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

[base615]

Are these contracts being altered so your players get less of an advantage over the rest of the comp (but still retaining an advaantage)?

You know are they being altered so some of your players don't get the 9.8% but most of them still do?

No need to play like Goodes does when the Swans have a free kick against them

Existing contracts with CoLA were agreed to be phased out over 2 years. The AFL have now decreed that it essentially happen overnight if we trade for a player but we can't legally do that of course. Do you not know what you're arguing against?

 

[spannerSM]

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

That's a lovely list of things, but do you actually have any numbers? Start with estimates extrapolating from general data if you like.

 

[Brian Pumper]

Existing contracts with CoLA were agreed to be phased out over 2 years. The AFL have now decreed that it essentially happen overnight if we trade for a player but we can't legally do that of course. Do you not know what you're arguing against?

Let's cut the rubbish.


* Everyone knows Melbourne really tanked when the AFL said they didn't.
* Everyone knows Brisbane received a "Player retention allowance" because AFL couldn't justify a COLA. Same advantage different name just to make Brisbane successful in the late 90s and early 2000's, and that it was taken off them when after 3 premierships and 4 grand finals the AFL knew they went too far.
* Everyone knows when only Brisbane and Sydney were allowed to buy home games from other teams and West Coast and Adelaide weren't allowed to, that it had nothing to do with "growing the game" but everything to do with giving Brisbane and Sydney more wins.
* Everyone knows Demetriou warned Hird and Essendon that ASADA were after them and they should self report.
* Everyone know Essendon gave players banned drugs.

and

* Everyone knows that Sydney do not spead the COLA out equally. They use it to poach players.

Stop pretending it's any different.

 

[Ticky009]

Jack and Goodes get approx $400k a year from the AFL for being NSW ambassadors

Source please - other than thin air and BF. Because believe me, I've looked. The AFL confirms it makes ambassador payments to every state, it has not listed the amounts per individual as you have quoted here.

 

[base615]

Yes we are all very interested

Do you get an COLA for traveling interstate or is that just your footy team that gets it?

Really having to make the dole payments stretch this fortnight in Queensland myself

All employees in Australia are entitled to Living Away From Home Allowance

 

[MightyHawks]

Existing contracts with CoLA were agreed to be phased out over 2 years. The AFL have now decreed that it essentially happen overnight if we trade for a player but we can't legally do that of course. Do you not know what you're arguing against?

So the AFL told you that your BS COLA payments were to be reduced over 2 years - please don't use the phased out phrase as they are not disappearing entirely

The pauper Swans players on $299,000 or less get to keep it

Just get some Bloods culture going and say to the boys who cares about the 9.8% - I'm sure Goodesy Buddy & Tippett will lead the way

 

[Syd]

All employees in Australia are entitled to Living Away From Home Allowance

ATO ruling states a living away allowance for capital cities and regional areas

 

[base615]

Let's cut the rubbish.


* Everyone knows Melbourne really tanked when the AFL said they didn't.
* Everyone knows Brisbane received a "Player retention allowance" because AFL couldn't justify a COLA. Same advantage different name just to make Brisbane successful in the late 90s and early 2000's.
* Everyone knows when only Brisbane and Sydney were allowed to buy home games from other teams and West Coast and Adelaide weren't allowed to, that it had nothing to do with "growing the game" but everything to do with giving Brisbane and Sydney more wins.
* Everyone knows Demetriou warned Hird and Essendon that ASADA were after them and they should self report.
* Everyone know Essendon gave players banned drugs.

and

* Everyone knows that Sydney do not spead the COLA out equally. They use it to poach players.

Stop pretending it's any different.

How does your rambling text relate to the post you quoted? CoLA was already agreed tp go.

 

[Brian Pumper]

All employees in Australia are entitled to Living Away From Home Allowance

Really? So why then when West Coast and Fremantle asked for a COLA as the COL is higher in Perth than in Sydney they were ignored by the AFL.

 

[Tomnat Tigers]

The only way this effects Sydney is if they want to trade one of their bigger names such as Hannebury or Mitchell as they can only accept draft picks and not trade for a player who could fill a need and replace their ageing key defenders. This years draft they have already committed their first two picks for Heeney and Hiscox and next year their first two picks will be Mills (considered a top five prospect) and Dunkley (top 10-15 prospect) so its not as if they will have anything to trade to get new players in unless they trade a bigger name. Hardly going to set them back and if anything helps them in balancing their salary cap ahead of the COLA scrapping.

Also I'm sure they could go to the AFL and ask for permission to trade Membrey for say Tom Lee (example) and the AFL would allow it as I think its more of a ploy to stop them from luring big names and small trades that can benefit struggling clubs should benefit the AFL. Though it would take collaboration between both clubs and the AFL.

