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

[Alsmypal]

We are being punished for following the AFL's CoLA rules to the letter of the law. (Agreed to by your club, BTW, so anyone disagreeing with CoLA is saying their club's management is not really up to the task of running their club.) Twist it how you want to suit your ill-suppressed prejudices.

Effectively your saying the sanctions imposed are unfair. How is that any different to those saying COLA is unfair those clubs have all been sanctioned since your team starting using it as rort.

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

Mal
O'Keefe
LRT
Tom Walsh
3 others delisted

There's at least 800k there...

Franklin on $700k this year which is $400k below his average. He is gonna soak up any extra cap space like a big spunk bomb

 

[Suma Magic]

Don't see how anyone can support this change.

 

[Alsmypal]

Roundabout argument.

What should the swans have done here? They had to apply 9.8%, that's the rules.

They did.

The afl removed it saying phase out over 3 years.

They did.

Now 4 days into trade week they've been suspended from trading.

Do you see this as reasonable?

You were deffinitely up to no good. Lets wait and see whether your club was trying to trade in someone you shouldn't have dared been trying to.

 

[Eshay187]

That statement tells me right there that the AFL didn't like what you were about to do.
Blatantly obvious that it was another attempt at rorting the system.

What's obvious? Where is one shred of evidence to back that up?

Swans have not done anything they weren't told to by the afl.

 

[Foreign Legion]

But several posters have said you exploited it, which makes the AFL's actions today make perfect sense.

Ok thats good enough for me. If posters have said it then no wonder we were punished today.

 

[J_Moore]

That's the funny thing about this situation. We're all cheering because the AFL has basically prevented Sydney from taking the piss and blocked their attempt to add Paddy Ryder to their already-bulging list.

Were the Swans going to sign Ryder?

 

[Eshay187]

You were deffinitely up to no good. Lets wait and see whether your club was trying to trade in someone you shouldn't have dared been trying to.

What does that even mean?

When the swans get rid of $1m worth of players they're only allowed to replace them with a bunch of ransoms and not big names?

 

[base615]

This argument doesn't negate my point. Sydney tried to spread the load and also offer an extraordinary deal.

The AFL took exception and then phased out cola, the swans hadn't planned for that .

We offered him a great deal, sure. But the fact that we had to give him a 9 year deal to get him suggests that there were other clubs able to offer comparable dollars per year which shows that CoLA wasn't a factor in being able to land him.

 

[clogged]

As others have pointed out, what player's manager is going to accept not getting CoLA when others are getting it? Are their managers idiots? No.

If you're not accusing the Swans of fraud, you're displaying a complete misunderstanding of how business negotiations proceed.

Huh? All that matters is the nominal figure the player receives for the duration of their contract.

 

[blue harvest]

The Cola debate has been had, the fact if the matter is te AFL sanctioned CoLa, Sydney abided by the COLA rules.

The afl removed it and the swans commenced phasing it out over 3 years. Now 8 months later 4 days into trade period we have had to suspend all trading out of nowhere.

A year of list management planning wasted.

They didn't abide by the rules, that's why it is now gone. This has been explained many times in this and other threads but continues to be ignored by Swans posters.

 

[HR Roughnstuf]

But you're missing the point that player X can be paid say $50k less than what he could get at another club because COLA would kick in paying him actually more than the other club. Then with all these savings the $wans go out and get Tippett and Franklin. How hard is that to follow?

Swans fans are either ignorant or liars.

Proof. When they offered Franklin his contract Hawks inquired about whether they would have to match the full contract or less 9.8%.

Do you know the answer to that?

 

[PayFL]

Please
End
Player
Signings
Immediately

Million $
Allowance
Xcessive

 

[ScottMaginness]

Not true. The CoLA agreement mandated that each player on our list receives 9.8% on top. We don't get a choice in how to allocate it.

But you do get a choice as to how you structure and divide up the component of player payments which are paid out of the Swans salary cap...

I keep reading views by Sydney fans intimating that Swans players are paid just the same as they would be if they were at a non-COLA club but that they have a 9.8% loading on top. I doubt this the case. Why ? Because any football department worth their salt would be trying to leverage the availability of COLA to their advantage.

Here is how I suspect it might play out in part. (I'm going to round up COLA to 10% for simplicity).

I read earlier this year that about 30% of AFL players are on over 300k a year.
(The average was about $270k)
So let's take the example of one such average player who expects to be paid 300k.
He is offered a contract by Sydney. Does he insist on being paid 330k because he has to live in Sydney?
What about say 308k? That sounds reasonable.

So the Swans pay 280k out of their salary cap and another 28k comes from COLA.
The player doesn't care about the breakdown as long as he gets his 308k.
The Swans have only lost 280k out of their salary cap for a player non-COLA clubs would be losing 300k for. So that is 20k the Swans can stick into their 'Let's get Buddy Mk II kitty'.

If you can structure a deal such as the one above for another 9 players on the list , then that is 10x20k or 200k you can set aside.

