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

[QuietB]

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.

There is no one on my ignore list.

I do not stubbornly refuse to accept that the AFL pay for CoLA - it is absolutely a separate allowance. But it is still part of the Swans available Cap.

Lets say the Swans are renegotiating Ben McGlynns contract a year or two ago, they sit down and agree $1m for three years. You tell me which of the two following scenarios are more likely;

1. McGlynn signs his new contract and the AFL pick up 9.8% of the cost of that contract as CoLA, or
2. McGlynn's signs his new contract and does cartwheels because he knows that he is about to get a 9.8% bonus that they have bot even touched on yet

The funds might be outside the TPP, but they are still a negotiating tool for the Swans that allows them to either;

1. Pay their players 9.8% more than everyone else, or alternatively;
2. Have 9.8% of their contracts paid by someone else, freeing up TPP to be used on other players.

It does not matter who pays for it, it does not matter if it is compulsory or not, or if it is specifically referenced in the player contract or not, or if it is just increased TPP or not.

It is more money.

 

[dean33]

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

do you think if sydney knows that every player is getting 9.8% more than their competitors that would not be easier to hold onto and attract players?

so richmond offer hannerbury 500k to come play for them(for arguments sake) the swans only have to offer him 451k to match richmonds offer. Don't you think that is a massive advantage when you can do that with all players across your whole list??

 

[skipper kelly]

There is no one on my ignore list.

I do not stubbornly refuse to accept that the AFL pay for CoLA - it is absolutely a separate allowance. But it is still part of the Swans available Cap.

It is not part of the cap. It is an allowance paid on top of contracts. The TPP is the same for all clubs.

 

[skipper kelly]

do you think if sydney knows that every player is getting 9.8% more than their competitors that would not be easier to hold onto and attract players?

so richmond offer hannerbury 500k to come play for them(for arguments sake) the swans only have to offer him 451k to match richmonds offer. Don't you think that is a massive advantage when you can do that with all players across your whole list??

It's not how it works. You know this.

 

[bungwahl]

Back to debating COLA now.

Time to lock the thread until more developments.

 

[QuietB]

do you think if sydney knows that every player is getting 9.8% more than their competitors that would not be easier to hold onto and attract players?

so richmond offer hannerbury 500k to come play for them(for arguments sake) the swans only have to offer him 451k to match richmonds offer. Don't you think that is a massive advantage when you can do that with all players across your whole list??

EXACTLY

 

[QuietB]

It is not part of the cap. It is an allowance paid on top of contracts. The TPP is the same for all clubs.

It is still a negotiating tool.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It is still a negotiating tool.

GREAT! IT'S A NEGOTIATING TOOL! WHATEVER! YOU WIN!

That doesn't detract from the simple fact that it is legal, it forms part of ongoing contractual arrangements which will take a couple of years to unwind, and its forced removal immediately is unlawful, and the alternatives are a ban on trading (also unlawful) or a stripping of the playing list (unreasonable).

This is what we are discussing. Great. You find COLA offensive. I find your jumper offensive. I found your tanking offensive. I find your supporters' arrogance offensive. But guess what, none of those breach the AFL rules any more than the Swans' use of the COLA did (well, maybe the tanking did but we can't prove that one).

I've got an idea. You built your list around priority picks. They've since been scrapped. To put things back on a level playing field, you must immediately strip Roughead from your playing list. Geelong can get rid of Hawkins because the father son rule has changed. Richmond can get rid of Deledio. Carlton can get rid of half their list. Or face a trading ban for 2 years.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Are you talking about AFL prize money

All I know is that...

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/afl_annual_report_2011.pdf

Distributions from the Club Future Fund (2012-16)
Club Total allocated (2012-16) $mill
Western Bulldogs 10.2
North Melbourne 10.2
Melbourne 9.1
St Kilda 8.9
Richmond 8.0
Port Adelaide 7.2
Sydney Swans 7.2
Brisbane Lions 7.2
Essendon 4.75
Carlton 4.25
Collingwood 4.25
West Coast Eagles 4.25
Fremantle 4.25
Geelong Cats 3.25
Hawthorn 3.25
Adelaide 3.25
Gold Coast Suns 3.25
GWS Giants 3.25

Thanks for raising that, Hawwk. Now. What exactly are Hawthorn doing with their $3.25 million? We know what Sydney are doing. Sydney have found a bunch of other money and are developing something like 700 kids through an academy. Instead, Hawthorn are sucking money out of an already cash strapped state government for putting on a few matches in friendly AFL territory.