 

[MightyHawks]

All employees in Australia are entitled to Living Away From Home Allowance

Employees? Who wants to be one of those

 

[RUNVS]

Carlton is losing its ability to trade for two years as Malthouse looked at Eddie funny. It isn't a "rule" as such but it feels like it should be a rule and that is why the AFL is punishing Carlton for it.

 

[skipper kelly]

It would be terrific for the competition overall if Buddy suffered a career ending injury and the Swans were in a massive salary cap hole that crippled their club for years as it would be a terrific lesson in greed and risk management (of course terribly unfortunate for the Swans, but the AFL did warn them there was risk in the deal)

classy

 

[base615]

Really? So why then when West Coast and Fremantle asked for a COLA as the COL is higher in Perth than in Sydney they were ignored by the AFL.

That's the AFL. LAFHA is provided by the ATO and they'd be entitled to that if they keep a primary residence in Victoria for example.

 

[Syd]

The only way this effects Sydney is if they want to trade one of their bigger names such as Hannebury or Mitchell as they can only accept draft picks and not trade for a player who could fill a need and replace their ageing key defenders. This years draft they have already committed their first two picks for Heeney and Hiscox and next year their first two picks will be Mills (considered a top five prospect) and Dunkley (top 10-15 prospect) so its not as if they will have anything to trade to get new players in unless they trade a bigger name. Hardly going to set them back and if anything helps them in balancing their salary cap ahead of the COLA scrapping.

Also I'm sure they could go to the AFL and ask for permission to trade Membrey for say Tom Lee (example) and the AFL would allow it as I think its more of a ploy to stop them from luring big names and small trades that can benefit struggling clubs should benefit the AFL. Though it would take collaboration between both clubs and the AFL.

Incorrect, say a Reid for Griffen trade was on the table, or if we wanted to negotiate with a FA

Given our list numbers, and the draft picks to hand we can't trade Biggs and Membrey as we can't effectively use the picks we get in return either

 

[base615]

So the AFL told you that your BS COLA payments were to be reduced over 2 years - please don't use the phased out phrase as they are not disappearing entirely

The pauper Swans players on $299,000 or less get to keep it

Just get some Bloods culture going and say to the boys who cares about the 9.8% - I'm sure Goodesy Buddy & Tippett will lead the way

They've reneged on the 2 year reduction / phase out

 

[Milang_Panthers]

What the ****!!! Crazy stuff from the AFL!

 

[MightyHawks]

Incorrect, say a Reid for Griffen trade was on the table, or if we wanted to negotiate with a FA

Given our list numbers, and the draft picks to hand we can't trade Biggs and Membrey as we can't effectively use the picks we get in return either

As if you could trade Reid

Possible trading partners who'd take that...

Fremantle circa 1994-2002
Richmond circa 1986-2005
GWS 2011

Can't think of anyone else - maybe the Saints have some salary cap space they need to fill up (waste) on some spuds - give Pelchan a call

 

[MightyHawks]

They've reneged on the 2 year reduction / phase out

A phase out would mean that something would disappear entirely - best stick to the reduction word

 

[base615]

A phase out would mean that something would disappear entirely - best stick to the reduction word

FFS. Whatever the **** you want to call it, they've reneged on the agreement in the middle of the trade week.

 

[Mr Swan]

Well they're only 1-1 when they have.

Ahhh shit.....you beat me to it.

 

[MightyHawks]

FFS. Whatever the **** you want to call it, they've reneged on the agreement in the middle of the trade week.

What next are they going to reneg on your favourable MRP treatment midyear next year? How will you cope

What if they reneg on your favourable fixturing during fixture week? That would be so upsetting for you

 

[Ticky009]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/buddy-must-earn-pay-as-ambassador-20130720-2qbat.html

There's an article there that suggests Buddy could get $500k for a NSW ambassodor role. Feel free to post anything that suggests $5 or whatever amount you think it is

You have quoted an article that is a) supposition on a Buddy trade to GWS b) not in relation to the two Swans players discussed c) You therefore have so far quoted no evidence to support your statement on ambassador payments to Goodes & Jack.

Furthermore, the total amount set aside for ambassador roles has already been quoted in this thread. The total amount does not support your 'I'll just drag a number out of thin air 'cause I read it on BF' theory'. It is implausible.

 

[MightyHawks]

You have quoted an article that is a) supposition on a Buddy trade to GWS b) not in relation to the two Swans players discussed c) You therefore have so far quoted no evidence to support your statement on ambassador payments to Goodes & Jack.

Furthermore, the total amount set aside for ambassador roles has already been quoted in this thread. The total amount does not support your 'I'll just drag a number out of thin air 'cause I read it on BF' theory'. It is implausible.

So you have no evidence. I'm really surprised by that

 

[base615]

What next are they going to reneg on your favourable MRP treatment midyear next year? How will you cope

What if they reneg on your favourable fixturing during fixture week? That would be so upsetting for you

Alright you've beaten me. You're a trolling campaigner. I'm out.