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

[bungwahl]

Everything that we read points to their being a salary cap issue with the swans - even your own board and an afl trade article cites the reason for Biggs wanting to be moved on is due to salary cap pressure.

I don't agree with how it's been done but they certainly haven't done it 'just to be mean'

Swans fans think the trade article has confused salary cap space with list spaces, which we will be short on!

The Swans have lost ROK, Malceski, LRT, Walsh, etc. Even with the ups and downs of existing contracts next year, they should still have room to move players - such as trading a $300k player for a replacement $300k player, which has zero net effect.

But again, even if there was a salary cap issue it's not best resolved through a blanket ban on trading. The Swans could have potentially traded out a $500k player and replaced with a $200k player, giving a $300k reduction to TPP. They're not going to trade out a $500k player for a draft pick. Salary cap is either not the reason, or the AFL has no idea how to fix a salary cap issue.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Not the worst idea although I don't mind the academy. To get the game successful in NSW you need a full pathway to the AFL and the academy is a key pillar in that.

The Swans are taking three players this year aren't they? That might be an issue. Pretty nice luxury to have the whole state to yourself. What are GWS doing academy wise and how are players going to be divvied up?

We don't exactly have all of NSW. This should put the whole Academy thing into a bit of perspective, particularly insofar as it assists the Swans.

http://www.aflnswact.com.au/index.php?id=307

 

[QuietB]

We don't exactly have all of NSW. This should put the whole Academy thing into a bit of perspective, particularly insofar as it assists the Swans.

http://www.aflnswact.com.au/index.php?id=307

GWS have got some prime Murray River zones there

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Why is it evidently crap - it was a very quick basic summary - I'm sure there was just a little bit more to it in the actual meeting. It's amusing how everything is just dismissed out of hand as being incorrect by posters on this board.

I haven't dismissed it out of hand. I've explained 3 times on this and previous pages why this couldn't be true.

 

[Off The Couch]

Swans fans think the trade article has confused salary cap space with list spaces, which we will be short on!

The Swans have lost ROK, Malceski, LRT, Walsh, etc. Even with the ups and downs of existing contracts next year, they should still have room to move players - such as trading a $300k player for a replacement $300k player, which has zero net effect.

But again, even if there was a salary cap issue it's not best resolved through a blanket ban on trading. The Swans could have potentially traded out a $500k player and replaced with a $200k player, giving a $300k reduction to TPP. They're not going to trade out a $500k player for a draft pick. Salary cap is either not the reason, or the AFL has no idea how to fix a salary cap issue.

There also needs to be taken into consideration the reduction in the amount of COLA received from the AFL

 

[blue harvest]

Because you would have to believe the Swans are completely stupid. And the AFL.

For the AFL to rule an immediate end to COLA is simply illegal. You cannot, in law, act to bring about a breach of contract.

We still haven't seen the wording in the contracts, so this is all just speculation. If it was a breach of contract to end it immediately (with the Swans having to cover the COLA themselves within the CAP) then I'm pretty sure the Swans would have raised that issue at the time.

 

[bungwahl]

We don't exactly have all of NSW. This should put the whole Academy thing into a bit of perspective, particularly insofar as it assists the Swans.

http://www.aflnswact.com.au/index.php?id=307

Fascinating to see the Swans have the bulk of the Rugby League zones outside of Sydney, whilst GWS has the entire southern zone which includes more native Aussie Rules zones.

 

[bungwahl]

There also needs to be taken into consideration the reduction in the amount of COLA received from the AFL

Yep, and the Swans have been well aware of that amount so that would have already been factored in to any trading.

It just seems to be a ridiculous ruling from the AFL in that it doesn't solve any potential problems, yet it directly prohibits the club from swapping players or improving.

 

[Olian]

The Swans then proposed that they would do no trading for two years if the AFL continued with COLA while they phased it out over the next two years - this was agreed to. Apparently the Swans tried to go back on that agreement and hence the very public edict.

What club would deny itself trading for a couple of years? Probably wishful thinking from the equalisation committee members.

Swans were told COLA was to be phased out back in May and replaced with a rent susbisdy for players under a certain salary value. The Swans held off on contract negotitaions until after the AFL commission had finalised its position in the second half of the year.

The trading ban was only made known after the season had finished.

If you believe media commentary it was to stop the Swans from trading for free agnets. Imagine if the went out and traded for players like all other clubs legally. Liek they had in previous years.

Much easier to allow a team whom has played in the last three grand fianals to top up their list with a free agent. The members of the equalisation committee must be pleased with the result.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

GWS have got some prime Murray River zones there

Can you see why with this, all of their draft picks, all of their other advantages, the Swans might be working pretty hard at defending what's left of their patch?