 

[dean33]

GREAT! IT'S A NEGOTIATING TOOL! WHATEVER! YOU WIN!

That doesn't detract from the simple fact that it is legal, it forms part of ongoing contractual arrangements which will take a couple of years to unwind, and its forced removal immediately is unlawful, and the alternatives are a ban on trading (also unlawful) or a stripping of the playing list (unreasonable).

This is what we are discussing. Great. You find COLA offensive. I find your jumper offensive. I found your tanking offensive. I find your supporters' arrogance offensive. But guess what, none of those breach the AFL rules any more than the Swans' use of the COLA did (well, maybe the tanking did but we can't prove that one).

I've got an idea. You built your list around priority picks. They've since been scrapped. To put things back on a level playing field, you must immediately strip Roughead from your playing list. Geelong can get rid of Hawkins because the father son rule has changed. Richmond can get rid of Deledio. Carlton can get rid of half their list. Or face a trading ban for 2 years.

sydney have never had a priority pick as it was not in the afl's interest to let them slip below 10th.

 

[dean33]

Thanks for raising that, Hawwk. Now. What exactly are Hawthorn doing with their $3.25 million? We know what Sydney are doing. Sydney have found a bunch of other money and are developing something like 700 kids through an academy. Instead, Hawthorn are sucking money out of an already cash strapped state government for putting on a few matches in friendly AFL territory.

do you think if any other clubs where given a state or area in australia to pump money into and then have first access to players that came out of that area or state they wouldn't?

Please dont try and make out sydney to be the good samaritans putting their money into something for the good of the game when it directly benefits them.

 

[QuietB]

GREAT! IT'S A NEGOTIATING TOOL! WHATEVER! YOU WIN!

That doesn't detract from the simple fact that it is legal, it forms part of ongoing contractual arrangements which will take a couple of years to unwind, and its forced removal immediately is unlawful, and the alternatives are a ban on trading (also unlawful) or a stripping of the playing list (unreasonable).

This is what we are discussing. Great. You find COLA offensive. I find your jumper offensive. I found your tanking offensive. I find your supporters' arrogance offensive. But guess what, none of those breach the AFL rules any more than the Swans' use of the COLA did (well, maybe the tanking did but we can't prove that one).

I've got an idea. You built your list around priority picks. They've since been scrapped. To put things back on a level playing field, you must immediately strip Roughead from your playing list. Geelong can get rid of Hawkins because the father son rule has changed. Richmond can get rid of Deledio. Carlton can get rid of half their list. Or face a trading ban for 2 years.

lol

 

[Tuco]

There is no one on my ignore list.

I do not stubbornly refuse to accept that the AFL pay for CoLA - it is absolutely a separate allowance. But it is still part of the Swans available Cap.

Lets say the Swans are renegotiating Ben McGlynns contract a year or two ago, they sit down and agree $1m for three years. You tell me which of the two following scenarios are more likely;

1. McGlynn signs his new contract and the AFL pick up 9.8% of the cost of that contract as CoLA, or
2. McGlynn's signs his new contract and does cartwheels because he knows that he is about to get a 9.8% bonus that they have bot even touched on yet

The funds might be outside the TPP, but they are still a negotiating tool for the Swans that allows them to either;

1. Pay their players 9.8% more than everyone else, or alternatively;
2. Have 9.8% of their contracts paid by someone else, freeing up TPP to be used on other players.

It does not matter who pays for it, it does not matter if it is compulsory or not, or if it is specifically referenced in the player contract or not, or if it is just increased TPP or not.

It is more money.

I see. So you simply post a stock collection of catch phrases and have no interest in responses. You ignore replies that address specifics. And wait to respond to later posts that offer avenues for you to regurgitate another of your tired tropes regarding COLa.

Definition of trolling.

Your zillionth attempt to dubiously breakdown the way COLa works in your mind (refuted umpteen times over the last year) makes no contribution to a discussion regarding the AFL's decision to ban the Swans from trading.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I am sure most here in principle disagree with this decision or, at the very least, the AFL's proud and continuing tradition of making policy on the run.

