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

[clogged]

What transition did Brisbane get when their cola was removed?

IIRC it was removed immediately with minimal warning.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

If the afl knew about a big trade we were going to make, why didn't they just come out and block it... Instead we get this over the top secretive bullshit.

This is where the conspiracy theories begin.

 

[Xtreme]

On the whole, most contributors to this thread realise what truly asinine administrative decision this is. This is compounded by the timing. A few hawks supporters though......those eyes light up when they see the word SYDNEY. Just ignore any objective critique regarding how this league is being run.

As much as I disliked the allowance and Sydney in general I do agree that the timing is wrong. This should have been announced before the trade period began and/or officially started from the following season, not this years trade period.

That being said if it's a reactionary measure due to getting wind of a potential Sydney recruitment strategy for this year perhaps they were doing what they could to stop it from happening. If this was the case and not just rumour or innuendo I hope they out which player(s) that may have been targeted.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....

 

[Dangerousfield]

I still can't get my head around this.

How can the AFL possibly make a rule to stop one club from using a key plank of list management when they have done nothing illegal or broken any rules?

Surely the Swans can trade in new players without any COLA in the contract, how does hat hurt anyone or break any rules/agreement.

The AFL has become the VFL again, we (Crows) were over punished for Tippettgate, had Dean Bailey suspended from working for us over something he may have done at Melbourne and were forced (by the AFL) to sack one of the best recruiters in the land who was then promptly employed by ........ Collingwood!

This latest decision shows that Gillon McLaughlin is a complete puppet of the powerful Melbourne clubs. Hope the Swans test the legality of it as I'm over the idiocy eminating from the AFL.

 

[spannerSM]

What transition did Brisbane get when their cola was removed?

Brisbane's location allowance was 10% of the cap in 2003, reduced to 9% in 2004, with the AFL making the decision to axe it entirely after the end of the 2004 season. It was scheduled to drop to 7.5% in 2005 and a limit of $360k in 2006, before being eliminated entirely ahead of the 2007 season. So effectively a two-year phase out.

 

[tige19]

I honestly don't get what the friggin issue is? Give COLA the flick, play under the same rules everyone else plays under and you can trade as much as you like.

Am I hearing this right? Sydney are crying foul because their no longer allowed to cheat? Lol give me a break.

 

[the_interloper]

I honestly don't get what the friggin issue is? Give COLA the flick, play under the same rules everyone else plays under and you can trade as much as you like.

Am I hearing this right? Sydney are crying foul because their no longer allowed to cheat? Lol give me a break.

The problem is they've planned for COLA in this year's salary cap so it's a bit rough really.

 

[worthy]

Scrap the COLA and then trade to your hearts content, you'll just be doing it on an even playing field, there will be some adjustment, it's like when you take in a sick animal, nurse it back to health, hand feed it day and night for years, and when it's completely dependant on you, you release it back to the wild.

 

[PowerForGood]

A light hearted look at the decision

http://titusoreily.com/afl-explains-reason-behind-restrictions-swans/

There are several important reasons of varying degrees of logic behind this decision.
1. Massive over-correction

We really went a bit far with this Cost of Living stuff.
Of course, like anyone that feels like they’ve made a bit of a mistake and are a bit embarrassed by it, we have massively overcorrected the situation.
Like when you forget your girlfriend’s birthday and make it up to her by upsizing her meal the next time you are at McDonalds. You even eat in. No drive thru this time.

 

[tige19]

The problem is they've planned for COLA in this year's salary cap so it's a bit rough really.

That may be the case but the AFL has been saying for the last 12 months that they will be scrapping COLA. I'm in business myself and we are held to what government incentives are available but we don't rely on it for profits, we also have contingencies in place should the government scrap the incentives.

Are you telling me the Sydney Swans administration is that inept that they have no plans in place to deal with it? If that's the case then the amateurs in charge of that club need to be moved on.

 

[worthy]

The problem is they've planned for COLA in this year's salary cap so it's a bit rough really.

But, but....the AFL pay it independently of Sydney, so it doesn't affect their cap, Sydney pay a player what their worth and then the AFL pay them an allowance.

or

Does this suggest that Sydney pay their players 10% less than their going rate knowing the AFL will kick in the difference ?

 

[tige19]

Hopefully we can now see how good Sydney are at drafting and recruiting, let's see if the bloods culture is enough for players to come lmfao.. The only reason players went to that sess Pitt of a city is for the cash, we all know that, the only people who think otherwise are the deluded Swans supporters.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I honestly don't get what the friggin issue is? Give COLA the flick, play under the same rules everyone else plays under and you can trade as much as you like.

Am I hearing this right? Sydney are crying foul because their no longer allowed to cheat? Lol give me a break.

Because players are currently contracted. To remove COLA means you have to breach all of those contracts. What the AFL are trying to do is to force Sydney to trade out for nothing a bunch of players. They're trying to strip our list.

I suspect it's got more to do with what they can see happening over the next couple of years. Next year Sydney have a top prospect academy player and a top prospect father/son. That will mean Sydney can trade out good players for top end results. Say a Hannebery and a Reid and get ready made players in return without having to worry about talent coming through.

It's really got nothing to do with COLA being right or wrong. The cost of living difference is 20% and the COLA is 10%. It's got to do with Sydney having done too good a job with their bottom end list management and the timing of a couple of years of drafting diamonds.

