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

[Olian]

No

So not OK for hawthorn to use cap space then? Obviously we weren't paying buddy anything and we're so lucky you took him off our hands. How would our salary cap have coped?

No go for it but the Swans should be allowed to trade within the rules and not have rules made up on the run by the commission / equalisation committee that prohibits them trading.

We haven't breached the salary cap like Adelaide or brought the game into disrepute like the Bombers.

 

[QuietB]

From what I've read your knowledge is based on the fact that you (incorrectly) believe that the 6 players in the grand final who spent varying amounts of time in NSW growing up would have been picked up into the academy system instead of the draft, despite two of them not being eligible, and one of them playing NSW country league ammos.

I'd also guess you've spun this out into believing there'll be a bottomless well of talent coming through from this point on that will gift the 4 clubs premierships.

There will be in GWS's zones. Theirs is a joke and a shitfight just waiting to happen.

 

[Kummerspeck]

There will be in GWS's zones. Theirs is a joke and a shitfight just waiting to happen.

I haven't been following theirs too closely. Can I get a rundown of their 16s group?

 

[QuietB]

I haven't been following theirs too closely. Can I get a rundown of their 16s group?

No idea, I just saw on the map that they basically have everything north of the Murray River until Sydney. That is a gold mine

 

[worthy]

From what I've read your knowledge is based on the fact that you (incorrectly) believe that the 6 players in the grand final who spent varying amounts of time in NSW growing up would have been picked up into the academy system instead of the draft, despite two of them not being eligible, and one of them playing NSW country league ammos.

I'd also guess you've spun this out into believing there'll be a bottomless well of talent coming through from this point on that will gift the 4 clubs premierships.

Thankyou, if I can recall that, we asked you why two of them were ineligible, you didn't respond. That was just an example BTW, happy to be corrected.

Now, going forward, the academy is gaining momentum and recognition as players go through it and succeed, the academy will rightly begin to recognize junior talent and guide them into the academy, which would be great for footy in NSW, and whilst it's up against it, it has the potential to produce some great young talent, because there has been some great young talent come out of NSW.

So, my understanding of it is:
It hasn't done a lot, but it is starting to produce some talent now.
NSW teams get to pick that young talent through a bidding system based on the FS system, they also get to have FS.
Sydney put a lot of money into the academy, which I believe is a disgrace by the AFL, so they do feel entitled to it.
It's a bit like COLA, in the sense that, when it was brought in the Swans genuinely needed it, they built there club to a point where they no longer need it, Sydney also became a preferred destination, at what point do the other clubs say, hang on, this academy thing has really taken off, you guys are getting some great young talent out of it whilst paying very little, we have to do something because the advantage is too great.

 

[Olian]

Surely it helps the Swans if the Vic clubs raid the giants though?

Helps the argument for local academies. If you can remove go home factor and stop the leakage. Boyd has gone "home" although to a club without a coach or captain ($$$$ helped him move back).

 

[Kummerspeck]

Thankyou, if I can recall that, we asked you why two of them were ineligible, you didn't respond. That was just an example BTW, happy to be corrected.

Another poster got in before me, but they were highlighted in this very thread.

It's a bit like COLA, in the sense that, when it was brought in the Swans genuinely needed it, they built there club to a point where they no longer need it,

Uh... What? I bet you couldn't tell me off the top of your head when the academy started because this is just bizarre. Do you think the academy system was brought in because the Swans genuinely needed it? What are the other three northern academies? A smokescreen?

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

No idea, I just saw on the map that they basically have everything north of the Murray River until Sydney. That is a gold mine

Riverina is the gold mine but yer they pretty much have the cream of the crop.

 

[blue harvest]

Sorry mate but you're out of your depth here and you've been deliberately taking this thread in circles for days now. Every time someone informs or corrects you, you take the thread off on another tangent.

Go back and read my posts dude, seriously, take the time to actually read them. I've been making valid points on all of this, I haven't been trolling. I know how it works, I haven't needed to be corrected or informed. You guys are immediately dismissing anything that doesn't match your agenda, and keep trotting out the same stuff rather than actually trying to understand our posts, this is the reason it is going in circles.

 

[Number37]

Go back and read my posts dude, seriously, take the time to actually read them. I've been making valid points on all of this, I haven't been trolling. I know how it works, I haven't needed to be corrected or informed. You guys are immediately dismissing anything that doesn't match your agenda, and keep trotting out the same stuff rather than actually trying to understand our posts, this is the reason it is going in circles.

