Lance Franklin to become a Swan

[R-1]

That's probably a technique issue which can be corrected, though. Give the kid time, he's got plenty and suddenly he'll have the third defender on him next year which is a hell of a lot more breathing and learning space than he's had.

[DK_]

Hi just signed up becasue i need somewhere amongst other swans fans as its getting out of hand the negative melbourne media hyperbole machine.

I just joined to say that i am really feed up with the melbourne media. Today in the herald sun they are running a story and focusing on every possible worst outcome for us and buddy. They even went as far as to mention if he plays in the IRS and gets injured he we are stuffed.

Why are they doing this? Why can't they focus on the postives? If it was collingwood or Carlton or even Richmond getting him they would have 4 pages going on about how it will make them stronger, it will put footy on the map etc.

But instead they are repeating the same negative things in one article and using emotive language. They are trading short term manufactured rage for what could be a very good thing for football in the northern states which are struggling to gain new support. I guess once the money and new tv deals come in it will shut them up for a while.

Everyone is hoping we fail so they can point fingers and be proved right, so they can tell us "stupid bandwagoners who watch rugby" that they were right. I wish i lived in Sydney where i can enjoy this signing and not have to listen to horrible local media. Its made me depressed to the point where i dont want him at the swans now.

Welcome! You'll fit right in here...

[spiffy-dude]

I feel so much better after seeing buddy with his swans gear, its made me smile for the rest of the aftnernoon.

if only we could print out the pic of RC giving eddie the finger and use it on non swan fans at melbourne games next year.

[Bloodthirsty]

In that Sen interview with Gil McLachlan that On-Baller posted, McLachlan makes it clear that the Swans would be obliged to pay the full amount, that is fund the COLA component themselves, if the AFL discontinues paying COLA to us.

If the COLA is abolished and the Swans have to pay it themselves, then how is it possible to even legally pay it ourselves if the salary cap is reduced by 9.8% given that we are pretty much at 100% already? Am I missing something here?

[ShockOfHair]

But as set out in earlier comments above, a significant part of Franklin's contract is going to be made up with a marketing agreement (ASA). ASAs don't have COLA applied to them so discontinuing COLA would have no effect on the Swans' financing of this component.

That's right. Here's what Ireland said on SEN last week:
There are two salary caps. One's just pure player payments and the other's marketing or ASA, and players split their contracts over those two.
In Buddy's case... a lump of the contract would be in the marketing salary cap, and the reality is that the marketing salary cap doesn't have the cost-of-living applied to it. If you look at the total contract, a small part of the total contract is made up of the cost-of-living.:


SwansTV: Andrew Ireland speaks on SEN - sydneyswans.com.au

What's really amazing is no other club has thought of it.

[CureTheSane]

re: COLA, If the AFL say dumped it in 2015, then effectively contracted players would take a pay cut?
ie: $100,000 per year + 9.8% COLA becomes $100,000 + live in a city with a higher cost of living on less than you did last year?
They can't just dump it.
It's more complicated than that.
Also keep in mind that the AFL want GWS to thrive - COLA will play a part in that and we have to get it if they do

[Ludwig]

If the AFL just eliminate the COLA without consideration to the part that is already written into existing contracts, then they could, and probably would, put the Swans in breach of the salary by that action alone. If the COLA is eliminated, then it would have to be phased out in a way that would only apply to either new players or new contracts. If it were new contracts, then every player could be looking at starting negotiations down 10 from what they would be currently getting.

Does anyone know the details on how this was handled with Brisbane?

- - - Updated - - -

If the Sydney COLA is dropped, GWS will probably get something in its place.

[bloodsbigot]

Random thought.

Does anyone think this whole saga seems like the movie 'The Champions' aka 'The Mighty Ducks?'

I've always thought the Swans were very similar to the Ducks, because they're both perceived as weak birds and seem like an odd choice for a team name. Also, the Ducks were a basketcase in the original movie and came good, just as the Swans did.

Also... what was the name of the team that were the bad guys and had all the good players and had all the championships? Yep... The HAWKS.

To top it off, in the original movie, the Ducks (Swans) take away the Hawks star player Banks (Buddy).

