Mick Malthouse demands Sydney help end now

[gab213]

No they haven't

The swans are not South Melbourne

That's another croc of crap they spruke ...pretending to be from a footy state

I am intrigued to know how you can make this claim. South Melbourne relocated to Sydney and took on the name Sydney Swans. South Melbourne never folded. The Sydney Swans most certainly have their origins in a football state.

 

[I am Jack]

Mick and Eddie might have some common ground here.

Will be interesting to see how Gill handles this.
If Brayshaw and other media figures start pushing this theme - things will get interesting.
I don't think Gill will control the process as much as Andrew.

So, it's going to be hard when Eddie and co flood the airwaves and shape public opinion.

 

[Freomaniac]

You are clearly one of the more educated posters on here.

Well done sir

Im not actually well educated. I actually try and listen to both and all sides of the story. Its called common sense. Im not trying to discriminate you or the swans fans or any other fans of other clubs for that matter. I just get pissed off about people on here getting all angry and pointing fingers at people and hurling abuse at people for no reason without reading all the information and listening what people have to say on here.

Some people are blinded with rage on here before they post. Either that or they post threads on here under the influence of Alcohol, which is something I do not recommend to some posters on here.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Really? We've recruited a bunch of your players and taken them to premierships and will do so again this year. Good luck with your sour grapes, may the many successes of the hawks losing another preliminary final help you sleep at night, and the sight of the swans winning another premiership fill you with happiness.

Haha, is that all you've got left? Cheap trolls?
Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story though, you've taken one of our players to a premiership. Not a bunch.


You claimed that Sydney was good at retaining players, so perhaps you can explain the need for COLA?

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Who said anything about Melbourne money? In their contract they get their salary (X) and their COLA (Y). Y = 9.8% of X. If their contract states Y is only 5% of X they are going to question why that is.

The nominal purpose of the "cost of living allowance" is to compensate players for the increased... cost of living in sydney. The argument being made is that to prevent players from going to other states where it is cheaper to live sydney swans (and now gws) need to be able to give their players 9.8% more than their market value to make up for all those expensive lattes they are drinking.

As I pointed out this is impossible to objectively measure. Their contract will always state that Y = 9.8%, but where the subjectivity comes in, and where swans fans seem deluded, is what the value of X should be for a given player.

If a player is offered $200k to play for a melbourne team and a sydney team then in theory that player should be paid $219600 if he chooses sydney and this will compensate him for the $3 extra he spends on lattes each week. This is how the COLA is supposed to work right?

But what if Sydney offers the player $190k base? Their pre-tax wage becomes $208620. The player still gets more than they would at another club, they are smart enough to know that a bigger mortgage at the front end means a bigger profit when they sell the property at the back end. The club save $10k+9.8%. do this 40 tims and you have nearly 6% of your salary cap free to lure big name players from interstate immediately after winning a premiership, while still giving every player 5% more than theyd reasonably expect on the open market.

Andrew Ireland would have us believe that all clubs value players exactly the same and so its really easy to tell when a player isnt getting their 'melbourne value' plus 9.8%. in reality clubs offer a player a contract based on a number of factors and will give players a dollar value based on their own needs, the truth is that one established club has the opportunity to distribute 9.8% more to players in whatever manner they see fit.

The fact that sydney are losing very few players that they want to keep and are poaching big name players from other clubs tells me the balance isnt right.

As others have pointed out, its a marketing/staying competitive allowance, the fact that the AFL continue to call it otherwise is insulting.

 

[NorthernLights]

We all know that the primary reason for the COLA/retention allowances is to ensure that Sydney and Brisbane are able to maintain competitive/dominant teams.

I say why do we need to manipulate how good or bad a club is on field? If Brisbane Lions just so happen to be shit then let them be, and leave it up to them to try to fix it. You know, like every other club has to.

If the AFL thinks that retaining players is going to be that big a problem, heres an idea; Stop placing football "clubs" in these areas. It's not like there was a demand for them in the first place.

 

[harmesy 37]

Not all of the Swans players have to live in Bondi and Coogee. Try getting a house or a property in the inner-west, similar commuting time, similar prices to other cities, and not as out of control expensive as Bondi.

If all the Carlton players moved to Toorak, Brighton, and Kew then I would expect they should get a COLA as well. Choose appropriate places to live and really this argument becomes null and void.

 

[Dynamics]

Not sure if it's been mentioned here but Mark Fine (love or loathe him) summed it up pretty well. It's not a cost of living allowance, it's a win a flag allowance.

