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

[Alsmypal]

And we are blocked from recruiting similar player without cola... fancy that!!

#hawthornafllovechildnow

Are you saying you're blocked from recruiting players without COLA like every other team - GWS??
Oh no what a fair system.
If Hawthorns the AFLs love child now who was b4?
Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Kummerspeck]

If
I mean its not like they are saying they'll remove either your favourable acadamies, your favourable fixturing, your favourable match payments nor your favourable 9.8% COLA to most of your list - they are only taking the COLA off players earning more than $300k a year - got to look after those poor players on $295k a year

YOUR PUNISHMENT IS TO BE TREATED MORE LIKE THE OTHER TEAMS WHILE STILL RETAINING AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OVER THEM

Favourable match payments?

More like the other teams? Sweet, when do we get to start playing away games at the SCG?

 

[Tedeski]

May I suggest all Swan supporters stop posting on the main board.
Stick to the Swans board. This whole situation is embarrassing for the AFL.

 

[MightyHawks]

And we are blocked from recruiting similar player without cola... fancy that!!

#hawthornafllovechildnow

We aren't allowed to recruit players with COLA

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

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.

We never rorted it.

CoLA is being phased out anyway. (Only because of Eddie McDisingenuous's multi media platform shitstorm.)

Why this sudden urge to punish us, as if we've done something wrong?

It looks for all the world like the AFL develop their broad strategies over a lunchtime pissup.

 

[Play by Numbers]

The only loss of significance is Malceski? I don't think you've thought this through.

I have. Membrey is talented, but not a huge loss. The Swans have retained all of their core group, yet look at other flag winning teams of recent. Post flag, or in the immediate years following most have shed big stars and a few promising players, Collingwood and the Saints you could maybe chalk up to other issues, perhaps even WC, but guns have still been squeezed out. Heck even Geelong, whose list was famous for taking huge pay cuts lost their best.

Yet Sydney have gained two star forwards, and likely would have got another big name like Griffen, or Dangerfield next season

WC lost Judd. Geelong lost Ablett. Hawthorn lost Franklin. Saints lost Goddard.

 

[Alsmypal]

We never rorted it.

CoLA is being phased out anyway. (Only because of Eddie McDisingeuous's multi media platform shitstorm.)

Why this sudden urge to punish us, as if we've done something wrong?

It looks for all the world like the AFL develop their broad strategies over a lunchtime pissup.

As I said b4 as the governing body the AFL would not step in 4 days into a trade period if you weren't doing something they didn't like.

 

[MightyHawks]

Favourable match payments?

More like the other teams? Sweet, when do we get to start playing away games at the SCG?

Meant to say favourable MRP decisions... had already covered the match payments with the COLA and the NSW ambassador rubbish

You can probably get to have more away matches in Sydney when there are more teams in Sydney

Just like you now have one less home match against sides that are traveling interstate to play you

You used to have 11 pure home matches but now only have 10 since GWS arrived

You know how it works, no need to pretend you don't

 

[Syd]

Are you saying you're blocked from recruiting players without COLA like every other team - GWS??
Oh no what a fair system.
If Hawthorns the AFLs love child now who was b4?
Thanks for clearing that up.

Effectively we are as of today.

Contracts were signed 1, 2 and 3 years ago based on the rules in play THEN, as of today to ding anyone else we have to BREACH those contracts or EXCEED/be forced to commit a salary cap breach if we want to trade in a player.

Tell me you'd be happy to lose Langford to GCS to FA, but be told you can only have a draft pick to replace him with a straight face because someone at AFL house wanted to changer the rules in Trade Week


Tell me that you'd be happy with an 11th hour reactionary rule from the league's governing body restricting your club from acquiring Lake, Gibson, Gunston, McEvoy, Burggoyne, Frawley.\, O'Rourke etc aimed specifically at YOUR club for breaching no rules

IF you can do that with a straight face and a clear conscience then I'll 'sorf from BF for good

Tell me what rule we have breached to be sanctioned?

 

[spannerSM]

The Swans were confident that a 9 year deal for Buddy was no risk at all

The AFL would bail them out or change the rules if it went pear shaped

Could not be further from the truth. The AFL only approved the contract after gaining written assurances from the Swans board and administration, including an "explicit acknowledgement" that the scheduled payments will count against the TPP for each of the nine years of the contract, irrespective of how many years Franklin ends up playing:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-10-08/afl-approves-buddy-deal

The revenue players generate, is far more than just player payments. Team success means far higher revenue potential for all concerned, likewise for management companies involved in negotiating club marketing contracts, sponsorship deals, etc. 25k less for a midrange player, that becomes 25k more to help secure a star also means greater dollars for a management company that manages them both, as the stars often pay higher rates and generate income off all sorts of things, like media deals, endorsement payments, investment portfolios, and so on.

