Mick Malthouse demands Sydney help end now

[doppleganger]

I suggest you look into the history. Short answer, players drafted by Sydney and Brisbane, two years later back in Melbourne.

I suggest you actually check into the cost of living in Sydney. Here's the best answer:

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livin...untry2=Australia&city1=Melbourne&city2=Sydney

"Consumer Prices Including Rent in Sydney are 13.89% higher than in Melbourne." Therefore players signed to Sydney are worse off with the COLA than players in Melbourne.

Yes there were a couple of players who left Sydney to go back home.....same thing has happened to Brisbane, Adelaide, WC and even Melbourne clubs.

The funny thing is that there are players who actually prefer living in Sydney, as they can relax and not have to deal with the fishbowl environment of Melb, Perth and Adel.

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-livin...country2=Australia&city1=Adelaide&city2=Perth
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Perth are 26.03% higher than in Adelaide

If it was truly about equality, surely the Adelaide clubs should have a salary cap 26% lower than those clubs based in Perth.

The history is that the AFL previously believed they had to help prop up the expansion clubs.....fair enough when they are new.

But Sydney is no longer an expansion club, it is a club that is well established and should be able to stand on its own now. It doesn't have a problem attracting players, Sydney is actually a desirable place to live....much more so than Brisbane.

You either have Melbourne as a baseline and adjust ALL clubs based on cost of living...ie Sydney and Perth caps inflated, Adelaide, Geelong sliced.......or you don't change it for any club.

If it is about retention, how do you then explain Sydney getting it but Brisbane not getting it??

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I'm not quite sure what planet you're living on, probably planet of the apes.
To bring in Franklin we traded out quite a few players, Everitt, Mumford & White come to mind, amongst a lot of the younger and less established players. Throw in retirements of Mattner, Morton & Bolton as well.

How many teams lost at least 7-8 players last year to bring in 3?

Yes, you farmed those players out.

The original context of my point was in regards to another poster saying that the AFl can't allow players to be poached from Sydney.

No other club gets that luxury.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

We should never lose a player and never do lose players? Mumford, Everitt, Lamb say hello.

Prior to that we'd offer up our 'spuds' like Jude Bolton and no one would even bite at the trade table. Fine with me. Not our fault if our list has been perennially underrated.

Mumford Everitt and Lamb? That must really sting having lost those A-graders. How will your club ever recover.....

 

[doppleganger]

Mumford Everitt and Lamb? That must really sting having lost those A-graders. How will your club ever recover.....

The funny thing is that getting Franklin put the allowance back in focus......yet they fit him in by letting senior players walk and then also have a few other players retire.

The swans were paying their 2013 list the same amount without Franklin, they didn't simply get an extra $mil out of thin air...they had to let players go to fit him in.....ie lose depth to get an A-grader.

 

[Pie eyed]

It's so rare to hear such nice things said about my home town.

Don't get me wrong, for the disorganized hotch potch it is, the place is a joy due mainly to the ever patient locals.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

The funny thing is that getting Franklin put the allowance back in focus......yet they fit him in by letting senior players walk and then also have a few other players retire.

The swans were paying their 2013 list the same amount without Franklin, they didn't simply get an extra $mil out of thin air...they had to let players go to fit him in.....ie lose depth to get an A-grader.

When they took Tippett they wanted us to take on J Whites contract to free up the cap space to pay Tippett exorbitant money. In hindsight id prefer White to nothing, but at the time by all reports he was a spud and it was a bit cheeky of sydney asking us to pick up part of the tab by taking their contractual obligations on so they could afford to poach our player.

 

[MickyG]

If it is about retention, how do you then explain Sydney getting it but Brisbane not getting it??

Ask Eddie. Brisbane used to have a retention allowance but Eddie didn't like it after losing some Grand Finals. Same with COLA, we win a GF, sour grapes, COLA gone.

