Swans to lose location allowance

[Glenn]

Swans to lose bonus

Fortunatly the cost of living provision remains in place

[bricon]

Isn't this old news?

Wasn't the dropping of the location allowance in 2006 for Sydney and Bribane announced at the same time that the introduction of the 40% local player provision was announced?

We lose $600K from the location allowance but pick up $360K from the 40% rule - a $240K nett reduction. As we haven't been using all of our allowances and provisions in recent years anyway, it's hardly a big deal.

Sounds like a beat up to keep the Eddies of the world happy.

[liz]

Looks like new news to me - ie they are completely abolishing the extra (other than the Swans COL) from the end of 2006, not replacing it with the other allowance.

[timthefish]

why don't the afl just add a bonus (that the afl itself pays for) to every player from every club that has to relocate.

they could have two partial bonuses, a flat rate based on distance so that draftees and so on could afford for themselves of family to travel plus a percentage boost so that big earners are also encouraged to stay put.

[Glenn]

As mentioned different from what was previously mooted, as now just the COL allowance is retained for Sydney (much to the disgust of Eddie)
Can't see the AFL too keen to put into their pockets for player relocation

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Glenn
much to the disgust of Eddie

Eddie is on record as saying the Swans "must" have a COL allowence.

[barry]

Originally posted by robbieando
Eddie is on record as saying the Swans "must" have a COL allowence.

Then it "must" be a realistic figure. Not some bogus 7% pulled out of thin air.
I think the ABS rate Sydney's cost of living around 25% higher than the rest of the country.

[dread and might]

Originally posted by barry
I think the ABS rate Sydney's cost of living around 25% higher than the rest of the country.

no wonder i'm moving

[swansrule100]

this was always going to happen
its pretty petty of other clubs
happy to do it when the swans and brissie were rubbish
but once it works they complain

[BAM_BAM]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we didn't use the allowance last year and were well under the cap? FWIW I agree with the decision.

Sydney and Brisbane are no longer the wastelands they once were, sure our choice of youngsters isn't as strong as the other states, but if a kid wants to play footy at the elite level he'll go anywhere to do so. With successful drafting at that age, we shouldn't need that allowance to lure heaps of experienced players to the club.

The COL allowance is definitely required. Senior players on big bucks may not need it, but for the young kids who move here and have to pay rent (even if that rent is to one of his team mates) definitely need a hand along.

[Damien]

They have bowed to Melbourne based clubs yet again.

Brisbane and Sydney simply have it a lot harder to attract and retain players. Melbourne's footy culture along with family/mates is always tempting players back home.

Just because we have been stable and the Lions successful doesn't change the fact that those cities simply don't offer what Melbourne does.

Not every player is a Tony Lockett or Barry Hall looking to leave the limelight, most IMO love it.

If C'Wood had won back to back premierships, Eddie would have shut his trap 2 years ago.

[footyhead]

Originally posted by Damien


If C'Wood had won back to back premierships, Eddie would have shut his trap 2 years ago.

I think you underestimate the lenth and breadth of eddie's ambition.

[Plugger46]

Demetriou has just backed down to Eddie. Essendon weren't over-achieving when they were dominant a few years back, but as soon as Brisbane had success it had to be down to Salary cap concessions. In addition to that, we haven't set the world on fire, so I can't understand why they have to be abolished. Sydney and Brisbane are not football states. Demetriou and the AFL have once again shown how piss weak they really are.

[DST]

Originally posted by Glenn
As mentioned different from what was previously mooted, as now just the COL allowance is retained for Sydney (much to the disgust of Eddie)
Can't see the AFL too keen to put into their pockets for player relocation

No, Adrian Anderson reiterated this morning on radio that the planned allowance for all clubs (ie if you have a certain amount of players from interstate on your list) is still going ahead.

The change was to phase the old system out quicker.

So the loss will be net between the two, but it is now applied under the new rules which will be tougher (ie it is not just a blanket spend but targeted towards new draftees etc).

The COL remains but at what rate is yet to be determined.

DST

[peterh_oz]

I've been saying it for a LONG time ... COL yes, "retention" no, unless the retention is paid to the players they are trying to retain, and available to ALL clubs. The way it was, they just stuck it into the Salary Cap "bucket" and we could spend it anywhere we liked. THAT was unfair.

The kids on the base wages were on the SAME base asother clubs. That isn't an allowance, that is just a higher cap.

A fully audited COL allowance is a good thing. The 7% hasn't been set, they will set it each year based on proper COL figures.

And, as I've stated before, I agree with Eddie.