The problem is that they are more than happy to abandon said principles when it suits their club biases and football prejudices. And we have seen that happen in spades in this thread.

So much for "principles" when they are so easily bent.

Always bet on self interest.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

do you think if any other clubs where given a state or area in australia to pump money into and then have first access to players that came out of that area or state they wouldn't?

Please dont try and make out sydney to be the good samaritans putting their money into something for the good of the game when it directly benefits them.

Richmond had access to NSW talent via the scholarship system for years. As did every other club. How did that work out?

 

[Tedeski]

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

It is not that hard.

Not sure what you don't understand QB.

We all accepted (majority of us) & had no problem with "having to play by the same cap as everyone else" once that decision was made. Just as we played by the AFL rules before that. Rules ticked off by all other clubs until we won a flag, recruited Tippet & then Buddy! No probs!
The club then started planning with this in mind, perhaps why we were not prepared to match an offer by GC for Malceski & also to keep refreshing our list, which is also playing by the same trading rules "as everyone else".

We have been forced to move on players that were going to demand more money should they stay at our club. Mummy, Lamb, White, Everitt & Armstrong last year. Malceski & Membrey this year. The Swans knew the cap was going to be scaled back or scrapped when recruiting Buddy & thus started preparing, such is the quality of our administration. What they weren't expecting was to then be told, well after the official decision on the scrapping of CoLA over two years, that they can't play by the same rules "as everyone else" during the trade period.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in all of this then you are not the fair minded Hawk poster on anything Swans that you would like us all to think.

It's fundamentally wrong & amateurish to have put the ban on us when we haven't actually broken any rules. It actually wasn't a rule. It was a mechanism implemented by the AFL, to equalise things for clubs in the land of NRL where there was no chance of having a team filled predominantly locally recruited boys.

Now the last time I looked & listened, no AFL official has come out & said we have broken rules. Until that moment, then as we speak, the decision is absurd & manipulative, so much so that both of our major rivals, Port & Hawthorn, have taken the very 2 players that we rumoured to be coming our way, in Ryder & Frawley respectively.

A ruckman & a key defender! The two positions where ALL the 'experts' in the media & on here agree that we are vulnerable.

That is unjust manipulation that if it happened to ANY other team in Victoria especially, we would never hear the end of it.

Carry on!

 

[Furn2]

From that article you just posted:

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

Yes the league funds it as in they give the Swans a cheque for $940k which can be used to pay players along with the salary cap.

 

[dean33]

Richmond had access to NSW talent via the scholarship system for years. As did every other club. How did that work out?

not the same access sydney has..

 

[QuietB]

Not sure what you don't understand QB.

We all accepted (majority of us) & had no problem with "having to play by the same cap as everyone else" once that decision was made. Just as we played by the AFL rules before that. Rules ticked off by all other clubs until we won a flag, recruited Tippet & then Buddy! No probs!
The club then started planning with this in mind, perhaps why we were not prepared to match an offer by GC for Malceski & also to keep refreshing our list, which is also playing by the same trading rules "as everyone else".

We have been forced to move on players that were going to demand more money should they stay at our club. Mummy, Lamb, White, Everitt & Armstrong last year. Malceski & Membrey this year. The Swans knew the cap was going to be scaled back or scrapped when recruiting Buddy & thus started preparing, such is the quality of our administration. What they weren't expecting was to then be told, well after the official decision on the scrapping of CoLA over two years, that they can't play by the same rules "as everyone else" during the trade period.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in all of this then you are not the fair minded Hawk poster on anything Swans that you would like us all to think.

It's fundamentally wrong & amateurish to have put the ban on us when we haven't actually broken any rules. It actually wasn't a rule. It was a mechanism implemented by the AFL, to equalise things for clubs in the land of NRL where there was no chance of having a team filled predominantly locally recruited boys.

Now the last time I looked & listened, no AFL official has come out & said we have broken rules. Until that moment, then as we speak, the decision is absurd & manipulative, so much so that both of our major rivals, Port & Hawthorn, have taken the very 2 players that we rumoured to be coming our way, in Ryder & Frawley respectively.

A ruckman & a key defender! The two positions where ALL the 'experts' in the media & on here agree that we are vulnerable.

