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

[blue harvest]

It couldn't be exploited without the knowledge and assistance of the player managers.

The cost of living difference today is 15.76%.

The cost of living allowance is, or was 9.8%.

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


So by your definition, the COLA is marginal at best. Got anything else, genius?

wtf? off topic again

All this has been covered in other threads in detail, you are being disingenuous by just cherry picking the bits that support your argument. Please read those threads before embarrassing yourself further.

These figures don't take into account the players spending habits. If they buy a house then they have no rent to pay so there is no meaningful difference in cost of living. Yes the house might cost more, but they keep that value, it's not lost money - in fact due to the effect of compounding returns, when they one day sell that place they are even further ahead. Also it doesn't take into account why rent is higher. Maybe because it is nice warm weather and 10 minutes from a great surf beach. Well in Melbourne you could pay double the rent and you're still an hour and a half from a great surf beach and the water's 5 degrees colder. With the higher rent comes other advantages such as this - but you don't see that in your cherry picked stats. Also players who earn 400K don't spend all of their money on living expenses, they save and invest a lot of it, so increased cost of living is meaningless for people who earn above average wage - that is the concept behind the AFL's new system.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

What I don't understand is all year Sydney supporters have been telling us that their contracts were like anyone elses and the COLA was added later but if that's true then why would Sydney need to pay all the contracts (including COLA) if COLA was taken away? Wouldn't the AFL just stop paying the COLA?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

wtf? off topic again

All this has been covered in other threads in detail, you are being disingenuous by just cherry picking the bits that support your argument. Please read those threads before embarrassing yourself further.

These figures don't take into account the players spending habits. If they buy a house then they have no rent to pay so there is no meaningful difference in cost of living. Yes the house might cost more, but they keep that value, it's not lost money - in fact due to the effect of compounding returns, when they one day sell that place they are even further ahead. Also it doesn't take into account why rent is higher. Maybe because it is nice warm weather and 10 minutes from a great surf beach. Well in Melbourne you could pay double the rent and you're still an hour and a half from a great surf beach and the water's 5 degrees colder. With the higher rent comes other advantages such as this - but you don't see that in your cherry picked stats. Also players who earn 400K don't spend all of their money on living expenses, they save and invest a lot of it, so increased cost of living is meaningless for people who earn above average wage - that is the concept behind the AFL's new system.

I was rebutting your idiot Hawthorn colleague who said the cost of living difference was marginal. You will note I have also said, repeatedly, that I believe it is a less relevant measure now than it used to be when contracts were smaller.

 

[bungwahl]

What I don't understand is all year Sydney supporters have been telling us that their contracts were like anyone elses and the COLA was added later but if that's true then why would Sydney need to pay all the contracts (including COLA) if COLA was taken away? Wouldn't the AFL just stop paying the COLA?

COLA is paid on top of the base salary and is included in the player's remuneration clause of their contract. The Swans are therefore legally obliged to pay it. If it was as simple as just turning it off there would have been no need for the two year phase out.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

What I don't understand is all year Sydney supporters have been telling us that their contracts were like anyone elses and the COLA was added later but if that's true then why would Sydney need to pay all the contracts (including COLA) if COLA was taken away? Wouldn't the AFL just stop paying the COLA?

Because it forms part of the contract and I am getting dizzy.

 

[Dragz]

I'd assume that as the AFL wanted COLA gone this year, but Sydney asked them to allow if for another 2 due to existing Contracts, that the AFL got wind that Sydney were looking at offering <Player X> a big deal to get him. They've come out saying sure, you can do that, and we pull COLA out from under you now. You've obviously got more money to spend on another player, so you don't need the COLA. Your Choice.

That's my take anyway

 

[Number37]

Make no mistake, this is the Victorian clubs looking after themselves. The Victorian clubs cannot rise up to the level of clubs like Sydney so they have to bring clubs like Sydney down down in order to be competitive.