 

[bungwahl]

We still haven't seen the wording in the contracts, so this is all just speculation. If it was a breach of contract to end it immediately (with the Swans having to cover the COLA themselves within the CAP) then I'm pretty sure the Swans would have raised that issue at the time.

The Swans did raise that issue, hence why the two year COLA phase out period was established.

 

[blue harvest]

The Swans did raise that issue, hence why the two year COLA phase out period was established.

I was responding to a post where we were discussing if it was illegal to end the COLA straight away. The 2 year phase out may have been because it was illegal to do it straight away or it may have been because it would have been rather tricky for the Swans to get it all within the CAP straight away. Until we see the exact wording of contracts we don't know which one it is. If it was illegal then I doubt the AFL would have asked for it to happen.

 

[mcgarnacle]

That last point you make indicates exactly the way every other club supporter has felt about the $wan$ for years now. For you to even consider complaining about an AFL love child is insulting to the point of ridiculousness.

It allowed the Swans to keep their players. Specifically, the young players they drafted. Much of the established players the Swans have signed over the years have been discards who weren't being played at their clubs, or were told to move on. Only recently with Tippett naming Sydney as his destination, and the club trumping GWS in the negotiations for Franklin, has the COLA become such a massive issue with opposition presidents and supporters.

That said, to pretend that you don't understand that Sydney exploited a rule, designed and put in place to advantage the club already no less, is to undermine yourself even further.

Sources please. Otherwise, it's mere speculation.

Sydney know why they aren't allowed to trade this year. Your coach and management might be waving their arms in the air and scratching their heads publicly, but they're guilty, and they know why.

Yes. It's to prevent the Swans from negotiating with a Griffen, a Patfull, a Ryder, etc, and ensure that if GWS are interested, the Swans don't derail negotiations or up the price. GWS development is behind schedule and they need a kick along.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-02-17/cost-of-living-split


The Giants are in direct competition with the Swans for exposure and the supporters up here. Does an opposition supporter expect the Swans to sit back and allow its direct opposition a free ride? The Giants had the ability to sign 16 uncontracted players or trade for players with a plethora of picks, but preferred to recruit Folau which set the tone for the whole operation being a joke, and they hoarded all their picks to put together a development squad of kids and a few delisted geriatrics. Trade ban puts the Swans out of the market now and gives GWS no competition for players wanting to play in sydney.

 

[QuietB]

Can you see why with this, all of their draft picks, all of their other advantages, the Swans might be working pretty hard at defending what's left of their patch?

And you can probably appreciate that a lot of the frustration directed at the swans advantages mirrors your frustration at GWS.

The GWS zone is going to cause massive heartache one day. That is all of the Dannihers, Crawford, Carey, god knows who else. That is a serious zone

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

We still haven't seen the wording in the contracts, so this is all just speculation. If it was a breach of contract to end it immediately (with the Swans having to cover the COLA themselves within the CAP) then I'm pretty sure the Swans would have raised that issue at the time.

It's more than speculation. Call it educated speculation. If the story is as it has been related by Ralphy, there are some pretty incompetent legal minds at both the AFL and the Swans. No, this is all a big act to keep the Swans from trading in this trade period. It's a suppression act to give a free kick to GWS.

 

[JCore]

I find this decision from the AFL repulsive. Pathetic.

 

[legend166]

No one believes what Jon Ralph writes. Given past form (with opinion pieces) this has some basis. This article is not clearly a fact piece as there are no attributable quotes and the commission statement itself has nt been published.

Andy Maher has been trying to get Gillon McLachlan to respond and come on to SEN to explain the why of this decision for the last 3 days - with no response.

Furthermore, seems pretty dumb that we were starting discussions to get Patfull if we knew we weren't allowed to bring him in.

Like I said, Jon Ralph gonna Jon Ralph.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

And you can probably appreciate that a lot of the frustration directed at the swans advantages mirrors your frustration at GWS.

The GWS zone is going to cause massive heartache one day. That is all of the Dannihers, Crawford, Carey, god knows who else. That is a serious zone

No doubt. I get it. But a lot of the frustration directed at Sydney is uneducated. We got booted up there under threat of folding. We got no start up assistance. We got sold to a criminal who sent the club even more broke if that were possible. We got bought by a consortium who could only afford to pay half the salary cap, so we fielded absolutely no talent. We finally got some financial assistance and some priority draft picks (no more than many other clubs have received since) and began to build a club.

