COLA to be replaced by rent subsidy

[Matt80]

This comment is just completely not getting it at all. Cost of living is relative. He could live far better in Melbourne. $280k is not massive money. He said this himself

Come on Reggi. $280,000 is not massive money, but it?s hardly the domain of the person struggling to make ends meet. You may get a little more for your money in Melbourne, but there are some lifestyle dividends in Sydney.

[magic.merkin]

Seaby was signed as our #1 ruck, so there would have been incentive and cash available me thinks. seems right ammounts.

I think the change in COLA is fair for what COLA is on paper (every player, expensive city etc). But in reality, i believe it was a necessary extra 10% to help retain/attract players beyond cost of living. A little bit extra to stave off the go home factor, less visibility/marketability, etc. That's fine, the clubs all signed off on it, knowing this and what a competitive and active team in Sydney meant (game growth, tv rights, shared $). Now it's all got a bit much for some, and out come the pitch forks and slander.

Now we see the Lions lost it after they grew to be a force. They then for a variety of reasons (retirements, salary cap, crazy vossy era etc) slid down the ladder. They now have an issue retaining these kids they draft.

I just hope that our strong culture, smart admin staff and coaches and team leaders, can keep us successful, desirable and competitive going forward for years to come as we come back to the pack of player payments.

I'm confident we will, i believe we forecast all these events, arranged the contracts and list accordingly. We've barely put a foot wrong lately, we just need to keep level heads and not get sucked into some of this BS. But there is a time we need to respond, and it's been great this past weekend. Though i'd really appreciate the AFL coming out and commenting on our contracts. Gutless so far.

[Reggi]

Isn't the COLA being phased out anyway? 2 more years to run? If so we're arguing about not much. Just perceptions and anger about Tippet and Franklin. The position will be much clearer in a year or two with a bunch of high level retirements.

Come on Reggi. $280,000 is not massive money, but it?s hardly the domain of the person struggling to make ends meet. You may get a little more for your money in Melbourne, but there are some lifestyle dividends in Sydney.

You completely don't get it. No one is suggesting AFL players are living on Baked Beans to get by. It is that as Everitt said himself he would be far better in Melbourne, because in REAL terms he earned less in Sydney

[ShockOfHair]

Come on Reggi. $280,000 is not massive money, but it?s hardly the domain of the person struggling to make ends meet. You may get a little more for your money in Melbourne, but there are some lifestyle dividends in Sydney.

But you have to compare it with salaries of other players, not those of the wider community.

Ireland's description (which pretty much sums up all of COLA):
?The highest-paid player in Sydney should have the same buying capabilities as the highest-paid player in Melbourne,? he said. ?The buying capabilities should be equal for every player on relative contracts around Australia.?

Here's Everitt:

Indeed, Everitt argued vehemently that the often-ridiculed and recently culled Cost of Living Allowance was more than just a thinly veiled scheme to assist the Swans. Recently engaged and hoping to start a family at some point, he argued that making ends meet could be challenging for players in Sydney making less-princely sums, and that despite being offered a contract by the Swans, financial considerations steered him to Visy Park.

"The cost of living in Sydney is pretty expensive; it's pretty hard for the young rookie players and people on the fringe not getting a game every week to make a good living out of it," Everitt said.


I think with that last point Everitt is referring to the uncertainty of being a fringe player. You're earning a nice package this year, but you could be playing for the Bullants next year.

[DA_Swan]

I'm sure what he is getting paid by Carlton offsets the lifestyle dividends , I am glad he is playing well as it is further endorsement of what a good club we are and that we don't pay over the odds or keep players who are not going to make it after giving them a fair chance - Melb clubs should look at how much they pay some of their players to stay at "Home" for no results.

[magic.merkin]

I also look forward to when the wages are further increased beyond normal wages. In a sense what i mean is like the NBA. They have players in New York and LA spending a similar salary to ones in Milwaukee.

They have teams in Texas with no state income tax (on top of federal, so a 13% diff between California paid players and Texas), where most teams players have to pay a state tax of varying amounts. However the money is still a drop, but is swallowed more easily when you are talking a relative amounts in the millions (or even tens of millions), compared with our <$200k salaries where the impact is greater felt and is less desirable from a "set up for life" stand point.

Yes the NBA players earn less than their co-workers in other teams. But the majority just have to suck it up and enjoy their smaller but still multi million dollar deals.

Sure some players (DWight) and co are lured by these extra $'s, but they have their own equalization issues, I'm just shining the light on a similar salary difference scenarios. It just seems to be accepted more, where our culture balancing these variances is just too hard to maintain.

I hope that made sense, probably not. I'll just be quiet now haha.

[Reggi]

I also look forward to when the wages are further increased beyond normal wages. In a sense what i mean is like the NBA. They have players in New York and LA spending a similar salary to ones in Milwaukee.