According to this article from 2012, at the time there were 80 third-party deals across the whole comp, worth a total of $1M:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/cl...hird-party-deals/story-fnelctok-1226423848749

That was down from $2M total over 114 deals in 2009, as the AFL started to crack down on them in the wake of controversy over the original Judd-Carlton-Visy deal. Now I can't find any newer information than that, but let's be generous and assume that it's back to $2M total by this point, and that the number of deals is back up to 110-120 or so. That's maybe $110-120k per club on average? Maybe more for a successful club, but also maybe less for a club in a market where NRL players dominate for name recognition. And that's spread between about half a dozen players per club. And that's before considering how much of a sponge for third party deals Buddy might be.

So again, for this conspiracy theory to be true, you're depending on the other thirty-odd players on the list willing accepting less money than they could get anywhere else.

Not really. The amount he would otherwise have got is $7k less than he got at the swans. Sure, his manager can argue that he is worth $300k and so should be getting $329k, and the swans can say fine, go to the effort of negotiating elsewhere for less money.

But $300k goes further in Melbourne than it does in Sydney, and even further in Adelaide. A player can enjoy the same standard of living in Melbourne, and still put away more money for after their career, on $300k in Melbourne vs $307k in Sydney, just to take the figures in your example. Or have you forgotten that the COL in COLA stands for cost of living?

 

[base615]

We aren't allowed to recruit players with COLA

Neither are we

 

[Syd]

As I said b4 as the governing body the AFL would not step in 4 days into a trade period if you weren't doing something they didn't like.

It's not about thier personal preferences is it?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

As I said b4 as the governing body the AFL would not step in 4 days into a trade period if you weren't doing something they didn't like.

Well they should lay their evidence on the table. Due process.

In the absence of one skerrick of evidence (got any?), this is just blatant authoritarianism.

 

[JackOutback]

I know it's fashionable to hate on Sydney at the moment, but every club should be wary of the AFL changing the rules in the middle of trade period. You might not agree with the rules, but Sydney were abiding by them and were phasing out COLA as per the new rules. This decision stinks and should be fought.

 

[GotTheGoodes]

Haha. What's the point anymore seriously wasting our time trying to have reasoned discussion or debate when there's so many BF flogs taking over every thread.

From my point of view a severe lack of empathy and logic tossed around with a good amount of bias and media spun hate (that you've just been lapping up from eddie & derm because it suits your club now) allows what could be well reasoned and healthy debate become "im notta troll but lololol suk it $ydney cola$wan$!! Deeerrrr"

Pathetic. Such a serious issue shown no respect. Wait until it's your club, doubt the idiot army would be so "witty" then.

 

[MightyHawks]

Our 10 genuine INTERSTATE games each year (not sold due to lack of local support)?
Our 1-2 game sat the3 MCG each year?
Our 1-2 Friday night, prime time games per year?

Please elucidate

You were the only team to play a side after 3 consecutive 6 day breaks this year
Amazingly you were the only team to play a side after 3 consecutive 6 day breaks last year too

The AFL schedule to play less top sides twice every year than other top sides have to

Playing Geelong and Fremantle once only each in Sydney was a massive leg up for a side that had finished top 4 and won the flag two years earlier

Like most sides you get about as many genuine INTERSTATE matches a year as you get genuine HOME matches against interstate sides (10 each for you)

 

[base615]

Haha. What's the point anymore seriously wasting our time trying to have reasoned discussion or debate when there's so many BF flogs taking over every thread.

From my point of view a severe lack of empathy and logic tossed around with a good amount of bias and media spun hate (that you've just been lapping up from eddie & derm because it suits your club now) allows what could be well reasoned and healthy debate become "im notta troll but lololol suk it $ydney cola$wan$!! Deeerrrr"

Pathetic. Such a serious issue shown no respect. Wait until it's your club, doubt the idiot army would be so "witty" then.

To be fair there's also been a lot of support in there. It's only really most of the Hawks going on like that.

