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

Remove this Banner Ad

mcgarnacle said:
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.
Click to expand...
The way you have described cola is at odds with how other swans supporters have described it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Foxx1 said:
So you know what Frawley is earning at the Hawks do you? Let us in mate seeing your privy to information no one else is or is this just more baseless speculation? Saw some numbers being bandied around big footy and took those as facts? Ouch!
Click to expand...


LOL!
I can say the same to you.
How do you know what our blokes are on.

We do know that Frawley was after a 7 year contract at one point & then 700k per year at another point.
All that from the same source you heard your stuff about the Swans salaries from. The media.

What would Frawley be on in your opinion since he left as a free agent?

Don't tell me you think it's less than 500k. You'd be deluded but we know that already hey?
Your club is paying him at least this amount & it might rub some noses out of joint.
It happens.
 
Leg End said:
Nothing can help a conversation with you.
You have minimal understanding of the core issues - and your aim us to score childish points.
Gets boring after 2 seconds.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you misunderstood my reasoning regarding Eddie McGuire being a spokesperson regarding AFL issues but, even though you believe I'm not worth conversing with, you don't bother to add to the conversation yourself but expanding on what you think the core issues are. I think Eddie has been at the heart of what the core issues are. The AFL gave you a leg up, you no longer need that leg up due to being successful, COLA was introduced to assist with hanging onto players but now you guys are seen as a destination club. Case in point, Tippett and Franklin both chose to come and be Swans.

Eddie stands up to the AFL because he can, because he knows he won't get blow back his way. Other presidents, due to relying on the AFL for one reason or another don't feel 'brave' enough to speak out.

As for the trading ban, there's really not much to add. The main stream media aren't talking about it too much and without trying to sound rude, it's like it's a non issue to non Swans supporters.
 
Tedeski said:
LOL!
I can say the same to you.
How do you know what our blokes are on.

We do know that Frawley was after a 7 year contract at one point & then 700k per year at another point.
All that from the same source you heard your stuff about the Swans salaries from. The media.

What would Frawley be on in your opinion since he left as a free agent?

Don't tell me you think it's less than 500k. You'd be deluded but we know that already hey?
Your club is paying him at least this amount & it might rub some noses out of joint.
It happens.
Click to expand...
I never spouted off about what your blokes "we're on". The media have an agenda and you really should be aware of that.

Frawley didn't get the contract he supposedly wanted as far as length was concerned so I highly doubt he got the $$$ that the media had been speculating about either. I can't categorically say an amount because I'm not in the game of making shit up. You even just said if was initially 7 years he wanted and he only got 4, Hawthorn don't play those games mate they have way to much class and integrity.

The only nose out of joint was Laim Sheils, the effect of an errant elbow in the port prelim. He had it fixed on the Wednesday after Hawthorn won the flag by 11 goals but thanks for asking.

Save your insults for someone who cares pal cause calling me deluded when you start your retort with LOL is down right embarrassing. Not to mention the fact that your just making up bullshit to suit your argument. Next please.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Got side tracked by arguing about Frawley's contract... another thread no doubt.

Just wanted to add I think this AFL will cave now that the players association are involved, citing younger players with the inability to move to get game time with another club. The AFL won't reverse the ruling they will just add in 10 or so sub clauses that basically relax the ruling to not signing marquee players on big dollar deals o_O hang tight, i'd say by end of week.
 
ScoobySnacks said:
This.
Click to expand...

You Victorians just smugly ignore how hard it us to establish a successful AFL team in completely hostile territory. You all laugh about how Sydney fans still don't know the rules. The competition against all major codes is massive for fans, sponsorship, exposure etc then the AFL puts another team in the region which couldn't have happened except for all the work the Swans did for 30 years. but you all conveniently ignore this and focus on your moronic "AFL pet" agenda - just downright dumb, VFL-centric propaganda which also conveniently distracts from the fact that so many Melbourne clubs are run incompetently despite their massive natural advantages.

To say the AFL gave us "leg ups" is so wring, so dishonest in the context of developing footy in NSW us deliberate distortion of the facts. So why do Victorian supporters keep doing it?
 
