Blame Swans for COLA scrutiny: Giants

[Doctor]

Just remember this simple rule. The big Victorian clubs and their less globally minded supporters are happy for it to be an AFL with clubs from outside Victoria, as long as we don't do very well.

[dimelb]

Don't completely agree with you there Jono, from what I can see the club has worked extremely hard to prove it's point about the COLA, but sometimes, there is just no telling people no matter how hard you try or how much evidence you produce.
I really can't see the AFL just cutting the COLA out in one foul swoop after the huge fall from grace it brought about at the Lions and believe they will have to honour all current contracts (excluding Franklins, as the AFL clearly warned Sydney that the COLA was on the way out prior to his signing) and that in the future there will be a ceiling.

One fell swoop.

Or as I sometimes say, one swell foop.

[Chilcott]

Are the day to day items, such as beer, bread, milk, coffee more expensive in Sydney than Melbourne? I wouldn't have thought so.

I don't have a problem if the COLA ceases. As long as it's replaced with another scheme.

Some sort of rental allowance should be introduced for players in the lower salary bracket.

[Matimbo]

[QUOTE=Chilcott;633558]

Don't completely agree with you there Jono, from what I can see the club has worked extremely hard to prove it's point about the COLA, but sometimes, there is just no telling people no matter how hard you try or how much evidence you produce.
I really can't see the AFL just cutting the COLA out in one foul swoop after the huge fall from grace it brought about at the Lions and believe they will have to honour all current contracts (excluding Franklins, as the AFL clearly warned Sydney that the COLA was on the way out prior to his signing) and that in the future there will be a ceiling.[/QUOTE

One fell swoop.

Agree with this ... other clubs openly expressed complete incredulity over both the KT and Buddy deals. Swans were clearly very shrewd in making them both happen and this caught other clubs - especially the big ones - by surprise. So in response they have to argue that the Swans have an unfair advantage. If not, why weren't they able to pull off similar coups?? So I wouldn't expect other clubs to listen to any fact-based arguments about COLA.

I support the following mentioned either in the press or by previous posters:

1. Salary cap modified to also control football dept spending - the non-player spend gap across clubs is currently very large and growing ... a big threat to club financial stability as all clubs feel compelled to follow e.g. look at how many clubs are now spending budget on altitude training after the richest club started doing it a few years back. Not sure if it should be a single cap or two separate caps for players and football dept.
2. COLA capped or phased out over a threshold player salary (e.g. $150Kp.a. was suggested previously) ... to ensure that junior/low income players get their full COLA but a Buddy-level salary gets no extra COLA. However, I still struggle with how to police this in practice. e.g. couldn't the Swans just as easily argue that Buddy's deal is true market value and does not include any COLA?
3. COLA applied to every club - establish a baseline cost-of-living for every AFL city based on independent measures. Every club with a proven cost of living above the baseline gets the allowance. In reality, this would probably mean Adelaide clubs get no COLA, Sydney clubs get most, places like Perth would be the immediate gainers. The problem at the moment is that COLA is used by the AFL to prop up struggling clubs. But the cost of living gap between Sydney and other cities doesn't go away just because you win a premiership. So COLA should be used to address the fundamental financial gap between cities only. Use other methods to prop up GWS.

And yes, it's "one fell swoop", but if the take away the COLA in one fell swoop it will be foul.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Chilcott, nail on head!

[Melbourne_Blood]

Chilcott, nail on head!

[Ludwig]

Magoo's analysis is spot on.

I think everyone understand's the issues involved, but each club is presenting a case that best suits its own situation. There is only so much money to go around and some balance has to achieved between bringing a fair and equal competition and success for those who simply find the better solution, both on and off the field.

Also agree with those critical of GWS chief Mathews, as he is arguing for losing the COLA if the Giants should manage a higher ladder position than the Swans, so he is saying "if we succeed, then take our COLA away too." I think the Giants will have some reckoning to do down the line when the money dries up, with or without success. It's another Brisbane waiting to happen. I just hope the Swans don't fall into the same boat.

The AFL has a difficult problem on it's hands, and it won't be easy getting it right.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Are the day to day items, such as beer, bread, milk, coffee more expensive in Sydney than Melbourne? I wouldn't have thought so.

I don't have a problem if the COLA ceases. As long as it's replaced with another scheme.

Some sort of rental allowance should be introduced for players in the lower salary bracket.