Now we come to the end of the season. Judas II is a restricted free agent. His non-COLA club offers him 700k to sign on. But wait, here come the Swans who can trump that by 200k using their war chest. Can we add 9.8% COLA to that as well ?

 

[Alsmypal]

What's obvious? Where is one shred of evidence to back that up?

Swans have not done anything they weren't told to by the afl.

Fact 4 days into Trade Period AFL steps in.
You're own quote.
Why would they do that hmmmm?

 

[Andrew Mc]

Well your post was shot through with disproved crap that would only pass muster on BF.

Must be hard following one of the most successful clubs in the comp and still not be able to enjoy your success without still having to find conspiracy theories under every rock.

It's ok. I guess when the majority of their flags were won with mandated concessions in the form of favourable zones, they need something to shift the focus.

 

[base615]

They didn't abide by the rules, that's why it is now gone. This has been explained many times in this and other threads but continues to be ignored by Swans posters.

How did we not abide by the rules exactly? All players on our list received 9.8% on top of their agreed contracts. That's the rule. There was no rule that each underlying contract had to be of a certain value, just that a 9.8% loading was applied to it.

 

[ScoobySnacks]

We offered him a great deal, sure. But the fact that we had to give him a 9 year deal to get him suggests that there were other clubs able to offer comparable dollars per year which shows that CoLA wasn't a factor in being able to land him.

The two clubs in contention were the only two with COLA

 

[Play by Numbers]

As others have pointed out, what player's manager is going to accept not getting CoLA when others are getting it? Are their managers idiots? No.

If you're not accusing the Swans of fraud, you're displaying a complete misunderstanding of how business negotiations proceed.

It isn't fraud. Not even close.

Players negotiate pay cuts all the time, to stay in successful teams. Likewise, all players still get cola. Ultimately, they would still be getting above market and the managers or firms possibly maximise revenue, given the greater revenue potential playing in a successful team and having marketable superstars located in that city offers .

This ignores that there is other ways to supplement player income .

 

[base615]

But you do get a choice as to how you structure and divide up the component of player payments which are paid out of the Swans salary cap...

I keep reading views by Sydney fans intimating that Swans players are paid just the same as they would be if they were at a non-COLA club but that they have a 9.8% loading on top. I doubt this the case. Why ? Because any football department worth their salt would be trying to leverage the availability of COLA to their advantage.

Here is how I suspect it might play out in part. (I'm going to round up COLA to 10% for simplicity).

I read earlier this year that about 30% of AFL players are on over 300k a year.
(The average was about $270k)
So let's take the example of one such average player who expects to be paid 300k.
He is offered a contract by Sydney. Does he insist on being paid 330k because he has to live in Sydney?
What about say 308k? That sounds reasonable.

So the Swans pay 280k out of their salary cap and another 28k comes from COLA.
The player doesn't care about the breakdown as long as he gets his 308k.
The Swans have only lost 280k out of their salary cap for a player non-COLA clubs would be losing 300k for. So that is 20k the Swans can stick into their 'Let's get Buddy Mk II kitty'.

If you can structure a deal such as the one above for another 9 players on the list , then that is 10x20k or 200k you can set aside.

Now we come to the end of the season. Judas II is a restricted free agent. His non-COLA club offers him 700k to sign on. But wait, here come the Swans who can trump that by 200k using their war chest. Can we add 9.8% COLA to that as well ?

You're forgetting that there are rules that you must pay 95% of the salary cap. How could we sign all these low contracts over time, progressively saving up more and more dollars to then splurge on Buddy and Tippett and still stay within that 95%?

Have you seen the list of players we lost over the last 2 years?

 

[Eshay187]

Fact 4 days into Trade Period AFL steps in.
You're own quote.
Why would they do that hmmmm?

Because they're a rabble.

 

[Syd]

That means you shouldn't be able to bring in players too far above base wages, otherwise the money that has been freed up isn't being used to convert COLA payments (in current contracts) into standard payments.

No, it means an instant\overnight decrease of 109.8% of our TPP based on the whim of AFL house

Or shedding 9.8% of our playing list (by contracts) PLUS the incoming salary

Basic maths

 

[Foreign Legion]

How did we not abide by the rules exactly? All players on our list received 9.8% on top of their agreed contracts. That's the rule. There was no rule that each underlying contract had to be of a certain value, just that a 9.8% loading was applied to it.

Don't you understand?

This has been explained many times in threads I can't link or post evidence for but its true I swear. The AFL just cheated last year and allowed the Swans to break the rules!

 

[Eshay187]

They didn't abide by the rules, that's why it is now gone. This has been explained many times in this and other threads but continues to be ignored by Swans posters.

When has an official source said they haven't abided by the rules?

And you think the AFL have handled this well? They were already removing it.

 

[base615]

The two clubs in contention were the only two with COLA

I could be wrong but I believe the rules would have allowed for Hawthorn to match our offer but they chose not to. I'm happy to stand corrected on this point though.