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

[bungwahl]

They might have to because not being greedy wasn't one of their strong points.

I'm not convinced that your statement makes any sense?

 

[sherb]

5 years @ $1m a year. don't believe everything you read.

So we shouldn't believe what we read in relation to your posts as well I gather.......

 

[Day_night_honourer]

The way you exploited it made the AFL look silly and it damaged the integrity of the competition.

Whilst Sydney cruising into the GF with the "Bondi Billionaires" flying was great for AFL in NSW, it wasn't a good look for the game.

What was a good look was winning the 2012 grand final without the "Bondi Billionaires".

Even after this years shocker of a GF I think of that game and it still makes me chuckle.

..and had you not been beaten (choked?) on that day by a superior team it would've been 3 in a row now for the poo stains.

Aww..

 

[clogged]

The Swans do have to return to the standard salary cap after 2016. They are well aware that come 2017 they have the same cap as everyone else, so how they choose to structure their payments should be entirely up to them.

And it is.

The AFL did the least punitive thing when it said you could retain the extra payments until 2017. That gave you the opportunity to work with extra space to front load contracts and manage your list in preparation for the return to normal.

If instead your club has decided to use that extra cap space to continue purchasing players, then what do you think the AFL's reaction would be?

 

[MF]

this is the appropriate reaction.

In the middle of the trade period?

The AFL aren't worried about us bending rules or misusing the COLA. They're worried about the public perception of us landing another big name regardless of whether it's done within the spirit of the rules or not.

If they had competent lawmakers with the power of foresight in place to begin with then these stupid kneejerk reactions wouldn't be necessary.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Come on mate, that's overly simplistic maths that totally disregards player tiering etc.

I am aware of that, Afterall minimum player contracts are $80k and the effects of front loaded contracts and back ended contracts etc. Make no mistake though without the Cola the swans are maxed or have little firepower in the bank left. I have no doubt that the swans players and club have developed a culture of less pay for overall success etc. However there comes a time when players realise that other players aren't abiding by the same rules and want a pay rise. Why should they get paid below their worth when Franklin and Tippett are getting golden handshakes.

 

[MadHawka]

Your post is entirely true apart from all of it.

Living in denial, nice that you completely avoided the questions raised... I guess that suits you better than accepting the reality of the situation. One that was entirely created by your club and its dodgy dealings.

My opinion is the Franklin deal was the final straw that broke the camels back. Had Sydney traded and not put that stupid 9 year deal together, the AFL wouldn't have done what they did and the original deal of 2 years to phase out COLA would've remained.

Time for Sydney to sleep in the bed they made.

 

[clogged]

In the middle of the trade period?

The AFL aren't worried about us bending rules or misusing the COLA. They're worried about the public perception of us landing another big name regardless of whether it's done within the spirit of the rules or not.

If they had competent lawmakers with the power of foresight in place to begin with then these stupid kneejerk reactions wouldn't be necessary.

Of course in the middle of the trade period.

The agreement between the Swans and the AFL was for a staged return to normal TPP. The Swans have seemingly decided to ignore the aspect of the agreement of 'phasing out' and instead tried to maximise the use of their benefit.

 

[bungwahl]

And it is.

The AFL did the least punitive thing when it said you could retain the extra payments until 2017. That gave you the opportunity to work with extra space to front load contracts and manage your list in preparation for the return to normal.

If instead your club has decided to use that extra cap space to continue purchasing players, then what do you think the AFL's reaction would be?

That's purely hypothetical, but again - the Swans know where they need to be in 2017. Any additional players they purchase still have to fit under the cap in 2017. It's not as if any players purchased pre-2017 are excluded from the cap, in which case you could see a point in the AFL restricting them.

 

[MF]

Living in denial, nice that you completely avoided the questions raised... I guess that suits you better than accepting the reality of the situation. One that was entirely created by your club and its dodgy dealings.

My opinion is the Franklin deal was the final straw that broke the camels back. Had Sydney traded and not put that stupid 9 year deal together, the AFL wouldn't have done what they did and the original deal of 2 years to phase out COLA would've remained.

Time for Sydney to sleep in the bed they made.

If the AFL didn't want Franklin type deals being done then they should have put different rules in place.

We've played by their rules. It's not our fault if they've been made to look stupid by them.

 

[sherb]

In the middle of the trade period?

The AFL aren't worried about us bending rules or misusing the COLA. They're worried about the public perception of us landing another big name regardless of whether it's done within the spirit of the rules or not.

If they had competent lawmakers with the power of foresight in place to begin with then these stupid kneejerk reactions wouldn't be necessary.

That's exactly what this is all about imo.

The AFL don't want to be embarrassed. As simple as that.

What a pathetic administration. As if we didn't know that already of course.

 

[MF]

Of course in the middle of the trade period.