Chilcott

the example that is very important

the year is 2017

you play for Carlton and they just came 12th on the ladder

North Melbourne want you to join them and North just won the GF

Sydney Swans want you to join them and Sydney just came 5th

all 3 clubs want to pay the same salary.........sydney rent is thru the roof...........sydney property market has gone up 30% in the last 3 years

you have a two year old and a one year old and your mum and dad live round the corner and help out with the kids while your wife works part time at a job she loves

you have great friends outside of footy in Melb and your wife absolutely gets along with her two melb based sisters and are best buddies !



Who will you join ??


This example will be the norm re family, friends and lack of a reason to change for most players which is a massive obstacle to over come for the swans even with COLA

In the past sydney went for two hot heads in Lockett and Barry who wanted to leave melb and have a break from the city of football, football, football..........we had to offer way over what they would have got in melb as well as the circumstances being in place that they wanted to leave which is a rare event !!!

I think the journos dont tend to really think about how much the majority of us like to stay with friends, jobs, family and family support...........

[cartman48]

Your joking arent you :
1. We arent cashed up at all. In fact in most years we barely turn a profit.
2. The swans arent crying poor and never have. If you think the COLA is all about club wealth you are missing the point of what its in place for.
3. Success shouldnt mean that in effect we should be penalised financially - the effect of removing the COLA is that if I pay a player $100,000 the player is in effect better off taking $100,000 at a melbourne club as it will actually be the same from a cost perspective as being offerred $110,000 by Sydney.

While I agree that the way the COLA is handled could be aimed at those more likely to be afffected but I disagree that this is the Swans own making. I am sure they have provided very good background data etc that justifies the position , but you cant argue with emotion and self interest and the people bleating the most are coming from that position.

The only reason that I can see for the Swans bringing it on themselves is :
1. They signed Tippett and Franklin
2. They have been successful just prior to doing that.

Please point out where I indicated the Swans are Cashed up? A few players are and you get 10% additional to bid for players on the free market but I never stated the Swans are Cashed up.
COLA was in place to support additional cost of living in Sydney and came about so they could remove the same funds from Brisbane after 2004 (There fourth Grand final on the trot).
As a GWS Member they should lose there's in a couple of years as well - successful or not but they need a system where younger players are looked after (Housing etc) but the Swans have abused the system to there advantage (and good luck to them) but given the calibre of recruits they have uncovered over the years in low draft picks and the use of recycled players the Swans do not get the credit they deserve because this "unfair" system takes the gloss away. - Some in Melbourne will always see non footy states as looked after and they should be to remove market share from the knuckle heads in the NRL but you cannot tell me that the upper level players at Sydney and GWS need additional money to live. If Brisbane or Melbourne received this and Sydney did not everyone on this site would be crying foul as well.....

- - - Updated - - -

Chilcott

the example that is very important

the year is 2017

you play for Carlton and they just came 12th on the ladder

North Melbourne want you to join them and North just won the GF

Sydney Swans want you to join them and Sydney just came 5th

all 3 clubs want to pay the same salary.........sydney rent is thru the roof...........sydney property market has gone up 30% in the last 3 years

you have a two year old and a one year old and your mum and dad live round the corner and help out with the kids while your wife works part time at a job she loves

you have great friends outside of footy in Melb and your wife absolutely gets along with her two melb based sisters and are best buddies !



Who will you join ??


This example will be the norm re family, friends and lack of a reason to change for most players which is a massive obstacle to over come for the swans even with COLA

In the past sydney went for two hot heads in Lockett and Barry who wanted to leave melb and have a break from the city of football, football, football..........we had to offer way over what they would have got in melb as well as the circumstances being in place that they wanted to leave which is a rare event !!!

I think the journos dont tend to really think about how much the majority of us like to stay with friends, jobs, family and family support...........

Based on this logic 90% of the AFL will be moving to Adelaide to play with the crows or Port..... Cheap as chips to live there

[Auntie.Gerald]

no Cartman

I gave a pretty long example of if being so much more then money

money is only part of the equation hence the long example above

BUT the reason we invested so so so so so much into culture and making all players and their extended family feel like the Swans Family is because it is so hard to keep let alone attract players to move to a one or two team town and especially a town as expensive as Sydney EVEN with COLA

if you play footy in an area you dont want to leave ie Melb....... well then you have plenty of options to go to another club without disrupting work for your spouse, family, friends etc etc

It doenst feel that long ago we were loosing quality young players back to melb hand over fist........the place they came from and where their family is !

