be interested to hear it.

They could do it tomorrow and the Hawks ability to complete on field in 2015 will change one bit.

On the other hand, if the AFL had have given the Hawks a 9.8% CoLA the week before trade week the Hawks would have helped themselves to Ryder, Beams and maybe one other, done the same next year and then gone on to win the next 5 GF's

 

[QuietB]

Hawthorn we've decided that the Tasmania deal gives you too much of an unfair advantage over other clubs. Therefore over the next 2 years we've decided to reduce your cap by $1m per year. Alternatively you can play all your home games in Tasmania." I suspect this is a closer analogy.

It is so unfair that you are going to have to play with the same salary cap as everyone else

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

List issues

Honest answer is yes - I think it is fair. That is the whole point of the salary cap. It is the reason that Geelong let Ablett go, as well as any number of other fringe players. It is the reason Hawthorn let Buddy walk as well as a number of other fringe players.

Sydney are a premiership side and they have not let any stars go (you could maybe argue Mumford), instead they have recruited 2 massive priced recruits.

No other premiership side has ever been able to do this. And there are a number of reasons why the Swans were able to do it and CoLA (which simply increases the Sydney cap) is one of them. Running a wafer thin list is another, having a compact list not choc full of stars from 2012 is another, retirements have contributed, etc. But notwithstanding all these other factors, CoLA is still a massive factor.

Whatever. I'm done. I've listed our delistings and trade outs. I've outlined the unlawfulness of the AFL's measures. Now I'm just at the point where I actually hope that the AFL pull some similar act on Hawthorn, Collingwood, and Essendon just so I can sit back and manufacture arguments as to why such an act is reasonable. Because it just so happens to advantage my side.

 

[QuietB]

Whatever. I'm done. I've listed our delistings and trade outs. I've outlined the unlawfulness of the AFL's measures. Now I'm just at the point where I actually hope that the AFL pull some similar act on Hawthorn, Collingwood, and Essendon just so I can sit back and manufacture arguments as to why such an act is reasonable. Because it just so happens to advantage my side.

How? We do not have a cap advantage. How can they pull a similar act?

 

[Murraj1966]

It is so unfair that you are going to have to play with the same salary cap as everyone else

Basically this.

It's not hard to pay a regular salary cap when you don't splash cash on big name players on 9 year deals because you can.

 

[bungwahl]

List issues

Honest answer is yes - I think it is fair. That is the whole point of the salary cap. It is the reason that Geelong let Ablett go, as well as any number of other fringe players. It is the reason Hawthorn let Buddy walk as well as a number of other fringe players.

Sydney are a premiership side and they have not let any stars go (you could maybe argue Mumford), instead they have recruited 2 massive priced recruits.

No other premiership side has ever been able to do this. And there are a number of reasons why the Swans were able to do it and CoLA (which simply increases the Sydney cap) is one of them. Running a wafer thin list is another, having a compact list not choc full of stars from 2012 is another, retirements have contributed, etc. But notwithstanding all these other factors, CoLA is still a massive factor.

Tassie

The AFL have already tried that on once with the North incursion to Hobart. Ultimately I think the Hawks might be driven out of Tassie but we will see. And then maybe the AFL will park them at Etihad and make them play home games against a rotation of GWS, GC and Melbourne (what we currently get at the MCG anyway - it is a commercial disaster).

However, if you can tell me how that will translate directly to on field performance I would be interested to hear it.

They could do it tomorrow and the Hawks ability to complete on field in 2015 will change one bit.

On the other hand, if the AFL had have given the Hawks a 9.8% CoLA the week before trade week the Hawks would have helped themselves to Ryder, Beams and maybe one other, done the same next year and then gone on to win the next 5 GF's

Mumford, Malceski, ROK, Spangher, Lamb, etc. The stats over the previous couple of years show the Swans have shuffled their list around enormously.

The Hawthorn example a few of us gave was not to suggest Hawthorn should face a penalty, it was to show how ridiculous it would be if it were to happen. And you can guarantee that I'd be hear arguing in favour of the Hawks if that were to happen.