It was a broadly recognised problem that the value of a contract in Sydney was less than in Melbourne because of cost of living issues. So an allowance was brought in. As the salary cap has increased, such an allowance is less necessary now than it was back then (although it remains relevant to those on smaller contracts). So we reluctantly accept that it has to go.

What we don't accept is that our 2012 flag was bought with COLA. Nor do we accept that Buddy and Tippet arrived due to COLA. The reason for that is that we recognise that 1. we started 2012 with a list of rookies and discards and overperformed to win that flag and 2. in each of 2012 and 2013 we have dropped off our list more talent in terms of dollars than we have added to our list.

What we especially don't accept, and in fact pisses us right off, is that most of the commentary around this stuff comes from the Collingwood President and is parrotted as though it was fact. And it is not. And it shits us that especially Hawthorn supporters are unable to see that another club can be well managed just as they are. It shits us to tears. We get it that Carlton and Collingwood supporters might have a view that success can only be achieved through cheating, but Hawthorn? Give us some ****ing respect!

I'm happy for GWS to receive assistance, but it shouldn't be done by deliberately manipulating player list management to make the Swans worse as against the whole competition. And that is what is happening.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Understand this: Money is fungible.

There is no special quality to "COLA money". It is simply an entitlement on top of yearly base salary. If the salary is adjusted, the COLA entitlement remains at 9.8%. So therefore, it was perfectly within the Swans' power to revise yearly salaries downwards, with the 9.8% entitlement in place, and have spare capacity to recruit players under the TPP without having to pay them COLA.

A binding contract is a binding contract.

 

[Off The Couch]

Find me one person who said on the evening of Saturday 29th September 2012 that the Swans didn't deserve their premiership.

Me




Just kidding
And of course it was going to cause an uproar and it had nothing to do with winning a grandfinal. For the second year in a row your mob picked up another player who was going to be on a million a year - do you seriously think it was going to escape comment

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Until someone shows proof that COLA is specifically written into players' contracts then I'm going to dismiss this argument as nonsense.

Well it wouldn't much of a contract if it doesn't at least specifically reference it in the boilerplate.

We're all assuming these things are drafted by professionals. (Admittedly, with what I've seen from AFL admin with this bizarre move, I'm having my doubts.)

 

[Off The Couch]

A binding contract is a binding contract.

Unless you are part of the AFL and then apparently they are worth jack shit

 

[QuietB]

No doubt. I get it. But a lot of the frustration directed at Sydney is uneducated. We got booted up there under threat of folding. We got no start up assistance. We got sold to a criminal who sent the club even more broke if that were possible. We got bought by a consortium who could only afford to pay half the salary cap, so we fielded absolutely no talent. We finally got some financial assistance and some priority draft picks (no more than many other clubs have received since) and began to build a club.

It was a broadly recognised problem that the value of a contract in Sydney was less than in Melbourne because of cost of living issues. So an allowance was brought in. As the salary cap has increased, such an allowance is less necessary now than it was back then (although it remains relevant to those on smaller contracts). So we reluctantly accept that it has to go.

What we don't accept is that our 2012 flag was bought with COLA. Nor do we accept that Buddy and Tippet arrived due to COLA. The reason for that is that we recognise that 1. we started 2012 with a list of rookies and discards and overperformed to win that flag and 2. in each of 2012 and 2013 we have dropped off our list more talent in terms of dollars than we have added to our list.

What we especially don't accept, and in fact pisses us right off, is that most of the commentary around this stuff comes from the Collingwood President and is parrotted as though it was fact. And it is not. And it shits us that especially Hawthorn supporters are unable to see that another club can be well managed just as they are. It shits us to tears. We get it that Carlton and Collingwood supporters might have a view that success can only be achieved through cheating, but Hawthorn? Give us some ******* respect!

I'm happy for GWS to receive assistance, but it shouldn't be done by deliberately manipulating player list management to make the Swans worse as against the whole competition. And that is what is happening.

I agree 100% Sydney are a well managed club (maybe were - I think the Tippett/Buddy/Reid contracts combined are not good business but that is a personal opinion and not really all that relevant).

I also agree that the Swans 2012 success had nothing to do with CoLA. That premiership was deserved as much as it hurts to say it.

I disagree that the Tippett and Buddy acquisitions had nothing to do with CoLA. I would argue that those were the moments where Sydney worked out how to leverage CoLA to its maximum advantage.

I would also say that your hard luck story about how hard it was early days in Sydney is probably not a story that a Fitzroy supporter would care to hear. Or a dogs supporter, saints supporter, Freo or Port supporter who got little/no start up help etc.

