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

[Fastback]

Let's face it together.

We were both crap at a point over the last 20 to 25 years.
You finished bottom & supporters failed to turn up & watch.
You may be too young but i went with my Hawk supporter mates who eventually cracked it & stopped attending because "they sucked".

The last time I went with them was the last H & A game in our p'ship year of 2005 at a Hawks v Swans game.
I was invited in a corporate box & asked them along to fill it.
You had a young Buddy that day.
More Swan supporters than Hawks that day.
It happens.
Even Hawk supporters don't like to support losers.

Been going to the footy since 1980 and have never seen us finished bottom....got close in '04 but beat the Tigers toward the end of the year to avoid it.
Watched us crumble under Knights, Judge and Schwabby...just didn't have the cattle or coach to be honest.
We were 3rd last in '05 so understandable not many Hawks turned up to a dead and buried game against an interstate powerhouse. Happens all the time.
Yes we received some early draft picks as a result of finishing near bottom but this had minimal impact on our rise up the ladder.
The coach, player development and the ability to recruit ready to go "needs" players was the key factor.

 

[caddyhawk]

I don't think there's been much detail released on how the scheduled phase out of COLA will occur

It's $800k for 2015 and $600k for 2016. Veterans like Goodes, ROK, LRT and Malcheski were front loaded, mostly paid through the veterans allowance this year. This would allow a second tier of players to have their payments bumped up for the next two years. All this is done to clear the deck for Buddy's $1.2 million mid-loading staring 2017.

 

[mtooler]

Wouldnt have been an issue if notice had been given about what would be done, but they didnt and contracts have been made and signed off by the AFL. AFL seems to be corrupt.

 

[Tuco]

Swans fans speaking about cola
Gws and gc do indeed have it, however for gc its gone in 2017, and gws 2018


Swans fans saying its on every contract, that would mean they use it as a bargaining chip on contracts
It's very much an extra 9.8% extra, not on top

So to summarize: you've just figured out that an additional allowance is in fact an additional allowance? Kudos

 

[Tas]

COLA threads make me thirsty... but I have to lace it with some spirits to get through the thread.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Will they receive a trade ban when it gets phased out?

The trade ban is to stop the swans using the 2 yrs to put a bunch of new players on extended contracts under cola (as they did with franklin)

 

[Theprofessional]

The trade ban is to stop the swans using the 2 yrs to put a bunch of new players on extended contracts under cola (as they did with franklin)

All contracts as of end of 2013 don't have COLA on them. Pyke's resigning of his contract for example doesn't have 9.8%, any delisted free agents wouldn't have COLA on top of it- all draftees wouldn't either. So that's not the reason, as that makes no sense. What else could it be?

 

[Off The Couch]

All contracts as of end of 2013 don't have COLA on them. Pyke's resigning of his contract for example doesn't have 9.8%, any delisted free agents wouldn't have COLA on top of it- all draftees wouldn't either. So that's not the reason, as that makes no sense. What else could it be?

You mean, all NEW contracts as of the end of 2013 will not have a cola component - the way it's worded sounds like all players are no longer receiving it

You have to feel for these guys - everybody else picking up extra dollars for 2 years while you get nothing and then in 2017 some guys will get a rent allowance and you in the meantime might have moved up the pay scale and will again get nothing.

 

[master bate]

You mean, all NEW contracts as of the end of 2013 will not have a cola component - the way it's worded sounds like all players are no longer receiving it

You have to feel for these guys - everybody else picking up extra dollars for 2 years while you get nothing and then in 2017 some guys will get a rent allowance and you in the meantime might have moved up the pay scale and will again get nothing.

So are you saying that the swans draftees this year get nothing instead of 10% extra or a rent allowance? That seems silly even for the AFL? Then again they are 18 year olds about to earn a very healthy wage and all from NSW anyway so I feel like they will survive. More than happy to chip in if any end up on the streets.

But yes you'd think rent allowance would kick in right away for anyone under the (generous) threshold and not getting the COLA top up.

 

[Superstar swan]

I've mentioned it earlier in the thread but a fairer and equally effective measure the afl could have taken instead of this ban is to say to the swans - trade as many players as you like but by the end of the list lodgements your tpp has to be significantly lower than last seasons and same again in 2015.

The afl pa would be happy be have it is not restricting player movement, the entire afl would be happy because the swans would be reducing tpp and the swans would be happier because we could still control our list and address any vulnerable positions.