Sydney does not have that luxury of keeping some players if that want to leave because in the past that meant back to a another state NOW it is the GWS machine that will continue to pick up early pick players like Jed Lamb or high quality players like Mummy........they didnt want to leave sydney obviously

it is like all journos totally discount that things that keep players at a club or city..........it is those factors that Sydney are up against massively in every negotiation when trying to recruit from interstate and then on top of that comes the 14% more expensive city to live in !

we even have to send our young emerging guys to other states because our local comps are not good enough for their development

ie Rampe is one of the very very very few examples of guys that went off to apply their trade become better footballers and then snuck back into the swans system again as a middle aged player almost and he wanted to come home !!!

max 1% of players in the AFL could say that there home is sydney - if it was 40% then surviving without COLA maybe a little easier because players would want to return to Sydney and their families

[bloodsbigot]

I have a feeling the swans decided a long time ago that if they had great success as a club the cola would come under question, even if they were paying under the cap and showed evidence, etc. Nobody would want to listen. We could all argue until blue in the face but they're already made up their minds, evidence or no evidence. This is why they took a punt at Buddy and thought, "**** em."

Immediately following the 2012 premiership, I knew the cola would become an issue and it would be an excuse as to why we are so successful, and sure enough on bigfooty, one day later, it became a hot topic. These same people later had egg on their face when we bought Tippett and Buddy, which showed we were actually spending under the cap at the time of our 2012 premiership. So they changed their story to suit their agendas and to make them seem less like liars.

I think once someones claim is proven to be incorrect (Like the assumption 2012 was 'bought'), they get ten times more defensive and angry.

[bloodsbigot]

PS. The last thing the GWS wants...the absolute last thing... is for the swans and their supporters to ignore them.

[Zlatorog]

I'm not upset what the supporters on BF or the Melbourne media is saying because I don't care about them. Nobody is questioning Geelong presence in top 8 or even top 4 for so many years and yet everybody is upset if the Swans are successful. But that's fine, what I am really upset about is the behaviour of the AFL that should be impartial in the interest of the nation competition and they are not. Not only they punished the Swans in 2013 for getting Tippet, who wanted to get out of that fish-bowl called Adelaide, by banning him to play footy for 11 rounds. If they didn't want Tippet to come to the Swans they should simply came out and say it instead of using backstabbing tactics.
I'm suspecting that AFL wasn't happy when the Swans won the premiership in 2012, which was proved by attacks from GWS, Tippet case, etc. In addition to that they made a priority to discuss the Buddy transfer, which was a healthy distraction from their failure to nail Essendon for their, should we call it indiscretions?
What it looks to me that Andrew D didn't like us in 2005 and he still doesn't like us and this is now an open "war" on the club by the AFL using lies an disinformation dished out by the media (+Foxtel) in Melbourne. I think NRL must be enjoying it.

[The Big Cat]

Why did hawthorn escape scrutiny when they brought in Burgoyne straight after a flag, then Lake, Dunston, Gibson, Hale, etc etc and now the number 1 ruckman from St Kilda in Ben McEvoy. Everybody says that's OK as Buddy leaving has freed up cap space, yet the world takes no notice when we lose Bolton, Mattner, Mumford, White, Armstrong, Everett, TDL, Seaby, Morton, Lamb, etc over the last two years and have factored in Goodes and O'Keefe leaving imminently. They don't appear to realise that 2+2+2+2+2=10. The way they see it is that to make room for a megastar you need to move out a megastar. (To them ten 100KG weights does not a tonne make!)

[Mr Magoo]

[QUOTE=cartman48;633578]Please point out where I indicated the Swans are Cashed up? A few players are and you get 10% additional to bid for players on the free market but I never stated the Swans are Cashed up.
COLA was in place to support additional cost of living in Sydney and came about so they could remove the same funds from Brisbane after 2004 (There fourth Grand final on the trot).
As a GWS Member they should lose there's in a couple of years as well - successful or not but they need a system where younger players are looked after (Housing etc) but the Swans have abused the system to there advantage (and good luck to them) but given the calibre of recruits they have uncovered over the years in low draft picks and the use of recycled players the Swans do not get the credit they deserve because this "unfair" system takes the gloss away. - Some in Melbourne will always see non footy states as looked after and they should be to remove market share from the knuckle heads in the NRL but you cannot tell me that the upper level players at Sydney and GWS need additional money to live. If Brisbane or Melbourne received this and Sydney did not everyone on this site would be crying foul as well.....

The post that you quote as being the best in the last five years says :

"We are now one of the cashed-up 'glamour' clubs and we can no longer wring our hands and cry poor when this sort of thing goes down"

My response was that you must be joking to agree with this - as based on fact we clearly arent one of the cashed up glamour clubs.