COLA to be replaced by rent subsidy

**ernie koala** · 1 June 2014, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Zlatorog

I'm only saying if there was something in the contract that AFL didn't like they wouldn't approve it. I know that Tippo and Buddy are also getting extra bucks for promoting the club and AFL and don't need extra money from COLA. I don't know, I haven't seen the contracts so I'm speculating like everybody else.

Yeah, I certainly get the feeling the Swans are doing everything above board.

It just seemed odd to me that Buddy and Tip weren't getting there full 9.8% this year.

But as you say it was all looked at by the AFL and approved, so who knows what the nuances are.

Certainly Whateley and co seem to be stabbing in the dark when they refer to "manipulation of COLA".

**Nico** · 1 June 2014, 01:11 PM

Gordon was on the Ch9 Footy Show today. they promoed it as a hard hitting reply to Ireland. About as hard hitting as throwing cream puffs at the town hall.

Backed down on calling us cheats and as good as had nothing more to say. I wonder whether someone else has got into his ear.

**DA_Swan** · 1 June 2014, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by ernie koala

It just seemed odd to me that Buddy and Tip weren't getting there full 9.8% this year.

But as you say it was all looked at by the AFL and approved, so who knows what the nuances are.

Certainly Whateley and co seem to be stabbing in the dark when they refer to "manipulation of COLA".

I think it just confirms that we do not know what they are being paid - there are lots of figures thrown around in the media but you can be sure that whatever they are being paid will have 9.8% added

**Meg** · 1 June 2014, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by ernie koala

One of Andrew Irelands' comments caught my attention.

He said Tippett and Franklin are only receiving $40k COLA this year...Yet they are being paid over $1m collectively in salary? So shouldn't their collective COLA be 9.8% of that?

Does anyone know for sure how it works?

When the fuss started last year about Franklin's contract Richard Colless made a point of saying that a significant portion of the money paid to Buddy would be in the form of an Additional Services Agreement (to do promotional work for the club) and that COLA would NOT be paid on that. For all we know Tippett may also have some part paid as an ASA.

So no, collective COLA is not 9.8% of $1m+.

**swanspant12** · 1 June 2014, 01:40 PM

How do people still not grasp the fact any club in the league could have got Buddy on a 9 year deal if they were prepared to do it? ANY CLUB IN THE COMPETITION COULD HAVE GIVEN HIM A 9 YEAR DEAL. We had the nerve to do it, and we will live by that decision.

You go ahead and give a 9 year deal to any footballer, and regardless of how much there earning per year, they will take it. That is what swayed him to come to Sydney. The chance to play in finals under a very good side of course was a massive factor, but the 9 years is what obviously got it over the line.

If we had offered him a 3-4 year deal, he would have stayed at the hawks. If they offered him a 9 year deal he would have stayed there. How people do not grasp this I do not know.

Aswell as the fact we have blokes coming to the end of their careers, which is why we are able to pay him. Once Goodesy, ROK, LRT, and some of our older cattle retire, we will have significant room in the cap to hold onto our stars. Do some research opposition supporters and club officials and get your facts straight FFS.

**ernie koala** · 1 June 2014, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Meg

When the fuss started last year about Franklin's contract Richard Colless made a point of saying that a significant portion of the money paid to Buddy would be in the form of an Additional Services Agreement (to do promotional work for the club) and that COLA would NOT be paid on that. For all we know Tippett may also have some part paid as an ASA.

So no, collective COLA is not 9.8% of $1m+.

Excellent work Meg. Thanks for that.

**ernie koala** · 1 June 2014, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by swanspant12

How do people still not grasp the fact any club in the league could have got Buddy on a 9 year deal if they were prepared to do it? ANY CLUB IN THE COMPETITION COULD HAVE GIVEN HIM A 9 YEAR DEAL. We had the nerve to do it, and we will live by that decision.

You go ahead and give a 9 year deal to any footballer, and regardless of how much there earning per year, they will take it. That is what swayed him to come to Sydney. The chance to play in finals under a very good side of course was a massive factor, but the 9 years is what obviously got it over the line.

If we had offered him a 3-4 year deal, he would have stayed at the hawks. If they offered him a 9 year deal he would have stayed there. How people do not grasp this I do not know.

Aswell as the fact we have blokes coming to the end of their careers, which is why we are able to pay him. Once Goodesy, ROK, LRT, and some of our older cattle retire, we will have significant room in the cap to hold onto our stars. Do some research opposition supporters and club officials and get your facts straight FFS.

I sort of agree with you except, Buddy came to the Swans...twice...So he definitely wanted to come before contracts were discussed.

My understanding is that the 9 year deal was about warding off the Hawks, who could of matched our deal and retained Buddy if they wanted to.

**swanspant12** · 1 June 2014, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by ernie koala

I sort of agree with you except, Buddy came to the Swans...twice...So he definitely wanted to come before contracts were discussed.

My understanding is that the 9 year deal was about warding off the Hawks, who could of matched our deal and retained Buddy if they wanted to.

I know he wanted to come. But people are making it out like we are paying him 500k more then any other club or Hawthorn could have payed him.

The reason he came to our club and why Hawthorn or GWS didn't match our offer was because we offered him 9 YEARS. Nobody would turn down a 9 year deal, and if Hawthorn were prepared to match our offer with a 10 or 11 year deal they could have. They didn't, and we got him.

GWS came out and said they weren't prepared to offer him 9 years. We were, we took the plunge, and we will live by that decision. I love Ireland and his stance on this. Gun football adminstrator who knows what he's doing with our list.

**DamY** · 1 June 2014, 03:28 PM

a) Sydney couldn't afford to pay him $10m over 6 years which is what I believe was GWS's offer. So instead they said they'd do it over 9 years. Hawthorn had every right to offer him a similar deal, and you'd think with his number being the most popular, they would have recouped that *somewhere*.