 

[Ashman23]

If this rule change is as simple as removal of the COLA and you guys can trade again and supposedly all your contracts are legit (i.e player X earns the same amount without COLA that he could get at another club) and the AFL pays the 'top up' COLA of 9.8% the Andrew Ireland should ring Gil this morning and say 'Yep, drop it', then the players' only loss is the 9.8% that the AFL pays. I'm sure the $wans great bloods culture will see them through this terrible time.

 

[tonk]

Hopefully we can now see how good Sydney are at drafting and recruiting, let's see if the bloods culture is enough for players to come lmfao.. The only reason players went to that sess Pitt of a city is for the cash, we all know that, the only people who think otherwise are the deluded Swans supporters.

Sess Pitt was a pretty decent player.

 

[Ashman23]

Because players are currently contracted. To remove COLA means you have to breach all of those contracts

Surely though the contract reads $X per season PLUS 9.8% allowed by the AFL (COLA). It would be a simple re-do of the contract to remove the COLA wording.

 

[tonk]

Because players are currently contracted. To remove COLA means you have to breach all of those contracts. What the AFL are trying to do is to force Sydney to trade out for nothing a bunch of players. They're trying to strip our list.

I suspect it's got more to do with what they can see happening over the next couple of years. Next year Sydney have a top prospect academy player and a top prospect father/son. That will mean Sydney can trade out good players for top end results. Say a Hannebery and a Reid and get ready made players in return without having to worry about talent coming through.

It's really got nothing to do with COLA being right or wrong. The cost of living difference is 20% and the COLA is 10%. It's got to do with Sydney having done too good a job with their bottom end list management and the timing of a couple of years of drafting diamonds.

Good luck getting the infants on here to understand that.

 

[tonk]

Surely though the contract reads $X per season PLUS 9.8% allowed by the AFL (COLA). It would be a simple re-do of the contract to remove the COLA wording.

wow

 

[bungwahl]

No they haven't.
If they were playing by the rules then Buddy's 10 million would be spread over a realistic time period, say 6 years, which would mean 1.7 mil a year in the cap. This year they only had 700K in the cap for Buddy. $wans have ****** around 1 time too many and are now being called out.

There is no rule saying a contract must be paid in equal instalments?

 

[Leather Poisoning]

A lot of Sydney fans got their backs up when I referred to cola as a benefit-to-Sydney allowance due to it having absolutely nothing to do with how much it costs to live in Sydney.

The fact that the afl has plucked it away like this, with threat attached, whilst keeping it for a team based in the same city shows that the whole cost of living name for the allowance was just a dodgy front for a vehicle to give Sydney an advantage.

Now, for reasons unknown and in methods unfair, the afl has removed it.

It seems clear that cost of living hasn't changed overnight but the AFL's willingness to give the swans an advantage has.

It does make me wonder two things:
- just how much of an advantage was it over recent years?
- what has caused this sudden guillotine action from the afl?

 

[Billyc]

This latest decision shows that Gillon McLaughlin is a complete puppet of the powerful Melbourne clubs. Hope the Swans test the legality of it as I'm over the idiocy eminating from the AFL.

Laughable. Melbourne were punished for not tanking, the 'powerful' Melbourne clubs are being taxed for their success to prop up the strugglers. The AFL is a poorly run administration, but absolute bollocks to suggest it is a puppet of the Melbourne clubs.

Swans still have the salary cap advantage. If any club was told 2 years ago they could trade in Tippett and Franklin and pay them what they like but couldn't trade for another 2 years, they'd take it. Still a very significant loss as far as my club is concerned - we received pick 19 for the best forward of a generation while a premiership rival with a bigger salary cap paid him millions.

 

[base615]

That may be the case but the AFL has been saying for the last 12 months that they will be scrapping COLA. I'm in business myself and we are held to what government incentives are available but we don't rely on it for profits, we also have contingencies in place should the government scrap the incentives.

Are you telling me the Sydney Swans administration is that inept that they have no plans in place to deal with it? If that's the case then the amateurs in charge of that club need to be moved on.

We did have plans in place for it. No new contracts have had CoLA since last year and an agreement was in place to phase out over 2 years. That was all signed off and Swans were working towards it. A key part of that phase out is trading out players who have CoLA and trading in players who don't have CoLA. This decision has stopped the ability to do that.

The government makes an announcement in the budget but they never say "From tomorrow X will happen", it's usually "From 1st July 2015 X will happen". In this case the analogy is that the government announced last year that a new piece of legislation was being introduced on 1st July 2016 and businesses have started planning their projects to comply with this. Then overnight the government announce "We've changed our mind, it's going to start tomorrow"

 

[bungwahl]

If this rule change is as simple as removal of the COLA and you guys can trade again and supposedly all your contracts are legit (i.e player X earns the same amount without COLA that he could get at another club) and the AFL pays the 'top up' COLA of 9.8% the Andrew Ireland should ring Gil this morning and say 'Yep, drop it', then the players' only loss is the 9.8% that the AFL pays. I'm sure the $wans great bloods culture will see them through this terrible time.

Unfortunately that's an over simplification of the situation, as the Swans have legally binding payment obligations to players which include the COLA loading. It's not an option to just cancel it.

 

[sherb]

Sess Pitt was a pretty decent player.

So good he even had a street in Sydney named after him.

Although I've never seen his first name spelt Sess I must admit.