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

[base615]

Reading between the lines the AFL got wind of them trying to land another Big Fish and thought they were just taking the piss yet again and shut it down.

So Sydney aren't allowed to deal within the agreed rules just because?

 

[Leather Poisoning]

No it's not. By all accounts we were trading for Patfull and the AFL wants him to go to GWS. That appears to be the reason for this and it's not an acceptable approach.

But he's not the biggest fish around.

In my view it would have to be someone of griffen's status to cause this kind of reaction from the governing body.

 

[QuietB]

No it's not. By all accounts we were trading for Patfull and the AFL wants him to go to GWS. That appears to be the reason for this and it's not an acceptable approach.

100% agree with that.

My question is why aren't the media trying to tell the story? Who was the big fish? What was the offer? What as the deal Sydney broke? What forced the AFL's hand?

Right now we have crickets. Why?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

COLA is a sham.

But it is not half the sham that the AFL is. Sydney played by the rules (however unfair they may have been) and are being punished for it.

It's an outrage.

 

[clogged]

I agree, you don't understand the issue.

No, you don't.

When the AFL decided to remove the salary cap allowances, instead of being completely punitive about it and remove it immediately, they gave the Swans a sunset period under which they could come into line with the rest of the competition. Instead of mandating a staged cut, they let the Swans maintain the spare capacity such that they would not have to drastically reshape their list. It was the least punitive thing they could have done to the Swans.

It would seem that instead of Sydney doing this, they have decided to continue to use their allowances to their maximum extent, and trade in more highly rated players. The AFL have acted to stop this.

The AFL could have removed the salary cap allowances completely 12 months ago if they had so chosen. They did not because they knew the damage that would wreak on the Swans list.

 

[base615]

So why did they not step in when Buddy missed out on going to the GWS?

They did. They told us CoLA was going to be phased out and that we must ensure that Buddy's deal would be paid for under the cap. We agreed. They then audited the deal and signed off on it with the agreement that CoLA would not be applied new contracts and existing contracts with CoLA would be phased out over the next 2 years. That is being carried out and we should be able to trade for whoever the **** we want to as long as we're sticking to that agreement.

 

[Axel And Guru]

And someone else i reckon...

Maybe both Griffen and Ryder?

 

[Mayes2Gray]

No it's not. By all accounts we were trading for Patfull and the AFL wants him to go to GWS. That appears to be the reason for this and it's not an acceptable approach.

So why not abandon cola and trade him in?

 

[TazHawk15]

So Sydney aren't allowed to deal within the agreed rules just because?

Dude it does not take much to work out what has happened.

About 20 people have explained what has gone on for the AFL to do this.

 

[Bollox]

Whenever the AFl dictatorship changes their mind, makes a kneejerk emotive decision, or tries to hide anything....they always seek out a "journalist" they need to repay a favour to and leak them a little puff pastry.
This puff piece will be vague, it wont explain anything, it wont actually say anything substantial or make an accusation in case it could be the subject of legal recourse....it will simply be designed to wrestle public opinion after yet another emotive kneejerk ruling that only a bunch of amateurish buffoons could make.

" No No...sorry...just kidding. Forget what we said about anything becoz we have.
When we said everything was perfect, you have done nothing in the slightest untoward, and the transparency re the other clubs is still fine...we're just going to get rid of it in an orderly fashion that everyone is ok with....what we actually meant was this

......we're going to wait until your club and players are at their most vulnerable then force some sort of pie in the sky punitive measure upon you for absolutely no reason at all, and depsite the fact you've done absolutely nothing wrong "

Choose your Journo. Will be one of those middle of the road ones happy to play ball to enhance their standing.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

There must be a logical reason for the AFL to be so drastic towards Sydney.

You're kidding, right?

Logic??????




AFL?

 

[bungwahl]

They either phase their salary allowances out completely OR are prevented from using them to top up their list.

I do not understand the issue. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The issue is that it had already been legislated that the Swans would phase out the COLA payments by the end of 2016. No-one was disagreeing with that and the ball was already rolling.

Now they add in a condition that the Swans also cannot trade in good players until COLA is gone - AND they choose to wait until halfway through the trade period to announce it?

 

[worthy]

And now for the "Academy"

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Dude it does not take much to work out what has happened.

About 20 people have explained what has gone on for the AFL to do this.

If you've got something to say, then come out and say it.

Otherwise, give us all a break with this nudge nudge wink wink stuff now stretching over several pages.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Some of you guys do not understand that existing contracts have COLA grandfathered in them with allocated payments from our entire list.

If we stick it to the AFL and decide to forcefully end COLA on our terms Ireland said we would need to immediately shed "3-4" best 22 players to fit under the cap.

It would destabilize the club its not a option we have that's why we are fighting the ruling.

 

[bungwahl]

That would be a little biased right if all you want is everyone agreeing with your point of view.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, it's done now but a part of my thinks this is the karma bus smashing Sydney for some underhanded trading last season.

Put it another way, do you think so many people would've been so vocal against COLA had Sydney not screwed Hawthorn and actually put up a fair trade? Do you think the AFL would've reacted this way had Sydney not contrived such a ridiculous trade purely to get him for nothing? You don't think Tippet was enough of a freebie that Sydney felt entitled to more handouts without paying your dues?