I, like many Swans fans, will believe our club over trolls like yourself simply because NOBODY can adduce evidence to the contrary.
Swans fans have always argued that COLA was and is being used within the parameters set by the AFL. What those parameters are nobody knows... besides those that should.

You are NOT privvy to the contracts of Swans players.
You don't know the actual parameters for the use of COLA.
Like Eddie, John Ralph and all the other Hawks/Pies/Crows trolls you are simply making it up as you go along.
The evidence suggests that COLA (or allowances like it) only become a problem when Victorian clubs start whinging about being perennial losers.
This is the important bit so read carefully, each and every Victorian club knows exactly what COLA is, and what the rules for its use are. Each and every one of them agreed to those rules. Like a 10 year old kid, they want to take their bat and ball and go home when they don't get to win.

Edit: Ironically we are still using COLA within the parameters set out by the AFL, despite that meaning we can't participate properly in trade week.

 

[Off The Couch]

Yep, because just like that, out of the blue, for no other reason, even though the Afl has had another crap year and have all the crap in the world about to hit the fan with the bombers players being issued show cause noticed, they've gone:

"You know what, today seems like a really good day to **** the swans because Eddie and Newbold have been busting our chops for months"


Does anyone truly believe that's what happened. I've said it before - I don't like how it went down but it didn't just happen for no reason - that truly is tin foil hat stuff if you think it's a one way street

 

[toomanysquibs]

Instead, all we hear is bitching about "unfair" practices from the supporters of incompetently run clubs. AFL love child? It was Colless, Kirk, Roos and crew that made this club great - in a way you Victorian idiots can't understand. How pathetic are you! And you same idiots will profess that they love AFL now being a national game.Fact is - the AFL has helped every club in one way or another far more than the Swans, but you are all too churlish and ignorant to understand or admit it. That's pathetic.

We can understand it, we just don't agree.

And yes, the whole point being made is that a successful Sydney franchise is so important to the AFL, that there were concessions made at every opportunity.

Which makes you bunch of one eyed turkeys even harder to fathom.

 

[toomanysquibs]

Sorry!
The only part of your post that I could read was the gross assumptions that you started off with.
I must have missed the last part of your post where you provided the proof.
Can you be so kind as to post that part again.

This Sydney obsession with framing an argument to suit a straw splitting agenda is tiresome to the point of the absurd. There are steaming piles of cow manure all over Australia that argue with more clarity and substance.

Do you truly think, the AFL has banned you guys from trading, just because they/we/every individual in the AFL comp is so blinded with jealousy that they can't accept what geniuses your recruiting staff are?

And to the idiots who seem to be unaware of it, there has been a big stink about COLA for a number of years now. It didn't just appear the moment Buddy Franklin inked his deal.

 

[toomanysquibs]

The rank bitter ignorance of your post is unquantifiable - but representative of the morons out there in VFL land

Glasshouses, stones, historical amnesia.

 

[clogged]

A binding contract is a binding contract.

Salaries on a yearly basis are adjusted within the terms of the contract every season. Clubs will find they have spare money in the salary cap and pay players more in a given year such that they will have spare money in future years under the salary cap.

That's why the COLA was given a two year sunset, so Sydney could front load everyone into those years and make it easy for them to come under the cap when it disappeared. Nothing to do with COLA being written into the contract, which is arrant nonsense.

 

[clogged]

Well it wouldn't much of a contract if it doesn't at least specifically reference it in the boilerplate.

We're all assuming these things are drafted by professionals. (Admittedly, with what I've seen from AFL admin with this bizarre move, I'm having my doubts.)

Why would COLA be referenced in a players contracts?

COLA exists such that Sydney can circumvent the AFLs salary cap rules. It is an agreement between Sydney and the AFL. Not the players and their employer.

 

[clogged]

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.

Where is your evidence of this?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

You are NOT privvy to the contracts of Swans players.
You don't know the actual parameters for the use of COLA.

Neither are you, so stop talking as if you are.

 

[worthy]

Another poster got in before me, but they were highlighted in this very thread.

Uh... What? I bet you couldn't tell me off the top of your head when the academy started because this is just bizarre. Do you think the academy system was brought in because the Swans genuinely needed it? What are the other three northern academies? A smokescreen?