This ban is ludicrous. The whole situation could have been handled better whilst still achieving the same outcome

 

[Off The Couch]

So are you saying that the swans draftees this year get nothing instead of 10% extra or a rent allowance? That seems silly even for the AFL? Then again they are 18 year olds about to earn a very healthy wage and all from NSW anyway so I feel like they will survive. More than happy to chip in if any end up on the streets.

But yes you'd think rent allowance would kick in right away for anyone under the (generous) threshold and not getting the COLA top up.

I'm presuming that's the deal. The swans can't sign new contracts with a cola component and I don't know if the rent allowance has been sorted yet - I'm sure swan posters would know the deal. It's a bit rough really because this new rule will mean it's mostly young blokes probably moving from interstate and having to set up house - I presume though that most are billeted initially

 

[Rabbitpig]

I've mentioned it earlier in the thread but a fairer and equally effective measure the afl could have taken instead of this ban is to say to the swans - trade as many players as you like but by the end of the list lodgements your tpp has to be significantly lower than last seasons and same again in 2015.

The afl pa would be happy be have it is not restricting player movement, the entire afl would be happy because the swans would be reducing tpp and the swans would be happier because we could still control our list and address any vulnerable positions.

This ban is ludicrous. The whole situation could have been handled better whilst still achieving the same outcome

I think that's exactly what the afl did do.
They told the Swans at the end of last year that COLA would be phased out over a few years and in this time the Swans had to make every effort to get their salary cap in line with the other teams. A few of these other teams wanted an immediate halting of all COLA payments, but the AFL rightfully said that's unfair to SYdney, in particular the Sydney players, who would have lost about %10 of their salary overnight.
The AFL came up with a 'fair' compromise. They gave the Swans a few years to get their salary cap in order by shedding the best part of a million dollars.
All contracts can be re-written, The Afl assumed Sydney would 'play ball' and maybe lose a 'reid' or a 'mitchell' or use savings from a Goodesy or Shaw retirement to re-write every players contract without the COLA aspect of it. Ie, Hey Kieran, we've just signed you up on a new contract for $550,000 instead of $500,000 and COLA.
The Swans however must have had different ideas and the AFL has stepped in.
If you're trying to get your playing list under the same cap as everyone else and trying to find savings of a million dollars, then there's no way possible you can be signing up new players on reasonable contracts.
I think the AFL's no trading mandate to SYdney is fair. Get your salary cap in line with everyone else by shedding a million or so, then, by all means go hell for leather at the trade table. Until then, stop trying to rort the last few years of COLA and do the right thing by your players by re-writing their contracts so they don't miss out. I'm sure with a few retirments next year and the dollars saved by malceski and others leaving the Swans will be back at the trade table next year, with the same cap as everyone else, making an audacious play for Cotchin or Dangerfield.

 

[Leg End]

Great post

Great post for those who couldn't be bothered with the truth.

 

[Leg End]

The competition just needs to be even. Why do Sydney need an advantage? I can name 10 clubs that cannot attract players and Sydney are not one of them. Why do Sydney need CoLA?

I agree 100% that the AFL have stuffed this up. But they also stuffed up CoLA in the first place.

You can name 10 clubs - clubs that are so poorly managed that they would fail even with a 50% cola.
The irony here is that two of the worst managed clubs - the ones in biggest strife - are Collingwood and Western Bulldogs.
Guess where most of the whining us coming from?

 

[Tuco]

The trade ban is to stop the swans using the 2 yrs to put a bunch of new players on extended contracts under cola (as they did with franklin)

Incorrect. COLa hasn't been on any new signings since the ruling earlier this year.

 

[Theprofessional]

I think that's exactly what the afl did do.
They told the Swans at the end of last year that COLA would be phased out over a few years and in this time the Swans had to make every effort to get their salary cap in line with the other teams. A few of these other teams wanted an immediate halting of all COLA payments, but the AFL rightfully said that's unfair to SYdney, in particular the Sydney players, who would have lost about %10 of their salary overnight.
The AFL came up with a 'fair' compromise. They gave the Swans a few years to get their salary cap in order by shedding the best part of a million dollars.
All contracts can be re-written, The Afl assumed Sydney would 'play ball' and maybe lose a 'reid' or a 'mitchell' or use savings from a Goodesy or Shaw retirement to re-write every players contract without the COLA aspect of it. Ie, Hey Kieran, we've just signed you up on a new contract for $550,000 instead of $500,000 and COLA.
The Swans however must have had different ideas and the AFL has stepped in.
If you're trying to get your playing list under the same cap as everyone else and trying to find savings of a million dollars, then there's no way possible you can be signing up new players on reasonable contracts.
I think the AFL's no trading mandate to SYdney is fair. Get your salary cap in line with everyone else by shedding a million or so, then, by all means go hell for leather at the trade table. Until then, stop trying to rort the last few years of COLA and do the right thing by your players by re-writing their contracts so they don't miss out. I'm sure with a few retirments next year and the dollars saved by malceski and others leaving the Swans will be back at the trade table next year, with the same cap as everyone else, making an audacious play for Cotchin or Dangerfield.