They have teams in Texas with no state income tax (on top of federal, so a 13% diff between California paid players and Texas), where most teams players have to pay a state tax of varying amounts. However the money is still a drop, but is swallowed more easily when you are talking a relative amounts in the millions (or even tens of millions), compared with our <$200k salaries where the impact is greater felt and is less desirable from a "set up for life" stand point.

Yes the NBA players earn less than their co-workers in other teams. But the majority just have to suck it up and enjoy their smaller but still multi million dollar deals.

Sure some players (DWight) and co are lured by these extra $'s, but they have their own equalization issues, I'm just shining the light on a similar salary difference scenarios. It just seems to be accepted more, where our culture balancing these variances is just too hard to maintain.

I hope that made sense, probably not. I'll just be quiet now haha.

It's a good point. In real terms I think AFL playersvsalariesvhavebcome down over the last 20 years.

I can remember an article on Brereton around 92. Now he may have been living beyond his means but he was showing off

His house in Toorak
Ferrari
Farm at flinders

That real estate would cost $10m easily these days. Normal player earns enough to afford it

I agree with your point once you into multiple millions in income it is less relevant.

[jono2707]

Pinched from Facebook.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1026[/ATTACH]

Of course these numbers should be counterbalanced by the additional amounts we'd be paying some of our young stars such as Hannebury, Reid, JPK etc - a number of our key players have been retained over the last 2 years, on upgraded or extended contracts. That would soak up a bit of this extra cash.

But I do agree that spelling things out like that graphic does may help at least some of the simpletons out there grasp the fact that we have been shrewd over the last few years and that has nothing to do with cheating or the COLA.

[southsideswan]

Below is not an official list but one for the average Joe to compare cost of living in different cities. It does not distinguish where in the particular city the data is from. In this data it is 9% more expensive to live in Sydney and Melbourne. It is just not accommodation but food, clothes and transport.
" Cost of living comparison between Melbourne, Australia and Sydney, Australia

Food 8%
Housing 13%
Clothes 13%
Transportation 8%
Personal Care 6%
Entertainment 3%
TOTAL 9%"

In the end it will be what the staff/management/club does with the players to make them better on the field and not how much they pay them. Just think of all that talent that has been lost due to poorly managed clubs.

[ShockOfHair]

The Swans' estimate is Sydney is 15% higher than Melbourne. They don't say their source - would be helpful if they did. But it's clear the AFL Commission has accepted the Swans numbers in approving COLA.

Crowdsourcing site Numbeo says Sydney CPI is 14.45% about Melbourne.

Sydney median house price 29.6% higher than Melbourne in Q1. And 28.0% higher than Perth for those who think WA teams are hard done by.

[Doctor J.]

The Swans' estimate is Sydney is 15% higher than Melbourne. They don't say their source - would be helpful if they did. But it's clear the AFL Commission has accepted the Swans numbers in approving COLA.

Crowdsourcing site Numbeo says Sydney CPI is 14.45% about Melbourne.

Sydney median house price 29.6% higher than Melbourne in Q1. And 28.0% higher than Perth for those who think WA teams are hard done by.

Wasn't this from a PWC survey that was undertaken when a whole lot of submissions had to be made to the AFL around retaining the cola?

[ShockOfHair]

Could've been. I'm going by the Ireland statement last March:

With the COLA, the Club is required to pay an additional 9.8 per cent of the salary cap to all players to compensate for the higher cost of living in Sydney. Our estimates suggest the true cost of living disparity is closer to 15 per cent and there is no shortage of evidence to support this. An October 2012 report by Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC), titled Cities of Opportunity, indicates that Sydney is the second most expensive city in the world after Tokyo.

The case for the cost of living allowance


Given the gap in real estate prices, 15% sounds reasonable.

[Matt80]

You completely don't get it. No one is suggesting AFL players are living on Baked Beans to get by. It is that as Everitt said himself he would be far better in Melbourne, because in REAL terms he earned less in Sydney

Reggi, this sort of commentary is failing the pub test. I understand the principle that a player can get more for their money in Melbourne than in Sydney.

If you talk to someone in the pub and try and mount an argument that somebody on $280,000 a year is having a hard time with Sydney?s cost of living pressures, they would tell you that you have lost touch with the common man.

We all acknowledge that Sydney costs more, but I think any AFL player in Melbourne would happily pay a 15% premium if they could have the following:

- Ultimate privacy. The ability to sit down at a Restaurant of Cafe without someone wanting an autograph, a photo, a selfie, a chat or something more. AFL Players in Melbourne deal with this attention each and every day. Swans players enjoy their Latte, enjoy the view and enjoy their Prawn Chowder.

- Great lifestyle location. I?ve made my lifestyle points in my posts to date and you understand where I?m going from.

I can see where the rest of the competition is coming from. They believe the Swans have been double dipping as they get the above benefits and get paid extra money to have them.

[Doctor]

You can keep your prawn chowder, but the rest sounds ok!

[chalbilto]

I'll have your prawn chowder.