Jeezus no, you twisted that.
What i'm saying is that the AFL didn't think it through, and that the academy could end up becoming a massive advantage for the Swans. Not atm while it's still building, but as AFL becomes more recognisable, Buddy and GWS along with Sydneys current strong position, the academy will begin to bear fruit.
When did the NSW scholarship program end ? Those young players that were recognised by all the clubs using that program will now most likely be filtering into the academy.

 

[worthy]

I, like many Swans fans, will believe our club over trolls like yourself simply because NOBODY can adduce evidence to the contrary.
Swans fans have always argued that COLA was and is being used within the parameters set by the AFL. What those parameters are nobody knows... besides those that should.

You are NOT privvy to the contracts of Swans players.
You don't know the actual parameters for the use of COLA.
Like Eddie, John Ralph and all the other Hawks/Pies/Crows trolls you are simply making it up as you go along.
The evidence suggests that COLA (or allowances like it) only become a problem when Victorian clubs start whinging about being perennial losers.
This is the important bit so read carefully, each and every Victorian club knows exactly what COLA is, and what the rules for its use are. Each and every one of them agreed to those rules. Like a 10 year old kid, they want to take their bat and ball and go home when they don't get to win.

Edit: Ironically we are still using COLA within the parameters set out by the AFL, despite that meaning we can't participate properly in trade week.

See, the bolded bit is the bit I don't understand, the AFL clubs agreed to it at a time when Sydney needed it, fine, no problem with that, when it became obvious that Sydney no longer needed it in the format it was in (strong club, Sydney a preferred destination), those same clubs that agreed to it now believe it's no longer required, fine, fair enough, but no, apparently it's an absolute disgrace, Eddie is a fat f*** blah blah blah, it's not fair.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

See, the bolded bit is the bit I don't understand, the AFL clubs agreed to it at a time when Sydney needed it, fine, no problem with that, when it became obvious that Sydney no longer needed it in the format it was in (strong club, Sydney a preferred destination), those same clubs that agreed to it now believe it's no longer required, fine, fair enough, but no, apparently it's an absolute disgrace, Eddie is a fat f*** blah blah blah, it's not fair.

Quite simple. Sydney supporters are like spoilt brats who spit the dummy when advantages given to them over other clubs are suddenly taken away. They think it's their God given right to receive these advantages. As I've said before, if you showed our model to sports overseas they'd laugh in our faces. Go back over the past 12 years. Only one club has made the finals 11 times, and that is Sydney. They've played 4 Grand Finals in that time and won 2 flags, and yet the AFL have considered they need assistance. Many other clubs would wish they were as "disadvantaged" as Sydney. The poor dears.

As for cost of living, what a load of crap. It costs more to buy a new car in Adelaide than Sydney, as well as utility charges such as electricity and water are higher than Sydney. These are real cost of living expenses. Where's the cost of living in Sydney? Because a martini may cost a little more? Footballers are paid handsome wages in comparison with other working people, anyone pulling in $300,000 and needing a cost of living allowance needs to pull their head in.

 

[Glenn_]

Another with NFI, how hard is it to comprehend that a agreement was already in place to phase the COLA out over Two years, and this was agreed to by the AFL.
Before you say why not suddenly end all COLA assistance in one fell swoop, I suggest you read up on contract law especially regarding renegotiation on multi year deals.

 

[bungwahl]

Where is your evidence of this?

This has been explained by both the AFL and the Swans previously. I'm sure you can research it to find quotes etc.

 

[bungwahl]

See, the bolded bit is the bit I don't understand, the AFL clubs agreed to it at a time when Sydney needed it, fine, no problem with that, when it became obvious that Sydney no longer needed it in the format it was in (strong club, Sydney a preferred destination), those same clubs that agreed to it now believe it's no longer required, fine, fair enough, but no, apparently it's an absolute disgrace, Eddie is a fat f*** blah blah blah, it's not fair.

That's a complete misunderstanding of what we're trying to discuss in this thread.

The removal of COLA is not the issue. Swans fans want it gone as badly as you do so that opposition supporters stop using it as an excuse to discredit the club.

The issue is the AFL's poor judgement in using a blanket trade ban to penalise a club that has not broken any rules. As has been pointed at many times in this thread, a trade ban is not an accounting silver bullet for TPP - it merely limits the Swans' options to reduce their TPP.

 

[ziad]

this still funny to read