Leg End said:
You Victorians just smugly ignore how hard it us to establish a successful AFL team in completely hostile territory. You all laugh about how Sydney fans still don't know the rules. The competition against all major codes is massive for fans, sponsorship, exposure etc then the AFL puts another team in the region which couldn't have happened except for all the work the Swans did for 30 years. but you all conveniently ignore this and focus on your moronic "AFL pet" agenda - just downright dumb, VFL-centric propaganda which also conveniently distracts from the fact that so many Melbourne clubs are run incompetently despite their massive natural advantages.

To say the AFL gave us "leg ups" is so wring, so dishonest in the context of developing footy in NSW us deliberate distortion of the facts. So why do Victorian supporters keep doing it?
Click to expand...

Maybe because it's true. The Sydney market is a key component of the AFL's TV rights and a reason as to why there's so much money around today for the players. It's a double edged sword though, more money means that the incompetently run clubs get bailed out and remain to putter along but it also means attracting fans in these 'hostile' territory markets at nearly any cost and when clubs exist in the business of winning a club that has an 'easier' path to winning then unbalances things for the rest.

I believe that the AFL can and will attract fans via putting a good product on the field week in week out. When people see a sport where every team has a chance to win each week that is the thing to attract them to emotionally in it. The amount of money or infrastructure a team has behind the scenes is irrelevant to fans when they know their team 'might just win this week'.

I've tried typing this without referencing the NFL but it happens to be the biggest sport in the US with plenty of money floating around and there's the haves and the have nots but every fan watches their team with the belief in 'any given Sunday' due to rules etc. to balance out the teams on the field.
 
Crankyhawk said:
The way you have described cola is at odds with how other swans supporters have described it.
Click to expand...

No one really knows how the TPP is administered because the AFL lack any transparency, as is the case with all their decisions. So many theories floating around and opinions about how it works.

The shit thing is that opposition supporters consistently attack the club in these forums. It is an AFL initiative, and all contracts are registered by the AFL, so it's use has satisfied the Leagues requirements. Why isn't it the AFL that cop the shit?

I'm happy that it's going. Pissed off about the abrupt process, timing and the ultimatum put to the club to take it away though. There were transition arrangements in place for 2015 - $800k allowance; and 2016 - $600k allowance; to phase it by 2017 which the League, the Swans, and every club agreed to.

This sudden ultimatum is the AFL attempting to boost the development of GWS. They're behind the timeline that has been set and it's a concern for them. Damaging the Swans to fast track this by prohibiting them from negotiating with any players wanting to come up here is abhorrent. Can't believe any football supporter would approve of such a thing and the AFL process of trying to achieving it.
 
mcgarnacle said:
This sudden ultimatum is the AFL attempting to boost the development of GWS. They're behind the timeline that has been set and it's a concern for them. Damaging the Swans to fast track this by prohibiting them from negotiating with any players wanting to come up here is abhorrent. Can't believe any football supporter would approve of such a thing and the AFL process of trying to achieving it.
Click to expand...

You're more than likely right due to GWS being allowed to keep there's. What can your club do to have this overturned?
 
Ashman23 said:
You're more than likely right due to GWS being allowed to keep there's. What can your club do to have this overturned?
Click to expand...

Well 2014 is gone honestly not much we can do except keep having talks with the commission in hope they overturn the ban for 2015.

I think with the AFLPA coming out so strongly it helps us out no doubt.

AFL silence however is worrying...
 
Foxx1 said:
I never spouted off about what your blokes "we're on". The media have an agenda and you really should be aware of that.

Frawley didn't get the contract he supposedly wanted as far as length was concerned so I highly doubt he got the $$$ that the media had been speculating about either. I can't categorically say an amount because I'm not in the game of making shit up. You even just said if was initially 7 years he wanted and he only got 4, Hawthorn don't play those games mate they have way to much class and integrity.

The only nose out of joint was Laim Sheils, the effect of an errant elbow in the port prelim. He had it fixed on the Wednesday after Hawthorn won the flag by 11 goals but thanks for asking.

Save your insults for someone who cares pal cause calling me deluded when you start your retort with LOL is down right embarrassing. Not to mention the fact that your just making up bullshit to suit your argument. Next please.
Click to expand...