 

[doppleganger]

When they took Tippett they wanted us to take on J Whites contract to free up the cap space to pay Tippett exorbitant money. In hindsight id prefer White to nothing, but at the time by all reports he was a spud and it was a bit cheeky of sydney asking us to pick up part of the tab by taking their contractual obligations on so they could afford to poach our player.

That happens with trades...pretty sure Collingwood are still paying some of H.Shaw's salary this year.

If trying to offer 'rent assistance' or 'COLA' it needs to be baselined and adjusted for ALL clubs....not just given to Sydney, but everybody knows that i

I understand the need to assist clubs in developing markets, simply call it that make it transparent

each of BL, GC, GWS and Syd get a certain amount extra for retaining players seeing as they are not traditional football markets, but the kicker is it is only for players drafted by those clubs.....if a player elects to actually be traded to GWS or BL they don't get an allowance.

Make it a multiplier to reward loyalty too, so a career player gets a bigger loyalty bonus

 

[doppleganger]

Ask Eddie. Brisbane used to have a retention allowance but Eddie didn't like it after losing some Grand Finals. Same with COLA, we win a GF, sour grapes, COLA gone.

No Sydney won a GF and then added the two biggest names in consecutive trade periods to their list.

When other successful clubs like Geelong end up having players squeezed out.

That is what brought attention to Sydney, just like BL being able to bring in players whilst Essendon had to let guys go after 99-2000.

Be transparent and make it a retention allowance for the non football state clubs. And align it to the number of interstate draftees they are trying to retain.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

That happens with trades...pretty sure Collingwood are still paying some of H.Shaw's salary this year.

If trying to offer 'rent assistance' or 'COLA' it needs to be baselined and adjusted for ALL clubs....not just given to Sydney, but everybody knows that i

I understand the need to assist clubs in developing markets, simply call it that make it transparent

each of BL, GC, GWS and Syd get a certain amount extra for retaining players seeing as they are not traditional football markets, but the kicker is it is only for players drafted by those clubs.....if a player elects to actually be traded to GWS or BL they don't get an allowance.

Make it a multiplier to reward loyalty too, so a career player gets a bigger loyalty bonus

You speak too much sense for these parts. Go, and go swiftly.

 

[Crankyhawk]

No Sydney won a GF and then added the two biggest names in consecutive trade periods to their list.

When other successful clubs like Geelong end up having players squeezed out.

That is what brought attention to Sydney, just like BL being able to bring in players whilst Essendon had to let guys go after 99-2000.

Be transparent and make it a retention allowance for the non football state clubs. And align it to the number of interstate draftees they are trying to retain.

Or a retention allowance for players drafted from interstate/ country areas who earn below a predetermined "relative" AFL poverty line eg $100k tapering off to no assistance when at $150k. This would provide accomodation support but accessible to all players who've been drafted away from home. Because a Victorian drafted to Perth, or a South Australian drafted to Brisbane face the same sort of living pressures as a Victorian (or other) drafted to Sydney. If you wanted to adjust for cost of living, the size of this allowance could be larger in the more expensive cities. But at least it would be available to every club and therefore not seen so much as AFL tampering.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Yes, you farmed those players out.

The original context of my point was in regards to another poster saying that the AFl can't allow players to be poached from Sydney.

No other club gets that luxury.

What kind of nonsensical crap is that? How do you connect cola to recruiting restrictions? Did you consider that maybe Sydney really is that good at retaining their players? O'Keefe was set to leave at his last contract 3 or so years ago. We convinced him to stay and he won a premiership. There was no AFL meddling there.

We also traded or delisted a good number of players between 2006-2010 after our successive grand finals. Since 2009 we've brought in from other clubs:
Kennedy
McGlynn
Franklin
Pyke
Tippet
Laidler
Mumford
Seaby
Morton
Skinny Irish bloke

Every year we've lost as many players as we've gained. We've been very lucky in the last 10 years that some of our best and most important players are all home grown. Most of hawthorns are recruited.

So if you're going to dribble crap, get your ducks in a row first.