 

[Tuco]

It is so unfair that you are going to have to play with the same salary cap as everyone else

The issue is the ban. COLa is done and dusted.

Sitting in a corner with a finger in your ears humming to avoid hearing the facts, and then repeating falsehoods doesn't add to your argument.

Swans operate under the same cap as everyone else. All contracts are negotiated along the same TPP as everyone else.

Buddy is a prime example. The AFL reviewed the contract specifically to see if they could cancel it for breaching the existing TPP rules (they hoped we were relying on COLa to pay him, but we weren't). They found nothing because the entire remuneration was within the TPP - no COLa included, no Third party deals. It's the AFL that either adds the COLa on top or doesn't.

This ban is being imposed because money the AFL added on top, and paid for, is being cancelled. And we are being asked to breach existing agreements to remove clauses the AFL inserted into every contract themselves.

So the Swans comply with Cap rules. AFL asks for and gets agreement from all clubs to add an allowance on top. AFL adds said allowance onto every contract via a clause they wrote themselves. And now when the AFL wants to remove that clause and can't, the Swans are banned from trading over an AFL allowance that the Swans have no control over.

 

[QuietB]

Mumford, Malceski, ROK, Spangher, Lamb, etc. The stats over the previous couple of years show the Swans have shuffled their list around enormously.

The Hawthorn example a few of us gave was not to suggest Hawthorn should face a penalty, it was to show how ridiculous it would be if it were to happen. And you can guarantee that I'd be hear arguing in favour of the Hawks if that were to happen.

Having to play by the same cap as everyone else is not a penalty.

It is not that hard.

 

[Tuco]

Basically this.

It's not hard to pay a regular salary cap when you don't splash cash on big name players on 9 year deals because you can.

We've only ever paid the regular Sal Cap. COLa was an AFL allowance on top.

And yes it's easy to construct long contracts within the TPP when you move on expensive players. Not that hard. Tom Boyd ring any bells? It was only a week ago.

 

[bungwahl]

Having to play by the same cap as everyone else is not a penalty.

It is not that hard.

Absolutely agree with you there, and very much looking forward to the day when salary cap stops being an excuse for others.

However, having to instantly reduce your salary cap by 9.8% is extremely difficult. Any professional sporting franchise would struggle to do that, particularly when you can't bring in suitable replacement players.

 

[QuietB]

Absolutely agree with you there, and very much looking forward to the day when salary cap stops being an excuse for others.

However, having to instantly reduce your salary cap by 9.8% is extremely difficult. Any professional sporting franchise would struggle to do that, particularly when you can't bring in suitable replacement players.

Agree 100%.

 

[skipper kelly]

Looking back I think it's really only about 4-5 people repeating the same tired lines over and over. We should probably stop feeding the trolls.

that's it.

 

[Furn2]

THE AFL DOES NOT ADD COLA ON TOP!

Stop saying it!

Why did the Swans offer to give the AFL control of they already pay it?

"But Ireland says the club would be prepared to let the AFL dole out the extra cash on individual contracts if it kept Victoria's power clubs happy."

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/spor...684591613?nk=a570a59811a3f1b5507f1c066ec96649

 

[skipper kelly]

On the other hand, if the AFL had have given the Hawks a 9.8% CoLA the week before trade week the Hawks would have helped themselves to Ryder, Beams and maybe one other, done the same next year and then gone on to win the next 5 GF's

wrong again. 9.8% is added on to the contracts of all players. Same TPP for all clubs.

 

[skipper kelly]

THE AFL DOES NOT ADD COLA ON TOP!

Stop saying it!

Why did the Swans offer to give the AFL control of they already pay it?

"But Ireland says the club would be prepared to let the AFL dole out the extra cash on individual contracts if it kept Victoria's power clubs happy."

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/spor...684591613?nk=a570a59811a3f1b5507f1c066ec96649

thanks. "He argues the Swans already apply that formula to every new contract, despite some believing Sydney uses the extra cash to build a war chest for acquisitions like Kurt Tippett."