Ducks went on to glory while the Hawks became irrelevant. Hopefully this will come to pass in the near future.

Just thought it was a funny similarity.

[dimelb]

re: COLA, If the AFL say dumped it in 2015, then effectively contracted players would take a pay cut?
ie: $100,000 per year + 9.8% COLA becomes $100,000 + live in a city with a higher cost of living on less than you did last year?
They can't just dump it.
It's more complicated than that. ...

I suspect they can't just dump it either.
And especially not just dump it on the club. COLA was never the club's responsibility.

[DamY]

If the AFL just eliminate the COLA without consideration to the part that is already written into existing contracts, then they could, and probably would, put the Swans in breach of the salary by that action alone. If the COLA is eliminated, then it would have to be phased out in a way that would only apply to either new players or new contracts. If it were new contracts, then every player could be looking at starting negotiations down 10 from what they would be currently getting.

Does anyone know the details on how this was handled with Brisbane?

- - - Updated - - -

If the Sydney COLA is dropped, GWS will probably get something in its place.

If they were to remove the COLA, I think the AFLPA would get involved as it is unrealistic to expect rookies to make do in Sydney especially if they're from a non-AFL state. They will lack a) support network (common to all interstate players) but most importantly b) the real and significant cost pressures in Sydney. I think there should be a salary ceiling where COLA cuts out, as when you earn $100k etc I don't think those cost pressures are as significant.

If the other clubs have an issue with COLA and it's lack of transparency, then I think a good suggestion would be the AFL topping up a certain percentage or some sort of allowance where the AFL determines the average disadvantage compared to VIC (being the state with the most clubs and players) and then adding that to players in states where they have determined them to be disadvantaged. That way it doesn't reveal the player's salary
OMG I just walked past Garry Jack

[MightyBloods]

If they were to remove the COLA, I think the AFLPA would get involved as it is unrealistic to expect rookies to make do in Sydney especially if they're from a non-AFL state. They will lack a) support network (common to all interstate players) but most importantly b) the real and significant cost pressures in Sydney. I think there should be a salary ceiling where COLA cuts out, as when you earn $100k etc I don't think those cost pressures are as significant.

If the other clubs have an issue with COLA and it's lack of transparency, then I think a good suggestion would be the AFL topping up a certain percentage or some sort of allowance where the AFL determines the average disadvantage compared to VIC (being the state with the most clubs and players) and then adding that to players in states where they have determined them to be disadvantaged. That way it doesn't reveal the player's salary
OMG I just walked past Garry Jack

Agree. Also, I can see the COLA being "phased out" in line with salary cap ongoing increases so that the players will not take a salary cut. I can see the AFL renaming COLA and continuing to supply developing clubs/markets/clubs in need going forward. The AFL currently supplies financial help to StKilda, Melbourne and the Western Bulldogs so I wonder why Eddie hasn't had a go at these clubs? Oh thats right, they havent played finals recently. What a hypocrite! I could also go on about TV rights and the money that NSW exposure through the Swans and Giants has brought to that commercial deal. How about we split the TV right proceeds by state value to those clubs within that state and see how the Melbourne clubs like that idea!

[Meg]

If the AFL just eliminate the COLA .....

Does anyone know the details on how this was handled with Brisbane?

- - - Updated - - -
.

I think the Brisbane Retention Allowance was phased down over the three years 2004 to 2006 before being abolished at end of 2006.

[Go Swannies]

Do we need to rename this thread?

[On-Baller]

From everything the AFL have said i dont think there will be any phasing out of the COLA , i think thats part of the reason why they wanted assurances from the club that they had factored in that we may be without COLA from 2015. Most likely scenario going forward seems that there will be a new franchise payment to GWS and i assume GCS to help retain players, the only hope we may have of retaining it at all seemingly being that we may be allowed the COLA but only for players on minimum wages.

[Ludwig]

I think the Brisbane Retention Allowance was phased down over the three years 2004 to 2006 before being abolished at end of 2006.

Thanks.

That would allow for an average contract term expiration. But our COLA has some real cost basis in fact, so it's a different sort of situation.