2018 Trade and FA thread (opposition supporters post in Trade Hypotheticals thread)

[Ironmonger]

I can't remember who wrote the best article on this but its pretty clear now that this wasn't the case - the Swans were on track to phase out COLA and the AFL didn't trust them to do it. Mike Fiztpatrick (Commission Chairman) also didn't understand how COLA worked like a lot of supporters - it was a 10% payment available on each player contract, so it couldn't be banked to pay for specific players (i.e. Buddy).

They were within the salary cap and if a specific trade would have put them over, then the AFL could have prevented that transaction or fined them or penalised them with draft picks. The trading ban was primarily an attempt punish the Swans for being successful imo.

I'm sure there was a fair amount of spite involved in the decision, but I don't believe Sydney's protestations about the additional payment being applied equally across the list. If you have a specific article on that I'd love to read it though.

For one thing, there's no mechanism to add an additional 10% payment on each player contract. It's just a part of the player's salary. When club and player sat down to negotiate pay they don't agree to a figure and then tack 10% onto it. If another club was prepared to pay one of Sydney's players $400k to get them to leave Sydney weren't then obliged to pay $440k for them to stay.

The exception was rookies and new draftees. They had a defined payment amount and Sydney paid an additional 10% on top of that. But for everyone whose salary had to be negotiated - which is to say the vast majority of the total cap commitment - it was essentially free cap space.

The Swans were given additional cap space for a few years to phase out the COLA. The threat from the AFL was that if they recruited new players during that time, the additional COLA allowance would be taken away. If Sydney were not using that additional allowance, then it's not a problem. They just had to stick to the same cap as everyone else.

In practical terms of course that's difficult if they've been overpaying players having had additional cap space. But every club that's at the limit of its cap is in that situation.

TheBrownDog is spot on that there's a broader, more important issue here about the power balance between Victorian and non-Victorian clubs, but in my opinion that specific decision was justifiable. Sydney should be congratulated for the successful way they've framed this discussion, but they shouldn't be regarded as victims for getting additional cap space nobody else got.

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

I think if the AFL are serious about the integrity of the draft then they need to clamp down on players seeking a trade inside their first two years. While there will always be exceptions, for example, on genuine compassionate grounds where a change of family circumstances has occurred, the idea that a player can seek to return to his home state just to be close to family really is a cop out. In Kelly's case, he wasn't an immature 18 year old kid when drafted and he knew what he was getting himself into. His wife and three kids came with him. They don't like living in Geelong, plenty probably wouldn't. But the Cats gave him his chance in the big time and the AFL should make him serve out his contract. They have the power to refuse any trade but they also need to start enforcing the draft rules - two year minimum contracts are there to protect the interests of both player and club. Neither side should be able to tear it up at its discretion.

Lol.

 

[jackess]

So Richmond will lose pick 36 or Conca for Lynch. At least they don’t get him for free I guess

 

[Ironmonger]

So Richmond will lose pick 36 or Conca for Lynch. At least they don’t get him for free I guess

If anything though it makes the dynamics of free agency look even more mad than if they'd gotten him for nothing.

On the Tim Kelly to West Coast move, it frustrates me a bit that the Eagles seem to essentially get two cracks at WA talent, in the draft and a couple of years later on the trade market.

They picked Oscar Allen over Kelly, and now a year later having seen Kelly's immediate impact they can make an informed choice about how much he's worth. Similarly, they picked Newman and McInnes shortly before Yeo went, and two years later they decided they wanted Yeo after all. A few years after passing on him in the draft, Yeo is an integral part of their premiership team.

Clubs in heartland states are insulated from their drafting failures in ways we are not.

 

[Tom14]

I'm sure there was a fair amount of spite involved in the decision, but I don't believe Sydney's protestations about the additional payment being applied equally across the list. If you have a specific article on that I'd love to read it though.

For one thing, there's no mechanism to add an additional 10% payment on each player contract. It's just a part of the player's salary. When club and player sat down to negotiate pay they don't agree to a figure and then tack 10% onto it. If another club was prepared to pay one of Sydney's players $400k to get them to leave Sydney weren't then obliged to pay $440k for them to stay.

