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

[yodellinhank]

The idea that we should have passed up an opportunity to improve our team in order to help the AFLs expansion plans is ridiculous.

The AFL sets club agendas these days. Go against the AFL's best interests and you cop it. Clubs ran in the interests of members have become AFL franchises with season ticket holders.

 

[sherb]

You can't be serious! You can't honestly be offering up that article and your weasly words as "evidence". Your post said we rorted the system. Nothing you provided even comes close to substantiating that.

You know how this works.

He makes the claim and then because you can't disprove it, that in his mind makes it true.

Classic BF idiocy.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

There is some method to the madness by the AFL

Example 1:

When Judd was paid extra as an environmental ambassador outside the cap, all the clubs knew it was unfair but it was approved by the AFL.

The AFL then refused to continue this unfair advantage without any warning to the Blues.

Example 2:

When Sydney received the 9.8% extra COLA allowance over the cap, all the clubs knew it was unfair but it was approved by the AFL.

The AFL obviously wanted COLA phased out immediately, but instead of the extra few hundred thousand for one player, it was about a million spread over the entire Swans playing list.

Sydney complained (rightly so) that it would be unfair to remove this advantage without a transition phase.

The AFL said, okay we will give you 2 years.

However, the AFL didn't want Sydney to keep their competitive advantage for an additional 2 years.

Thus, the AFL imposed a knee jerk handicap. This is to stop a club that is clearly over the salary cap (that the other clubs are under) from recruiting any more expensive players whilst they remain over the cap.

The AFL is fine with Sydney trading now as long as they operate under the same cap that all other clubs are under.

This is simply a removal of a benefit (not a punishment) and part of the trade off that Sydney bear for getting 2 more years to phase out COLA.

That all makes sense. But the stick of no trades seems to have been added without fair warning. If they had agreed on the 2-3year phasing out of COLA eight months ago, with some carrots and sticks as part of the plan all along, then Sydney could have looked ahead and set a strategy. This way it just looks half-arsed and bloody-minded.

 

[DavyRed]

Then I would suggest the Swans perform a trade, pay all players only their contracted amounts and refer any grievances regarding the 9.8% loading to the AFL.

Sorry mate, I'm honestly not stating this in some kind of smart-arse way but I'm not sure I understand you point. Could you rephrase please?

 

[asanque]

That all makes sense. But the stick of no trades seems to have been added without fair warning. If they had agreed on the 2-3year phasing out of COLA eight months ago, with some carrots and sticks as part of the plan all along, then Sydney could have looked ahead and set a strategy. This way it just looks half-arsed and bloody-minded.

It was pretty knee jerk and they should have thought about it earlier.

Here is an extract of the rationale from the Commission

['The Commission stated that the key principle was that the Sydney Swans should use the COLA transition amount to honour existing contracts and not to attract players from other clubs or use that transitional amount to compete with other clubs for the services of players not on their list.']

 

[MickyG]

This is fantastic news. Thank you AFL for providing motivation to our players - Swans will be Premiers 2015.

 

[base615]

This is fantastic news. Thank you AFL for providing motivation to our players - Swans will be Premiers 2015.

Might even be a bit less hated while doing it too.... Alright, maybe not.

 

[Chris Pelchen]

Fitzpatrick clearly wanted Franklin to join GWS. In his dreams they would turn into a powerhouse and start filling out the Stadium he has a financial interest in.

Not clear enough to some though it seems. If it was so clear who in their right mind would thwart those plans while simultaneously bringing an end to a very generous advantage?

 

[Membling]

Simply put, the AFL appear to be dressing this up as an effort to 'help' the club reduce the cap. With retirees such as Shaw and Goode's we should be able to ease under the cap by the previously stated deadline of 2017. (Added by a more high profile trade by us)

The change in stance by AFL is a knee jerk to free agency moves in 2012 and 2013.

An example is if we were going to reduce the cap through a trade eg player on 500k and only way is to include a young rated player, even though we are reducing cap, it will be disallowed. Foolishly near sighted.

 

[KGBeast]

Baffling, the AFL have already engineered an uneven competition. Why penalize one club when there are four or five who enjoy an advantage?

 

[Syd]

This is fantastic news. Thank you AFL for providing motivation to our players - Swans will be Premiers 2015.

Will like the 2017 Premiership sans * moar

 

[Syd]

Baffling, the AFL have already engineered an uneven competition. Why penalize one club when there are four or five who enjoy an advantage?

Please post said list in sequence of preference from AFL house

 

[Chris Pelchen]

This is fantastic news. Thank you AFL for providing motivation to our players - Swans will be Premiers 2015.

True motivation is being 10% disadvantaged than your opponent. Being equal is normal

 

[Boxhead_31]

It was pretty knee jerk and they should have thought about it earlier.

Here is an extract of the rationale from the Commission

['The Commission stated that the key principle was that the Sydney Swans should use the COLA transition amount to honour existing contracts and not to attract players from other clubs or use that transitional amount to compete with other clubs for the services of players not on their list.']

But the Giants are still allowed to use it for the purpose of trading in players - read Griffin, Patfull

 

[Foreign Legion]

Not clear enough to some though it seems. If it was so clear who in their right mind would thwart those plans while simultaneously bringing an end to a very generous advantage?

Have you ever heard of Paul Morwood and Silvio Foschini? We all make mistakes.

 

[asanque]

But the Giants are still allowed to use it for the purpose of trading in players - read Griffin, Patfull

AFL clearly showing favouritism.

They still need to prop up GWS as they are a new franchise.

They no longer need to prop up Sydney.

 

[Syd]

True motivation is being 10% disadvantaged than your opponent. Being equal is normal

You've never been equal /stop

 

[Syd]

AFL clearly showing favouritism.

They still need to prop up GWS as they are a new franchise.

They no longer need to prop up Sydney.

We do not require 'propping up'
And LOL if you think GWfranchise will ever = Sydney Swans

 

[Ashman23]

But the Swans still get three academy players that are top 5-10 rated for basically nothing over the next three years........

 

[Oxirane]

I don't know if it's been posted - but statement from AFLPA.

http://bit.ly/1Eyhvfa

I reckon the AFLPA could convince the AFL to let players get to Sydney through trade or Free Agency, on the condition that the player agreed to take rookie wages until the COLA is gone.

 

[Ashman23]

We do not require 'propping up'
And LOL if you think GWfranchise will ever = Sydney Swans

Port and Freo say hello

 

[GoldenHodge]

I think this sums up the AFL

 

[ScoobySnacks]

We do not require 'propping up'
And LOL if you think GWfranchise will ever = Sydney Swans

You still struggle to turn a decent profit despite consistent success, this would indicate that you do need propping up

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

Maybe they will band together and agree to do this but would you agree to drop your pay just because you liked working for an employer?

Lance Franklin give up cash??

You Swannies fans are delusional

 

[base615]

Port and Freo say hello

Both in "football states"