 

[Play by Numbers]

That was down from $2M total over 114 deals in 2009, as the AFL started to crack down on them in the wake of controversy over the original Judd-Carlton-Visy deal. Now I can't find any newer information than that, but let's be generous and assume that it's back to $2M total by this point, and that the number of deals is back up to 110-120 or so. That's maybe $110-120k per club on average? Maybe more for a successful club, but also maybe less for a club in a market where NRL players dominate for name recognition. And that's spread between about half a dozen players per club. And that's before considering how much of a sponge for third party deals Buddy might be.

So again, for this conspiracy theory to be true, you're depending on the other thirty-odd players on the list willing accepting less money than they could get anywhere else.

Endorsements, book deals, media appearances, player investment portfolios, and so on aren't "third party" payments.

Third party payments, are deals that include a player, doing a direct role for a company, say marketing rep or as an ambassador

 

[Alsmypal]

Effectively we are as of today.

Contracts were signed 1, 2 and 3 years ago based on the rules in play THEN, as of today to ding anyone else we have to BREACH those contracts or EXCEED/be forced to commit a salary cap breach if we want to trade in a player.

Tell me you'd be happy to lose Langford to GCS to FA, but be told you can only have a draft pick to replace him with a straight face because someone at AFL house wanted to changer the rules in Trade Week


Tell me that you'd be happy with an 11th hour reactionary rule from the league's governing body restricting your club from acquiring Lake, Gibson, Gunston, McEvoy, Burggoyne, Frawley.\, O'Rourke etc aimed specifically at YOUR club for breaching no rules

IF you can do that with a straight face and a clear conscience then I'll 'sorf from BF for good

Tell me what rule we have breached to be sanctioned?

I feel as though I'm repeating myself. AFL would not step in 4 days in to a trade period and intervene unless they thought you were doing something wrong.
As for the hypothetical part I believe this has not come from left field and Sydney were forewarned not to do what they must of had planned.
An 11th hour rule change you mean like Franklin going for pick 19 with the largest contract in history being band 1 and elligble for 2 first round picks and receiving one????

 

[Kummerspeck]

Meant to say favourable MRP decisions... had already covered the match payments with the COLA and the NSW ambassador rubbish know how it works, no need to pretend you don't

Can you please provide me with all the details on the NSW ambassador rubbish that you have, please?

 

[base615]

You were the only team to play a side after 3 consecutive 6 day breaks this year
Amazingly you were the only team to play a side after 3 consecutive 6 day breaks last year too

The AFL schedule to play less top sides twice every year than other top sides have to

Playing Geelong and Fremantle once only each in Sydney was a massive leg up for a side that had finished top 4 and won the flag two years earlier

Like most sides you get about as many genuine INTERSTATE matches a year as you get genuine HOME matches against interstate sides (10 each for you)

I wish we'd played Geelong twice this year plus we beat Freo the two times we played them.

 

[MightyHawks]

Effectively we are as of today.

Contracts were signed 1, 2 and 3 years ago based on the rules in play THEN, as of today to ding anyone else we have to BREACH those contracts or EXCEED/be forced to commit a salary cap breach if we want to trade in a player.

Tell me you'd be happy to lose Langford to GCS to FA, but be told you can only have a draft pick to replace him with a straight face because someone at AFL house wanted to changer the rules in Trade Week


Tell me that you'd be happy with an 11th hour reactionary rule from the league's governing body restricting your club from acquiring Lake, Gibson, Gunston, McEvoy, Burggoyne, Frawley.\, O'Rourke etc aimed specifically at YOUR club for breaching no rules

IF you can do that with a straight face and a clear conscience then I'll 'sorf from BF for good

Tell me what rule we have breached to be sanctioned?

Well Syd if the AFL said to Andrew Newbold that they were going to reduce some favourable treatment they'd been giving us for years that other clubs couldn't get Andrew would say WTF??? we don't get any favourable treatment and they'd say Oops we've dialed the wrong number we meant to ring the Swans. Cya Andrew

 

[leeloo]

Sydney should have been reigned in years ago but the way the AFL has handled this is disgraceful.

The AFL must be run by Larry, Mo and Curly. The way they just change and make up rules on the go is mind boggling.

I suppose it is funny until it is your club being lubed up and bent over.

 

[Kummerspeck]

I have.

You've thought this through as carefully as you could and you feel the only loss of significance was Malceski?

 

[GROTTO]

I wish we'd played Geelong twice this year plus we beat Freo the two times we played them.

Im sure the Hawks wished they played you every Grand Final.