Mega Thread Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) discussion

[.Shotties.]

There it is, plain and simple, you've said so yourself.

It should be reviewed, as no one can explain why Sydney have a larger cap to work with.

Thank you and good night.

Well, there IS the argument that in order to live at the same level within similar proximity to the club as players in other cities it costs more in Sydney, but apparently that can be circumvented by living in bed sits.

 

[Tragic sainter]

Do you actually know what the col is. I don't either.from what I gather its divided between the 44 players on our list, roughly $22 thousand for each player, it's not in the salary cap. If the swans are endorsed afl cheats, what are hawthorn? They have to play home games in tassie! Don't even start on sydney mate.

You can't have a go at the hawks playing a few home games in tassie when your club was forced to permanently relocate because it was broke.

 

[Gongswan]

Keep deflecting.

well, tell me, what are the TPP payments for this year, or last, I don't care which. When you get some hard evidence that we are spending more than other clubs, get back to me. All this talk of us being propped up is ridiculous, we have to find the money if we want to use it. Unlike various Melbourne clubs who are surviving on handouts fom teh AFL, why don't you go have an anuerism over them

 

[Joshua thomas]

Why

You can't have a go at the hawks playing a few home games in tassie when your club was forced to permanently relocate because it was broke.

why not mate, everyone seems to be having a go at us at as the moment . We may have been going broke but at least we tried unlike some other teams still in Melbourne.we get the col allowance what are the other teams getting?

 

[Moley Russels Wart]

If it truly was to address "cost of living" it would be an allowance that the afl would make Sydney pay every player on their list (I assume they ALL have to live in Sydney), rather than extra salary cap space which they can spend the entirety on ONE player. Not doubting the extra cost of living/attracting players to Sydney, but the way the AFL rules are "cost of living allowance" is about as plausible as Japanese whaling having scientific value.

Effectively they can get one extra Judd/Ablett quality player on their list than every one else, although they seem to be wasting it on a spud this time. Which begs the question, are Sydney abandoning their "no dickhead" policy??

 

[Gongswan]

If it truly was to address "cost of living" it would be an allowance that the afl would make Sydney pay every player on their list (I assume they ALL have to live in Sydney), rather than extra salary cap space which they can spend the entirety on ONE player. Not doubting the extra cost of living/attracting players to Sydney, but the way the AFL rules are "cost of living allowance" is about as plausible as Japanese whaling having scientific value.

Effectively they can get one extra Judd/Ablett quality player on their list than every one else, although they seem to be wasting it on a spud this time. Which begs the question, are Sydney abandoning their "no dickhead" policy??

Who is the million dollar player on our list right now? Who are the ones we have poache dfrom other clubs ove rthe last 10 years? I note you have first hand knowledge of the inner workings of teh Sydney Swans FC, are you their accountant? I don't think so, I think you're a worthless useless flog with no idea

 

[Obeanie1]

Wow, seriously? Because Sydney had a much higher COL than any city when it was brought in and still does with the exception of Perth - but it's still higher.

Something makes me think it was Brisbane but I don't recall. Check with the AFL.

So Perth should get it too. This has been agreed to many times. It is not logical for anyone to say that we shouldn't get it because Perth clubs don't. Us getting it whilst Perth clubs don't has nothing to do with us. People seem to think we are responsible. Just weird

How'd I go "num nuts"?

Yep that pretty much sums it up nicely.

It doesn't stand up to logic to being a Cost of Living allowance, thats because it isn't, and everyone knows this. What it is is a form of competitive advantage provided to two clubs in a tough AFL expansion market. The best way for the AFL to protect its investment in this market is to have sucessful teams in Sydney.

So the AFL hands out a bit of welfare to prop up its investments.

In the mean time Norths, Bulldogs, Melbourne and others struggle!!!!

 

[Gongswan]

Yep that pretty much sums it up nicely.


In the mean time Norths, Bulldogs, Melbourne and others struggle!!!!

You understand that these teams you have listed only survive because of handouts from the AFL. These teams are not financially viable. The COL is not money the AFL gives Sydney, we have to raise it, while I'm not an insider at teh Swans, we are not all that financial and I doubt we are utilising the whole thing. Again, for the 10000000000th time, please name the players we have who are on Judd like salaries and using up this allowance

 

[Scotland]

well, tell me, what are the TPP payments for this year, or last, I don't care which. When you get some hard evidence that we are spending more than other clubs, get back to me. All this talk of us being propped up is ridiculous, we have to find the money if we want to use it. Unlike various Melbourne clubs who are surviving on handouts fom teh AFL, why don't you go have an anuerism over them

You still don't get it.

It really isn't that difficult. Exactly how much Sydney spent in 2012 or 2011 is irrelevant.

If Fremantle (for example) has $1m of salary cap space available then that means they are spending $7.78m.

If Sydney has $1m of salary cap space available then that means they are spending $8.64m. If they are spending $7.78m like Fremantle then they have $1.86m available.