The agreement between the Swans and the AFL was for a staged return to normal TPP. The Swans have seemingly decided to ignore the aspect of the agreement of 'phasing out' and instead tried to maximise the use of their benefit.

If there's a particular rule being broken then they should prove it and penalize us. Not make up some half arsed rule at the last minute that may prevent a potential breach of rules happening.

 

[bungwahl]

I am aware of that, Afterall minimum player contracts are $80k and the effects of front loaded contracts and back ended contracts etc. Make no mistake though without the Cola the swans are maxed or have little firepower in the bank left. I have no doubt that the swans players and club have developed a culture of less pay for overall success etc. However there comes a time when players realise that other players aren't abiding by the same rules and want a pay rise. Why should they get paid below their worth when Franklin and Tippett are getting golden handshakes.

Possibly, though they've just lost Malceski, LRT, Walsh, O'Keefe, etc so you would expect there would be a little space to move. Not a Franklin style trade, but still possibly they could have brought someone in.

 

[clogged]

That's purely hypothetical, but again - the Swans know where they need to be in 2017. Any additional players they purchase still have to fit under the cap in 2017. It's not as if any players purchased pre-2017 are excluded from the cap, in which case you could see a point in the AFL restricting them.

Everything is hypothetical as no one is privy to contracts or agreements between the AFL and the Swans.

But the AFL had three choices when removing the COLA. They could have done it immediately, as staged reductions, or with a sunset period to give the Swans maximum ability to bring their TPP into line using front loaded contracts.

The AFL chose the third option - the least punitive. We can only presume that the AFL is acting this way now because Sydney have abused the spirit of that agreement.

 

[clogged]

If there's a particular rule being broken then they should prove it and penalize us. Not make up some half arsed rule at the last minute that may prevent a potential breach of rules happening.

You are not being penalised.

 

[bungwahl]

In the middle of the trade period?

The AFL aren't worried about us bending rules or misusing the COLA. They're worried about the public perception of us landing another big name regardless of whether it's done within the spirit of the rules or not.

If they had competent lawmakers with the power of foresight in place to begin with then these stupid kneejerk reactions wouldn't be necessary.

Absolutely spot on.

Look at it objectively - the Swans can bring in draftees, delisted (crap) players, but cannot bring in any potentially good players.

 

[Day_night_honourer]

Thank you AFL for finally doing the right thing. ALL clubs outside of the two expansion clubs should work under the same TPP. If its more expensive to live in sydney, deal with it or move to a suburb thats cheaper. FFS, every state has expensive and inexpensive areas to live in...so choose one.

Check out the brain on it - What a brilliant, well thought out suggestion! - yes, all Swans players could move to Wagga maybe?

 

[SilentHunter_]

Everything is hypothetical as no one is privy to contracts or agreements between the AFL and the Swans.

But the AFL had three choices when removing the COLA. They could have done it immediately, as staged reductions, or with a sunset period to give the Swans maximum ability to bring their TPP into line using front loaded contracts.

The AFL chose the third option - the least punitive. We can only presume that the AFL is acting this way now because Sydney have abused the spirit of that agreement.

You seem to assume a lot of things and not state anything remotely believable.

 

[bungwahl]

You are not being penalised.

Absolutely the Swans are being penalised. They can't bring in any decent players for two years without losing the ability to phase out COLA as agreed. You're just trolling now.

 

[Theprofessional]

I actually agree that this is stupid of the AFL for doing this... Mainly because it means the Swans can claim disadvantaged status and I can't pay out on them for being the AFL live child anymore..! Oh the woes us Hawthorn supporters face!

Yeah this really damages the AFL love child narrative- huge blow for the rest of the league.

 

[clogged]

You seem to assume a lot of things and not state anything remotely believable.

What do you think is believable?

 

[SilentHunter_]

Absolutely the Swans are being penalised. They can't bring in any decent players for two years without losing the ability to phase out COLA as agreed. You're just trolling now.

His name is "Clogged" - clearly his brain is clogged as well.

 

[bungwahl]

Of course in the middle of the trade period.

The agreement between the Swans and the AFL was for a staged return to normal TPP. The Swans have seemingly decided to ignore the aspect of the agreement of 'phasing out' and instead tried to maximise the use of their benefit.

Source?

 

[SilentHunter_]

What do you think is believable?

Nothing you write on BF clearly.

 

[Theprofessional]

While it is stupid how much they make it up as they go along, plenty of sports to this to a lesser degree, such as the NFL in particular.

However, I didn't see many Swans supporters complaining when your club was the beneficiary of weird rules. There is no other salary capped sport in the world that has different clubs with different caps.

Really, NFL makes up this much as they go?

This isn't a weird rule- this is a weird, out of the blue punishment... Clubs that drug cheat, salary cap cheat get banned from trading, not teams that follow the rules. Something stinks.