 

[MickyG]

Or a retention allowance for players drafted from interstate/ country areas who earn below a predetermined "relative" AFL poverty line eg $100k tapering off to no assistance when at $150k. This would provide accomodation support but accessible to all players who've been drafted away from home. Because a Victorian drafted to Perth, or a South Australian drafted to Brisbane face the same sort of living pressures as a Victorian (or other) drafted to Sydney. If you wanted to adjust for cost of living, the size of this allowance could be larger in the more expensive cities. But at least it would be available to every club and therefore not seen so much as AFL tampering.

This is what I would support. Maybe limit it to the first five years (although if they are still on a list after five years they are likely to be earning more than your limit anyway) and while they play for the club that drafted them.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

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.

 

[Tedeski]

Don't know what everyone is banging on about.
The CoLA as we know is gone. The AFL said so earlier in the year after we picked up Buddy.

Move on.

 

[Freomaniac]

Didn't we poach to big spuds who can't kick or mark? Everyone should be happy we are using big chunks of our crap to recruit spuds .

If those 2 are the level of player we use the cola on, shouldn't the rest of the football world be pushing to increase our cap so we can fill our entire list with overpaid spuds?

Look I have already said my views on this.

You guys got tippet Fairly considering your mob was still paying for Daniel Bradshaws contract considering he retired with injuries in 2011. So essentially that $600,000 a year that was used to pay Bradshaw in 2012 is used to Pay for tippet from 2013 on wards. Again your mob de-listed 5 guys on $200,000 a year and picked up 4 kids in the 2012 National draft.

Another thing that should be Mentioned is the Salary cap, regardless of which team it is even if its sydney, my club freo or any other club, Increases by around 5-7% every year which is currently around $500-600,000 a year.

This thread is getting stupid and its turned into a witch hunt.

 

[Superstar swan]

Look I have already said my views on this.

You guys got tippet Fairly considering your mob was still paying for Daniel Bradshaws contract considering he retired with injuries in 2011. So essentially that $600,000 a year that was used to pay Bradshaw in 2012 is used to Pay for tippet from 2013 on wards. Again your mob de-listed 5 guys on $200,000 a year and picked up 4 kids in the 2012 National draft.

Another thing that should be Mentioned is the Salary cap, regardless of which team it is even if its sydney, my club freo or any other club, Increases by around 5-7% every year which is currently around $500-600,000 a year.

This thread is getting stupid and its turned into a witch hunt.

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

Well done sir

 

[base615]

I want COLA gone just so I don't have to listen to you khunts whinging any more.

At the end of the day, everybody has the same salary cap and we have to fit our players into the same cap as everyone else. Once that's done, everyone in Sydney gets 9.8% added onto their salary for COLA. We don't save up the COLA and pay it all onto 1 or 2 players, it's based on the players we have on our list and what they are paid.

Now do the Buddy's and Tippett's of the world need COLA? No they don't but the rookie on $60k does because it's bloody expensive here. I'd like to see it capped so that everyone earning below $200k or something or everyone gets a fixed COLA payment of $15k per annum. I don't think it'd have much effect on our ability to attract Buddy or Tippett but it would make it very difficult for us to manage the other non-star players away from their home state without a form of COLA.

When it comes to cost of living, it is noticeably cheaper in Melbourne. I'm looking to buy a place at the moment and we're considering moving back to Melbourne where my wife is from as the cost is so much cheaper. As an example, a decent off-the-plan 2 bed apartment in the inner suburbs here (say Rozelle) is around the $900k mark. An equivalent apartment in say Richmond is at least $150k less. Salaries in my profession are very similar between the two cities.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

I want COLA gone just so I don't have to listen to you khunts whinging any more.

At the end of the day, everybody has the same salary cap and we have to fit our players into the same cap as everyone else. Once that's done, everyone in Sydney gets 9.8% added onto their salary for COLA. We don't save up the COLA and pay it all onto 1 or 2 players, it's based on the players we have on our list and what they are paid.