The exception was rookies and new draftees. They had a defined payment amount and Sydney paid an additional 10% on top of that. But for everyone whose salary had to be negotiated - which is to say the vast majority of the total cap commitment - it was essentially free cap space.

The Swans were given additional cap space for a few years to phase out the COLA. The threat from the AFL was that if they recruited new players during that time, the additional COLA allowance would be taken away. If Sydney were not using that additional allowance, then it's not a problem. They just had to stick to the same cap as everyone else.

In practical terms of course that's difficult if they've been overpaying players having had additional cap space. But every club that's at the limit of its cap is in that situation.

TheBrownDog is spot on that there's a broader, more important issue here about the power balance between Victorian and non-Victorian clubs, but in my opinion that specific decision was justifiable. Sydney should be congratulated for the successful way they've framed this discussion, but they shouldn't be regarded as victims for getting additional cap space nobody else got.

This is one of the articles I was thinking about specifically re Fitzpatrick not having a clue: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ir-after-blue-murder-row-20180518-p4zg2c.html

This highly sensitive divide between Victoria and the rest was not helped by Mike Fitzpatrick’s extraordinary interview on Fox Footy’s Open Mike this week. Certainly not for relationships between head office and Sydney. Not only did the former AFL chairman come across as aloof and at times uncaring regarding deeply sensitive issues but he displayed an embarrassing lack of knowledge in terms of league rules and the game’s recent history.

Defending his position on the Lance Franklin deal, Fitzpatrick pointed the finger at the Swans, saying their contentious cost-of-living allowance was designated for the younger, lower-paid players when in fact it was legislated to apply pro rata across the entire Sydney - and Greater Western Sydney — playing lists. It was disappointing to hear a commission chairman fumble with the rules.

 

[Brett C]

I'm sure there was a fair amount of spite involved in the decision, but I don't believe Sydney's protestations about the additional payment being applied equally across the list. If you have a specific article on that I'd love to read it though.

For one thing, there's no mechanism to add an additional 10% payment on each player contract. It's just a part of the player's salary. When club and player sat down to negotiate pay they don't agree to a figure and then tack 10% onto it. If another club was prepared to pay one of Sydney's players $400k to get them to leave Sydney weren't then obliged to pay $440k for them to stay.

The exception was rookies and new draftees. They had a defined payment amount and Sydney paid an additional 10% on top of that. But for everyone whose salary had to be negotiated - which is to say the vast majority of the total cap commitment - it was essentially free cap space.

The Swans were given additional cap space for a few years to phase out the COLA. The threat from the AFL was that if they recruited new players during that time, the additional COLA allowance would be taken away. If Sydney were not using that additional allowance, then it's not a problem. They just had to stick to the same cap as everyone else.

In practical terms of course that's difficult if they've been overpaying players having had additional cap space. But every club that's at the limit of its cap is in that situation.

TheBrownDog is spot on that there's a broader, more important issue here about the power balance between Victorian and non-Victorian clubs, but in my opinion that specific decision was justifiable. Sydney should be congratulated for the successful way they've framed this discussion, but they shouldn't be regarded as victims for getting additional cap space nobody else got.

Sorry but that's completely wrong, the Swans would agree to a contract lets say $400k per year with a player/ their manager and then the additional COLA of 10% was added to that contract. All contracts are reviewed by AFL head office yet they never found any evidence of COLA being stored to sign big name players.

Do Victoria clubs essentially get additional cap space through their Coterie clubs/media contracts etc?

It seems to get lost in all the arguements that Sydney have managed to draft some exceptional players and also brought in more than a couple of recycled players who's own clubs didn't want or value them.

When they signed Buddy and Tippett there were a number of factors that helped them. Salary Cap increases, changes to veteran's list exemptions, they lost 5-6 players through trading/delisting.