Proof that some of you are a self righteous lot. Happy to make assumptions about my club for 2 years since you lost the unloseable GF in 2012 (am I doing it right..................you know........mention how we beat you to make my argument stronger).

Frawley would be on at least 500K per year. He was asking 700K. That's my assumption which is closer to fact than your assumption that he is playing for the love of the Hawthorn Football Club. He was also asking for a 7 year contract so my assumption is that he is on a 5 year contract.
This would be based on my assumption that Melbourne would have had a contract offer on the table close to 500K per year.

He will ruin your culture.
 
Any maher in SEN was verbalising dissatisfaction with AFL not explaining the why of this decision (around 845 am)

Nek minute SEN goes off air for about 2 minutes. Static only ....
 
Leg End said:
To say the AFL gave us "leg ups" is so wring, so dishonest in the context of developing footy in NSW us deliberate distortion of the facts. So why do Victorian supporters keep doing it?
Click to expand...
Ignorance, plus considerable disinterest in the growth/development of the game outside their own patch.
 
Last edited:
Ashman23 said:
You're more than likely right due to GWS being allowed to keep there's. What can your club do to have this overturned?
Click to expand...

Any credibility GWS could have had disappeared when they signed Folau on ridiculous money.

The first major signing for them should have been an elite AFL player - like Ablett to GC. They had free rein to negotiate and sign up 16 uncontracted players over their initial two years. Instead, the club became a gimmick from the outset when they signed a bloke on a big salary to learn the game in a development league. Credibility was shot right there and no established star was going to move up here to play second fiddle to a rookie in both face of the club, and more importantly, salary.

GWS have to keep their allowance because it still hasn't been able to attract any decent player of note. They are currently what the Swans once were. They need to pay overs to get them there. The Swans are are currently the club of choice for players wanting to move to Sydney.

And that's the issue for the AFL.

Take the Swans allowance away. It was already happening within the constraints of honouring current contracts. But don't ban the club from the freedom of being able to manage its list effectively. Not one contract has been knocked back, not one announcement has been made about a breach of rules. It's a restriction on what basis?

The AFL are concerned that the phasing out wasn't going to limit the Swans ability in the short term to sufficiently prevent them from negotiating with players who want to come up to Sydney. Particularly with the Swans clearing some space with Malceski and the talk of Shaw leaving as well.

GWS are floundering. Swans have the marquee players and are a winning team that takes up column inches which is free publicity of substance provided by the local media, not based on a gimmick such as Folau. The Giants are fading already in Western Sydney. The Wanderers are the team of the region. The Giants have practically abandoned Western Sydney basing themselves on the most eastern fringes of the region overlapping existing AFL areas of the metropolitan such as Concord & Drummoyne, which already existed for a while. The decent youngsters at GWS see the club as an opportunity to quickly advertise their ability to potential suitors prior to moving back home. The approach to load the club with so many youngsters and little to no established players in the 23-27 age bracket in their start up was a massive error.

So now they AFL need to ensure that guys looking to move up here end up GWS immediately.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Similar threads

The_Wookie
North in $6m deal to sell WA 2 games a year over 3 seasons
Replies
19
Views
651
Cunnington Cartel
Cunnington Cartel
The_Wookie
Roy Morgan 2024 - Lions and Swans both over 1m supporters
Replies
13
Views
781
Toump Ass
Toump Ass
G
AFL(S): Footy All Year Around, 2nd Tier Leg Up & Expansion
Replies
8
Views
402
Walshawk
Walshawk
The_Wookie
Pridham: it’s inevitable that the Sydney Swans will be the biggest sporting club in Australia
Replies
5
Views
2K
Walshawk
Walshawk
Aristotle Pickett
Victorian AFL clubs raked in $40m from poker machines last financial year
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
4K
Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods
Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods
The_Wookie
Roy Morgan 2023: Swans still number one with 1.334m supporters, Port best at converting to members
Replies
21
Views
2K
Grand Uncle Horace
Grand Uncle Horace
P
Chris Toce Go fUnd Me page for his family
Replies
0
Views
194
panatha1908
P

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top