Cost of living is such a massive red herring you could feed a family of Norwegians on it for a month. It's about helping to keep clubs like Sydney and GWS competitive. That's it.

If that's justified in continuing for any club is the real question I see here.

 

[base615]

The nominal purpose of the "cost of living allowance" is to compensate players for the increased... cost of living in sydney. The argument being made is that to prevent players from going to other states where it is cheaper to live sydney swans (and now gws) need to be able to give their players 9.8% more than their market value to make up for all those expensive lattes they are drinking.

As I pointed out this is impossible to objectively measure. Their contract will always state that Y = 9.8%, but where the subjectivity comes in, and where swans fans seem deluded, is what the value of X should be for a given player.

If a player is offered $200k to play for a melbourne team and a sydney team then in theory that player should be paid $219600 if he chooses sydney and this will compensate him for the $3 extra he spends on lattes each week. This is how the COLA is supposed to work right?

But what if Sydney offers the player $190k base? Their pre-tax wage becomes $208620. The player still gets more than they would at another club, they are smart enough to know that a bigger mortgage at the front end means a bigger profit when they sell the property at the back end. The club save $10k+9.8%. do this 40 tims and you have nearly 6% of your salary cap free to lure big name players from interstate immediately after winning a premiership, while still giving every player 5% more than theyd reasonably expect on the open market.

Andrew Ireland would have us believe that all clubs value players exactly the same and so its really easy to tell when a player isnt getting their 'melbourne value' plus 9.8%. in reality clubs offer a player a contract based on a number of factors and will give players a dollar value based on their own needs, the truth is that one established club has the opportunity to distribute 9.8% more to players in whatever manner they see fit.

The fact that sydney are losing very few players that they want to keep and are poaching big name players from other clubs tells me the balance isnt right.

As others have pointed out, its a marketing/staying competitive allowance, the fact that the AFL continue to call it otherwise is insulting.

WTF are you talking about? You initially responded to a post of mine responding to someone who claimed that, essentially, the club got a bunch of COLA and gave some people less COLA in percentage terms than others, i.e. that they might not get 9.8% COLA on their contract. I said that was not how it worked.

You're now arguing a completely different argument, which is a reasonably fair one, but doesn't take into account other income opportunities off the field and the fact that they have to move away from family etc. It doesn't follow that they'd be willing to take only 5% over what other clubs are offering them if they are forgoing other opportunities.

 

[MickyG]

The thing that staggers me the most in this argument is there are Sydney supporters who really can't see they are receiving a huge and unwarranted advantage with the COLA. Incredible how blind supporters can be.

The thing that staggers me the most in this argument is there are supporters for teams in AFL States who really can't see that their teams have a huge advantage and this warrants equalisation. Incredible how blind supporters can be.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I think people are just absolutely sick of it now.

Advantages have been removed in the past as you have described. What would $wans supporters be saying if all Melbourne clubs still had a zone to draft from. That was an old system for the olden days. Was it fair? no. Was it removed? Yes.

Time to completely remove the current inequities in place

I've already said I have no problem with it being removed. I've also said I have no problem with it staying, if it's pro-rated for all cities. e.g. I see no reason why the CoL in Perth shouldn't be a factor. We also need something to address the clear advantage Vic clubs in particular have in terms of sourcing and holding on to players, and third party income. Tell me, why should Sydney have to put up with that? The CoLA was intended to equalise far more than just the CoL in Sydney, but it suits your purposes to act as if all that doesn't exist, and gives you a convenient tub to thump.

So what are your suggestions?

Should we all move forward to a Kurt Vonnegutian dystopia where everyone is equal and the best and prettiest dancers have the heaviest bags hanging around their necks and the ugliest face masks?

You want fairness, let's shift to a 17-round H & A where each team plays every other team just once. Only then can you complain about any other unfairness.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

If that's the case then removing it would have no impact, and players would currently place no value on 9% of their earnings.

Your logic is flawed.

If you've read the whole thread, my logic makes perfect sense.

For starters, you do realise the CoLA is about more than the CoL in Sydney?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I am intrigued to know how you can make this claim. South Melbourne relocated to Sydney and took on the name Sydney Swans. South Melbourne never folded. The Sydney Swans most certainly have their origins in a football state.

Remind me of how many of our current squad were of draftable age in 1982?

Dustin Fletcher plays for Essendon.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Im not actually well educated. I actually try and listen to both and all sides of the story. Its called common sense. Im not trying to discriminate you or the swans fans or any other fans of other clubs for that matter. I just get pissed off about people on here getting all angry and pointing fingers at people and hurling abuse at people for no reason without reading all the information and listening what people have to say on here.