 

[Ironmonger]

This is one of the articles I was thinking about specifically re Fitzpatrick not having a clue: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ir-after-blue-murder-row-20180518-p4zg2c.html

Wilson and Fitzpatrick are probably as wrong as each other there. There was no legislation to apply it equally across the list.

 

[Milux]

Man I hope we go for Cyril now. One of me mates said he will get a haircut like Ragnar off Vikings if he does play for us hahah

 

[Ironmonger]

Sorry but that's completely wrong, the Swans would agree to a contract lets say $400k per year with a player/ their manager and then the additional COLA of 10% was added to that contract. All contracts are reviewed by AFL head office yet they never found any evidence of COLA being stored to sign big name players.

Do Victoria clubs essentially get additional cap space through their Coterie clubs/media contracts etc?

It seems to get lost in all the arguements that Sydney have managed to draft some exceptional players and also brought in more than a couple of recycled players who's own clubs didn't want or value them.

When they signed Buddy and Tippett there were a number of factors that helped them. Salary Cap increases, changes to veteran's list exemptions, they lost 5-6 players through trading/delisting.

I'm not sure how that's possible, Brett. Player, manager and club were all completely aware when negotiating with the Swans that the 10% payment exists. If for some reason the manager and the club went through some pantomime of pretending that the amount being discussed is 10% lower than what's actually being paid it wouldn't have a material impact on negotiations.

As for the rest of your post, Sydney's effective management is actually part of why I'm unconvinced about the 10% not being able to be used to recruit players. The Swans were excellent at taking advantage of everything they had available to them, and they wouldn't have paid players more than they had to.

 

[Brett C]

I'm not sure how that's possible, Brett. Player, manager and club were all completely aware when negotiating with the Swans that the 10% payment exists. If for some reason the manager and the club went through some pantomime of pretending that the amount being discussed is 10% lower than what's actually being paid it wouldn't have a material impact on negotiations.

As for the rest of your post, Sydney's effective management is actually part of why I'm unconvinced about the 10% not being able to be used to recruit players. The Swans were excellent at taking advantage of everything they had available to them, and they wouldn't have paid players more than they had to.

Cool and the earth is flat as well.

If you hear hoof-beats think horses not zebra's.

 

[T Rick]

This is one of the articles I was thinking about specifically re Fitzpatrick not having a clue: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...ir-after-blue-murder-row-20180518-p4zg2c.html

Silly question I guess but do GWS have a COLA allowance?

 

[Tom14]

Silly question I guess but do GWS have a COLA allowance?

Not anymore I don't think.

 

[bungwahl]

I'm not sure how that's possible, Brett. Player, manager and club were all completely aware when negotiating with the Swans that the 10% payment exists. If for some reason the manager and the club went through some pantomime of pretending that the amount being discussed is 10% lower than what's actually being paid it wouldn't have a material impact on negotiations.

As for the rest of your post, Sydney's effective management is actually part of why I'm unconvinced about the 10% not being able to be used to recruit players. The Swans were excellent at taking advantage of everything they had available to them, and they wouldn't have paid players more than they had to.

Brett C is correct about COLA - it was a 9.8% loading applied to each and every contract. It was impossible to stock pile it.

 

[rusty08]

Man I hope we go for Cyril now. One of me mates said he will get a haircut like Ragnar off Vikings if he does play for us hahah

I was texting an old mate the other night, who is involved with our club with Vic side of things(runs clinics, kicks balls to players before games etc) and I asked him if he had any info in regards to trade period (mainly for Lachie Neale)
He replied - Cyril with party Popper emojis.
I asked him to elaborate, and he came back with "bit of noise"
Now ,not sure if he was just playing with me,but it seems this rumour has got a bit more airtime lately?

 

[dlanod]

Silly question I guess but do GWS have a COLA allowance?

No.

The Sydney clubs do have a rental assistance subsidy for players under the league average paid for by the AFL which an occasional nutter still insists is "COLA".

 

[Ironmonger]

Brett C is correct about COLA - it was a 9.8% loading applied to each and every contract. It was impossible to stock pile it.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by 'stockpile', but if you're paying a player $400,000 who you would otherwise have to pay $440,000 because the difference is being made up by COLA, then that's $40,000 extra you have to spend on other players.

