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

[Alsmypal]

Because they're a rabble.

Good argument....Looks to me they've finally got their s*** together

 

[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.

 

[ScoobySnacks]

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.

Why did we have to match the 'salary' and the COLA component in the FA process to try and keep Bud? Surely we could have just matched the salary you were offering him, and not the extra 9.8% too.

Or maybe the system doesn't work as you say it does

 

[blue harvest]

The afl and every other club looked at that deal and it was totally legal.

How was it screwing with anything?

You can disagree with the COLA, but to say punishment is suitable in the form f restricted trade half way through trade week is ridiculous.

Swans have only followed the rules. They couldn't not apply the cola.

Most clubs were unhappy with the Buddy deal because the 10 mill was spread over an unrealistic time period.
The AFL couldn't stop it because they knew their argument wouldn't hold up in a court, Swans could just say we think he will play for 9 years and use Fletcher, Harvey etc as examples - but everyone knows it is a sham and you're being disingenuous if you claim otherwise.
As I have said, if you **** with the AFL they will **** you back and then some, the Hawks are all too familiar with this.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Do you see this as reasonable?

I don't, I am just explaining why I think the AFL did it.

Sydney have used a system as it was not intended. Or at least how it was intended, but in far too public a fashion.

If the AFL hates anything it is bad publicity. Given the reaction to the Buddy hiring, post Tippett, the media and fan fallout has been large .

My guess, Sydney were angling another big signing, or had decided to chase Griffen . To avoid the spectacular fallout , they have gone with the pre-emptive strike .

Is it right, no.

 

[Alsmypal]

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.

Match an offer with 9.8% less for every player on the list.

 

[Eshay187]

Good argument....Looks to me they've finally got their s*** together

Why did we have to match the 'salary' and the COLA component in the FA process to try and keep Bud? Surely we could have just matched the salary you were offering him, and not the extra 9.8% too.

Or maybe the system doesn't work as you say it does

You offered more money than the swans per year including cola. He just wasn't happy at Hawthorne. He said it himself.

 

[base615]

Why did we have to match the 'salary' and the COLA component in the FA process to try and keep Bud? Surely we could have just matched the salary you were offering him, and not the extra 9.8% too.

Or maybe the system doesn't work as you say it does

I believe it was the case that you didn't have to match the CoLA component.

 

[Foreign Legion]

Most clubs were unhappy with the Buddy deal because the 10 mill was spread over an unrealistic time period.
The AFL couldn't stop it because they knew their argument wouldn't hold up in a court, Swans could just say we think he will play for 9 years and use Fletcher, Harvey etc as examples - but everyone knows it is a sham and you're being disingenuous if you claim otherwise.
As I have said, if you **** with the AFL they will **** you back and then some, the Hawks are all too familiar with this.

That's just like, your opinion, Man.

 

[Eshay187]

Most clubs were unhappy with the Buddy deal because the 10 mill was spread over an unrealistic time period.
The AFL couldn't stop it because they knew their argument wouldn't hold up in a court, Swans could just say we think he will play for 9 years and use Fletcher, Harvey etc as examples - but everyone knows it is a sham and you're being disingenuous if you claim otherwise.
As I have said, if you **** with the AFL they will **** you back and then some, the Hawks are all too familiar with this.

This is just rambling nonsense

 

[spannerSM]

I think what people are driving at is that if a player had say a value on the free market of $300k, you can pay him $280k, COLA takes him up to $307k, but you have saved $20k to put towards luring a star. Yes, 9.8% is applied across the board, but the bases are lower or higher than they would otherwise be.

This conspiracy theory depends on every player on Sydney's list, and their managers, accepting less than what they would otherwise get. Since when are player managers not as greedy as possible?

 

[J_Moore]

Buddy, Tippett, combined they represent a massive proportion of your cap. Without an additional 9.8% augmenting the salaries of other players they would be getting paid well below market rate.

So, no?

 

[ScoobySnacks]

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.

We couldn't match your offer because you had the extra 9.8%. We did not, but were to.d by the AFL that we had to match it.

This is why many Hawks fans believe that the Swans misused the COLA

 

[Play by Numbers]

So, no?

Actually yes

 

[Syd]

The two clubs in contention were the only two with COLA

Speak the truth

1. The AFL were driving Bud to Sydney to 'lift the profile of the game'
2. Bud was all but signed\sealed\delivered to GWS
3. A larger ambassadorial payment outside the cap was available to GWS
4. Bud rejected this for Sydney based on more chance of success (a' la Lake and Frawley)
5. This upset the AFL
6. Sydney made the GF with Bud and the resulatant publicity
7. Refer # 5
8. AFL gets wind of Sydney recruiting someone else
9. Today
10 Tomorrow = your club

Lather, rinse, repeat

 

[base615]

We couldn't match your offer because you had the extra 9.8%. We did not, but were to.d by the AFL that we had to match it.