 

[Off The Couch]

I'd assume that as the AFL wanted COLA gone this year, but Sydney asked them to allow if for another 2 due to existing Contracts, that the AFL got wind that Sydney were looking at offering <Player X> a big deal to get him. They've come out saying sure, you can do that, and we pull COLA out from under you now. You've obviously got more money to spend on another player, so you don't need the COLA. Your Choice.

That's my take anyway

Then you would be wrong

 

[Off The Couch]

Make no mistake, this is the Victorian clubs looking after themselves. The Victorian clubs cannot rise up to the level of clubs like Sydney so they have to bring clubs like Sydney down down in order to be competitive.

By the authority vested in Sydney Supporters - trolling Is not allowed in this thread

 

[blue harvest]

Because it forms part of the contract and I am getting dizzy.

You're not reading people's posts properly before responding.
We know it is included in the contract, so you don't need to keep repeating it.
People are asking genuine questions and you just keep responding with your generic list of responses.

That poster was asking why earlier in the year were Swans posters saying COLA is completely separate, nothing to do with the Swans or their contracts, we just sign the player up like everyone else and then the AFL looks after the 9.8% separately, nothing to do with us at all. But now Swans posters are saying yes it is in all our player contracts so it is a nightmare for us to get rid of it immediately. That's what he was getting at, the fact the story has changed during the year.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Make no mistake, this is the Victorian clubs looking after themselves. The Victorian clubs cannot rise up to the level of clubs like Sydney so they have to bring clubs like Sydney down down in order to be competitive.

Hawthorn certainly brought Sydney down in the Grand Final. I wonder what it will take to make Sydney competitive?

 

[Number37]

By the authority vested in Sydney Supporters - trolling Is not allowed in this thread

I shouldn't argue with an expert...however...equalisation committee made up of Vic clubs decides that (for following the rules) Sydney needs to be punished more harshly than Vic clubs who cheated.

Q.E.D

 

[Number37]

Hawthorn certainly brought Sydney down in the Grand Final. I wonder what it will take to make Sydney competitive?

If only Hawks fans would stop crying about 2012 and Buddy then your story would be more believable.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You're not reading people's posts properly before responding.
We know it is included in the contract, so you don't need to keep repeating it.
People are asking genuine questions and you just keep responding with your generic list of responses.

That poster was asking why earlier in the year were Swans posters saying COLA is completely separate, nothing to do with the Swans or their contracts, we just sign the player up like everyone else and then the AFL looks after the 9.8% separately, nothing to do with us at all. But now Swans posters are saying yes it is in all our player contracts so it is a nightmare for us to get rid of it immediately. That's what he was getting at, the fact the story has changed during the year.

The payment is separate, but it is still in the contract. The AFL is a third party to the contract. This is why it is so stupid, and the crap that Ralphy wrote is so transparently false. The AFL can't do what it is that they threaten to do. They can't scrap COLA, or require its scrapping, immediately. They're daring the Swans to take them to court. The Swans don't want to because we're at the top of our game and don't want this shit. It's a temporary measure to stop us trumping any GWS trades and will be lifted "generously" by the AFL in a few months time. Only to be reimposed when it's found we have $2 million space in the cap next year and go to sign the next gun that becomes available.

 

[bungwahl]

You're not reading people's posts properly before responding.
We know it is included in the contract, so you don't need to keep repeating it.
People are asking genuine questions and you just keep responding with your generic list of responses.

That poster was asking why earlier in the year were Swans posters saying COLA is completely separate, nothing to do with the Swans or their contracts, we just sign the player up like everyone else and then the AFL looks after the 9.8% separately, nothing to do with us at all. But now Swans posters are saying yes it is in all our player contracts so it is a nightmare for us to get rid of it immediately. That's what he was getting at, the fact the story has changed during the year.

I think you may want to heed your own advice and read a little more carefully?

The poster you were referring to asked "why would Sydney need to pay all the contracts (including COLA) if COLA was taken away? Wouldn't the AFL just stop paying the COLA?". The comment about Swans posters views on COLA contracts was just the preamble to the question.