My understanding is that the Swans administered the COLA themselves anyway, so it wasn't even a separate funding source. It's just part of the player's salary, however it was expressed in a contract.

 

[Dylan12]

So did he - a two year contract. Time to start holding players to their contract where there are no compelling compassionate grounds. As far as I know there aren't here.

And if there aren’t (and it would have to be compelling), then the player should be forced to sit out the remainder of their contract and the club losing the player should be compensated when / if the player re-signs with another club in 12 months time and that club should lose a pick of the players worth at that time.

 

[Milux]

I was texting an old mate the other night, who is involved with our club with Vic side of things(runs clinics, kicks balls to players before games etc) and I asked him if he had any info in regards to trade period (mainly for Lachie Neale)
He replied - Cyril with party Popper emojis.
I asked him to elaborate, and he came back with "bit of noise"
Now ,not sure if he was just playing with me,but it seems this rumour has got a bit more airtime lately?

Alot of airtime. Theres certainly smoke.

 

[Brett C]

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by 'stockpile', but if you're paying a player $400,000 who you would otherwise have to pay $440,000 because the difference is being made up by COLA, then that's $40,000 extra you have to spend on other players.

My understanding is that the Swans administered the COLA themselves anyway, so it wasn't even a separate funding source. It's just part of the player's salary, however it was expressed in a contract.

Yeah I think you're missing the point. Why would every player accept under their market value across the board to play for Sydney, why would the AFL allow this to continue if all contracts included this?

On a case by case by case basis players will accept unders to stay but that's not possible for all 38-42 players on the list.

 

[bungwahl]

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by 'stockpile', but if you're paying a player $400,000 who you would otherwise have to pay $440,000 because the difference is being made up by COLA, then that's $40,000 extra you have to spend on other players.

My understanding is that the Swans administered the COLA themselves anyway, so it wasn't even a separate funding source. It's just part of the player's salary.

The Lions board probably isn't the place for me to side track a thread with COLA explanations, but essentially the Swans added a 9.8% COLA loading to every contract. If you remove the COLA loading from all contracts, the base contract payments fell within the same salary cap as all other clubs.

Your example of a $400,000 contract increasing to ~$440,000 once the loading was added is correct. If the Swans/GWS could convince this player to sign with them for $400k total (i.e. ~$364k + COLA), then that's just good list management. All player managers knew their clients could earn 9.8% more in Sydney, but it's up to the individual as to what they'll accept. Other clubs such as Hawthorn were praised when senior players took unders to keep their list together. What any club does with their base level TPP cap is entirely up to them.

 

[Brett C]

And if there aren’t (and it would have to be compelling), then the player should be forced to sit out the remainder of their contract and the club losing the player should be compensated when / if the player re-signs with another club in 12 months time and that club should lose a pick of the players worth at that time.

It's extremely rare for a player to sit out a season, I can only think of McCarthy as an example and he had pretty well documented medical issues.

Kelly hasn't said he won't play, he has requested a trade back home which every player can do. Clubs tell players to explore their options as well.

Are you suggesting that clubs have the power to sit out a player just because they request a trade? Should players be allowed to sit out if a club tells them to they can explore their options?

 

[Gadzorks]

Just supposing/fantasy Cyril ends up with us - he’d have to get a lions paw tattoo coming over his shoulder attacking the hawk.

 

[lions27]

Is Cyril the A grade talent with past injury concerns?

 

[Hollow Knight]

Is Cyril the A grade talent with past injury concerns?

I think “A grade” and “injured player” got mistakenly conflated.

Pretty sure the injured player is McCarthy.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

In terms of flight times, is Brisbane much closer to home for Cyril? Just can't believe, even allowing for Messrs Hodge and Fagan's persuasive powers, that all of a sudden he wants to come to us. Unless of course they could agree a fly in/fly out deal like the one for Peter Hudson all those years ago. Cripes, the Hawks would be pissed.