This is why many Hawks fans believe that the Swans misused the COLA

See I remember that you matched the money on an annual basis but were unwilling to go the years and therefore were unable to match the total contract amount. That has nothing to do with CoLA but is down to appetite for risk.

 

[MightyHawks]

That's a fairly ridiculous statement. The Swans cannot trade for two years without penalty of losing their ability to phase out COLA as was originally planned - that's a sanction.

So you are saying the Swans are being threatened that they'll be treated from now on only slightly more favourably than every other team in the competition

What a threat - how will the Bloods culture survive???

Surely Jack & McVeigh will get the boys around and say lets just give the COLA up - its not about the money. Lets get the club trading

 

[Eshay187]

I don't, I am just explaining why I think the AFL did it.

Sydney have used a system as it was not intended. Or at least how it was intended, but in far too public a fashion.

If the AFL hates anything it is bad publicity. Given the reaction to the Buddy hiring, post Tippett, the media and fan fallout has been large .

My guess, Sydney were angling another big signing, or had decided to chase Griffen . To avoid the spectacular fallout , they have gone with the pre-emptive strike .

Is it right, no.

I agree that this is most likely what happened. The Malcevski convo stopped months ago and all knew he was leaving.

They also knew O'Keefe, LRT, Walsh and 3 other rookies we're going and I'm sure they would be talking to Griffen hence the happiness to let Malcevski go.

The AFL knew people would blow up about it so have scrambled to stop it with this shambles.

Despite the swans having not broken a single rule they have been massively punished and it will effect them for years to come.

 

[base615]

So you are saying the Swans are being threatened that they'll be treated from now on only slightly more favourably than every other team in the competition

What a threat - how will the Bloods culture survive???

Surely Jack & McVeigh will get the boys around and say lets just give the COLA up - its not about the money. Lets get the club trading

Actually no. Each year for the next two years we still have to reduce our list in order to be able to fit in to the cap in two years time. This really represents a disadvantage from the status quo.

 

[Modified Dog]

Were the Swans going to sign Ryder?

Apparently…

If you believe some of the rumours and stories spread about by various footy journos

I heard they had "warned off" the Swans from signing Ryder.

I don't think the AFL has taken this action for the hell of it.

Obviously they've got wind of something. Who else is out of contract or up for grabs?
Frawley signed with Hawthorn.

There's Paddy Ryder, Dayne Beams, Mitch Clark, Allen Christenson.

Maybe they Swans have been trying to induce other Essendon players to follow Ryder's lead and break their contract. Maybe they're after Hurley or Carlisle to play down back.

 

[Eshay187]

So you are saying the Swans are being threatened that they'll be treated from now on only slightly more favourably than every other team in the competition

What a threat - how will the Bloods culture survive???

Surely Jack & McVeigh will get the boys around and say lets just give the COLA up - its not about the money. Lets get the club trading

The cola is not applied to any contract post 2013, it can't be used to "lure" players.

The players contracts before that have the cola applied, as the afl forced us to do.

The afl have totally ****ed us here.

 

[Eshay187]

Apparently so...

They said they weren't chasing Ryder weeks ago, said they hadn't even spoken and he was not on their radar. This is lies.

Griffen on the other hand...

 

[Syd]

We couldn't match your offer because you had the extra 9.8%. We did not, but were to.d by the AFL that we had to match it.

This is why many Hawks fans believe that the Swans misused the COLA

Actually, its commonly reported that Hawthorn $$$ > Sydney $$
Length of contract at Sydney was longer and he wanted to be with Jessincta more nights than not (who wouldn't) but carry on regardless....

 

[hench]

Swans were going to drop a Ryder bomb on the comp tomorrow.

 

[Andrew Mc]

We couldn't match your offer because you had the extra 9.8%. We did not, but were to.d by the AFL that we had to match it.

This is why many Hawks fans believe that the Swans misused the COLA

I recall that being the case (having to match inc.). I also think it's something the AFL failed to foresee with the introduction of FA - I said at the time that they should have only had to match the offer without the 9.8 (at least for the timeframe the Swans would pay it anyway - there was an understanding it would be removed at some stage along the way). In the end though the kicker was the length of the contract, not the cash per year - I suspect a shorter length would have been matched (he was on plenty to start with).