$8.64m - $7.78m = $860k, $9.64m - $7.78m = $1.86m. That's a lot of money potentially at your disposal.

 

[Gongswan]

You still don't get it.

It really isn't that difficult. Exactly how much Sydney spent in 2012 or 2011 is irrelevant.

If Fremantle (for example) has $1m of salary cap space available then that means they are spending $7.78m.

If Sydney has $1m of salary cap space available then that means they are spending $8.64m. If they are spending $7.78m like Fremantle then they have $1.86m available.

$8.64m - $7.78m = $860k, $9.64m - $7.78m = $1.86m. That's a lot of money potentially at your disposal.

These aren't facts. If we have spent the whole normal cap we have 800k odd if we have the cash. But we still only have to spend the same as every other club, there is no reason to think we are anywhere near teh normal cap right now as we don't have any Judd's, Ablett's or Scully's on our list. Goodes would be our highest paid player and he would be on a front loaded contract due to age. You can twist it any way you want, but your no more in the know than the rest of us

 

[Gongswan]

You can't have a go at the hawks playing a few home games in tassie when your club was forced to permanently relocate because it was broke.

Why not every ****er is having a go at us about things that they have no idea about.

 

[Scotland]

These aren't facts. If we have spent the whole normal cap we have 800k odd if we have the cash. But we still only have to spend the same as every other club, there is no reason to think we are anywhere near teh normal cap right now as we don't have any Judd's, Ablett's or Scully's on our list. Goodes would be our highest paid player and he would be on a front loaded contract due to age. You can twist it any way you want, but your no more in the know than the rest of us

I repeat, you don't get it.

I don't care how much you are spending or how you choose to spend it.

The facts are you can spend $9.64m if you want to. All other clubs bar GC/GWS can spend $8.78m.

If you're good enough to build a premiership side using the same salary cap as everyone else why on Earth should the AFL give you an allowance which enables you to sign Kurt Tippett on top of that?

 

[Gongswan]

I repeat, you don't get it.

I don't care how much you are spending or how you choose to spend it.

The facts are you can spend $9.64m if you want to. All other clubs bar GC/GWS can spend $8.78m.

If you're good enough to build a premiership side using the same salary cap as everyone else why on Earth should the AFL give you an allowance which enables you to sign Kurt Tippett on top of that?

There isn't even evidence that signing Tippett will take us into the COL at this point, keep pissing and moaning like a little girl, it suits you

 

[Moley Russels Wart]

Who is the million dollar player on our list right now? Who are the ones we have poache dfrom other clubs ove rthe last 10 years? I note you have first hand knowledge of the inner workings of teh Sydney Swans FC, are you their accountant? I don't think so, I think you're a worthless useless flog with no idea

Umm, how about poaching Kurt Tippett in a premiership year? Shane Mumford before that? You want to defend the allowance, then defend it, want to make personal attacks then I guess you just add weight to my point cos you obviously can't come up with a counter-argument

 

[Numbered Days]

Yep that pretty much sums it up nicely.

It doesn't stand up to logic to being a Cost of Living allowance, thats because it isn't, and everyone knows this. What it is is a form of competitive advantage provided to two clubs in a tough AFL expansion market. The best way for the AFL to protect its investment in this market is to have sucessful teams in Sydney.

So the AFL hands out a bit of welfare to prop up its investments.

In the mean time Norths, Bulldogs, Melbourne and others struggle!!!!

What? You asked what the base was ... I said I thought Brisbane but not sure ... and that shows it doesn't stand up to logic? That make sense to you?

 

[tazhawk]

I repeat, you don't get it.

I don't care how much you are spending or how you choose to spend it.

The facts are you can spend $9.64m if you want to. All other clubs bar GC/GWS can spend $8.78m.

If you're good enough to build a premiership side using the same salary cap as everyone else why on Earth should the AFL give you an allowance which enables you to sign Kurt Tippett on top of that?

End thread/

 

[Numbered Days]

You still don't get it.

It really isn't that difficult. Exactly how much Sydney spent in 2012 or 2011 is irrelevant.

If Fremantle (for example) has $1m of salary cap space available then that means they are spending $7.78m.

If Sydney has $1m of salary cap space available then that means they are spending $8.64m. If they are spending $7.78m like Fremantle then they have $1.86m available.

$8.64m - $7.78m = $860k, $9.64m - $7.78m = $1.86m. That's a lot of money potentially at your disposal.

The mistake is you are thinking it is just space to be used as we wish. As has been pointed out it's not. If we are spending $7.78m like Freo then that includes About $750k in COL payments. So the remaining 1.86m is about 1.6m of cap and 180k of COLA.