 

[QuietB]

wrong again. 9.8% is added on to the contracts of all players. Same TPP for all clubs.

Whatever. It is not the Swans problem then is it. No contracts need to be broken, nothing changes. All the AFL have to do is stop paying it and the players can go sue the AFL

 

[MickyG]

It is so unfair that you are going to have to play with the same salary cap as everyone else

One man's 9.8% unfair advantage is another man's inadequate compensation for living in a very expensive city.

One man's removal of COLA as all playing to same cap is another man's unfair removal of equalisation measure that was put there over 20 years ago for a reason that has not changed.

 

[Hawkk]

Hawthorn we've decided that the Tasmania deal gives you too much of an unfair advantage over other clubs. Therefore over the next 2 years we've decided to reduce your cap by $1m per year. Alternatively you can play all your home games in Tasmania." I suspect this is a closer analogy.

Not sure what relevance this has to do with anything actually.

In that analogy the AFL actually want Hawthorn to play 11 games in Tasmania right

Unless Hawthorn was getting a higher salary cap (or for LOLS let say was provided with AFL funding to set up an academy ) in the island state, Hawthorn derive zero on field advantage from the agreement. It most certainly isn't a COLA

Of course the AFL could just jeopardise the commercial benefits of the sponsorship (i.e. by targeting scheduling / fixturing) and force Hawthorn to play 11 home games in Melbourne in order to fill the AFL's quota of high drawing games at Ethiad.

...and guess what 'MickyG' that's exactly what they are doing,

 

[QuietB]

One man's 9.8% unfair advantage is another man's inadequate compensation for living in a very expensive city.

One man's removal of COLA as all playing to same cap is another man's unfair removal of equalisation measure that was put there over 20 years ago for a reason that has not changed.

I have no idea how Buddy does it on a paltry $20,000 a week. I really feel for Mitchell and Reid who only get circa $10,000 a week

 

[Hawkk]

One man's 9.8% unfair advantage is another man's inadequate compensation for living in a very expensive city.

One man's removal of COLA as all playing to same cap is another man's unfair removal of equalisation measure that was put there over 20 years ago for a reason that has not changed.

Another pertinent point raised by the one with all the heavy hitting answers

Where is Perth's COLA?

 

[Tuco]

THE AFL DOES NOT ADD COLA ON TOP!

Stop saying it!

Why did the Swans offer to give the AFL control of they already pay it?

"But Ireland says the club would be prepared to let the AFL dole out the extra cash on individual contracts if it kept Victoria's power clubs happy."

http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/spor...684591613?nk=a570a59811a3f1b5507f1c066ec96649

From that article you just posted:

"The league already funds the entire cost-of-living allowance, which will hit $940,000 next year".

 

[skipper kelly]

Whatever. It is not the Swans problem then is it. No contracts need to be broken, nothing changes. All the AFL have to do is stop paying it and the players can go sue the AFL

It's the Swans problem because they were banned from trading. It's the phase you have when you haven't got a phase out. It has never been in dispute that the 9.8% is paid on all contracts. Salary (TPP) + allowance (not in TPP). The AFL wanted Sydney to go to their players and ask them would they be happy to have the allowance removed from their contracts. If not, then the allowance becomes part of the TPP immediately.

Players agree to remove allowance then Swans can trade. Players don't agree then Swans can't trade. That's not a phase out.

 

[QuietB]

From that article you just posted:

"The league already funds the entire cost-of-living allowance, which will hit $940,000 next year".

The AFL pays half the Swans bills - why is that relevant?

 

[Tuco]

Basically, instead of just ceasing the extra money the AFL was paying, the AFL has forced the Swans to take up that extra money inside the TPP. Effectively, instead of simply removing COLa, they are fining the Swans for having had it in the first place.

So the choice is:

Be fined 9.8% of your Cap for 2 years
or
Have a trading ban for 2 years.

 

[Tuco]

The AFL pays half the Swans bills - why is that relevant?

Actually replying to a post of mine? Assumed I was on an ignore list.

It's relevant because the funds were outside of the Swans TPP and Cap. Something you are stubbornly refusing to accept.