I've had a look at it from the other side, and to be fair, I'd be pretty upset about a team having both Tippett AND Franklin in successive years. I know it's all above board, but clubs are thinking "where the hell is this money coming from??" and they see the COLA and put two and two together and get 4.5. Doing so disregards the players that are rookie upgrades and low draft picks, but it'd be folly to suggest we'd be just as powerful without Tippett and Franklin. I'm not really sure what the result is, as sadly any success we have now will always be clouded by COLA and the rest of the league's perception of it. (And perception is reality). I do think that the new rent subsidy is a good idea and *should* appease both sides at the moment. However I think it should be instituted as soon as possible, and COLA removed for those earning over whatever the average AFL player salary is (IIRC $200,000) so that the other clubs can be silenced.

**swanspant12** · 1 June 2014, 04:02 PM

Peter Gordon

This bloke is an absolute MUPPET and is contradicting himself in every sense. We apparently "exploited the rules", and when questioned by Hutchy about if were still cheating the system he has backed down dramatically.

Peter Gordon, your insipid football club hasn't been able to draft itself into the top 8 for the last 5-6 years. You have taken Jarred Grant at pick 5

, Ayce Cordy at pick 14

, Callan Ward at pick 19 who is currently the captain at the Giants

, Sam Reid at pick 38 who is now at GWS, Christian Howard at pick 15

who was delisted after 2 years, oh and you had DANE RAMPE IN YOUR RESERVE SIDE, WHO IS NOW PLAYING IN OUR BEST 22 YOU MUPPET.

Western Bulldogs the laughing stock of the AFL. Worry about your own club and how insipid your development and coaching has been the last 5-6 years. Oh and your recruiting. GO BLOODS.

**Mug Punter** · 1 June 2014, 05:08 PM

Hear hear, I think Andrew Ireland's response was appropriate in its venom and content.

That is the big think people do not understand re the Swans. Look at our 22 on Thursday and we had rejects (Derrickx, Laidler), trade bait cast offs (McGlynn, Richards and Kennedy), Rookies (Rampe, Jack, Lloyd) and high draft picks (Reid, Goodes).

These are the reasons why we are so successful and I have no doubt that this will continue.

In the interests of fairness I support the recent changes to our COLA and now that is achieved it would be nice for these Melbourne Muppets to shut up.

On a practical level I think the offset of COLA will be more than offset by the priority pick we get from our Academy Zone each year - how long will it take for this to be scrapped once it starts to achieve its stated goals?

**ShockOfHair** · 1 June 2014, 05:20 PM

Good point about the ASA, Meg.

But if you do the sums it still doesn't quite work.
If Buddy and Tippett are getting paid say $1.1m, and the COLA component is just 40k, that means they're getting around 700k from the ASA. But I thought that was capped at 570k or thereabouts?
Plus, reportedly BUddy's salary is 700k in year 1. Tippett is getting paid just 400k this year? I don't think so.

Anyway, it was great that the Swans got on the front foot and killed off the issue, at least for the current news cycle.

The point that Ireland made in the interview that struck me was that the Bulldogs are getting a $3m bung from the AFL every year. And that the Swans were one of those who proposed it. I don't have a problem with them getting that support - they're a lot more deserving than the Demons. But amazing that their boss would try to stoke resentment about the Swans. I know he's trying to make a point about the nine-year contract, but you can do that without alleging the Swans have cheated.

Revealed: Buddy Franklin to profit heavily in later years of mega-deal

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/revealed-buddy-franklin-to-profit-heavily-in-later-years-of-megadeal-20131009-2v8qk.html#poll

**Legs Akimbo** · 1 June 2014, 05:52 PM

I was listening to ABC radio yesterday and some bloke was crapping on about how our success was due to the extra money we have. What irritated me is that complete absence of critical reasoning to the situation. A basic review of our list would show that a large percentage of the players are from the rookie list or drafted as rejects from other clubs. The rules stipulate that the 10% is applied across the board. He kept going on about Sydney players getting paid 10%...well it was clear he did not really understand the concept that net income = gross income less cost of living. So, he was a complete idiot or chose to deliberately mischievously propagate this nonsense.

I regards to Gordon, I think it is a basic case of smokescreen to hide his own deficiencies, and those of this club, to actually have any sort of success.

Culture.

**Matt80** · 1 June 2014, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo

I was listening to ABC radio yesterday and some bloke was crapping on about how our success was due to the extra money we have. What irritated me is that complete absence of critical reasoning to the situation. A basic review of our list would show that a large percentage of the players are from the rookie list or drafted as rejects from other clubs. The rules stipulate that the 10% is applied across the board. He kept going on about Sydney players getting paid 10%...well it was clear he did not really understand the concept that net income = gross income less cost of living. So, he was a complete idiot or chose to deliberately mischievously propagate this nonsense.

I regards to Gordon, I think it is a basic case of smokescreen to hide his own deficiencies, and those of this club, to actually have any sort of success.

Culture.

The Western Bulldogs should only be paying 70% of their salary cap based on talent, performance and youth of their list.

What is the minimum amount of the salary cap that can be paid?

If weak clubs stopped using 100% of their salary cap, then they would create the salary cap room to get a Dangerfield or Franklin when they are free agents.

These weak clubs now pay above market rate for their good and mediocre players just to use 100% of the cap. You end of snookering yourself and not having the room to get big fishes.

**Mug Punter** · 1 June 2014, 06:28 PM

Free agency will only add to the squealing from rubbish clubs like Footscray as their decent players start to gravitate to better clubs (including the Swans) in search of finals footy

COLA to be replaced by rent subsidy

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment