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

[SugarCoat]

If you asked Sydney if they had the choice to lose the COLA or the Academy they would give up the COLA 10 / 10 times.

 

[stevoswan]

So all clubs should be able to run academies?

All clubs should have their salary cap adjusted for cost of living?

Why not? I'm sure it's up to them, but why would traditionally AFL states bother, with the wealth of talent they have at their disposal. The academies were set up to promote the game and talent in NON AFL states, and they cost MONEY to run(Swans money, in our case), so there's your answer. Why spend your own money when you can just pillage the Swans investment? As for the second question, you can ask the AFL that, they are the ones who set up COLA, the Swans didn't even ask for it, but of course worked with it when forced to, who wouldn't? We are a well run club, in a badly run league, a league followed by, it seems a lot of stupid people with small minds and petty jealousies that get in the way of common sense and the ability to see things clearly......

 

[jim boy]

As I said, PATHETIC...........you just can't see that being punished for 'not breaking any rules' is unjust. If it happened to your club, you wouldn't be so cocky and frankly, pathetically bias.....sitting back smugly enjoying your Made in Melbourne mickey mouse league, and in turn becoming Eddies and Gillons 'minions'.....your prejudiced stupidity is laughable.

Lol - you are not being punished, it was just an adjustment to a rule that now says that if you want COLA you cant trade. It's the swans spin doctors who are pushing the 'punished' term.

So now COLA is not so attractive as it once was. Apparently it is still attractive enough for your club to forego trading to keep it, rather than switch to the new rental subsidy approach.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Lol - you are not being punished, it was just an adjustment to a rule that now says that if you want COLA you cant trade. It's the swans spin doctors who are pushing the 'punished' term.

So now COLA is not so attractive as it once was. Apparently it is still attractive enough for your club to forego trading to keep it, rather than switch to the new rental subsidy approach.

A trade ban is a punishment. It's a ban. The COLA can only be phased out and you well know this.

 

[stevoswan]

Lol - you are not being punished, it was just an adjustment to a rule that now says that if you want COLA you cant trade. It's the swans spin doctors who are pushing the 'punished' term.

So now COLA is not so attractive as it once was. Apparently it is still attractive enough for your club to forego trading to keep it, rather than switch to the new rental subsidy approach.

Like the AFL spin of 'you can't have everything', which sounds like it came straight out of Eddie's mouth. Good one Gillon! IE; You can't have everything the we offered you within the rules, oh, and the rules have changed now to suit a Fathead and another jealous president from the current most powerful club, the same two idiots who sit on the AFL's 'equalization committee'. It's a joke! Also, COLA is still attractive because to forego it now would open up a legal 'can of worms' in regard to players who have COLA as part of their contracts for the next two years, also within the rules . It's called fairness to our current playing list, and because of this, our hands were tied, and we had to accept the ban......for now. The message to the Swans is, if you run your club too well, and become too successful, the heartland is not going to be happy and we will change the rules to suit them. Yes, it is important to promote the game in Sydney, as long as we don't embarrass the heartland clubs, where the true power exists. Gillon knows which side his bread is buttered on.......

 

[telsor]

Why not? I'm sure it's up to them, but why would traditionally AFL states bother, with the wealth of talent they have at their disposal.

So we could access that wealth and talent without going through the draft?

If other clubs could, they would.

The academies were set up to promote the game and talent in NON AFL states, and they cost MONEY to run(Swans money, in our case), so there's your answer.

Really? So the AFL, who boast of the millions they put into developing the game in non football states give nothing for your development programs? Of course, you can't look it up in the Sydney Swans annual report, because as a fully owned AFL subsidary (rather than a club), they don't release one.

Why spend your own money when you can just pillage the Swans investment?

Pillage the AFLs investment you mean.

As for the second question, you can ask the AFL that, they are the ones who set up COLA, the Swans didn't even ask for it, but of course worked with it when forced to, who wouldn't? We are a well run club, in a badly run league, a league followed by, it seems a lot of stupid people with small minds and petty jealousies that get in the way of common sense and the ability to see things clearly......

Swans never asked for it? Sure....You're a franchise that has been artificially supported to the detriment of a fair competition by a league administration desperate to build the Sydney market, and now the support has been turned down even a little bit, you're screaming like stuck pigs.

 

[telsor]

A trade ban is a punishment. It's a ban. The COLA can only be phased out and you well know this.

COLA was to be phased out ASAP, how does the swans recruiting high priced players achieve that?

Remember, it's only a ban until you play by similar rules to other clubs (you still get COLA-lite after all, so you don't even need to be equal). How horrible, being forced to follow the same rules as everyone else, how will your 'superior culture' survive without that extra cap space.

 

[stevoswan]

Really? So the AFL, who boast of the millions they put into developing the game in non football states give nothing for your development programs? Of course, you can't look it up in the Sydney Swans annual report, because as a fully owned AFL subsidary (rather than a club), they don't release one.


Pillage the AFLs investment you mean.


Swans never asked for it? Sure....You're a franchise that has been artificially supported to the detriment of a fair competition by a league administration desperate to build the Sydney market, and now the support has been turned down even a little bit, you're screaming like stuck pigs.

Point One- pure bushit. We are a membership based club, just like you....Point Two- more complete bullshit.....Point Three- I give up, it's pointless to even try to convince Eddie worshiping truth twisters like you....

 

[telsor]

Point One- pure bushit. We are a membership based club, just like you....Point Two- more complete bullshit.....Point Three- I give up, it's pointless to even try to convince Eddie worshiping truth twisters like you....

Your advantages have been cut back...boo hoo. You still have more unfair bonuses than any other club. Get rid of them all and we'll see how 'well run' you really are.

 

[Kummerspeck]

So we could access that wealth and talent without going through the draft?
If other clubs could, they would.
Really? So the AFL, who boast of the millions they put into developing the game in non football states give nothing for your development programs? Of course, you can't look it up in the Sydney Swans annual report, because as a fully owned AFL subsidary (rather than a club), they don't release one.
Pillage the AFLs investment you mean.

Nah, no clue. Sorry m8. Swans sponsors (namely QBE) fund the academies. No amount of "do you really think" style bullshit questions, nor "I can't prove my point because..." changes that.

 

[telsor]

Nah, no clue. Sorry m8. Swans sponsors (namely QBE) fund the academies. No amount of "do you really think" style bullshit questions, nor "I can't prove my point because..." changes that.

Wow, so 17 Million goes into game development, and nothing goes to that...sure...

Where's the financial report that shows this?

 

[Kummerspeck]

Wow, so 17 Million goes into game development, and nothing goes to that...sure...

Where's the financial report that shows this?

You quoted me then repeated what you said before, so

No amount of "do you really think" style bullshit questions, nor "I can't prove my point because..." changes that.

 

[stevoswan]

Your advantages have been cut back...boo hoo. You still have more unfair bonuses than any other club. Get rid of them all and we'll see how 'well run' you really are.

Oh dear....no one talked about Cola until we won the 2012 premiership and then recruited Tippett. Then Eddie squealed and the rest of YOU followed like sheep. Until then most supporters/experts agreed we were a brilliantly run club that was a blueprint for all others. That must have hurt the so called 'leaders' in the Melbourne clubs, and they've looked for an angle to bring us down. Obviously Cola was the reason we were so successful! It can't be that we know how to breed a 'club culture' better than the heartland! It seems those south of the border can't handle example setting and success from outside of Victoria, and now we have a league CEO who apparently can't either and sees his popularity consolidated in appeasing those same misguided souls, who are now lapping it up like puppies......or is that puppets? And we know who the puppet master is, don't we..... PS- take away all 'advantages' and we'll still be the best run club in the AFL. It's a bit of a joke that someone from Richmond is lecturing the Swans on running a club. How many flags have you lot won in recent years/decades?........Oh that's right, you didn't have Cola.........