You are right but I think there's a few things you haven't considered.

If we want to trade out Sam Reid and in Joe Blow +pick (significantly less cash) why can't we? That would be actively trying to reduce our salary cap. Being disallowed from trading is significantly disadvantaigng us.

If we identify Joe Blowe(different guy) as someone with a lot of potential or someone that we rate highly but isn't getting games at the club, why can't we trade him in? He'll more than likely be cheaper salary cap wise (and he won't receive any sort of COLA) and than it'll make it we can get rid of a Tom Mitchell or someone who is earning a lot more.

Right now we're handcuffed to a lot of players and they're handcuffed to us. Which is bad for the Swans, AFLPA, some of the Swans players, a few other teams looking to make trades and just common decency.

 

[the_interloper]

Does anyone think whoever made this decision posts on Bigfooty and did it for the lulz?

 

[QuietB]

You are right but I think there's a few things you haven't considered.

If we want to trade out Sam Reid and in Joe Blow +pick (significantly less cash) why can't we? That would be actively trying to reduce our salary cap. Being disallowed from trading is significantly disadvantaigng us.

If we identify Joe Blowe(different guy) as someone with a lot of potential or someone that we rate highly but isn't getting games at the club, why can't we trade him in? He'll more than likely be cheaper salary cap wise (and he won't receive any sort of COLA) and than it'll make it we can get rid of a Tom Mitchell or someone who is earning a lot more.

Right now we're handcuffed to a lot of players and they're handcuffed to us. Which is bad for the Swans, AFLPA, some of the Swans players, a few other teams looking to make trades and just common decency.

And you are probably both right. Really it depends on who the player was. If it was Patful it seems nothing more than petulant by the AFL. If it was Ryder, then it seems fair game and warranted.

I am not sure why no one is telling the story or have I missed it?

 

[Leg End]

Does anyone think whoever made this decision posts on Bigfooty and did it for the lulz?

Hope so - it would make more sense than the decision itself.

 

[bungwahl]

If we want to trade out Sam Reid and in Joe Blow +pick (significantly less cash) why can't we? That would be actively trying to reduce our salary cap. Being disallowed from trading is significantly disadvantaigng us.

If we identify Joe Blowe(different guy) as someone with a lot of potential or someone that we rate highly but isn't getting games at the club, why can't we trade him in? He'll more than likely be cheaper salary cap wise (and he won't receive any sort of COLA) and than it'll make it we can get rid of a Tom Mitchell or someone who is earning a lot more.

Right now we're handcuffed to a lot of players and they're handcuffed to us. Which is bad for the Swans, AFLPA, some of the Swans players, a few other teams looking to make trades and just common decency.

This is exactly right. Banning the Swans from trading (despite not having broken a rule) effectively removes the club's ability to swap expensive players for cheaper players, which would allow the option of reducing the TPP.

 

[worthy]

Well dunno perhaps when the other clubs were given the chance to run development in NSW they should have done more than attempt to pick the eye of the rams team or use it to get around father-son bidding.

One player (who wouldn't be playing football were it not for the academies) who'll be taken later in the first round than he would have gone, and two players projected as rookies who'll be taken in the second and fourth rounds. Get a grip.

It's being deliberately obtuse to suggest that as your defence, as it has already been pointed out that there were 6? NSW boys playing in the GF that would now not make it to the draft, and instead go to the academy, as the academy will now be taking all the promising NSW youngsters.
Ignoring the obvious and hoping no-one realises is so frustrating.

 

[worthy]

="liz, post: 35645287, member: 2694"]No

we wouldn't. Our contracts would have been different to start with.