 

[Numbered Days]

If it truly was to address "cost of living" it would be an allowance that the afl would make Sydney pay every player on their list (I assume they ALL have to live in Sydney), rather than extra salary cap space which they can spend the entirety on ONE player. Not doubting the extra cost of living/attracting players to Sydney, but the way the AFL rules are "cost of living allowance" is about as plausible as Japanese whaling having scientific value.

Effectively they can get one extra Judd/Ablett quality player on their list than every one else, although they seem to be wasting it on a spud this time. Which begs the question, are Sydney abandoning their "no dickhead" policy??

Yup, that's how it is used. Can we end the thread now?

 

[skzm]

Perhaps someone can help me... I'm not sure whether to buy the Swans premiers Guernsey or whether I should spend the money on the GF DVD Victory set? They're both around the same price.

If you are living in Sydney better get neither - you'll need all your dollars just to live.

 

[themarkedman72]

thread recap:

• everyone thinks the COLA has to go, outside swans and about two cats
• Swans have no cogent argument to suggest why they should get more money. Just a bunch of personal attacks trying to undermine the thread. I find these Hysterical.
• The swans desperately want the argument to end so they can keep pretending to be more clever than everyone instead of charity cases.
• The reality that the swans are taking unfair advantage of the other clubs is little more than AFL endorsed cheating has been established as fact.
• Swans last two flags forever tainted

 

[Numbered Days]

Yes, it was that simple. That's the crux of the argument. You get propped up with money to keep you competitive.

Again, you keep misrepresenting the situation and that's why pretestations of Hawthorn supporters that this is about the good of the game falls on deaf ears. We know why it is always fans of the same clubs that attack us.

We do not get propped up with money to keep us competitive. We pay our players + the COLA ourselves. Any idea of "propping" doesn't stand up when you see that in the most recent season where TPPs are listed, we paid less than you.

Just as GC and the GWS got extra picks in their first few years, the Swans have extra room to move every year, hence my point about rolling up to trade week with $1million more to work with than other clubs.

Your point was wrong and shows that you aren't actually looking at it rationally and are just using it as cover for trolling the Swans. We do not have extra room to move. It is an allowance paid on top of every contract to our players as has been said by our club. For the 50th time, it is NOT just extra money that we can throw at people. In fact, we absorb some of the extra payments into our cap because we pay our Rookies more than an extra 9.8%.

The AFL want Sydney to be competitive. It's no more a cost of living allowance than this post that I'm writing is a peace treaty in Israel.

LOL, the AFL wants everyone to be competitive - don't you get how the system works yet? It's completely socialist designed to allow every team to have an equal chance of challenging for the flag. To just pluck out the Swans and say the AFL is doing something to make us competitive is pure ignorance.

You've convinced yourself it's valid. Most Swans have.

Wages in most industries are higher here than elsewhere. Of course it's valid. In a few years when the Cap is raised to about $11 or $12 million it will probably become not needed but still valid.

Yet you still get more than any other side, be they in Brisbane, Fremantle, Adelaide or Geelong.

Again not true.

 

[themarkedman72]

You can't have a go at the hawks playing a few home games in tassie when your club was forced to permanently relocate because it was broke.

Yeah and the fact we do a job for the tassie govt and they pay us is totally different to getting a "Handout" from the AFL.

So I am happy to support a club that stands on its own two feet while the swans stand in the dole queue.

 

[MF]

thread recap:

• everyone thinks the COLA has to go, outside swans and about two cats
• Swans have no cogent argument to suggest why they should get more money. Just a bunch of personal attacks trying to undermine the thread. I find these Hysterical.
• The swans desperately want the argument to end so they can keep pretending to be more clever than everyone instead of charity cases.
• The reality that the swans are taking unfair advantage of the other clubs is little more than AFL endorsed cheating has been established as fact.
• Swans last two flags forever tainted

Tell me again why your poorly constructed arguments are worthy of their own thread when there are other threads already dedicated to the exact same issue?

If people didn't know any better they might assume it's because you're a little hurt about getting your pants pulled down in the Grand Final.

Don't worry champ, only a year to wait until you get another chance at losing one.

 

[themarkedman72]

Again, you keep misrepresenting the situation and that's why pretestations of Hawthorn supporters t.

stopped reading after this obvious and clear load of rubbish.

mate its everyone, not just hawks.

Stop trying to pretend it has anything to do with the Grand final, thats a sad deflection.

The only mis-representation here is by the swans
and its "Protestations".
Cant you even get one thing right?
>shakes head<

 

[Numbered Days]

thread recap:

• everyone thinks the COLA has to go, outside swans and about two cats
• Swans have no cogent argument to suggest why they should get more money. Just a bunch of personal attacks trying to undermine the thread. I find these Hysterical.
• The swans desperately want the argument to end so they can keep pretending to be more clever than everyone instead of charity cases.
• The reality that the swans are taking unfair advantage of the other clubs is little more than AFL endorsed cheating has been established as fact.
• Swans last two flags forever tainted

Recap of this thread? You've put everyone who disagrees with you on ignore haven't you?