Cost of Living Allowance

[DamY]

Bulldogs President Peter Gordon on SEN this morning said the real problem is the poorer Melb clubs cannot afford to pay 100% of the salary cap like Sydney and the richer Melb clubs. Where the real equalization needs to occur is the AFL should make sure everyone has the financial footing to pay 100% of the salary cap each year.
Having established an equal base line for everyone would then make cost of living adjustment more acceptable.

I believe that the AFL has set as a goal for either this or next season is to ensure that all clubs have the ability to pay 100% of the cap

[MightyBloods]

Therein lies the manifest hypocrisy of Eddie's argument. There is no level playing field. Half of Collingwood's home games have 20,000 opposition supporters turn up and give them revenue. They don't need to send their team and support staff interstate every second week. They get the bonanza of the Anzac Day match every year regardless of performance or merit. Collingwood attract players with world class facilities and training camps in the US. All paid for by revenue which Sydney can't get.

If Collingwood want a level playing field, they should agree to a significant proportion of all gate takings being divided equally amongst clubs. They should agree on big matches being shared amongst teams on merit. Anzac Day should be a grand final replay IMO.

Strangely, Eddie isn't so keen on those ideas. He wants equalisation as long as Collingwood gets to be more equal.

I'm a supporter of the idea of managing the COLA better to remove any idea of an unfair advantage. There's been good ideas floated by others on here - a set figure per player, means testing, control by the AFL. They're all good ideas. But any change needs to be matched by better sharing of revenue and equalisation of costs like travel.

and Eddie has asked for an uncompromising draft. All right Eddie, let's start now. No more father/son picks...make it uncompromised. The Melb clubs have done well on the father son rule certainly over the past 20 years, in particular Geelong and Footscray. I think Geelong have stockpiled sons...something in the water or sports science related?!! lol
Oh Eddie, whats that? You want to keep the father/son rule until the end of next years draft? Sorry, you have a kid called Darcy Moore (Peter Moore's son) who many are saying top 3 potential? But Eddie, you said uncompromised! You better give Nathan the news about some equalisation Ed. Cheerio good chap!

[Sandridge]

Therein lies the manifest hypocrisy of Eddie's argument. There is no level playing field. Half of Collingwood's home games have 20,000 opposition supporters turn up and give them revenue. They don't need to send their team and support staff interstate every second week. They get the bonanza of the Anzac Day match every year regardless of performance or merit. Collingwood attract players with world class facilities and training camps in the US. All paid for by revenue which Sydney can't get.

If Collingwood want a level playing field, they should agree to a significant proportion of all gate takings being divided equally amongst clubs. They should agree on big matches being shared amongst teams on merit. Anzac Day should be a grand final replay IMO.

Strangely, Eddie isn't so keen on those ideas. He wants equalisation as long as Collingwood gets to be more equal.

I'm a supporter of the idea of managing the COLA better to remove any idea of an unfair advantage. There's been good ideas floated by others on here - a set figure per player, means testing, control by the AFL. They're all good ideas. But any change needs to be matched by better sharing of revenue and equalisation of costs like travel.

Spot on! You don't see Eddie offering ANZAC Day or the Queen's Birthday Monday games to the struggling Victorian clubs that we're supposedly helping to kill off! And, in Melbourne, Friday Night games are becoming the "place to be" with TV coverage to huge audiences hungry for another weekend of football after a week's work. Guess which club gets to play most Friday night games?

[ernie koala]

[QUOTE=MightyBloods;626439]

Good on ya Mitch....Lets make it 20%, I love it.....A true Blood....a Premiership Blood

- - - Updated - - -

I listened to Mitch's interview with trepidation as he can be bluntly honest. You could tell that the journo was trying to find holes in our COLA payments. I was rapt when Mitch said it should be 20%. It shut the journo right up!
Is the timing right to ask the AFL for an increase?!

Perfect timing....Like running a stick over a bull ant nest

[Xie Shan]

I'm just amused by the amount of misinformation that's been spread about the COLA. Most Swans fans here and on BF seem to get it, but even the basics are dreadfully misunderstood by many in the mainstream footy media. I guess it's like the old saying, if a lie gets repeated often enough, people will believe it to be true.

The term cost of living allowance is probably a bit misleading, location allowance would have been a more appropriate label as it was really put in to counteract the inherent disadvantages faced by us and Brisbane in recruiting and retaining players. I agree that it is still an issue for the younger or lesser paid players. The extra 9-10% hardly makes a difference to the big marquee deals like Tippett and now Franklin, which is why the criticism that we cop over it when we try to sign a Buddy is so absurd.

I think it's almost certainly gone as a result of the backlash, though personally I believe it should stay, because no matter how successful we are perceived to be, we will always be at a disadvantage compared to clubs in Vic/WA/SA because we don't have enough home grown talent, we have to draft from interstate. It's to the club's great credit that they have turned this weakness into a strength by creating a strong culture with a close knit playing group. The lifestyle benefits of living in Sydney help a bit too!

[Rod_]

It's easy.

Have all the Melbourne clubs pay more for milk and other things and we won't need the cost of living allowance...

Same price everywhere. No complaints from me as I pay Sydney prices anyway!

Rod_

[CureTheSane]

Regardless of the legitimacy for COLA, it is in place, and one thing the AFL doesn't do too often is bow down to clubs demands.
I wonder if the Swans thought it was a good idea to have a player on a 9 year contract for other reasons?
If the AFL was to scrap COLA, surely it would have to be done gradually ie: if you're a current Swans player, you've signed with the Swans knowing that COLA is in place. To have it ripped out from under players would be as detrimental to the Swans as they thing the Buddy deal might be in locking in a player for so long.