 

[Number37]

You're not reading people's posts properly before responding.
We know it is included in the contract, so you don't need to keep repeating it.
People are asking genuine questions and you just keep responding with your generic list of responses.

That poster was asking why earlier in the year were Swans posters saying COLA is completely separate, nothing to do with the Swans or their contracts, we just sign the player up like everyone else and then the AFL looks after the 9.8% separately, nothing to do with us at all. But now Swans posters are saying yes it is in all our player contracts so it is a nightmare for us to get rid of it immediately. That's what he was getting at, the fact the story has changed during the year.

If you have genuine questions, HTF do you expect Swans fans to answer? Go and ask the AFL!
Like all the other Hawks trolls you expect Swans fans to answer with the benefit of knowledge neither you nor they have.
Then you want claim that you are right based on your trumped up version of the 'facts'.

The simple fact which we have been told is that EVERY PLAYER GETS COLA.
You are no position to state categorically that COLA is used (abused) in XYZ manner, because you simply do not know.
Swans fans are simply arguing on the available facts. You Hawks fans want to make up your own facts and expect Swans fans to rebut your nonsense when in reality it doesn't matter what we Swans fans say. If we say white, you will say Blue. Boring, tedious.

 

[MagpieJo]

You mean the Eddie that signed off on the COLA, and publicly supported it until a few weeks after Sydney defeated Collingwood in the prelim? Or the player retention allowance Eddie had no issue with until a few weeks after Brisbane defeated Collingwood in a Grand Final?

I'll give Eddie one thing... He's a lot more transparent than the AFL will ever be.

Yeah well it's tough when you play by one set of rules, and the team beating you plays by another that allows them to literally buy a couple of extra super stars, but you keep believin in your superiority.

 

[ScoobySnacks]

Make no mistake, this is the Victorian clubs looking after themselves. The Victorian clubs cannot rise up to the level of clubs like Sydney so they have to bring clubs like Sydney down down in order to be competitive.

Righto m8

 

[MagpieJo]

I think Sydney did the AFL a favour by getting Buddy. The buzz he brought to the Swans and Sydney media this year was awesome, and a large part of that comes with playing in a winning side. If he was play in a lowly ranked side that buzz would definitely have been diminished.

OMFG! But your right, the AWFUL. Don't care about teams having ridiculous advantages, as long as it SELLS

 

[Off The Couch]

I shouldn't argue with an expert...however...equalisation committee made up of Vic clubs decides that (for following the rules) Sydney needs to be punished more harshly than Vic clubs who cheated.

Q.E.D

Okaaaaay - do you have your tin foil hat on

 

[MagpieJo]

Okaaaaay - do you have your tin foil hat on

Seriously, You really just have to laugh don't you at the statements!

 

[bungwahl]

OMFG! But your right, the AWFUL. Don't care about teams having ridiculous advantages, as long as it SELLS

Yeah - I meant in terms of whether it was Sydney or GWS getting Buddy. Not an evaluation of COLA being involved.

 

[Number37]

Okaaaaay - do you have your tin foil hat on

Yeah it is a figment of my imagination Eddie and Newbold and Gordon haven't said a bad word about Sydney at all.

 

[blue harvest]

I think you may want to heed your own advice and read a little more carefully?

The poster you were referring to asked "why would Sydney need to pay all the contracts (including COLA) if COLA was taken away? Wouldn't the AFL just stop paying the COLA?". The comment about Swans posters views on COLA contracts was just the preamble to the question.

No, you need to take some comprehension lessons.
By making that statement he was implying that Swans posters have changed their story.
Earlier in the year you lot were saying COLA was completely separate, nothing to do with us. That poster was saying well if that is the case then Sydney don't need to worry if the COLA is gone, it was nothing to do with them so they wouldn't have to pay it, it would be the AFL's problem. You see that bit where he says 'what I don't understand' - well that is a form of sarcasm, he knows how it works but was using this statement to point out that you have all changed your story.

 

[worthy]

You have no clue about the academy.

Enlighten me, that is part of the reason I read BF. Learning who to listen to comes with experience.