Player X is choosing between joining the Swans and a Melbourne based club. He thinks each is attractive. Melbourne club offers him $400k per annum. Player's manager is negotiating with Sydney. He tells them his client can get $400k playing in Melbourne but because he knows a) it costs more to live in Sydney and b) the AFL has an explicit allowance it has instructed the Swans to make available to Sydney to allow for the fact it costs more to live in Sydney, the agent tells the Swans that they need to pay his player $440k for the financial decision to be equivalent for his client.

The Swans then contract said player on $440k. They are obliged to pay him this amount for the whole of his contracted term. They can't suddenly decide they are going to pay him $400k per annum because they feel like it.

The Swans would simply say, we believe said player is worth $360k, and with the COLA it's $400K, what we can offer is a great and successful club.

Now it may be that if the Swans have never had COLA and had only been able to offer $400k per year to start with, said player may have decided that because it would cost him more to live in Sydney, it was disadvantageous for him to move there. Which, of course, is the whole reason why the COLA allowance was introduced in the first place. To equalise a structural inequality that arises purely because of where Sydney players are required to live. Argue all you like about whether the COLA was an effective tool to address that inequality. That is really beside the point in the context of this issue. The fact is that it is a system that has been in place for over a decade and only seemingly became an issue two years ago. And it is one that the AFL has already decided to alter and is in the process of transitioning from one scheme to another that they think better addresses the inequality. But again, none of that is relevant to a suddenly cancelling the transition period previously agreed with zero notice.

The FACT is that Sydney has become a preferred destination for some AFL players, as can be highlighted by Buddy, Tippett and possibly now Griffen, You're correct in that there was a time several years ago when the COLA was required, Sydney was a struggling market, but that was then, stop living in the past when trying to form a current argument.
AFL is emerging in NSW, Buddy is creating interest, the Swans are an excellent outfit, not to mention the lifestyle and weather, the COLA is simply no longer required in its old format.

 

[bungwahl]

="liz, post: 35645287, member: 2694"]No

The Swans would simply say, we believe said player is worth $360k, and with the COLA it's $400K, what we can offer is a great and successful club.


The FACT is that Sydney has become a preferred destination for some AFL players, as can be highlighted by Buddy, Tippett and possibly now Griffen, You're correct in that there was a time several years ago when the COLA was required, Sydney was a struggling market, but that was then, stop living in the past when trying to form a current argument.
AFL is emerging in NSW, Buddy is creating interest, the Swans are an excellent outfit, not to mention the lifestyle and weather, the COLA is simply no longer required in its old format.

This thread is not about the merits of COLA. It's about the AFL's discriminatory action in unjustifiably blocking a franchise from using a fundamental tool of list building/changing, despite that club having not broken any rules.

 

[Tedeski]

The trade ban is to stop the swans using the 2 yrs to put a bunch of new players on extended contracts under cola (as they did with franklin)

Come on man.

Research before you post.

 

[mcgarnacle]

When will all folks - Swans and other club supporters - realise that there is no such thing as the requirement for an extra 10% on all player contracts. It's an expectation/assumption that all contracts are inflated by 10%.

In reality, the AFL have given SYD & GWS a TPP that is 10% more than the league amount. The clubs spend it as they see fit. It's the player agents who need to take into account the market value of their player, the value to the club, and impute an extra 10% on that in negotiations. There is no requirement for any of the clubs with an 'allowance' to tack on 10% to every contract.

All contracts have been rubber stamped by the AFL. None have been knocked back because they have all satisfied the AFL's requirements - that the club's remain below the TPP +10% limit every year. Going forward, the club will have to make sure they spend within their TPP limit.

It's not a simple matter of reducing every player's contract by 10%. The players still have to be paid their contracted amount. That's why there are always transitional arrangements with phasing this out. BL had a 3 year phase out, SYD were in a transitional process, and GWS and GC will have a phase out too.

That's why the AFL know that the Swans can't get underneath the TPP without the 'allowance' without shedding a shit load of players and breaking contracts. They have no choice but to opt for the ban. And that's what the AFL want to achieve. To take the Swans out of the market for negotiating with players wanting to play in Sydney so the Giants virtually have a play at them with no interference. They wanted Franklin to go to the Giants and are concerned that more players would opt for The Swans than accept an offer from the giants under the transitional arrangements.

It's not about the allowance at all. How folks are supporting such a direct manipulation of the recruitment system because it is involving a certain club they don't like is astounding. Pathetic logic.

AFL and transparency are mutually exclusive terms.