Now do the Buddy's and Tippett's of the world need COLA? No they don't but the rookie on $60k does because it's bloody expensive here. I'd like to see it capped so that everyone earning below $200k or something or everyone gets a fixed COLA payment of $15k per annum. I don't think it'd have much effect on our ability to attract Buddy or Tippett but it would make it very difficult for us to manage the other non-star players away from their home state without a form of COLA.

When it comes to cost of living, it is noticeably cheaper in Melbourne. I'm looking to buy a place at the moment and we're considering moving back to Melbourne where my wife is from as the cost is so much cheaper. As an example, a decent off-the-plan 2 bed apartment in the inner suburbs here (say Rozelle) is around the $900k mark. An equivalent apartment in say Richmond is at least $150k less. Salaries in my profession are very similar between the two cities.

The cost of that real estate would be euivalent in Perth. At any rate once youre in the market youre in the market so the AFL footballers who shouldnt have an issue buying a 900k property after their first few seasons which is when youre worried about the go home factor sell their property they make their money back and more, and if they are too dumb to see this their managers should point it out to them.

You dont know how the cola is distributed. you know how your club says it is distributed. This isnt supercoach where every player has a set figure nation wide. players want to play. They cant just up and leave to a club of their choice in a home state if they get offered what they consider their home state wage + only 3% or 5%.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

What kind of nonsensical crap is that? How do you connect cola to recruiting restrictions? Did you consider that maybe Sydney really is that good at retaining their players? O'Keefe was set to leave at his last contract 3 or so years ago. We convinced him to stay and he won a premiership. There was no AFL meddling there.

We also traded or delisted a good number of players between 2006-2010 after our successive grand finals. Since 2009 we've brought in from other clubs:
Kennedy
McGlynn
Franklin
Pyke
Tippet
Laidler
Mumford
Seaby
Morton
Skinny Irish bloke

Every year we've lost as many players as we've gained. We've been very lucky in the last 10 years that some of our best and most important players are all home grown. Most of hawthorns are recruited.

So if you're going to dribble crap, get your ducks in a row first.

You do realise that every year, every club loses as many players as they've gained?

 

[base615]

You dont know how the cola is distributed. you know how your club says it is distributed. This isnt supercoach where every player has a set figure nation wide. players want to play. They cant just up and leave to a club of their choice in a home state if they get offered what they consider their home state wage + only 3% or 5%.

So you're trying to tell me that, if a player was not getting their 9.8% COLA on top of their salary while another player was getting 20% they wouldn't be arcing up about it or at least leaking to the press? I find that extremely unlikely that a player would settle for not getting the agreed money.

 

[Fletched]

You can see why they need a bit extra money though what player in his right mind would want to leave Victoria and head up to Sydney if you were offered the same amount you would pick the Victorian team every time

 

[Number37]

Sydney have no one to blame but themselves and have really done the cause of the frontier footy clubs a real disservice. Tippett was one thing, Franklin was completely taking the piss.

Brisbane used its retention allowance for retention, not poaching.

Both Tippett and Franklin chose Sydney, what's the club supposed to say. No?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

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.

Like I said in an earlier post, no-one kids themselves the comp is even down to the microbial level.

But "huge" and "unwarranted"?

Plenty of posters, me included, have pointed out it had FA to do with us winning in 2012; and likewise had FA to do with us recruiting Tippett and Franklin; have pointed out every other club agreed to its introduction; have said notwithstanding all that we're happy to do without it; have pointed out that southern clubs, particularly Victorian, have big entrenched advantages which need to be addressed; and have offered suggestions for the way forward.

But do go on, we're really enjoying hearing all the constructive contributions every critic has offered here.

 

[shintemaster]

The funny thing is that getting Franklin put the allowance back in focus......yet they fit him in by letting senior players walk and then also have a few other players retire.

The swans were paying their 2013 list the same amount without Franklin, they didn't simply get an extra $mil out of thin air...they had to let players go to fit him in.....ie lose depth to get an A-grader.

That's kind of the point though isn't it. They appear to be more than capable of attracting and retaining talent from other states... so why the need for an advantage?