Thankfully the league is a very different animal to the early 80's now (or considering how the 80's turned out maybe not so thankfully - I concede the Hawks would be dead though).

The sooner the concessions for the start up clubs stop, and the AFL stop medelling with various concessions to manipulate outcomes the better. Might not ever happen though

 

[QuietB]

No doubt. I get it. But a lot of the frustration directed at Sydney is uneducated. We got booted up there under threat of folding. We got no start up assistance. We got sold to a criminal who sent the club even more broke if that were possible. We got bought by a consortium who could only afford to pay half the salary cap, so we fielded absolutely no talent. We finally got some financial assistance and some priority draft picks (no more than many other clubs have received since) and began to build a club.

It was a broadly recognised problem that the value of a contract in Sydney was less than in Melbourne because of cost of living issues. So an allowance was brought in. As the salary cap has increased, such an allowance is less necessary now than it was back then (although it remains relevant to those on smaller contracts). So we reluctantly accept that it has to go.

What we don't accept is that our 2012 flag was bought with COLA. Nor do we accept that Buddy and Tippet arrived due to COLA. The reason for that is that we recognise that 1. we started 2012 with a list of rookies and discards and overperformed to win that flag and 2. in each of 2012 and 2013 we have dropped off our list more talent in terms of dollars than we have added to our list.

What we especially don't accept, and in fact pisses us right off, is that most of the commentary around this stuff comes from the Collingwood President and is parrotted as though it was fact. And it is not. And it shits us that especially Hawthorn supporters are unable to see that another club can be well managed just as they are. It shits us to tears. We get it that Carlton and Collingwood supporters might have a view that success can only be achieved through cheating, but Hawthorn? Give us some ******* respect!

I'm happy for GWS to receive assistance, but it shouldn't be done by deliberately manipulating player list management to make the Swans worse as against the whole competition. And that is what is happening.

I agree 100% Sydney are a well managed club (maybe were - I think the Tippett/Buddy/Reid contracts combined are not good business but that is a personal opinion and not really all that relevant).

I also agree that the Swans 2012 success had nothing to do with CoLA. That premiership was deserved as much as it hurts to say it.

I disagree that the Tippett and Buddy acquisitions had nothing to do with CoLA. I would argue that those were the moments where Sydney worked out how to leverage CoLA to its maximum advantage.

I would also say that your hard luck story about how hard it was early days in Sydney is probably not a story that a Fitzroy supporter would care to hear. Or a dogs supporter, saints supporter, Freo or Port supporter who got little/no start up help etc.

Thankfully the league is a very different animal to the early 80's now (or considering how the 80's turned out maybe not so thankfully - I concede the Hawks would be dead though).

The sooner the concessions for the start up clubs stop, and the AFL stop medelling with various concessions to manipulate outcomes the better. Might not ever happen though

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

No doubt. I get it. But a lot of the frustration directed at Sydney is uneducated. We got booted up there under threat of folding. We got no start up assistance. We got sold to a criminal who sent the club even more broke if that were possible. We got bought by a consortium who could only afford to pay half the salary cap, so we fielded absolutely no talent. We finally got some financial assistance and some priority draft picks (no more than many other clubs have received since) and began to build a club.

It was a broadly recognised problem that the value of a contract in Sydney was less than in Melbourne because of cost of living issues. So an allowance was brought in. As the salary cap has increased, such an allowance is less necessary now than it was back then (although it remains relevant to those on smaller contracts). So we reluctantly accept that it has to go.

What we don't accept is that our 2012 flag was bought with COLA. Nor do we accept that Buddy and Tippet arrived due to COLA. The reason for that is that we recognise that 1. we started 2012 with a list of rookies and discards and overperformed to win that flag and 2. in each of 2012 and 2013 we have dropped off our list more talent in terms of dollars than we have added to our list.

What we especially don't accept, and in fact pisses us right off, is that most of the commentary around this stuff comes from the Collingwood President and is parrotted as though it was fact. And it is not. And it shits us that especially Hawthorn supporters are unable to see that another club can be well managed just as they are. It shits us to tears. We get it that Carlton and Collingwood supporters might have a view that success can only be achieved through cheating, but Hawthorn? Give us some ******* respect!

I'm happy for GWS to receive assistance, but it shouldn't be done by deliberately manipulating player list management to make the Swans worse as against the whole competition. And that is what is happening.

Excellent post. Required reading for non-Swans supporters if they wish to understand our feelings on this issue, rather than throw cheap shots and resort to playground name calling.