That is unjust manipulation that if it happened to ANY other team in Victoria especially, we would never hear the end of it.

Carry on!

On the face of it I agree that the trade ban seems petty and amateurish. I would like to know the full details.

I guess I am more commenting on CoLA generally.

Anyways, I see this thread has been sent to an obscure board to die a slow death, probably not before time.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

not the same access sydney has..

Exactly. Richmond had the whole of NSW. Sydney only has the portion between Sydney and Tweed Heads.

 

[dean33]

Exactly. Richmond had the whole of NSW. Sydney only has the portion between Sydney and Tweed Heads.

and just the little fact of sydney having first access to any no matter where they finish on the ladder...

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

and just the little fact of sydney having first access to any no matter where they finish on the ladder...

As I said. Richmond were able to identify talent through the NSW scholarship system and pre list anyone they wanted. Anyone. Richmond didn't want to make the investment. Nor did any other club bar one or two. So no talent was developed from NSW. Now that Sydney have taken the bull by the horns and put in place a proper development program which is bearing fruit, at a cost to Sydney of millions, you, a Richmond supporter whose club had every opportunity to seek out and develop such talent, are crying at the unfairness of it all.

How about you speak to your own club about wasting opportunities and stop whinging about clubs who actually go out and create opportunities.

 

[dean33]

As I said. Richmond were able to identify talent through the NSW scholarship system and pre list anyone they wanted. Anyone. Richmond didn't want to make the investment. Nor did any other club bar one or two. So no talent was developed from NSW. Now that Sydney have taken the bull by the horns and put in place a proper development program which is bearing fruit, at a cost to Sydney of millions, you, a Richmond supporter whose club had every opportunity to seek out and develop such talent, are crying at the unfairness of it all.

How about you speak to your own club about wasting opportunities and stop whinging about clubs who actually go out and create opportunities.

I actually do not have a problem with the nsw academy, however don't try and pretend sydney are doing it for anything other than self interest.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I actually do not have a problem with the nsw academy, however don't try and pretend sydney are doing it for anything other than self interest.

I'm not. Don't switch the argument. You were saying it was unfair. I pointed out that your club had full access to the entire state of NSW and failed to develop a single footballer out of it. Do you still say it's unfair?*

*Yes I know. Stupid question.

 

[kriles76]

We have been forced to move on players that were going to demand more money should they stay at our club. Mummy, Lamb, White, Everitt & Armstrong last year. Malceski & Membrey this year. The Swans knew the cap was going to be scaled back or scrapped when recruiting Buddy & thus started preparing, such is the quality of our administration. What they weren't expecting was to then be told, well after the official decision on the scrapping of CoLA over two years, that they can't play by the same rules "as everyone else" during the trade period.

If you can't see the hypocrisy in all of this then you are not the fair minded Hawk poster on anything Swans that you would like us all to think.

It's fundamentally wrong & amateurish to have put the ban on us when we haven't actually broken any rules. It actually wasn't a rule. It was a mechanism implemented by the AFL, to equalise things for clubs in the land of NRL where there was no chance of having a team filled predominantly locally recruited boys.

Carry on!

Sydney has been forced to move players on because the "quality of its administration" has chosen to pay its two highest earners significantly more than is sustainable. This is neither the fault of the AFL or Victorian based clubs. It wasn't forced to pay Tippett and Franklin of the order of collectively $2m per year. I would happily bet that Sydney's two highest income earners earn significantly more than the equivalent at any other club outside the recent expansion clubs.

Oh, the irony. A Sydney supporter moaning about not being allowed to play by the same rules "as everyone else". And you have the temerity to argue about hypocrisy? Rather than having a crack and laying the fault of your ills at everyone else's feet, try a bit of self examination.

Cola was a mechanism to help Sydney retain players because of poor administration and overall poor leadership and culture. That's why players left in the early to mid 90's. Sydney has improved immensely since then and no longer needs welfare. FFS, it was 20 years ago that Rocca and Grant left Sydney. Sydney is now a 'destination club'.

Take it as a compliment that Sydney no longer needs assistance rather than continuously playing the 'punished' victim. You remind me of those muppets that no longer receive middle class welfare because their household earns too much but continuously bleat and moan that they're doing it tough.