Having said that, Buddy is said to have a large chunk of that as promotional payments, as allowed by AFL rules.
I would say that the clubs are simply pissed off and using COLA as a sooky sooky la la
Most of what I've heard being said sounds as if there was no real understanding of the structure and rules of the use of COLA, as a lot of what I've heard is said in a speculative (and incorrect) way.

It's made me very happy for the Swans to be so aggressive and get what they want.
Franklin to GWS would have been great for them, much like Folau was.
We have put them right back in their place for now...

[liz]

I am surprised so many opposition clubs and media people can't do their sums. They keep quoting that the Swans get an extra 9.8% in the cap. But don't we get an extra increment of 9.8% added each year? Or at least every other year or so. We must do. Because the only reason we were able to lure starring talents from Hawthorn and Geelong back in 2009 was because the COLA enabled us to throw unrealistic sums of money at them. And then COLA was the sole reason we were able to recruit Tippett. And now its done the trick again with Buddy. Factor in the recruitments of Hall, Plugger, Greg Williams and Gerald Healey and our salary cap must be well over 200% of any other club's? Surely?

[wolftone57]

I think it's fair to say that, even if it's all done through superb list management and being an attractive location, the potential addition of Lance Franklin just one year after the addition of Kurt Tippett has raised one or two politely raised eyebrows around the country. I thought I'd divert some of the chit chat out of other threads into its own as it's probably going to be one of the biggest issues we've faced as a club in a while.

What are your thoughts on the Cost of Living Allowance? Do you think it creates an uneven competition? How could it be improved? Most importantly: what arguments can we use to justify this to our friends so we don't hear that every victory is "tainted" for the next 9 years?

The latest figures are saying that the cost of living is 28% higher in Sydney than in Melbourne. That has risen from 14.9% three years ago. That is because property rose by 11% each year for the last 3 years, a total of 33%. @@@@ing stupid I know. That means rents increased accordingly. I think 9% is piddling really. A property that once sold for $350,000 is now $470,000 and the rent on that property has risen from $400 to $550/wk. I am sorry but the real cost of living is an issue here in Sydney for the rookie and baseline players. It is nearly 30% above Melbourne and if we didn't have it most players would tell us not to draft them.

[DK_]

The latest figures are saying that the cost of living is 28% higher in Sydney than in Melbourne. That has risen from 14.9% three years ago. That is because property rose by 11% each year for the last 3 years, a total of 33%. @@@@ing stupid I know. That means rents increased accordingly. I think 9% is piddling really. A property that once sold for $350,000 is now $470,000 and the rent on that property has risen from $400 to $550/wk. I am sorry but the real cost of living is an issue here in Sydney for the rookie and baseline players. It is nearly 30% above Melbourne and if we didn't have it most players would tell us not to draft them.

There's a property in Sydney for $470,000?!?!?! Is it on wheels?

[Triple B]

There's a property in Sydney for $470,000?!?!?! Is it on wheels?

No, but the car in the driveway is on bricks...

[ShockOfHair]

Clearly correct, BUT, if not for the COLA, could we have fit them in the salary cap? That is the thing that has the other clubs upset.

When the COLA was first introduced, there was a clear case that teams like Sydney and Brisbane were having trouble attracting players and retaining players and a big part, certainly in Sydney's case was the COL. Things have changed however to the point that players WANT to come to Sydney, not for the extra 9.8% on their contract, but because they are now so highly respected and they want to be part of the culture and also play in a perennially competitive team.

IMO, Melbourne didn't deserve another priority pick because their current position is a by product of poor management, poor recruiting and poor culture.

If Sydney loses the COLA because they have recruited brilliantly and have developed a culture that players all over the country envy and many want to be a part of, well that would be plain wrong. Unfortunately may well happen.

Yep I think the allowance is going to COLAteral damage in the Buddy deal.

It's going to be hard to argue we can't attract players if Buddy turned down $2m from GWS for a third less from us.

The COLA is based on ABS figures, which show Sydney is 15% more expensive than Melbourne. During the Tippett saga, Colless was talking about applying to increase that. I guess the club decided that wasn't a good time.

Buty they should at least keep it for rookies and young plaers.

[BillyRayCypress]

I'm seeing double posts again..........

[Mug Punter]

My understanding of COLA is that all our contracts have it specifically written in.

In line of "your salary is $250,000 per year plus 9.8% cost of living allowance".

I assume we have a clause in our contracts that state that should the AFL revoke this allowance then it will not be paid. If this is the case and our COLA was withdrawn overnight I would believe that we would have no salary cap issues but the players would lose that payment.

So, whilst it would perhaps place our future contract offerings under threat the way I see it there would not be any immediate impact on our squad...

I would think the club is shrewd enough to have structured this risk this way as they would be aware this is an ongoing issue

[Mug Punter]

COLA

My understanding of COLA is that all our contracts have it specifically written in.

In line of "your salary is $250,000 per year plus 9.8% cost of living allowance".

I assume we have a clause in our contracts that state that should the AFL revoke this allowance then it will not be paid. If this is the case and our COLA was withdrawn overnight I would believe that we would have no salary cap issues but the players would lose that payment.

So, whilst it would perhaps place our future contract offerings under threat the way I see it there would not be any immediate impact on our squad...

I would think the club is shrewd enough to have structured this risk this way as they would be aware this is an ongoing issue

- - - Updated - - -

Think I am doubling up, feel free to delete this post....

- - - Updated - - -

My expectation is that the COLA will be capped/means-tested. It does seem a little absurd that Buddy gets it and it's hard to argue that he needs it. For players on more humble contracts it is still a very real issue. I'd think the first $150,000 or $200,000 only of each contract should get it.

Probably means it will be approximately halved in effect. With any luck common-sense will prevail here - we do of course have the facts to back up our argument for COLA which helps.