Some people are blinded with rage on here before they post. Either that or they post threads on here under the influence of Alcohol, which is something I do not recommend to some posters on here.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You claimed that Sydney was good at retaining players, so perhaps you can explain the need for COLA?

So only if we were a really badly-run, incompetent club, you'd be OK with CoLA?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Really??? Coz last year I saw the $wans absolutely embarrassed in the prelim and then Hawks win the premiership, at least my replica says 2013 hawthorn premiers.

Must eat you up in side that even with an extra $1 million in the cap your club is a failure

None of which will ever compensate in your mind for being beaten in 2012 by a team of apparent plodders.

 

[Number37]

We all know that the primary reason for the COLA/retention allowances is to ensure that Sydney and Brisbane are able to maintain competitive/dominant teams.

I say why do we need to manipulate how good or bad a club is on field? If Brisbane Lions just so happen to be shit then let them be, and leave it up to them to try to fix it. You know, like every other club has to.

If the AFL thinks that retaining players is going to be that big a problem, heres an idea; Stop placing football "clubs" in these areas. It's not like there was a demand for them in the first place.

You are forgetting one important thing...
The AFL is a BUSINESS. It relies on $$$.
Sydney is the financial capital of Australia by a fair way. AFL in Sydney is the door to corporate dollars, not small time corporate dollars but massive amounts of corporate dollars.
Then there is half of the Australian population living in Sydney and Brisbane, which = massive TV rights dollars. It is massive TV dollars because it provides massive growth opportunities to an untapped or undeveloped market.
The AFL has to make Sydney/GWS/Lions/Suns as competitive as possible without gifting them premierships AND without undermining all the other clubs. It is a balancing act that needs to be done with ALL things taken into consideration.
The people that have gained the most out of the massive increase in corporate dollars are the players. Does anyone think the players are going to cut off their noses to spite their faces? The AFLPA knows it is crazy to support an idea which reduces the income of their members.
If people want to argue that COLA pushes the balance too far in favour of 'gifting premierships' then the evidence MUST support that conclusion. As far as any reasonable person can see, the evidence DOES NOT support that conclusion.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You are forgetting one important thing...
The AFL is a BUSINESS. It relies on $$$.
The AFL has to make Sydney/GWS/Lions/Suns as competitive as possible without gifting them premierships AND without undermining all the other clubs. It is a balancing act that needs to be done with ALL things taken into consideration.
The people that have gained the most out of the massive increase in corporate dollars are the players. Does anyone think the players are going to cut off their noses to spite their faces? The AFLPA knows it is crazy to support an idea which reduces the income of their members.
If people want to argue that COLA pushes the balance too far in favour of 'gifting premierships' then the evidence MUST support that conclusion. As far as any reasonable person can see, the evidence DOES NOT support that conclusion.

Such level-headed commonsense talk will fly over most heads here.

 

[JeffDunne]

As far as any reasonable person can see, the evidence DOES NOT support that conclusion.

LOL.

Show me one sliver of evidence that suggests it has been difficult for Sydney to keep and attract top talent.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Who said anything about Melbourne money? In their contract they get their salary (X) and their COLA (Y). Y = 9.8% of X. If their contract states Y is only 5% of X they are going to question why that is.

Yes, but if you have $5 and Chuck Norris has $5, Chuck Norris has more money than you!

 

[Mcveigh]

Who knew that all it took to win a flag was 1mill..

 

[Suma Magic]

If you've read the whole thread, my logic makes perfect sense.

For starters, you do realise the CoLA is about more than the CoL in Sydney?

You said the CoLA had nothing to do with being able to afford Tippet and Franklin.

I was just correcting you.

 

[base615]

Yes, but if you have $5 and Chuck Norris has $5, Chuck Norris has more money than you!

If you can see Chuck Norris, he can also see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris, you are only moments away from death.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Really??? Coz last year I saw the $wans absolutely embarrassed in the prelim and then Hawks win the premiership, at least my replica says 2013 hawthorn premiers.

Must eat you up in side that even with an extra $1 million in the cap your club is a failure

Really? Guess I'll just have to comfort myself with our 2012 gf win over your supposed team of super stars. Do tell me, how many hawks supporters claimed to have the premiership won by round 23?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

So only if we were a really badly-run, incompetent club, you'd be OK with CoLA?

Hey, it's you guys that can't make up your mind.

One of you says you need the COLA because the AFL can't let you have players poached, and then someone else pops up and says that Sydney is a well run club and that's why they retain their players so well.

So which is it?

Are you a well run club that doesn't need COLA or not?