I'm pretty sure the culmination of these events in the last 2 trading seasons has led to this reaction from the AFL and well, karma is a b%tch!

You guys robbed us of McGlynn & Kennedy with COLA too, don't be mistaking those late picks as fair compensation, the reality is you have the COLA and could offer then reserve grade players much more money than we could.
If there's a lesson in this, maybe Sydney should treat other clubs a little more fairly. Screwing the Hawks like you have doesn't make me feel anything but karma calling for the debt owed.

This is exactly why Swans fans agreed that COLA needed to go. Every success the club ever had was attributed to $900k loading spread across player contracts.

However, that's a different discussion to this thread.

 

[sherb]

The issue is that it had already been legislated that the Swans would phase out the COLA payments by the end of 2016. No-one was disagreeing with that and the ball was already rolling.

Now they add in a condition that the Swans also cannot trade in good players until COLA is gone - AND they choose to wait until halfway through the trade period to announce it?

Shows how worthless it is taking the AFL on its word. They aren't big on ethics at AFL HQ.

 

[base615]

No, you don't.

When the AFL decided to remove the salary cap allowances, instead of being completely punitive about it and remove it immediately, they gave the Swans a sunset period under which they could come into line with the rest of the competition. Instead of mandating a staged cut, they let the Swans maintain the spare capacity such that they would not have to drastically reshape their list. It was the least punitive thing they could have done to the Swans.

It would seem that instead of Sydney doing this, they have decided to continue to use their allowances to their maximum extent, and trade in more highly rated players. The AFL have acted to stop this.

The AFL could have removed the salary cap allowances completely 12 months ago if they had so chosen. They did not because they knew the damage that would wreak on the Swans list.

Demonstrably not true. By trading say Sam Reid out in return for someone else we'd be removing the CoLA that is being paid to Reid and gaining a replacement player without the CoLA. This is the whole idea of how we will reduce the TPP to the level we need it to be by 2017. Without trading out some of our higher profile CoLA players for replacements with no CoLA, how exactly are we to achieve the TPP reductions in time for 2017?

 

[adelaidecrows]

The AFL are right to attack the swans on this issue. The Swans are already outside the traditional salary cap and are using the Cola. Andrew D stated when the Cola is removed the Swans will be virtually at breaking point already. If they use the Cola to attract a FA or high profile trade they will be misusing the funds to seek a premiership before the Cola disappears. As far as I am concerned, Sydney can compete and trade like anyone else under the same rules as anyone else. The reality is Sydney haven't put up a stink because they know they are already maxed out and cant offer anyone anything. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they attempt to trade Tippett to GC or Brisbane before his contract is out so they don't fall down the Salary Cap black hole and be a two player team.

 

[clogged]

The issue is that it had already been legislated that the Swans would phase out the COLA payments by the end of 2016. No-one was disagreeing with that and the ball was already rolling.

Now they add in a condition that the Swans also cannot trade in good players until COLA is gone - AND they choose to wait until halfway through the trade period to announce it?

The key part is 'phase out'.

 

[base615]

The AFL are right to attack the swans on this issue. The Swans are already outside the traditional salary cap and are using the Cola. Andrew D stated when the Cola is removed the Swans will be virtually at breaking point already. If they use the Cola to attract a FA or high profile trade they will be misusing the funds to seek a premiership before the Cola disappears. As far as I am concerned, Sydney can compete and trade like anyone else under the same rules as anyone else. The reality is Sydney haven't put up a stink because they know they are already maxed out and cant offer anyone anything. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if they attempt to trade Tippett to GC or Brisbane before his contract is out so they don't fall down the Salary Cap black hole and be a two player team.

FFS, no CoLA has been on new contracts since last year so we can't use CoLA to attract anybody. At least understand the issue before commenting.

 

[clogged]

Demonstrably not true. By trading say Sam Reid out in return for someone else we'd be removing the CoLA that is being paid to Reid and gaining a replacement player without the CoLA. This is the whole idea of how we will reduce the TPP to the level we need it to be by 2017. Without trading out some of our higher profile CoLA players for replacements with no CoLA, how exactly are we to achieve the TPP reductions in time for 2017?

You need to look up the word 'demonstrably'.

 

[clogged]

FFS, no CoLA has been on new contracts since last year so we can't use CoLA to attract anybody. At least understand the issue before commenting.

How can you assert this without being privy to the details of the contracts?

 

[QuietB]

The issue is that it had already been legislated that the Swans would phase out the COLA payments by the end of 2016. No-one was disagreeing with that and the ball was already rolling.

Now they add in a condition that the Swans also cannot trade in good players until COLA is gone - AND they choose to wait until halfway through the trade period to announce it?

It could be an issue with the "phasing out". I suspect Sydney were about to land someone and spend to within $1 of their maximum cap including CoLA for the next two years which kind of means there is no "phasing out", just lets make hay while the sun shines and then go cold turkey which with retirements would probably be fine. It is probably perfectly legal by the Swans, but not really in the spirit of phasing CoLA out.

On another note, if the Swans landed another big name they would be getting close to the point where they are paying 40-50% of their cap to a handful of players. It is dangerous territory.

 

[SHAKESPEARE]

Maybe both Griffen and Ryder?

Probably. The nerve