 

[Kwality]

Leaders lead.
In footy we have the traditional states with histories back to the 1800s.
There are the growth areas, ie states where our game is #4 in the footy codes.
Some traditional states do game development better than others & none need any more than the father/son arrangement as a return on developing our great game.
The Swans lead the growth of our game in Australias most populous market and should be celebrated because its a tough market for Aussie Rules footy. To finally benefit from the growth of the game through the academy is no big deal IMHO, good for our game in the market.
Our game is littered with NSW juniors starring for the Melbourne clubs back to Haydn Bunton winning a Brownlow on debut in 1930 & more recently Wayne Carey, James Hird, Shane Crawford & recent retiree Lenny Hayes while the Hawk down at Sleepy Hollow continues tradition.

I have no doubt NSW will continue to lead our game development.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Wow, so 17 Million goes into game development, and nothing goes to that...sure...

Where's the financial report that shows this?

The AFL do contribute to it, but only in a very relatively minor way. It's funded through the Future Fund I think. What do the Tigers do with their AFL funding which, incidentally, is more than Sydney's?

 

[telsor]

The AFL do contribute to it, but only in a very relatively minor way. It's funded through the Future Fund I think. What do the Tigers do with their AFL funding which, incidentally, is more than Sydney's?

How do you know that? Richmond's annual report shows what we get, where is yours?

 

[telsor]

Oh dear....no one talked about Cola until we won the 2012 premiership and then recruited Tippett.

Actually they did. Remember, it used to be something like 15% (and called something else), then it got cut back...
Then it was 9.8% and has been cut back.
Hopefully in a few more years it'll be removed entirely.

Just because you ignored it in Sydney and preferred to pretend it was 'bloods culture' rather than a bigger cap that made you strong didn't mean there weren't comments made.

Then Eddie squealed and the rest of YOU followed like sheep. Until then most supporters/experts agreed we were a brilliantly run club that was a blueprint for all others.

Really? What 'experts' said that? At best it was 'thank god we haven't had to bail them out yet again'.
Yeah, you're a blueprint...We all want a bigger cap than everyone else and recruiting advantages...Bet we'd be 'brilliantly run' then too.

That must have hurt the so called 'leaders' in the Melbourne clubs, and they've looked for an angle to bring us down. Obviously Cola was the reason we were so successful! It can't be that we know how to breed a 'club culture' better than the heartland!

Hey, if it really is culture, prove it by playing on an even playing field. Surely your culture would survive that, right?

It seems those south of the border can't handle example setting and success from outside of Victoria, and now we have a league CEO who apparently can't either and sees his popularity consolidated in appeasing those same misguided souls, who are now lapping it up like puppies......or is that puppets? And we know who the puppet master is, don't we.....

Really? When clubs from other states dominated, we didn't bring do anything about them (well, except Brisbane, because, like you, they had a salary cap advantage....Curious how their 'culture' dissipated rapidly hen their salary cap bonus went, isn't it). Yep, we're evil, we like sport to be played between teams who are even.

PS- take away all 'advantages' and we'll still be the best run club in the AFL.

How so?
Really, how is your club so well run? How many times have you fallen apart since moving to Sydney?

It's a bit of a joke that someone from Richmond is lecturing the Swans on running a club. How many flags have you lot won in recent years/decades?........Oh that's right, you didn't have Cola.........

Yeah, we've been crap for years, it helps us recognise it in others. In the past 4 years we're made massive advances, due to the members (who own our club) putting in more money to help, and all without the aid of COLA, or draft 'bonuses'.


If you really believed you were so well run, and have such a great culture, you wouldn't be so afraid of losing your advantages.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

How do you know that? Richmond's annual report shows what we get, where is yours?

AFL Annual Report.